DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Action is in response to the Response to Non-Final filed 01/02/2026.
The status of the Claims is as follows:
Claims 1-17 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said gripper devices" in line 10 of the Claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitations claimed are first gripper device and second gripper device, thereafter the claim should read said first and second gripper devices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(b) as being anticipated by Hartness et al. (US 20110061339; Hartness).
Regarding Claim 1 Hartness discloses an apparatus (20) for packaging products in bundles (38), comprising a conveying system (22) for the products, crossing in the following order a separation station (68,70, 66, 88, 90) for separating the products into a sequence of groups, a wrapping station (40) for wrapping the groups in sequence in a continuous tube of pretensioned extensible plastic film (44, 46), a cutting station (34) for cutting the continuous tube of pretensioned extensible plastic film to form bundles of said products wrapped in said pretensioned extensible plastic film (44, 46) (par 37), wherein the separation station (68,70, 66, 88, 90) comprises a spacing member (102) for spacing out the products to form said groups and a stabilization member for stabilizing the spacing between the groups comprising at least a first gripper device (88) and at least a second gripper device (90), said gripper devices (88,90) being configured to move and insert spacers (102) into the a space formed by said spacing member between two groups (G) of products.
Regarding Claim 5 Hartness discloses the invention as described above. Hartness further discloses the gripper devices (88, 90) are movable with alternating motion parallel to a longitudinal axis of the apparatus, along the advancement direction of the products. (par 36)
Regarding Claim 13 Hartness discloses a method for packaging products into bundles comprising the following steps:
a) providing an apparatus (20) for packaging products into bundles (38) comprising a conveying system (22) for conveying the products and the bundles (38) crossing, in the following order, a separation station (68,70, 66, 88, 90) for separating the products into a sequence of groups, a wrapping station (40) for wrapping the groups in sequence in a continuous tube of pretensioned extensible plastic film (46, 44), and a cutting station (34) for cutting the continuous tube of pretensioned extensible plastic film to form bundles of said products wrapped in said plastic film (par 37);
b) inserting, downstream of said separation station (68, 70, 66, 88, 90), spacers (102) into a space created by said separation station (68,70, 66, 88, 90) between a group of products and an adjoining group; (par 36-37)
c) wrapping said groups of products in a pretensioned extensible plastic film in the form of a continuous tube; (par 37)
d) cutting said continuous tube of pretensioned extensible plastic film between one group of products and the adjoining group of products in sequence, so that said pretensioned extensible plastic film partially closes onto the front and rear sides of the bundle (38) (par 38-39)
Regarding Claim 14 Hartness discloses the invention as described above. Hartness further discloses the inserting spacers (102) comprises automated inserting. (par 36-37)
Regarding Claim 15 Hartness discloses the invention as described above. Hartness further discloses recovering and recycling said spacers ( 102) to said separation station. (par 36-37)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-12 and 16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 2 The Prior Art does not teach between the second section and the third section, a stationary surface is placed at the wrapping station, where the movement of the groups of products occurs by pushing.
Regarding Claim 6 the Prior Art does not teach each of the gripper devices comprises a vertical bar vertically movable along a guide from the top downwards and vice versa, the vertical bar comprising a lower end from which, along a direction transverse to the longitudinal axis, a horizontal extension extends at a right angle, the horizontal extension comprising, at a distal end thereof, a vertical extension extending downwards parallel to the vertical bar, wherein the gripper devices slide along straight lines above side flanks of the conveying system and the horizontal extensions of respective vertical arms extend in opposite directions, one to the left and the other to the right, over a length such that the respective vertical extensions are aligned along the longitudinal axis, in a substantially central position between the side flanks of the conveying system.
Regarding Claim 9 the Prior Art does not teach at the spacing member, a lifting device and a tunnel element, configured to lift and bring the spacers to a position of gripping by the gripper devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument: Hartness shows only a single station where separation, wrapping and cutting take place simultaneously.
Examiner’s Response: Common definition of station includes the place or position in which something or someone stands or is assigned to stand or remain. The Examiner interprets the varying functions at different positions and the use of variable speeds, creating separation in the steady flow of products to read over the term station recited in the claims. (par 7, 10-12, 32-34)
Applicant’s Argument: Hartness neither discloses nor suggests an actual cutting of the film, there is no cutting of the film, but rather merely a separation due to heat causing weakening of the film and then moving portions of the film apart.
Examiner’s Response: Hartness discloses heating element can be a hot wire, and further discloses separating devices such a blades can be used to separate the film in the event that moving films apart does not fully separate film. (par 40)
Applicant’s Argument: Hartness does not teach gripper devices where slats (88, 90) can not be interpreted as gripper devices.
Examiner’s Response: The term gripper device is broad and does not connotate a specific structure. The definition of gripper includes a device that holds something firmly. In Fig. 7 Hartness discloses that first and second gripper devices (88, 90) holds groups of products firmly as they separate groups of products.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CATTANEO US 20160207651: separation station, wrapping station, cutting station (par 9-10)
Bate US 5182894: separation station, wrapping station, cutting station (Col 1-2)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)270-5944. The examiner can normally be reached 4 pm - 11:59 pm Monday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3731