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 .
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. Specifically, in claim 14, “the tubular film 40” should be “the tubular film (40)” if Applicant wishes to keep the reference characters included in the claim.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-5 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kluepfel (DE 19503927 A1, Machine Translation) in view of Lorenzen et al (US 2019/0152632), hereinafter Lorenzen.
Regarding claim 1, Kluepfel discloses a method (Machine Translation, pages 3-4) of operating a stretch-hood machine (Fig. 1) to wrap an item (Fig. 1, item 5) with tubular film (Fig. 1, item 6), the method comprising:
drawing tubular film from a roll of film (Machine Translation, pages 3-4);
perforating the tubular film (Machine Translation, pages 3-4) after the tubular film has been drawn from the roll of film (Machine Translation, pages 3-4) so as to form perforations arranged along a length of the tubular film (Machine Translation, pages 3-4).
Kluepfel is silent about reefing the tubular film onto reefing fingers of a plurality of reefing devices; and lowering the reefing devices around the item to wrap the item within an interior of the tubular film.
However, Lorenzen teaches reefing (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063) the tubular film onto reefing fingers (Lorenzen, Fig. 2a, item 7) of a plurality of reefing devices (Lorenzen, Fig. 2a, item 9a); and lowering the reefing devices (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063) around the item to wrap the item (Lorenzen, Fig. 1, item 2) within an interior of the tubular film (Lorenzen, Fig. 1, item 5) (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Kluepfel and Lorenzen to modify the method of Kluepfel to include the reefing system of Lorenzen. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to allow the system to efficiently and effectively wrap the package in film (Lorenzen, Para. 0013).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Kluepfel teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the tubular film is perforated while traveling from the roll of film to the reefing fingers (Machine Translation, pages 3-4, Kluepfel teaches perforating the film while the film is pulled over the goods, and modified Kluepfel teaches using reefing fingers of Lorenzen to pull the film over the goods).
Regarding claim 3, Kluepfel discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the perforations are arranged to allow airflow through the film (Machine Translation, pages 3-4, holes from perforations permit airflow through the film).
Regarding claim 4, Kluepfel discloses the method of claim 1. wherein the perforations are arranged in columns (Fig. 2) that extend along the length of the tubular film (Machine Translation, pages 3-4).
Regarding claim 5, Kluepfel discloses the method of claim 1. wherein the perforations of the tubular film are arranged to be spaced (Fig. 1, perforations are spaced from edge of film) from corners of the item when the item is wrapped (Machine Translation, pages 3-4) within the interior of the tubular film (Machine Translation, pages 3-4).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Kluepfel teaches the method of claim 1 (Both Kluepfel and Lorenzen can be used to wrap multiple items), further comprising:
removing the first item (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4) from the stretch-hood machine (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4);
receiving a second item (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4) in the stretch-hood machine (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4);
drawing additional tubular film (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4) from the roll of film (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4):
positioning the additional tubular film (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063) on the reefing devices (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063) without perforating the additional tubular film (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063);
reefing the additional tubular film (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063) onto reefing fingers of the reefing devices (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063); and
lowering the reefing devices (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063) around the item to wrap the second item (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063) within an interior of the additional tubular film (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063).
Regarding claim 12, Kluepfel discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the tubular film that is drawn from the roll is unperforated film (Machine Translation, pages 3-4).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Kluepfel teaches the method of claim 12 (Both Kluepfel and Lorenzen can be used to wrap multiple items), further comprising:
removing the first item (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4) from the stretch-hood machine (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4);
receiving a second item (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4) in the stretch-hood machine (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4);
drawing additional tubular film (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4) from the roll of film (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4):
positioning the additional tubular film (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063) on the reefing devices (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063) without perforating the additional tubular film (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063);
reefing the additional tubular film (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063) onto reefing fingers of the reefing devices (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063); and
lowering the reefing devices (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063) around the item to wrap the second item (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063) within an interior of the additional tubular film (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063).
Regarding claim 14, Kluepfel discloses a stretch-hood machine (Fig. 1) comprising:
a machine frame (Fig. 1, item 1) (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4);
a film-supply assembly (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4) configured to draw tubular film from a roll of film (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4), cut the tubular film 40 from the roll to form the segment of tubular film (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4), and direct the segment of tubular film to the positioning devices (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4); and
a perforator (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4) configured to form perforations (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4) arranged along a length of the tubular film (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4) after the tubular film is drawn from the roll (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4) and before the reefing devices reef the segment of tubular film (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4).
Kluepfel is silent about a wrapping carriage movable relative to the machine frame between upper and lower positions, a plurality of reefing devices supported by the wrapping carriage and configured to reef a segment of tubular film, stretch the segment of tubular film, and unreef the segment of tubular film.
However, Lorenzen teaches a wrapping carriage movable relative to the machine frame between upper and lower positions (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063), a plurality of reefing devices (Lorenzen, Fig. 2a, item 9a, 7) supported by the wrapping carriage (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063) and configured to reef a segment of tubular film (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063), stretch the segment of tubular film (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063), and unreef the segment of tubular film (Lorenzen, Para. 0054-0063).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Kluepfel and Lorenzen to modify the method of Kluepfel to include the reefing system of Lorenzen. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to allow the system to efficiently and effectively wrap the package in film (Lorenzen, Para. 0013).
Claims 6-10 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kluepfel in view of Lorenzen further in view of Peters et al (US 2021/0292016), hereinafter Peters.
Regarding claim 6, Kluepfel in view of Lorenzen is silent about the method of claim 1, further comprising selecting, using a controller of the stretch-hood machine, a quantity of the perforations formed along the length of tubular film.
However, Peters teaches selecting, using a controller (Peters, Para. 0116) of the stretch-hood machine (Peters, Para. 0116), a quantity of the perforations (Peters, Para. 0116) formed along the length of tubular film (Peters, Para. 0116, user can control the location of the perforations and whether to apply perforations are not).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Kluepfel, Lorenzen, and Peters to modify the method of Kluepfel in view of Lorenzen to include the controller of Peters. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to allow the user to control the position and location of the perforations based on desired operational parameters for the anticipated product or the utilized film (Peters, Para. 0116).
Regarding claim 7, as modified above, Peters teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising selecting, using a controller (Peters, Para. 0116) of the stretch-hood machine, a first set of perforating pins (Peters, Para. 0116) for perforating the tubular film (Peters, Para. 0116).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Kluepfel teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the stretch-hood machine includes a second set of perforating pins (Kluepfel, Fig. 1, item 7) (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4).
Regarding claim 9, Kluepfel in view of Lorenzen further in view of Peters does not expressly disclose the method of claim 8. wherein the perforating pins of the first set have a different size than the perforating pins of the second set.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to utilize perforation pins of different sizes, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Kluepfel in view of Lorenzen further in view of Peters does not expressly disclose the method of claim 8, wherein the perforating pins of the first set have a different shape than the perforating pins of the second set.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the perforating pins of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 15, Kluepfel in view of Lorenzen is silent about the stretch-hood machine of claim 14, further comprising a controller configured to selectively activate the perforator.
However, Peters teaches a controller (Peters, Para. 0116) configured to selectively activate the perforator (Peters, Para. 0116, user can control the location of the perforations and whether to apply perforations are not).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Kluepfel, Lorenzen, and Peters to modify the method of Kluepfel in view of Lorenzen to include the controller of Peters. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to allow the user to control the position and location of the perforations based on desired operational parameters for the anticipated product or the utilized film (Peters, Para. 0116).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Kluepfel teaches the stretch-hood machine of claim 14. wherein the perforator includes a first set of perforating pins (Kluepfel, Fig. 1, item 7) and a second set of perforating pins (Kluepfel, Fig. 1, item 7) (Kluepfel, Machine Translation, pages 3-4).
Regarding claim 17, Kluepfel in view of Lorenzen is silent about the stretch-hood machine of claim 16, further comprising a controller configured to selectively activate the first set of perforating pins or the second set of perforating pins.
However, Peters teaches a controller (Peters, Para. 0116) configured to selectively activate the perforator (Peters, Para. 0116, user can control the location of the perforations and whether to apply perforations are not).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Kluepfel, Lorenzen, and Peters to modify the method of Kluepfel in view of Lorenzen to include the controller of Peters. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to allow the user to control the position and location of the perforations based on desired operational parameters for the anticipated product or the utilized film (Peters, Para. 0116).
Regarding claim 18, Kluepfel in view of Lorenzen further in view of Peters does not expressly disclose the stretch-hood machine of claim 17, wherein the first set of perforating pins have a different size than the second set of perforating pins.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to utilize perforation pins of different sizes, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 19, Kluepfel in view of Lorenzen further in view of Peters does not expressly disclose the stretch-hood machine of claim 17. wherein the first set of perforating pins have a different shape than the second set of perforating pins.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the perforating pins of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 20, Kluepfel in view of Lorenzen is silent about the stretch-hood machine of claim 14, further comprising a controller configured to determine the number of perforations formed in the tubular film.
However, Peters teaches a controller (Peters, Para. 0116) configured to selectively activate the perforator (Peters, Para. 0116, user can control the location of the perforations and whether to apply perforations are not).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Kluepfel, Lorenzen, and Peters to modify the method of Kluepfel in view of Lorenzen to include the controller of Peters. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to allow the user to control the position and location of the perforations based on desired operational parameters for the anticipated product or the utilized film (Peters, Para. 0116).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERONICA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
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.
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights