DETAILED ACTION
The Office acknowledges receipt of the Applicant’s response and amendments filed 6 July 2026.
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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 6 July 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent 12,063,894 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (US Patent 5,531,061) in view of Peeters et al. (US Patent 6,070,400) hereinafter referred to as Peeters.
Regarding claim 1, Peterson discloses a method for automatic wrapping a row (34) of bales (32) in a bale wrapper (40; fig. 2), comprising:
placing a first bale (32; col 4 lines 31-33, 41-52) in the row of bales on a loading table (42, 43) of the bale wrapper (40; figs. 3-6);
rotating (col. 7 lines 17-30) a wrapping hoop (72; col. 4 lines 53-56) to apply a wrapping material (44, 48; col. 7 lines 47-65; col. 5 lines 23-45) to a bale surface;
moving a bale pushing device (col. 4 lines 31-33 – “another hydraulic ram which transfers the compressed hay bales from the compression chamber”) from a first position toward a second position to push the first bale through the wrapping hoop (col. 4 lines 41-49);
dispensing (dispense 44, 48; col. 4 lines 57-63) from at least a first material applicator (one of 84, 94, 96, 98; col. 7 lines 53-65; figs. 4-6) and a second material applicator (a different one of 84, 94, 96, 98; col. 7 lines 53-65; figs. 4-6);
changing a wrapping application parameter for applying the wrapping material based at a plurality of predetermined intermediate positions within the row of bales (col. 6 lines 40-61 – “a velocity controller which controllably adjusts the rotational velocity of the rotating wheel… One advantage to the variable speed controller is that the wrapping operation can be synchronized with the pressing operation… Because the flow of compressed hay bales 32 through the system is dependent upon the rate that the bales are moved from the bale press, the flow of hay bales downstream of the press is interrupted periodically during the pressing interval. The ability to adjust the speed of the wrapping machine on the fly is useful so that the wrapping machine can be intermittently slowed or stopped during the pressing interval so as not to waste an inordinate amount of material on the same section of hay bales while the hay bale stream is temporarily stopped”; This means that a change to the wrapping application parameter happens at a plurality of intermediate positions within the row of bales as determined by the pressing interval and the length of the pressing ram of col. 4 lines 30-40);
continuing to move the bale pushing device until the second position is reached (inferred from col. 6 lines 40-61 – “while the hay bale stream is temporarily stopped”);
stopping the rotation of the wrapping hoop (col. 6 lines 40-61 ‘The ability to adjust the speed of the wrapping machine on the fly is useful so that the wrapping machine can be intermittently slowed or stopped during the pressing interval so as not to waste an inordinate amount of material on the same section of hay bales while the hay bale stream is temporarily stopped”).
Peterson fails to explicitly disclose moving the bale pushing device from the second position to the first position.
However, Peeters teaches a method for automatic wrapping comprising placing a first bale in the row of bales on a loading table (140) of the bale wrapper (20); changing a wrapping application parameter for applying the wrapping material at a plurality of predetermined intermediate positions within the row of bales (col. 1 lines 58-62 – “The hydraulic pushbar interacts with detector switches. These detector switches may be adjustably located adjacent its stroke. These detector switches function to initiate or stop action of the pushbar and the wrapping hoop.”; col. 7 lines 6-8 – “The signal from the trailing switch also causes rotation of hoop assembly 60 to cease”; This happens at the end of each bale and would therefore change the wrapping application parameter at intermediate positions corresponding to the ends of the bales); continuing to move the bale pushing device (170, 180) until the second position is reached (col. 5 lines 7-14, 25-30 and 43-47; col. 6 lines 61-65); stopping the rotation of the wrapping hoop (col. 7 lines 6-8); and moving the bale pushing device from the second position to the first position (col. 7 lines 1-6).
Given the teachings of Peeters, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to incorporate the step of returning the bale pushing device from the second position to the first position and having the wrapping application parameter change at a position corresponding to the end of each bale. Doing so would reset the pushing device for the next bale to be pushed through the wrapping machine and would ensure that the ends of the bale did not become overwrapped when they were slowed or stopped.
Regarding claim 2, Peterson in view of Peeters discloses wherein each of the plurality of intermediate positions is a preset number of bales, the method further comprising changing the wrapping application parameter for applying the wrapping material after the preset number of bales (Peterson - col. 6 lines 40-61 – “a velocity controller which controllably adjusts the rotational velocity of the rotating wheel… the flow of hay bales downstream of the press is interrupted periodically during the pressing interval. The ability to adjust the speed of the wrapping machine on the fly is useful so that the wrapping machine can be intermittently slowed or stopped during the pressing interval so as not to waste an inordinate amount of material on the same section of hay bales while the hay bale stream is temporarily stopped”; This means that the intermediate position is each bale and the preset number is one; Peeters - col. 1 lines 58-62, col. 7 lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 3, Peterson in view of Peeters discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of intermediate positions is at a position of a transition from the first bale to a second bale, the method further comprising changing the wrapping application parameter for applying the wrapping material at the transition from the first bale to the second bale (Peterson - col. 6 lines 40-61 – “a velocity controller which controllably adjusts the rotational velocity of the rotating wheel… the flow of hay bales downstream of the press is interrupted periodically during the pressing interval. The ability to adjust the speed of the wrapping machine on the fly is useful so that the wrapping machine can be intermittently slowed or stopped during the pressing interval so as not to waste an inordinate amount of material on the same section of hay bales while the hay bale stream is temporarily stopped”; This means that the intermediate position is when the machine is waiting for a second bale; Peeters - col. 1 lines 58-62, col. 7 lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 4, Peterson in view of Peeters discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of intermediate positions is at a position of a seam between the first bale and a second bale, the method further comprising changing the wrapping application parameter for applying the wrapping material at the position of the seam between the first bale and the second bale (Peterson - col. 6 lines 40-61 – “a velocity controller which controllably adjusts the rotational velocity of the rotating wheel… the flow of hay bales downstream of the press is interrupted periodically during the pressing interval. The ability to adjust the speed of the wrapping machine on the fly is useful so that the wrapping machine can be intermittently slowed or stopped during the pressing interval so as not to waste an inordinate amount of material on the same section of hay bales while the hay bale stream is temporarily stopped”; This means that the intermediate position is when the machine is waiting for a second bale.; Peeters - col. 1 lines 58-62, col. 7 lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 6, Peterson as modified by Peeters discloses wherein each of the intermediate positions is determined based on feedback from a sensor (Peeters – col. 1 lines 58-62; col. 2 lines 35-39; col. 6 line 61 – col. 7 line 21 – “three switches”), the method further comprising changing the wrapping application parameter for applying the wrapping material based on the feedback.
Regarding claim 7, Peterson as modified by Peeters discloses wherein the feedback from the sensor is a signal indicative of the position along a length of the row of bales (Peeters – col. 1 lines 58-62; col. 2 lines 35-39; col. 6 line 61 – col. 7 line 21).
Regarding claim 11, Peterson as modified by Peeters discloses wherein the changing the wrapping parameter includes adjusting at least a ratio of moving speed of the bale pushing device to rotational speed of the wrapping hoop (col. 6 lines 40-61 – “a velocity controller which controllably adjusts the rotational velocity of the rotating wheel… the flow of hay bales downstream of the press is interrupted periodically during the pressing interval. The ability to adjust the speed of the wrapping machine on the fly is useful so that the wrapping machine can be intermittently slowed or stopped during the pressing interval so as not to waste an inordinate amount of material on the same section of hay bales while the hay bale stream is temporarily stopped”; col. 5 lines 29-32 – “That is, the rotational velocity is synchronized and coordinated with the extruding rate of 18-22 inches per 3-5 seconds, such that one or more rotations of the wheel is made every 3-5 seconds.”), to apply a predetermined amount of wrapping material.
Regarding claim 12, Peterson discloses receiving an operator input indicative of the predetermined amount of wrapping material for each of the plurality of intermediate positions (Peterson - col. 4 line 65 – col. 5 line 3 – “a selected wrapping rate”; col. 6 lines 40-45; The controller setting the velocity of the wrapping wheel is deemed constitute receiving an operator input indicative of the predetermined amount of wrapping material given that some operator would be providing the controller with the specifications and the speed is proportional to the amount of wrapping material used).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that this is not explicitly disclosing an operator input, Peeters further teaches receiving an operator input indicative of the predetermined amount of wrapping material (col. 6 lines 41-60) for each of the plurality of intermediate positions.
Given the teachings of Peeters it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the teachings of Peterson with the operator input of Peeters. Having a controller be able to receive operator input was notoriously well-known in the art and allows for an user of the device to set the machine to preferred operating conditions.
Regarding claim 13, Peterson as modified by Peeters discloses wherein the changing the wrapping parameter includes adjusting at least a brake setting of the bale wrapper (Peterson - col. 6 lines 40-61 – “a velocity controller which controllably adjusts the rotational velocity of the rotating wheel… the flow of hay bales downstream of the press is interrupted periodically during the pressing interval. The ability to adjust the speed of the wrapping machine on the fly is useful so that the wrapping machine can be intermittently slowed or stopped during the pressing interval so as not to waste an inordinate amount of material on the same section of hay bales while the hay bale stream is temporarily stopped”; Peeters – col. 1 lines 60-62; col. 6 line 61 – col. 7 line 3).
Regarding claim 14, Peterson discloses adjusting the brake setting to achieve a predetermined compression ratio, wherein the compression ratio is determined by comparing a bale length and a distance traveled by the bale wrapper during a wrapping cycle (col. 4 line 65 – col. 5 line 3 – “… a selected extruding rate that is preferably 18-22 inches per 3-5 seconds. Simultaneously, the wrapping machine applies an effective amount of material at a selected wrapping rate that prevents the compressed hay bales from expanding back to their pre-compressed size”; col. 6 lines 40-61 – “a velocity controller which controllably adjusts the rotational velocity of the rotating wheel… the flow of hay bales downstream of the press is interrupted periodically during the pressing interval. The ability to adjust the speed of the wrapping machine on the fly is useful so that the wrapping machine can be intermittently slowed or stopped during the pressing interval so as not to waste an inordinate amount of material on the same section of hay bales while the hay bale stream is temporarily stopped”; col. 5 lines 29-32 – “That is, the rotational velocity is synchronized and coordinated with the extruding rate of 18-22 inches per 3-5 seconds, such that one or more rotations of the wheel is made every 3-5 seconds.”).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (US Patent 5,531,061) in view of Peeters (US Patent 6,070,400) alternatively in further view of Lancaster et al. (US Patent 4,524,568) hereinafter referred to as Lancaster.
Regarding claim 5, Peterson discloses wherein each of the plurality of intermediate positions is determined based on a number of wrapping cycles along a length of the row of bales, the method further comprising the wrapping application parameter for applying the wrapping material is based on the number of wrapping cycles along the length of the row of bales (col. 6 lines 40-61 – “a velocity controller which controllably adjusts the rotational velocity of the rotating wheel… the flow of hay bales downstream of the press is interrupted periodically during the pressing interval. The ability to adjust the speed of the wrapping machine on the fly is useful so that the wrapping machine can be intermittently slowed or stopped during the pressing interval so as not to waste an inordinate amount of material on the same section of hay bales while the hay bale stream is temporarily stopped”; col. 5 lines 29-32 – “That is, the rotational velocity is synchronized and coordinated with the extruding rate of 18-22 inches per 3-5 seconds, such that one or more rotations of the wheel is made every 3-5 seconds.”).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that Peterson does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of intermediate positions is determined based on a number of wrapping cycles along a length of the row of bales, the method further comprising the wrapping application parameter for applying the wrapping material is based on the number of wrapping cycles along the length of the row of bales, Lancaster further teaches wherein each of the plurality of intermediate positions is determined based on a number of wrapping cycles along a length of the row of bales, the method further comprising the wrapping application parameter for applying the wrapping material is based on the number of wrapping cycles along the length of the row of bales (col. 13 lines 31-45).
Given the teachings of Lancaster, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the intermediate position determined based on the number of wrapping cycles. Peterson discloses that the wrapping is stopped periodically at the end positions of bales and that the bales move forward at a known velocity occurring within a known number of rotations of the wrapping wheel. Lancaster more explicitly teaches that using number of revolutions to determine when an article is done being wrapped was a well-known means of controlling a wrapping machine. Doing so would ensure that each bale was wrapped with an optimal number of revolutions as might be desired for the amount of compression or securement needed for different types of hay.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (US Patent 5,531,061) in view of Peeters (US Patent 6,070,400) in view of Schlichting (US 2020/0178469 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Peterson as modified by Peeters discloses wherein the intermediate position is determined based on feedback from a sensor (Peeters – col. 1 lines 58-62; col. 2 lines 35-39; col. 6 line 61 – col. 7 line 21 – “three switches”), but fails to disclose feeding back a signal of a moisture of at least the first bale, wherein a wrapping material quantity is determined based on the moisture content.
However, Schlichting teaches feeding back a signal (via 34, 36; 34’, 36’; 34”, 36”) of a moisture of at least the first bale, wherein a wrapping material quantity is determined based on the moisture content (paragraphs 0053-0057).
Given the teachings of Schlichting, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the combination of Peterson in view of Peeters with the moisture feed-back signal of Schlichting. In the teachings of Peeters, it is shown that sensors are used to determine the amount of wrapping by determining positioning of the bale. Schlichting teaches an additional means of determining the amount of wrapping by sensing the moisture level. A higher moisture level would be indicative of wrapping having not yet occurred. As such, this would provide the combination with additional verification that the bale had properly reached the wrapping hoop and received wrapping at all desired locations along the length of the bale.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (US Patent 5,531,061) in view of Peeters (US Patent 6,070,400) in view of Kivela (US Patent 5,660,023).
Regarding claim 9, Peterson as modified by Peeters discloses wherein the changing a wrapping parameter for each bale based on the position in the row of bales (Peterson - col. 6 lines 40-61 – “a velocity controller which controllably adjusts the rotational velocity of the rotating wheel… the flow of hay bales downstream of the press is interrupted periodically during the pressing interval. The ability to adjust the speed of the wrapping machine on the fly is useful so that the wrapping machine can be intermittently slowed or stopped during the pressing interval so as not to waste an inordinate amount of material on the same section of hay bales while the hay bale stream is temporarily stopped”; Peeters - col. 5 lines 7-14, 25-30 and 43-47; col. 6 line 61 – col. 7 line 8), but fails to disclose changing a wrapping configuration from the bale wrapper moving from a level position to an angled position.
However, Kivela teaches changing a wrapping parameter (col. 4 lines 18-34 – “tilting of tables”; col. 6 lines 3-55; col. 8 line 51 – col. 9 line 50) includes changing a wrapping configuration from the bale wrapper moving from a level position (fig. 1) to an angled position (fig. 2).
Given the teachings of Kivela, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the combination of Peterson as modified by Peeters to have the wrapping parameter include changing a wrapping configuration from the bale wrapper moving from a level position. Peterson as modified by Peeters is already concerned about adjusting the wrapping parameters based on the position in the row of bales insofar as the parameters are changed for each bale. Kivela teaches an additional method step of the wrapping configuration of the bale wrapper moving from a level position to an angled position for each bale and also being controlled by a controller. This would allow the bale wrapper to better receive bales provided at a lower entry point relative to the bale wrapper and then move them to a level orientation which would make wrapping easier.
Regarding claim 10, Peterson as modified by Peeters discloses wherein the changing a wrapping parameter after a predetermined number of bales (Peterson - col. 6 lines 40-61 – “a velocity controller which controllably adjusts the rotational velocity of the rotating wheel… the flow of hay bales downstream of the press is interrupted periodically during the pressing interval. The ability to adjust the speed of the wrapping machine on the fly is useful so that the wrapping machine can be intermittently slowed or stopped during the pressing interval so as not to waste an inordinate amount of material on the same section of hay bales while the hay bale stream is temporarily stopped”; Peeters - col. 5 lines 7-14, 25-30 and 43-47; col. 6 line 61 – col. 7 line 8; Changes parameters after each bale), but fails to disclose wherein the changing a wrapping parameter includes changing a wrapping configuration from the bale wrapper moving from a level position to an angled position.
However, , Kivela teaches changing a wrapping parameter (col. 4 lines 18-34 – “tilting of tables”; col. 6 lines 3-55; col. 8 line 51 – col. 9 line 50) includes changing a wrapping configuration from the bale wrapper moving from a level position (fig. 1) to an angled position (fig. 2) after a predetermined number of bales (Each bale).
Given the teachings of Kivela, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the combination of Peterson as modified by Peeters to have the wrapping parameter include changing a wrapping configuration from the bale wrapper moving from a level position. Peterson as modified by Peeters is already concerned about adjusting the wrapping parameters based on the position in the row of bales insofar as the parameters are changed for each bale. Kivela teaches an additional method step of the wrapping configuration of the bale wrapper moving from a level position to an angled position for each bale and also being controlled by a controller. This would allow the bale wrapper to better receive bales provided at a lower entry point relative to the bale wrapper and then move them to a level orientation which would make wrapping easier.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argue that Peterson does not disclose “changing a wrapping application parameter for applying the wrapping material at a plurality of predetermined intermediate positions within the row of bales”. The Office notes that Peterson, col. 6 lines 40-61, discloses “a velocity controller which controllably adjusts the rotational velocity of the rotating wheel… One advantage to the variable speed controller is that the wrapping operation can be synchronized with the pressing operation… Because the flow of compressed hay bales 32 through the system is dependent upon the rate that the bales are moved from the bale press, the flow of hay bales downstream of the press is interrupted periodically during the pressing interval. The ability to adjust the speed of the wrapping machine on the fly is useful so that the wrapping machine can be intermittently slowed or stopped during the pressing interval so as not to waste an inordinate amount of material on the same section of hay bales while the hay bale stream is temporarily stopped”. This means that a change to the wrapping application parameter happens at a plurality of intermediate positions within the row of bales as determined by the pressing interval and the length of the pressing ram of col. 4 lines 30-40. This is deemed to read on the claim language of “changing a wrapping application parameter for applying the wrapping material at a plurality of predetermined intermediate positions within the row of bales”, because the wrapping application is slowed and/or stopped at a plurality of intermediate positions corresponding to the end of each of the bales.
This “changing a wrapping application parameter for applying the wrapping material at a plurality of predetermined intermediate positions within the row of bales” is also further taught by Peeters, col. 1 lines 58-62 and col. 7 lines 6-8, which reads “The hydraulic pushbar interacts with detector switches. These detector switches may be adjustably located adjacent its stroke. These detector switches function to initiate or stop action of the pushbar and the wrapping hoop” and “The signal from the trailing switch also causes rotation of hoop assembly 60 to cease”. This ceasing of wrapping, i.e. change in the wrapping application parameter, happens at the end of each bale and would therefore change the wrapping application parameter at intermediate positions corresponding to the ends of the bales.
Regarding claim 5, Lancaster, col. 13 lines 32-45, reads, “The end of the wrap cycle is determined in the present invention by a proximity switch... The proximity switch is electrically connected to a counter which is activated to determine each revolution of wrap... When the counter has indicated a predetermined number of revolutions determined by the type of wrap and the load desired to be wrapped, the counter activates a switch which stops the take-off conveyor and wrapping conveyor assembly for cutting of the film web”. Peterson in view of Peeters discloses slowing or stopping the wrapping at intermediate positions as defined by the length of each bale. Lancaster further teaches that the intermediate slowing/stopping can happen based on the counted number of wrapping revolutions. This is deemed to read on the claim limitations as written.
Regarding claim 8, Schlichting, paragraphs 0053-0057, teaches a series of sensors 34, 36 which determine moisture content and then use that to determine if the bale has been fully wrapped (i.e. a wrapping material quantity). This is deemed to read on the claim limitations as written.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11a-7p.
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.
/ANDREW M TECCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights