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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-24 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Claim 25 has been withdrawn.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/11/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-24 are 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 1 recites the phrase “the head” in line 13. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this term in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing “the head” to --a head--.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “the holder” in line 17. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this term in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing “the holder” to --the one or more holders--.
Claim 20 recites the phrase “the guide” in line 16. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this term in the claim. The Examiner suggests changing “the guide” to --a guide--.
Claims 2-19 and 21-24 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
Appropriate correction is required. Accordingly, the invention has been examined as best understood.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samson et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150144071) in view of Gorans et al. (U.S. Pub. 20040143278), Vega (ES 2567642), Goodwin (U.S. Pat. 3994292), and Gourlandt (U.S. Pat. 4681565).
In regard to claim 1, Samson et al. discloses a medicament administration device having a plurality of stations (Figs. 23-29 and Paragraph [0094], where there is at least a medicament administration device 1 having a plurality of stations 110 for loading, 120 for injection, 120 for spraying, and 130 for release), the device comprising at least: an injection station configured to automatically administer a medicament to a subject using one or more injectors (Figs. 23-29 and Paragraph [0102], where the device has an injection station (at 120) configured to automatically administer a medicament to one or more subjects using one or more injectors 400/461/462/463); a spray station configured to automatically administer a medicament to one or more subjects using one or more spray nozzles (Figs. 23-29 and Paragraph [0104], where there is spray station (at 120) configured to automatically administer a medicament to the subject using one or more spray nozzles 400/470); and a carousel comprising a stationary portion on which the plurality of stations is disposed (Figs. 23-29 and Paragraph [0094], where there is a carousel comprising a stationary portion 900 on which the plurality of stations (110 for loading, 120 for injection, 120 for spraying, and 130 for release) is disposed), and a movable portion that is movable relative to the stationary portion (Figs. 23-29 and Paragraph [0094], where there is a movable portion 950 that is movable relative to the stationary portion 900), the movable portion comprising one or more holders configured to engage a subject and rotate the subject between the plurality of stations (Figs. 23-29 and Paragraph [0094], where the movable portion 950 at least has one or more holders 600 configured to engage the subject (pullet) and rotate the subject between the plurality of stations (110 for loading, 120 for injection, 120 for spraying, and 130 for release)); wherein each injector comprises a needle removably coupled to the injector (Paragraph [0088-0089], where there is a needle removably at least coupled to the injector (luer lock fittings and needles)) and a guide configured to determine at least one of a depth of the needle and an angle of the needle (Paragraph [0067-0068], where there is at least a guide (“support members 642 may define apertures 646, which allow needles or other injection devices to pass therethrough for injecting” or “support members 642 may advantageously provide a safe angle for needle insertion”) configured to determine at least an angle of the needle (for a safe angle to insert at a subcutaneous depth at the inguinal fold)). Samson et al. is silent on each holder comprising a set of clamps configured to engage the head of the subject. Gorans et al. discloses a set of clamps configured to engage the head of the subject (Figs. 1-4 and Paragraph [0031], where there is a set of clamps 52 configured to engage the head H of the subject and where there is a holding positioning device 22 which secures the subject). Samson et al. and Gorans et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Samson et al. such that each holder comprising a set of clamps configured to engage the head of the subject in view of Gorans et al., since the clamps of Gorans et al. could be used with the device of Samson et al. The motivation would have been to more securely hold the head of the animal in a stationary position (by further restricting relative head movement), in order to increase precision when treating the animal.
Samson et al. is silent on a housing including a faceplate and a cover; an injection station disposed within the housing; a spray station disposed within the housing; a carousel disposed within the housing. Vega discloses a housing including a faceplate and a cover; a vaccination station disposed within the housing; a carousel disposed within the housing (Figs. 1 and 4, where there is a housing including a faceplate and a cover (walled enclosure including at least a covering and a faceplate around the device), a vaccination station (vaccination station 3) disposed within the housing, and a carousel (rotating platform 1.2) disposed within the housing). Samson et al. and Vega are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Samson et al. such that a housing including a faceplate and a cover; an injection station disposed within the housing; a spray station disposed within the housing; a carousel disposed within the housing in view of Vega, since the injection station and the spray station of Samson et al. could be disposed within the housing of Vega. The motivation would have been to better protect the carousel from the outside environment and prevent unwanted animals from entering the carousel.
Samson et al. is silent on a spray station separate from the injection station. Goodwin discloses a spray station separate from the injection station (Fig. 1 and Column 2 line 47 - Column 3 line 8, where there is a spray station 38 at least separate from the injection station 35). Samson et al. and Goodwin are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Samson et al. such that a spray station separate from the injection station in view of Goodwin. The motivation would have been to apply both vaccinations individually, when multiple vaccines are needed to be administered in sequential order.
Samson et al. is silent on the guide being pivotable between a first position and a second position wherein the guide rests against the subject's back when the subject is disposed within the holder and positioned at the injection station. Gourlandt discloses the guide being pivotable between a first position and a second position wherein the guide rests against the subject's back when the subject is disposed within the holder and positioned at the injection station (Figs. 19-20 and Column 10 lines 39-55, where there is a guide 240 being pivotable between a first position (off of back of subject 280) and a second position wherein the guide 240 (v-shaped area rests on back of subject 280) rests against the subject's 280 back when the subject 280 is at least disposed within the holder and positioned at the injection station). Samson et al. and Gourlandt are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Samson et al. such that the guide being pivotable between a first position and a second position wherein the guide rests against the subject's back when the subject is disposed within the holder and positioned at the injection station in view of Gourlandt. The motivation would have been to allow for safe and precise insertion of the needle into a desired area on the subject. Having a guide structure reduces injection error, thereby relatively ensuring proper medication and dosing.
In regard to claim 2, Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt discloses the administration device of claim 1., wherein each holder comprises a back support configured to support a back of the subject to restrain the subject against movement relative to the holder (Gourlandt, Figs. 19-20, where each holder has a back support 300 configured to support a back of the subject 280 to at least restrain the subject 280 against movement relative to the holder).
In regard to claim 3, Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt discloses the administration device of claim 1, further comprising a control unit configured to operate the administration device (Samson et al., Figs. 23-29 and 38-39 and Paragraphs [0101] and [0108], where there is a control unit 1000 configured to operate the administration device 1).
In regard to claim 5, Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt discloses the administration device of claim 1, further comprising one or more pumps coupled to at least one of the one or more injectors and at least one of the one or more spray nozzles (Samson et al., Paragraphs [0078], [0092], and [0102], where there are one or more pumps coupled to at least one of the one or more injectors (see Paragraph [0102]) and at least one of the one or more spray nozzles (see Paragraph [0092])).
In regard to claim 6, Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt discloses the administration device of claim 5, wherein each injector is coupled to one or more pumps (Samson et al., Paragraphs [0078] and [0102], where each injector is at least coupled to one or more pumps).
In regard to claim 8, Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt discloses the administration device of claim 7, wherein the guide is configured to direct the needle subcutaneously into the subject such that a distal point of the needle is disposed between a skin and a muscle of the subject (Samson et al., Paragraphs [0068] and [0088], where the guide is at least configured to direct the needle subcutaneously into a subject (at the inguinal fold) such that a distal point of the needle is disposed between a skin and a muscle of the subject (at the inguinal fold)).
In regard to claim 14, Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt discloses the administration device of claim 7, wherein each needle is movable between a retracted position and an extended position, and wherein medicament is administered automatically when the needle reaches the extended position (Samson et al., Paragraph [0102], where each needle is movable between a retracted position and an extended position and wherein medicament is at least administered automatically when the needle reaches the extended position).
In regard to claim 15, Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt discloses the administration device of claim 7, wherein each needle is removably coupled to an injector (Samson et al., Paragraph [0088-0089], where each needle is at least removably coupled to an injector (luer lock fittings and needles))); each holder is pivotably coupled to the carousel such that each holder is movable between a non-ready position and a ready position (Samson et al., Figs. 23-27, where each holder 600 is at least pivotably coupled to the carousel such that each holder 600 is movable between a non-ready position and a ready position). Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt is silent on each injector is pivotably coupled to the carousel such that each injector is movable between a non-ready position and a ready position. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt to have each injector pivotably coupled to the carousel such that each injector is movable between a non-ready position and a ready position, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the carousel and injectors of Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt. The motivation would have been to allow for the injector to be moved away from the holder until the appropriate time for injection. This would better prevent accidental injections and reduce the error rate of the device.
In regard to claim 18, Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt discloses the administration device of claim 1, the plurality of stations further including a loading station configured to allow a user to insert the subject into the administration device, and a release station configured to automatically release the subject from the administration device (Samson et al., Figs. 23-29 and Paragraph [0094], where the plurality of stations further includes a loading station 110 configured to allow a user to insert the subject (pullet) into the administration device and a release station 130 configured to automatically release the subject (pullet) from the administration device).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samson et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150144071) in view of Gorans et al. (U.S. Pub. 20040143278), Vega (ES 2567642), Goodwin (U.S. Pat. 3994292), and Gourlandt (U.S. Pat. 4681565) as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Cohen (U.S. Pat. 10384003).
In regard to claim 4, Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt discloses the administration device of claim 3. Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt is silent on the control unit is configured to receive data from and transmit data to a remote device. Cohen discloses the control unit is configured to receive data from and transmit data to a remote device (Column 9 lines 27-47, where the control unit 260 is at least configured to receive data from and transmit data to a remote device (computing devices)). Samson et al. and Cohen are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include medical care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt such that the control unit is configured to receive data from and transmit data to a remote device in view of Cohen. The motivation would have been to allow the device to be controlled from a remote location, as well as to collect data and store the data in a remote device for further analysis.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Samson et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150144071) in view of Gorans et al. (U.S. Pub. 20040143278), Vega (ES 2567642), Goodwin (U.S. Pat. 3994292), and Gourlandt (U.S. Pat. 4681565) as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Wallach (U.S. Pat. 3949746).
In regard to claim 9, Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt discloses the administration device of claim 6. Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt is silent on wherein each pump comprises a dosing chamber comprising two or more non-return valves, and a pump piston extending at least partially into the dosing chamber. Wallach discloses each pump comprises a dosing chamber comprising two or more non-return valves, and a pump piston extending at least partially into the dosing chamber (Figs. 2 and 7-8 and Column 1 line 67 – Column 2 line 2, where the pumps have a dosing chamber 57 with two or more non-return valves 60/61, and a pump piston 63 extending at least partially into the dosing chamber 57). Samson et al. and Wallach are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt such that each pump comprises a dosing chamber comprising two or more non-return valves, and a pump piston extending at least partially into the dosing chamber in view of Wallach. The motivation would have been to allow the user to set a specific dose for the vaccine, as required by a health care protocol.
In regard to claim 10, Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, Gourlandt and Wallach discloses the administration device of claim 9, wherein the two or more non- return valves comprise a first non-return valve configured to allow fluid to flow from the one or more medicament containers into the dosing chamber and a second non-return valve configured to allow fluid to flow from the dosing chamber to at least one of the injectors and the spray nozzles (Wallach, Figs. 2-8 and Column 4 line 20 – Column 5 line 22 and Column 5 lines 43-48, where the two or more non-return valves comprise a first non-return valve 60 configured to allow fluid to flow from the one or more medicament containers 103 into the dosing chamber 57 and a second non-return valve 61 configured to allow fluid to flow from the dosing chamber 57 to at least the injectors 48 (in 14)).
In regard to claim 11, Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, Gourlandt and Wallach discloses the administration device of claim 10, wherein each pump piston is operatively coupled to a pneumatic actuator (Samson et al., Paragraphs [0085-0090], where each pump piston is at least operatively coupled to a pneumatic actuator).
In regard to claim 12, Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, Gourlandt and Wallach discloses the administration device of claim 11, the pneumatic actuator comprising a pneumatic piston (Samson et al., Paragraphs [0078], [0085-0090], [0092], and [0102], where the pneumatic actuator at least comprises a pneumatic piston (causing retraction and extension)), the pneumatic piston configured to couple the pump piston such that movement of the pneumatic piston causes corresponding movement of the pump piston (Samson et al., Paragraphs [0078], [0085-0090], [0092], and [0102], where the pneumatic piston is at least coupled to the pump piston such that movement of the pneumatic piston causes corresponding movement of the pump piston to thereby perform an injection).
In regard to claim 13, Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, Gourlandt and Wallach discloses the administration device of claim 12, further comprising a dial mechanism configured to adjust the distance between the pump piston and the actuator (Wallach, Figs. 7-8, where there is a dial mechanism 77 configured to adjust the distance between the pump piston 63 and the actuator 87; Samson et al., Paragraphs [0078], [0085-0090], [0092], and [0102], where the actuator is the pneumatic piston).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Samson et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150144071) in view of Gorans et al. (U.S. Pub. 20040143278), Vega (ES 2567642), Goodwin (U.S. Pat. 3994292), and Gourlandt (U.S. Pat. 4681565) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wallach (U.S. Pat. 3949746).
In regard to claim 16, Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt discloses the administration device of claim 1, a spray nozzle (Samson et al., Figs. 23-29 and Paragraph [0104], where there is spray station (at 120) with spray nozzles 400/470). Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt is silent on a dosage adjustment system configured to adjust a dosage of medicament administered by each injector and spray nozzle. Wallach discloses a dosage adjustment system configured to adjust a dosage of medicament administered by each injector (Figs. 2-8, where there is a dosage adjustment system 77 configured to adjust a dosage of medicament administered by each injector 48). Samson et al. and Wallach are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt such that a dosage adjustment system configured to adjust a dosage of medicament administered by each injector and spray nozzle in view of Wallach, since the dosage adjustment system of Wallach could be used with the spray nozzle of Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, and Goodwin. The motivation would have been to allow the user to set a specific dose for the vaccine or fluid, as required by a health care protocol.
In regard to claim 17, Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, Gourlandt and Wallach discloses the administration device of claim 16, wherein the dosage adjustment system comprises one or more dials each coupled to a respective piston and configured to selectively adjust the position of the piston within the dosing chamber (Wallach, Figs. 2-8, where the dosage adjustment system comprises one or more dials 77 each coupled to a respective piston 63 and configured to selectively adjust the position of the piston 63 within the dosing chamber 57).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable Samson et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150144071) in view of Gorans et al. (U.S. Pub. 20040143278), Vega (ES 2567642), Goodwin (U.S. Pat. 3994292), and Gourlandt (U.S. Pat. 4681565) as applied to claim 18, and in view of Brown et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190387718).
In regard to claim 19, Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt discloses the administration device of claim 18. Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt is silent on wherein the loading station comprises a sensor configured to determine the presence of an object. Brown et al. discloses the loading station comprises a sensor configured to determine the presence of an object (Paragraph [0107], where there is an optical sensor 38 which detects the presence of an object). Samson et al. and Brown et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt such that the loading station comprises a sensor configured to determine the presence of an object in view of Brown et al. The motivation would have been to provide more input data to the device to improve accuracy and efficiency of operation.
Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, Gourlandt and Brown et al. is silent on the loading station comprises a sensor configured to determine whether a hand of a user is present within the loading station. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, Gourlandt and Brown et al. to have the loading station comprise a sensor configured to determine whether a hand of a user is present within the loading station, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the device of Samson et al. as modified by Gorans et al., Vega, Goodwin, Gourlandt and Brown et al. The motivation would have been to incorporate a safety mechanism to avoid user injury during device operation, thereby improving accuracy and efficiency.
Claims 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samson et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150144071) in view of Vega (ES 2567642), Goodwin (U.S. Pat. 3994292), and Gourlandt (U.S. Pat. 4681565).
In regard to claim 20, Samson et al. discloses an administration device, comprising: a carousel, the carousel comprising a stationary portion comprising (a) a loading station, (b) an injecting station comprising one or more injectors for injecting at least one vaccine, (c) a spraying station comprising one or more spray nozzles, and (d) a release station (Figs. 23-29 and Paragraph [0094], where there is a carousel comprising a stationary portion 900 and a plurality of stations (110 for loading, 120 for injection with vaccine injectors, 120 for spraying with a nozzle, and 130 for release)), and a movable portion rotatable relative to the stationary portion (Figs. 23-29 and Paragraph [0094], where there is a movable portion 950 that is movable relative to the stationary portion 900), the movable portion comprising first and second holders configured to retain first and second subjects (Figs. 23-29 and Paragraph [0094], where the movable portion 950 at least has first and second holders 600 configured to retain first and second subjects (pullets)); wherein each injector is coupled to the stationary portion (Figs. 23-31, where each injector (at 400 of injecting station 120) is at least coupled to the stationary portion); a dosing system comprising one or more pumps each comprising a pump piston, each pump being coupled to at least one of the injecting station and the spraying station (Samson et al., Paragraphs [0078], [0092], and [0102], where there are one or more pumps with a piston (which retract and extend) and coupled to at least one of the one or more injectors (see Paragraph [0102]) and at least one of the one or more spray nozzles (see Paragraph [0092])); and one or more pneumatic actuators each coupled to the one or more pumps and configured to actuate the one or more pumps via movement of a pneumatic piston (Samson et al., Paragraphs [0078], [0085-0090], [0092], and [0102], where there are at least one or more pneumatic actuators each coupled to the one or more pumps and configured to actuate the one or more pumps via movement of a pneumatic piston), each pneumatic piston being coupled to a respective pump piston such that movement of the pneumatic piston causes corresponding movement of the pump piston (Samson et al., Paragraphs [0078], [0085-0090], [0092], and [0102], where each pneumatic piston being coupled to a respective pump piston such that movement of the pneumatic piston causes corresponding movement of the pump piston (causing retraction and extension)). Samson et al. is silent on a housing comprising a faceplate and a cover; a carousel disposed within the housing. Vega discloses a housing comprising a faceplate and a cover; a carousel disposed within the housing (Figs. 1 and 4, where there is a housing including a faceplate and a cover (walled enclosure including at least a covering and a faceplate around the device) and a carousel (rotating platform 1.2) disposed within the housing). Samson et al. and Vega are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Samson et al. such that a housing comprising a faceplate and a cover; a carousel disposed within the housing in view of Vega. The motivation would have been to better protect the carousel from the outside environment and prevent unwanted animals from entering the carousel.
Samson et al. is silent on a spraying station separate from the injecting station. Goodwin discloses a spray station separate from the injection station (Fig. 1 and Column 2 line 47 - Column 3 line 8, where there is a spray station 38 at least separate from the injection station 35). Samson et al. and Goodwin are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Samson et al. such that a spray station separate from the injection station in view of Goodwin. The motivation would have been to apply both vaccinations individually, when multiple vaccines are needed to be administered in consecutive order.
Samson et al. is silent on wherein each injector is pivotable between a first position wherein the injector is raised and second position wherein the guide rests against the subject when the subject is positioned at the injection station. Gourlandt discloses wherein each injector is pivotable between a first position wherein the injector is raised and second position wherein the guide rests against the subject when the subject is positioned at the injection station (Figs. 19-21, where each injector 206/207/208/218/219 is at least pivotable between a first position wherein the injector 206/207/208/218/219 is raised and second position wherein the guide 240 rests against the subject 280 when the subject 280 is positioned at the injection station). Samson et al. and Gourlandt are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Samson et al. such that wherein each injector is pivotable between a first position wherein the injector is raised and second position wherein the guide rests against the subject when the subject is positioned at the injection station in view of Gourlandt. The motivation would have been to allow for safe and precise insertion of the needle into a desired area on the subject. Having a guide structure reduces injection error, thereby relatively ensuring proper medication and dosing.
In regard to claim 21, Samson et al. as modified by Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt discloses the administration device of claim 20, wherein the first and second subjects are young chicks (Samson et al., Paragraph [0083], where the first and second subjects are young chicks (pullets are known to be less than a year old)). Samson et al. as modified by Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt is silent on the one or more subjects are day old chicks. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Samson et al. as modified by Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt to have the one or more subjects be day old chicks, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the device of Samson et al. as modified by Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt. The motivation would have been to allow the user to administer vaccines to chicks which are within a desired age group, as is deemed necessary by a health care protocol.
In regard to claim 22, Samson et al. as modified by Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt discloses the administration device of claim 20, wherein the release station is configured to allow the subject to safely and quickly exit the device (Samson et al., Paragraph [0095], where the release station 130 is configured to allow the subject to safely and quickly exit the device). Samson et al. as modified by Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt is silent on the release station comprises one or more air sprayers configured to deliver a puff of air to a head of a respective subject of the first and second subjects. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Samson et al. as modified by Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt to have the release station comprises one or more air sprayers configured to deliver a puff of air to a head of a respective subject of the first and second subjects, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the device of Samson et al. as modified by Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt. The motivation would have been to allow the subjects to safely and quickly exit the device.
In regard to claim 23, Samson et al. as modified by Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt discloses the administration device of claim 22, wherein the release station comprises an angled ramp portion configured to allow the first and second subjects to slide out of the administration device (Samson et al., Figs. 23-27 and 32-37, where there is an angled ramp portion at 610 when pivoting at 130 to allow the first and second subjects to slide out of the administration device (when releasing the pullet)) and one or more guides pivotably connected to the administration device and configured to guide the first and second subjects out of the administration device (Samson et al., Figs. 23-29 and Paragraph [0095], where there is one or more guides pivotably connected (pivoting at 660 for release of pullet) to the administration device 1 and configured to at least guide the first and second subjects out of the administration device 1).
In regard to claim 24, Samson et al. as modified by Vega, Goodwin, and Gourlandt discloses the administration device of claim 20, further comprising one or more medicament containers fluidly coupled to the one or more pumps (Samson et al., Paragraphs [0078], [0092], and [0102], where one or more medicament containers (source of vaccines/fluids) are at least fluidly coupled to the one or more fluid pumps).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 05/12/2025) with respect to the rejection of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Samson et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150144071) in view of Gorans et al. (U.S. Pub. 20040143278), Vega (ES 2567642), Goodwin (U.S. Pat. 3994292), and Gourlandt (U.S. Pat. 4681565) disclose the applicant’s claim 1, as specified under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above. Samson et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150144071) in view of Vega (ES 2567642), Goodwin (U.S. Pat. 3994292), and Gourlandt (U.S. Pat. 4681565) disclose the applicant’s claim 20, as specified under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above.
Specifically, Samson et al. teaches the movable portion comprising one or more holders configured to engage a subject and rotate the subject between the plurality of stations in Figs. 23-29 and Paragraph [0094], where the movable portion 950 at least has one or more holders 600 configured to engage the subject (pullet) and rotate the subject between the plurality of stations (110 for loading, 120 for injection, 120 for spraying, and 130 for release). Furthermore, Gorans et al. teaches a set of clamps configured to engage the head of the subject in Figs. 1-4 and Paragraph [0031], where each holder has a set of clamps 52 configured to engage the head H of the subject. The clamps of Gorans et al. are combined with the device of Samson et al. to further restrict relative head movement. The device of Gorans et al. shows that the clamps 52 are used along with holding positioning device 22, which is similar to holder 600 od Samson et al. Therefore, the clamps are not mapped as replacing the holder of Samson et al., rather as an addition to the device of Samson et al.
Additionally, Samson et al. teaches each injector comprises a needle removably coupled to the injector in Paragraph [0088-0089], where there is a needle removably at least coupled to the injector (luer lock fittings and needles), and a guide configured to determine at least one of a depth of the needle and an angle of the needle in Paragraph [0067-0068], where there is at least a guide (“support members 642 may define apertures 646, which allow needles or other injection devices to pass therethrough for injecting” or “support members 642 may advantageously provide a safe angle for needle insertion”) configured to determine at least an angle of the needle (for a safe angle to insert at a subcutaneous depth at the inguinal fold).
Lastly, Gourlandt teaches the guide being pivotable between a first position and a second position wherein the guide rests against the subject's back when the subject is disposed within the holder and positioned at the injection station in Figs. 19-20 and Column 10 lines 39-55, where there is a guide 240 being pivotable between a first position (off of back of subject 280) and a second position wherein the guide 240 (v-shaped area rests on back of subject 280) rests against the subject's 280 back when the subject 280 is at least disposed within the holder and positioned at the injection station.
In regard to claim 19, the office maintains that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to utilize a sensor similar to that shown in Paragraph [0107] of Brown et al., where there is an optical sensor 38 which detects the presence of an object, to detect the presence of an object such as a hand in the device. Such safety detection features are common and well known in various automation and robotics systems. For example, Paragraph [0041] of Stewart (U.S. Pub. 20140330452) discloses, “the system can utilize optical or infra-red sensors to enable automatic safety shutoff upon encountering a human”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Particularly the references were cited because they pertain to the state of the art of animal care devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached on (571) 272-6909. 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.
/KEVIN M DENNIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647