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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 9,901,432 to Erickson et al.
Regarding Claims 1, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 65, Erickson teaches a hatchling support and method comprising: a head holder (Erikson Fig. 4 #80) comprising a head cavity configured to receive a head of a hatchling and a keeper apparatus (Erikson Fig. 4 #84) configured to retain a head of a hatchling in the head cavity, the keeper apparatus movable between an open configuration and a closed configuration, wherein the head of a hatchling is retained in the head cavity when the keeper apparatus is in the closed configuration and wherein a head of a hatchling in the head cavity is free to move out of the head cavity when the keeper apparatus is in the open configuration; a cradle (Erikson Fig. 4 #60) operably attached to the head holder, wherein the cradle is movable between a loading configuration and a support configuration, a cradle is configured to rotate relative to the head holder (Erickson et al cradle #60 is configured to rotate relative to the head holder #80 where in Fig, 4 the cradle is lower than the head holder and in Fig.5 the cradle is higher than the head holder thus it rotated relative to the head holder) about a cradle axis-oriented transverse to a midline of a hatchling when moving between the loading configuration and the support configuration (Erickson Fig. 5 and 4) wherein the cradle supports a ventral surface of a hatchling having a head retained in the head cavity of the head holder when the cradle is in the support configuration and a calming band (Erickson Fig. 4 #70 concave portion and Col. 6 line 61-67; Col. 7 lines 1-4) operably attached to the head holder, wherein the calming band is movable between a retracted configuration and an activated configuration, wherein the calming band rotates about a band axis oriented transverse to a midline of a hatchling having a head retained in the head cavity of the head holder when moving between the retracted configuration and the activated configuration, wherein the calming band is positioned proximate a dorsal surface of a torso of a hatchling having a head retained in the head cavity of the head holder and a ventral surface supported by the cradle when the cradle is in the support configuration.
Regarding Claim 6, Erikson teaches the calming band comprises a left arm and a right arm (Erikson #70), wherein the left arm and the right arm are located on opposite sides of a midline of a hatchling having a head retained in the head cavity of the head holder and a ventral surface supported by the cradle when the cradle is in the support configuration, wherein the left arm and the right arm each comprise a base end, wherein the band axis extends through the base end of each of the left arm and the right arm.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Erikson teaches the calming band comprises a dorsal surface segment extending from one or both of the left arm and the right arm (Erikson #70).
Regarding Claim 13, Erickson teaches the cradle axis is aligned with the band axis (Erikson cradle axis Fig. 4 #11 and calming band axis for #70).
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9,901,432 to Erickson et al.
Regarding Claims 9 and 11, Erikson teaches the hoop comprises a top edge proximate the head cavity and a bottom edge distal from the head cavity when the calming band is in the activated configuration (Erkison #70), wherein the hoop has a height measured between the top edge and the bottom edge along a midline of a hatchling having a head retained in the head cavity of the head holder and a ventral surface supported by the cradle when the cradle is in the
support configuration, appears to teaches wherein, the height of the hoop is 3 centimeters or less, but is silent on explicitly teaching the claimed range. The examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Erikson before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for a good fit with the hatchling. The modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record. The modification is merely an obvious change in size while performing the same intended function [In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 463, 105 USPQ 237, 40 (CCPA 1955)]. The modification is "obvious to try" choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant does not provide criticality for the claimed range in the specification and even states on page 18 of the specification line 17-19 that the height may vary depending of the size of the hatchling and breed.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9,901,432 to Erickson et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,051,989 to Ellis.
Regarding Claim 2, Erikson teaches the cradle (Erikson #60) extends from a cranial end proximate the cradle axis to a seat end distal from the cradle axis, wherein the seat end comprises a cupped segment (Erikson concave portion of #70), but is silent on configured to extend between the legs of a hatchling having a ventral surface supported by the cradle when the cradle is in the support configuration. However, Ellis teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to configure to extend between the legs of a hatchling having a ventral surface supported by the cradle (Ellis Fig. 1 and 2 #9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Erikson with the teachings of Ellis before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to eliminate motion as taught by Ellis. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 3, Erkison as modified teaches the cupped segment comprises a forked configuration comprising a vent slot extending towards the cranial end of the cradle (Ellis Fig. 1 and 2 #9 central inverted U is the vent and the upright side U is forked for the legs).
Regarding Claim 4, Erickson as modified teaches the cradle extends from a cranial end proximate the cradle (Erikson #60) axis to a seat end distal from the cradle axis, wherein the seat end comprises a vent slot (Ellis vent in #9) extending from the seat end dorsal surface towards the cranial end.
Regarding Claim 5, Erickson as modified teaches the seat end is configured to fit between the legs of a hatchling having a ventral surface supported by the cradle when the cradle is in the support configuration (Ellis Fig. 1 #9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 19, and 20 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.
Claims 60-64 are allowed. Independent claim 60 incorporates objected claim 12 moved into independent claim 1. Claims 62-64 depend from allowed claim 60.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amended claim language with regard to claim 1 and newly added claim 65 is not explicit enough to distinguish. The language “configured to rotate relative to the head holder” does not provide a structural distinction nor a distinct method step. It remains broad in nature and does not explicitly mean that the cradle bends around an axis to a loading position that puts the cradle at an obtuse angle with the head holder and then the cradle pivots to a loaded position where the cradle and head holder are linearly in line with each other. The language of the claim does not require for the head holder to remain stationary when the cradle is rotating. It is the examiner’s interpretation that Erikson satisfies the broad nature of the claim because the amendment is not explicit enough to describe the feature applicant is intending to claim. Erickson et al cradle #60 is configured to rotate relative to the head holder #80 where in Fig, 4 the cradle is lower than the head holder and in Fig.5 the cradle is higher than the head holder thus it rotated relative to the head holder. This feature needs to be claimed with more structural reference than the current amendment. Applicant needs to describe the structure in the loading and unloading position of the holder and the cradle.
Regarding the method claims of 16-18 it is the examiner’s position that Erickson satisfies the limitations of the claim since the movement of the cradle depends on what angle the operator is holding the bird when it is placed in the head holder. The operator can place the bird’s head in the head holder of Erickson Fig. 4 with the bird at an angle such that the bottom end of the bird is above the horizontal axis running through pivot point #11 and instead of the operator dropping the bottom end of the bird down to the cradle, the cradle is rotated up into contact with the bird’s bottom end. The claim does not distinguish the positioning of the head holder and the cradle when in the loading position versus a loaded position. The concept of the cradle being bent down creating an obtuse angle with the head holder in the loading position and that the cradle is raised up while the head hold remains stationary to put the cradle lined up linearly with the head holder in the loaded position is missing from the claim and lends itself to a broad interpretation. The claim merely claims putting the bird’s head in the head holder first, but it doesn’t put any limitation or requirements on the orientation of the bird’s body with respect to the cradle.
The examiner maintains that applicant hasn’t patentably distinguished over the prior art of record.
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 ANDREA M VALENTI whose telephone number is (571)272-6895. The examiner can normally be reached Available Monday and Tuesday only, eastern time.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/ANDREA M VALENTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
24 March 2026