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 Application filed 02/28/2025.
The status of the Claims is as follows:
Claims 1-21 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2025 and 06/03/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Application on 02/28/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“…and issuing a comment to adjust operation of the wrapping machine in response to the detecting the misaligned load.” (emphasis added)
Appropriate correction is required. For the purposes of examination the Examiner has interpreted the highlighted word to be “command”.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation "the system" in line 3 of the Claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lancaster et al. (US 20120102887; Lancaster) in view of Lancaster (US 20200377250; L2)
Regarding Claim 1 Lancaster discloses a method comprising:
establishing, by a controller (par 26-44), desired values of operating parameters of a wrapping machine for dispensing film (par39), the parameters including a wrap pattern (par 36) applied by the wrapping machine, weight of the film (par 32), a number of revolutions (10), and a percent of stretch (par 52),
during operation of the machine, monitoring actual values of the operating parameters using data from a plurality of sensors configured to detect operation of the machine, (par 41)
However Lancaster does not expressly teach in response to a difference between one of the desired values and the corresponding one of the actual values being greater than a threshold, issuing a command to adjust operation of the machine such that the difference is less than the threshold.
L2 teaches a method that includes establishing by a controller desired values of operating parameters (par 76). L2 further teaches a controller in response to a difference between one of the desired values and the corresponding one of the actual values being greater than a threshold, issuing a command to adjust operation of the machine such that the difference is less than the threshold providing in situ adjustments to the wrapping operation for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the method. (par 7-8, 13-16 and 62)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the method of Lancaster to include a step of issuing a command by the controller, in response to a difference between one of the desired values and the corresponding one of the actual values being greater than a threshold, to adjust operation of the machine such that the difference is less than the threshold.
Regarding Claim 8 the modified invention of Lancaster in view of L2 teaches the invention as described above.
L2 teaches a method that includes establishing by a controller desired values of operating parameters (par 76). L2 further teaches issuing the command to the wrapping machine during operation of the wrapping machine to adjust operation of the wrapping machine is without user input providing in situ adjustments to the wrapping operation for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the method. (par 7-8, 13-16, 62)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the modify the issuing the command to the wrapping machine of Lancaster to include a controller that issues the command to the wrapping machine during operation of the wrapping operation of the wrapping machine to adjust operation of the wrapping machine without user input as taught by L2 since par 7-8, 13-16 and 62 of L2 suggests that such a modification provides in situ adjustments to the wrapping operation for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the method.
Regarding Claim 10 the modified invention of Lancaster discloses a method establishing desired values of operating parameters of a wrapping machine (par 39), the parameters including a wrap pattern (par 36) applied by the wrapping machine, weight of the film (par 32), a number of revolutions (par 10), and a percent of stretch (par 52),
directing the wrapping machine to wrap a product disposed on a pallet, during operation of the machine, monitoring actual values of the operating parameters using data from a plurality of sensors configured to detect operation of the machine, (par 41) and
However Lancaster does not expressly disclose in response to a difference between one of the desired values and the corresponding one of the actual values being greater than a threshold, issuing a command to the wrapping machine during operation of the wrapping machine to automatically adjust operation of the wrapping machine such that the difference is less than the threshold.
L2 teaches a method that includes establishing desired values of operating parameters of a wrapping machine (par 76) L2 further discloses in response to a difference between one of the desired values and the corresponding one of the actual values being greater than a threshold, issuing a command to the wrapping machine during operation of the wrapping machine to automatically adjust operation of the wrapping machine such that the difference is less than the threshold providing in situ adjustments to the wrapping operation for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the method. (par 7-8, 13-16 and 62)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the method of Lancaster to include issuing a command to the wrapping machine during operation of the wrapping machine to automatically adjust operation of the wrapping machine such that the difference is less than the threshold providing in situ adjustments to the wrapping operation as taught by L2 since par 7-8, 13-16 and 62 suggests that such a modification provides in situ adjustments to the wrapping operation for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the method.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lancaster et al. (US 20120102887; Lancaster) in view of Lancaster (US 20200377250; L2) and further in view of Lancaster et al. (US 20180273218; Patrick)
Regarding Claim 7 the modified invention of Lancaster in view of L2 discloses the invention as described above. Lancaster does not expressly disclose detecting, by a camera, a misaligned load based on a comparison between a structure/configuration of the load on the pallet and a predefined structure/configuration.
Patrick discloses a method that includes detecting, by a camera, a misaligned load based on a comparison between a structure/configuration of the load on the pallet and a predefined structure/configuration providing a safety step for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the method (par 107, 162)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the detecting step taught by Lancaster in view of L2 to include detecting, by a camera, a misaligned load based on a comparison between a structure/configuration of the load on the pallet and a predefined structure/configuration as taught by Patrick since par 107, 162 of Patrick suggest that such a modification provides a safety step for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the method.
Regarding Claim 13 the modified invention of Lancaster in view of L2 discloses the invention as described above. Lancaster does not expressly disclose detecting, by a camera, a misaligned load based on a comparison between a structure/configuration of the product on the pallet and a predefined structure/configuration, and issuing a comment to adjust operation of the wrapping machine in response to the detecting the misaligned load.
Patrick discloses a method that includes detecting, by a camera, a misaligned load based on a comparison between a structure/configuration of the product on the pallet and a predefined structure/configuration, and issuing a comment to adjust operation of the wrapping machine in response to the detecting the misaligned load providing a safety feature for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the method. (par 13, 100, 106-107, 162)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the detecting step of Lancaster in view of L2 to includes detecting, by a camera, a misaligned load based on a comparison between a structure/configuration of the product on the pallet and a predefined structure/configuration, and issuing a comment to adjust operation of the wrapping machine in response to the detecting the misaligned load as taught by Patrick since par 13, 100, 106-107 and 162 of Patrick suggests that such a modification provides a safety feature for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the method.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 9, 11, 12, 14-21 are 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 communicating, by the controller, with other wrapping machines to receive values of operating parameters of the other wrapping machines, the parameters including a wrap pattern, weight of the film, a number of revolutions, a percent of stretch of the film, and a tension of film, considering the values of operating parameters of the other wrapping machines when issuing the command to the wrapping machine to adjust operation of the wrapping machine.
Regarding Claim 5 The Prior Art does not teach determining that a first pallet has a first height and a first product type, determining that a second pallet has second height and second product type, wherein the first height is equal to second height, and applying a first wrap pattern to the first pallet and second wrap pattern to the second pallet, wherein the first wrap pattern is different from the second wrap pattern.
Regarding Claim 6 The Prior Art does not teach detecting values of parameters indicative of a product to be wrapped by the wrapping machine, wherein the parameters are height of the product, width of the product, weight of the product, a type of the product, and a name of the product, determining the wrap pattern suitable for the product based on the values of parameters indicative of the product, and directing the wrapping machine to apply the wrap pattern according to the values of the parameters indicative of the product.
Regarding Claim 9 The Prior Art does not teach the parameters further include condition of the wrapping machine, age of the wrapping machine, and type of wrapping machine.
Regarding Claim 11 The Prior Art does not teach detecting values of parameters indicative of the product, wherein the parameters are height, width, weight, type, and name of the product, determining the wrap pattern suitable for the product based on the values of the parameters indicative of the product, and directing the wrapping machine to apply the wrap pattern based on the values.
Regarding Claim 12 The Prior Art does not teach determining that a first pallet has a first height and a first product type, determining that a second pallet has second height and second product type, wherein the first height is equal to second height, and applying a first wrap pattern to the first pallet and second wrap pattern to the second pallet, wherein the first wrap pattern is different from the second wrap pattern.
Regarding Claim 14 The Prior Art does not teach communicating, by the controller, with other wrapping machines to receive values of operating parameters of the other wrapping machines, the parameters including a wrap pattern, weight of the film, a number of revolutions, a percent of stretch of the film, and a tension of film, considering the values of operating parameters of the other wrapping machines when issuing the command to the wrapping machine to adjust operation of the wrapping machine.
Regarding Claim 17 The Prior Art does not teach positioning a product to be wrapped on a wrapping machine, detecting values of parameters indicative of the product, wherein the parameters are height, width, weight, type, and name of the product, determining a wrap pattern suitable for the product based on the values of the parameters indicative of the product, and directing the wrapping machine to apply the wrap pattern based on the values.
Regarding Claim 18 The Prior Art does not teach communicating with other wrapping machines to receive values of operating parameters of the other wrapping machines, the parameters including a wrap pattern, weight of the film, a number of revolutions, a percent of stretch of the film, and a tension of film, considering the values of operating parameters of the other wrapping machines when issuing the command to the wrapping machine to adjust operation of the wrapping machine.
Regarding Claim 21 The Prior Art does not teach the parameters further include condition of the wrapping machine, age of the wrapping machine, and type of wrapping machine.
Conclusion
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