DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filing on 04/10/2026.
Applicant’s cancelation of claim 10 is acknowledged and requires no further examining. Claims 1-9 and 11 are pending and examined below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a coiling station configured to form a coil” as stated in claim 1, the structure disclosed as a wrapper roller (13) in paragraph 21 of the Specification;
“a transfer unit configured to transfer” as stated in claim 1, the structure disclosed as a horizontal slide (23) in paragraph 27 of the Specification;
“a transfer assembly configured to disengage” as stated in claim 1, the structure disclosed as a thrust component (73) as stated in paragraph 55 of the Specification;
“a joining device configured to connect” as stated in claim 1, the structure disclosed as a welding device as stated in paragraph 54 of the Specification;
“a first device to detect a position” as stated in claim 8, the structure disclosed as a sensor as stated in paragraph 59; and
“a second device to detect a consumption” as stated in claim 9, the structure disclosed as a sensor as stated in paragraph 58.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Mazzoni et al. (6,546,852) in view of reference Prankl et al. (10,676,303).
Regarding claim 1, Mazzoni et al. disclose a wrapping machine for packaging flexible articles (33) with an elongated shape, the wrapper machine comprising:
a coiling station (12) configured to form a coil (3) of a flexible article (33) with an elongated shape;
a packaging station (9) configured to wrap a stretch film (col 5 ln 56) around the coil (3) of the flexible article (33);
a transfer unit (24) configured to transfer the coil (3) of the flexible article (33) from the coiling station (12) to the packaging station (9) in a feed direction (see figure 2 below) transverse to a longitudinal axis (3a) of the coil (3) of the flexible article (33),
wherein the packaging station comprises:
a wrapping assembly (32) rotatably mounted about a first rotation axis (see figure 3 below),
wherein the first rotation axis (see figure 3 below) is parallel to the feed direction (see figure 2 below), and
wherein the wrapping assembly (32) is configured to wrap the stretch film (col 5 ln 56) around the coil (3) of the flexible article (33);
a first support shaft (see figure 3 below) mounted on the wrapper assembly and configured to receive and hold a first roll of stretch film (col 5 ln 56); and
a rotary clamp (10) configured to rotate the coil (3) of the flexible article around a second rotation axis (3A),
wherein the second rotation axis (3a) is transfer to the to the first rotation axis (see figure 3 below).
(Figures 2-3 and Column 3 lines 30-38, 57-59, 62-67, Column 4 lines 22-28, Column 5 lines 53-62, Column 6 lines 33-44)
[AltContent: textbox (Mazzoni et al.)][AltContent: textbox (Feed Direction)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
418
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In column 5 lines 53-58 of Mazzoni et al., the wrapper assembly (32) is disclosed to wrap the coil (3) with a “continuous strip of packaging material embodied in particular by a film”. In order for the wrapper assembly to be able to use a continuous strip of packaging material to wrap the coil, the wrapper assembly would have to be configured to receive and hold a first roll of film.
[AltContent: textbox (First Support Shaft)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First Rotation Axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Mazzoni et al.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
415
471
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Mazzoni et al. do not disclose a roll-replacement unit.
Prankl et al. disclose an apparatus comprising:
packaging machine (14) for wrapping bundles; and
a roll-replacement unit (10),
wherein the packaging machine (14) includes a first support shaft (70) for receiving and holding a first roll (12), and
wherein the roll-replacement unit (10) comprises:
a store (16);
wherein the store (16) includes a second support shaft (32) for receiving and holding a second roll (12),
wherein the store (16) is movable between a loading position (Figure 6A) for loading the second roll (12) onto the second support shaft (32) and a transfer position (Figure 9A) for transferring the second roll (12) from the second support (32) to the first support (70), and
wherein the store (16) is movable to an intermediate position (Figure 10D) located between the loading position (Figure 6A) and the transfer position (Figure 9A)
a transfer assembly (34, 84) configured to disengage an inner support cylinder of the first roll (12) from the first support (70) and transfer the second roll (12) from the second support shaft (32) to the first support shaft (70),
wherein the intermediate position (10D) is configured to receive the inner cylinder of the first roll (12) after disengagement from the first support shaft (70) by the transfer assembly (34, 84); and
a joining device (72) configured to connect a final flap of the first roll (12) to an initial flap of the second roll (12).
(Figures 2, 6A, 9A, 10D and Column 1 lines 37-43, Column 15 lines 24-31, 39-55, Column 17 lines 14-26, Column 30 lines 5-11)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the wrapper machine of Mazzoni et al. by incorporating the roll-replacement unit as taught by Prankl et al., since column 2 lines 48-55 of Prankl et al. states such a modification would ensure smooth replacement of rolls.
Regarding claim 2, Mazzoni et al. modified by Prankl et al. disclose the transfer assembly (Prankl et al. – 34, 84) comprises: a first transfer device (Prankl et al. – 84) mounted on the wrapping assembly (Mazzoni et al. – 32) to disengage the inner support cylinder of the first roll (Prankl et al. – 12) of stretch film (Mazzoni et al. – col 5 ln 56) from the first support shaft (Prankl et al. – 70); and a second transfer device (Prankl et al. – 34) mounted on the store (Prankl et al. – 16) to transfer the second roll (Prankl et al. – 12) of stretch film (Mazzoni et al. – col 5 ln 56) from the second support shaft (Prankl et al. – 32) to the first support shaft (Prankl et al. – 70). (Prankl et al. – Figures 7B, 10A-10C and Column 15 lines 65-67, Column 27 lines 13-21, Column 29 lines 60-66)
Regarding claim 3, Mazzoni et al. modified by Prankl et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the joining device is mounted on the second transferring device.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have the joining device on the second transferring device, since it has been held that rearranging the parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)]
On page 8 paragraph 54 of the Specification, the slide (66) is disclosed to support a welding device (70) configured to connect the initial flap of the second roll and a final flap of the first roll. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose any criticality for the claimed feature. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Mazzoni et al. and Prankl et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3 because the modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 4, Mazzoni et al. modified by Prankl et al. disclose the roll-replacement unit (Prankl et al. – 10) comprises: a first gripper (Prankl et al. – see figure 5 below) to hold the final flap of the first roll (Prankl et al. – 12) of stretch film (Mazzoni et al. – col 5 ln 56); and a second gripper (Prankl et al. – 78) to hold the initial flap of the second roll (Prankl et al. – 12) of stretch film (Mazzoni et al. – col 5 ln 56). (Prankl et al. – Figure 5 and Column 25 lines 12-18)
[AltContent: textbox (First Gripper)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Plankl et al.)]
PNG
media_image3.png
485
621
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Mazzoni et al. modified by Prankl et al. disclose the first gripper (Prankl et al. – see figure 5 above) is mounted on the wrapper assembly (Mazzoni et al. – 32) and the second gripper (Prankl et al. – 78) is mounted on the second transferring device (Prankl et al. – 34). (Prankl et al. – Figure 5 and Column 25 lines 12-18)
Regarding claim 6, Mazzoni et al. modified by Prankl et al. disclose the second transferring device (Prankl et al. – 34) is movable parallel to a longitudinal axis of the second roll (Prankl et al. – 12) of stretch film (Mazzoni et al. – col 5 ln 56) between a rest position and an operating position, in which the second roll (Prankl et al. – 12) of stretch film (Mazzoni et al. – col 5 ln 56) is transferred from the second support shaft (Prankl et al. – 32) to the first support shaft (Prankl et al. – 70), and wherein the first gripper (Prankl et al. – see figure 5 above) and second gripper (Prankl et al. – 78) are positioned in a common containing plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the second roll (Prankl et al. – 12) of stretch film (Mazzoni et al. – col 5 ln 56), thereby overlapping the final flap of the first roll (Prankl et al. – 12) of stretch film (Mazzoni et al. – col 5 ln 56) and the initial flap of the second roll (Prankl et al. – 12) of stretch film (Mazzoni et al. – col 5 ln 56). (Prankl et al. – Figure 5, 9A-9C and Column 25 lines 12-18)
Regarding claim 7, Mazzoni et al. modified by Prankl et al. disclose, upon movement of the second transfer device (Prankl et al. – 34) to the operating position, the joining device (Prankl et al. – 72) moves into the common containing plane to connect the final flap of the first roll (Prankl et al. – 12) of stretch film (Mazzoni et al. – col 5 ln 56) and the initial flap of the second roll (Prankl et al. – 12) of stretch film (Mazzoni et al. – col 5 ln 56). (Prankl et al. – Figure 5 and Column 22 lines 35-44)
Regarding claim 9, Mazzoni et al. modified by Prankl et al. disclose the roll-replacement unit (Prankl et al. – 10) comprises a second detection device (Prankl et al. – 74) configured to detect a consumption of the first roll (Prankl et al. – 12) of stretch film (Mazzoni et al. – col 5 ln 56). (Column 22 lines 59-63)
Regarding claim 11, Mazzoni et al. modified by Prankl et al. disclose the flexible article is a pipe. (Mazzoni et al. – Column 2 lines 41-45)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Mazzoni et al. (6,546,852) in view of reference Prankl et al. (10,676,303) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Juwet (2024/0034500).
Regarding claim 8, Mazzoni et al. modified by Prankl et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose a detection device configured to detect the position of the wrapper assembly.
Juwet discloses packaging station (23) comprising: a wrapper assembly (28) configured to rotate about a first rotation axis; and a first detection device (39) configured to detect the position of the wrapper assembly (28) around the first rotation axis. (Figure 1 and Page 6 paragraph 94, Page 11 paragraph 141)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Mazzoni et al. by incorporating the first detection device as taught by Juwet, since page 2 paragraph 16 of Juwet states such a modification would allow the actuator moving the wrapper assembly to adjust its speed based on the position data.
Response to Arguments
The Amendments filed on 04/10/2026 have been entered. Applicant’s cancelation of claim 10 is acknowledged and requires no further examining. Claims 1-9 and 11 are pending in the application.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Mazzoni et al. (6,546,852) modified by reference Prankl et al. (10,676,303), Examiner finds the arguments not persuasive.
Applicant states:
Significantly, there is no disclosure of the claimed store being movable to an intermediate position that is configured to receive the inner support cylinder after disengagement form the first support shaft.
In Figures 10A-10C of Prankl et al., the first support shaft, i.e. the receiving mandrel (70), is shown to move to the left most position, and then move right in order to have the roll partially removed from the first support shaft. In Figures 10D of Prankl et al., while the first support shaft is in that position, the store, i.e. the handling device (16), is moved to the intermediate position to receive the inner support of the roll. In Figures 9B-9D of Prankl et al., the first support shaft is shown to be in the left most position while the store moves to the loading position to transfer the roll to the first support shaft. This implies that the loading position, relative to the packaging machine, is different as compared to the intermediate position. Therefore, Prankl et al. do disclose a store movable to an intermediate position located between the loading position and the transfer position.
Furthermore, amended claim 1 discloses the intermediate position is different from the loading position and the transfer position. Amended claim 1 does not disclose the relative distance from the wrapping machine or the other positions that would allow a position to be interpreted as the intermediate position. Therefore, the position of the store in Figure 10D is fully capable of being interpreted as the intermediate position.
Applicant states:
Stated differently, the cited passage of Prankl describes the transfer of the used-up roll to a separate handing robot, rather than the receipt of the inner support cylinder by the claimed movable store at a defined intermediate position between the loading transfer positions.
In column 15 lines 39-49 of Prankl et al., the handling device (16), which is interpreted as the store, is disclosed to comprise a handling robot (18), and is disclosed to transfer a coil to the packaging station. In column 30 lines 5-11 of Prankl et al., the handling robot (18) is disclosed to extract the coil from the packaging station. Therefore, Prankl et al. discloses the same store, i.e. the handling device, is used for transferring a new roll to the packaging machine and extracting a use-up roll from the packaging machine.
Applicant states:
It is further noted that Prankl has only to positions.
Figures 9A through 9F shows the store, i.e. the handling device (16), is moved through first set of positions when transferring the roll to the packaging machine, while Figures 10A-10F shows the store is moved through a second set of positions when receiving the roll from the packaging machine.
In Figures 10A-10C of Prankl et al., the first support shaft, i.e. the receiving mandrel (70), is shown to move to the left most position, and then move right in order to have the roll partially removed from the first support shaft. In Figures 10D of Prankl et al., while the first support shaft is in the partially right position, the store is moved to the intermediate position to receive the inner support of the roll. In Figures 9B-9D of Prankl et al., the first support shaft is shown to be in the left most position while the store moves to the loading position to transfer the roll to the first support shaft. This implies that the loading position, relative to the packaging machine, is different as compared to the intermediate position. Therefore, Prankl et al. do disclose a store movable to an intermediate position located between the loading position and the transfer position.
Furthermore, amended claim 1 discloses the intermediate position is different from the loading position and the transfer position. Amended claim 1 does not disclose the relative distance from the wrapping machine or the other positions that would allow a position to be interpreted as the intermediate position. Therefore, the position of the store in Figure 10D is fully capable of being interpreted as the intermediate position.
Applicant states:
Moveover, the Action does not provide any articulated reason why one of ordinary skill would have modified the combined Mazzoni/Prankl system to replace Prankl’s robot takeover arrangement with Applicant’s different intermediate-position receipt arrangement.
In Figures 10A-10C of Prankl et al., the first support shaft, i.e. the receiving mandrel (70), is shown to move to the left most position, and then move right in order to have the roll partially removed from the first support shaft. In Figures 10D of Prankl et al., while the first support shaft is in the partially right position, the store is moved to the intermediate position to receive the inner support of the roll. In Figures 9B-9D of Prankl et al., the first support shaft is shown to be in the left most position while the store moves to the loading position to transfer the roll to the first support shaft. This implies that the loading position, relative to the packaging machine, is different as compared to the intermediate position. Therefore, Mazzoni et al. modified by Prankl et al. do disclose a store movable to an intermediate position located between the loading position and the transfer position. The wrapping machine of Mazzoni et al. modified by Prankl et al. is not considered to require further modification to teach the features of amended claim 1.
Conclusion
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 PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 June 26, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights