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
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 12: “the driving of a plunger of which is controlled by an electrical control element in such a way that said plunger has a feed velocity in the syringe, thereby determining a flow rate of the dispensed fluid” should read -- the driving of a plunger of which is controlled by an electrical control element in such a way that said plunger has a feed velocity in the syringe, the plunger feed velocity determining a flow rate of the dispensed fluid—or similar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 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 limitation "the flow rate is also in the acceleration/constant speed/deceleration phase” in lines 17-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It has only previously been recited that the single arm has an acceleration phase, and the plunger has a corresponding acceleration phase. It has not previously been recited that a flow rate has an acceleration phase. For examination purposes “the acceleration phase,” “the constant speed phase,” and “the deceleration phase,” will be understood as “an acceleration phase,” “a constant speed phase,” and “a deceleration phase.” Similarly with claim 12.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the at least one second fluid” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this will be understood as –an at least one second fluid--.
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 1-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston (US 2004/0144873, as cited on previous 892), as applied to claim 1, in view of De Talhouet (EP 3539675 A1, as mentioned in interview dated 07/02/02025), hereinafter referred to as Johnston and De Talhouet, respectively, as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections addressed above.
Regarding claim 1:
Johnston discloses an apparatus for delivering droplets of fluids onto an open tray (Fig 1.22) containing birds (see Fig 1), characterized in that it comprises:
a stationary work surface (Portion of Fig 1.25 on which base of tray 22 directly rests) for receiving and supporting said tray (see Fig 1),
a single arm (spray heads Fig 2B.30, linked as per ¶0030; arm is the structure formed by the linked spray heads 30) carrying a plurality of fluid-dispensing nozzles (Nozzle (Fig 1.33) x 2, one on each piece Fig 8.30 of the arm)
an electric motor drive unit (¶0031 – “switchable power means is an electrically powered toothed wheel system comprising an electric motor…” for moving said single arm in translation in a first direction of the tray (¶0030-0031; Fig 1) when said tray is on said work surface, said single arm movable above said tray (see Fig 1).
said plurality of dispensing nozzles being connected to at least one fluid supply circuit (Fig 1.38-40), each fluid supply circuit comprising a fluid reservoir (Fig 1.38) for supplying corresponding dispensing nozzles with a fluid (¶0036), a volume of fluid drawn from the reservoir being determined by a syringe (¶0056: delivery of fluid can be via top pressure applied to fluid as described in Peterson, US 4316464, incorporated by reference; See Peterson syringe Fig 4.70-72), the driving of a plunger of which (Peterson, Fig 4.71) is controlled by an electrical control element (Peterson: generally Fig 4.18; more specifically control switch Fig 4.35 and air pressure regulator Fig 4.52) in such a way that said plunger has a feed velocity in the syringe, thereby determining a flow rate of the dispensed fluid (plunger moves in syringe, therefore has a velocity; Peterson Col 3, line 62- Col 4, line 27: air pressure regulator 52 adjusts pressure of air supplied by compressor 51, when control switch 35 is activated, the air pressure from compressor 51 communicates with piston pump, causing cylinder rod 70 and its plunger 71 to retract; greater air pressure would inherently cause a quicker retraction of plunger and quicker pumping of the plunger when the pressure is released, because the force would be stronger, flow rate is linked to plunger pumping speed, as pumping causes the vaccine to move out of the cylinder eventually to the nozzle)
a control device (bounds of control device is interpreted to include all controlling elements in the apparatus, including that which controls the drive unit, and those which control the fluid supply), for controlling a motor speed of the drive unit (¶0030 discusses control of electronic switchable power means, the electronic switchable power means being the motor which is used to reversibly move the spray head(s) 30) and the plunger feed velocity in each syringe (Peterson Fig 4.52; Col 3, line 62- Col 4, line 27: as discussed above air pressure regulator 52 responsible for control of plunger feed velocity), wherein the plunger actuates as the single arm moves above the tray (Per ¶0057 & ¶0060, when the arm is moved, fluid is sprayed; fluid spraying is due to plunger movement); and wherein the single arm has at least an acceleration and deceleration phase above the tray (acceleration and deceleration of the arm is inherent to the reciprocating motion of the arm described in ¶0057 and ¶0060).
Johnston fails to specifically disclose wherein said control device is configured to synchronize an acceleration, constant speed, and deceleration phases of the single arm with corresponding phases of said plunger of said syringe so that when the single arm is in the acceleration phase, the flow rate is also in the acceleration phase; when the single arm is in constant speed phase, the flow rate is also in constant speed phase; when the single arm is in the deceleration phase, the flow rate is also in the deceleration phase; such that a uniform distribution of fluid droplets is achieved over said tray.
De Talhouet discloses a movable fluid dispensing arm (application device 16, Fig 1), for applying at least one fluid product to a substrate (abstract), the arm carrying a fluid dispensing nozzle (outlet orifice 32, Fig 2), supplied via a fluid supply circuit comprising a fluid reservoir for supplying the nozzle with a fluid (tank 50, Fig 1), a volume of fluid drawn through the nozzle from the reservoir being determined by a syringe (adjusting member 36 – per Pg 5, ¶8-10 -- the adjusting member is a pump, particularly a piston pump including a chamber and a piston moving in the chamber; the chamber may be considered a syringe, the piston considered the plunger of the syringe), the driving of a plunger of which is controlled by an electrical control element (control module 38, Fig 2) in such a way that said plunger has a feed velocity in the syringe, thereby determining a flow rate of the dispensed fluid (Pg 5, ¶7-11: “the speed of movement of the piston in the chamber determining the dosing flow”; control module 38 meters flow rate of fluid through outlet orifice; “the flow rate of the fluid product at the outlet of said pump constituting the dosing flow rate”), wherein said control device is configured to synchronize an acceleration (Pg 7: steps 180-190), constant speed (Pg 6: step 150), and deceleration phases (Pg 7: steps 160-170) of the single arm with corresponding phases of said plunger of said syringe (see discussion of steps in Pgs. 6-7, in that flow rate is modified in proportion to the speed of the nozzle to maintain a constant ratio; see previous linkage between flow rate and plunger speed above) so that when the single arm is in the acceleration phase, the flow rate is also in the acceleration phase; when the single arm is in constant speed phase, the flow rate is also in constant speed phase; when the single arm is in the deceleration phase, the flow rate is also in the deceleration phase; such that a uniform distribution of fluid droplets is achieved over said tray (Pg 2, last two ¶s – Pg 3, first 2 ¶s: homogeneous distribution when nozzle speed is constant and flow rate is constant and, in order to maintain homogeneity, as nozzle displacement slows, metering flow must decrease and, as the nozzle accelerates, metering flow must increase; Pg 5, ¶11: flow controlled such that “the ratio between the flow rate of the fluid product and the measured speed of the outlet orifice 32 is substantially constant”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically provided the control device of Johnston with the specific capability of moving the arm with acceleration, constant speed and deceleration phases, with synchronized flow rate phases, as in De Talhouet, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to facilitate stable reciprocating motion while ensuring homogenous distribution of fluid across the tray, regardless of the speed of the reciprocating arm (Pg 7, second to last ¶), thereby improving the uniformity of dosage to chicks, regardless of their position in the tray.
Regarding claim 2:
Johnston as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above further discloses that said control device comprises at least one detection element for detecting the motor speed of the drive unit, said at least one detection element emitting synchronization signals (De Talhouet discloses a measuring device 34 – Fig 2 - which detects the speed of the nozzle/arm and emits synchronization signals for synchronizing flow rate and nozzle speed – Pg 5, first 7 ¶s).
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that, in order to provide the synchronizing control capability in the modification of Johnston for claim 1 above, a detection element, as discussed in De Talhouet, would have needed to be incorporated into the arm of Johnston, given that De Talhouet describes the alteration of flow rate as being based on measurement of the speed of the nozzle by the measuring device 34 (see Pg 6-7). Further, being that the motor of Johnston (Fig 6.46) moves together with the nozzles (both on arm component 30), and is directly responsible for the motion of the nozzles, the detection element added to Johnston, which would measure the speed of the reciprocating arm/nozzles, would also be capable of detecting the speed of the motor, as required by claim 2.
Regarding claim 3:
Johnston as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above further discloses that said control device is configured to define a movement duration of the single arm above said tray, comprising an acceleration period, a constant speed period and a deceleration period (see claim 1 rejection above and De Talhouet steps 150-190, as discussed in the rejection above and in pages 6-7 of De Talhouet).
Regarding claim 4:
Johnston discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the electric motor of the drive unit comprises a toothed wheel (Fig 6.45), said toothed wheel meshing in a toothed movement path of a guide rail extending along the first direction of the tray (claim 12; see Figs 1&6).
Regarding claim 5:
Johnston discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses that the drive unit is a linear actuator controlled by said electric motor (drive unit actuates the arm linearly along guide rail, controlled by electric motor Fig 6.46) said single arm being mounted perpendicular to a free end of said actuator (toothed wheel Fig 6.45 is free end of drive unit, extends out from motor Fig 6.46, arm components Fig 6.30 extend outwards over tray, perpendicular to the plane of the toothed wheel – see Fig 8).
Regarding claim 6:
Johnston as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses that at least one of the dimensions of said work surface is at most equal to the corresponding dimension of said open tray that it is intended to support (Per claim 1, work surface is portion of Fig 1.25 on which base of tray 22 directly rests, therefore the width of the work surface is equal to the corresponding width of the tray at the base, and less than the width of the tray at the top of the tray).
Regarding claim 12:
Johnston discloses a method for delivering droplets of fluids (¶0001) onto an open tray (Fig 1.22) containing birds (see Fig 1), said tray being stationary, characterized in that:
a single arm (spray heads Fig 2B.30, linked as per ¶0030; arm is the structure formed by the linked spray heads 30) is moved above said tray (¶0057; see Fig 1), in translation along a first direction of said tray (¶0057, along guiderail direction), said single arm carrying a plurality of fluid-dispensing nozzles (Nozzle (Fig 1.33) x 2, one on each piece Fig 8.30 of the arm)
said plurality of dispensing nozzles being connected to at least one fluid supply circuit (Fig 1.38-40), each fluid supply circuit comprising a fluid reservoir (Fig 1.38) for supplying corresponding dispensing nozzles with a fluid drawn from the reservoir (¶0036), a volume of fluid drawn from the reservoir being determined by a syringe (¶0056: delivery of fluid can be via top pressure applied to fluid as described in Peterson, US 4316464, incorporated by reference; See Peterson syringe Fig 4.70-72), wherein driving of a plunger of the syringe (Peterson, Fig 4.71) is controlled by an electrical control element (Peterson: generally Fig 4.18; more specifically control switch Fig 4.35 and air pressure regulator Fig 4.52) in such a way that said plunger has a feed velocity in the , thereby determining a flow rate of the dispensed fluid (plunger moves in syringe, therefore has a velocity; Peterson Col 3, line 62- Col 4, line 27: air pressure regulator 52 adjusts pressure of air supplied by compressor 51, when control switch 35 is activated, the air pressure from compressor 51 communicates with piston pump, causing cylinder rod 70 and its plunger 71 to retract; greater air pressure would inherently cause a quicker retraction of plunger and quicker pumping of the plunger when the pressure is released, because the force would be stronger, flow rate is linked to plunger pumping speed, as pumping causes the vaccine to move out of the cylinder eventually to the nozzle), wherein the plunger actuates as the single arm moves above the tray (Per ¶0057 & ¶0060, when the arm is moved, fluid is sprayed; fluid spraying is due to plunger movement); and wherein the single arm has at least an acceleration and deceleration phase above the tray (acceleration and deceleration of the arm is inherent to the reciprocating motion of the arm described in ¶0057 and ¶0060).
an acceleration and a deceleration of the arm are performed above said tray to minimize the movement stroke of the arm (acceleration/deceleration are inherent to the reciprocating motion of the arm; arm moves above tray – see Fig 1; minimization of movement stroke is an intended use limitation, inherently fulfilled by the acceleration/deceleration steps).
Johnston fails to specifically disclose wherein an acceleration, constant speed, and deceleration phases of the single arm are synchronized with corresponding phases of a plunger of said syringe so that when the single arm is in the acceleration phase, the flow rate is also in the acceleration phase; when the single arm is in constant speed phase, the flow rate is also in constant speed phase; and when the single arm is in the deceleration phase, the flow rate is also in the deceleration phase; such that a uniform distribution of fluid droplets is achieved over said tray.
De Talhouet discloses a movable fluid dispensing arm (application device 16, Fig 1), for applying at least one fluid product to a substrate (abstract), the arm carrying a fluid dispensing nozzle (outlet orifice 32, Fig 2), supplied via a fluid supply circuit comprising a fluid reservoir for supplying the nozzle with a fluid (tank 50, Fig 1), a volume of fluid drawn through the nozzle from the reservoir being determined by a syringe (adjusting member 36 – per Pg 5, ¶8-10 -- the adjusting member is a pump, particularly a piston pump including a chamber and a piston moving in the chamber; the chamber may be considered a syringe, the piston considered the plunger of the syringe), the driving of a plunger of which is controlled by an electrical control element (control module 38, Fig 2) in such a way that said plunger has a feed velocity in the syringe, thereby determining a flow rate of the dispensed fluid (Pg 5, ¶7-11: “the speed of movement of the piston in the chamber determining the dosing flow”; control module 38 meters flow rate of fluid through outlet orifice; “the flow rate of the fluid product at the outlet of said pump constituting the dosing flow rate”), wherein said control device is configured to synchronize an acceleration (Pg 7: steps 180-190, constant speed (Pg 6: step 150), and deceleration phases (Pg 7: steps 160-170) of the single arm with corresponding phases of said plunger of said syringe (see discussion of steps in Pgs. 6-7, in that flow rate is modified in proportion to the speed of the nozzle to maintain a constant ratio; see previous linkage between flow rate and plunger speed above) so that when the single arm is in the acceleration phase, the flow rate is also in the acceleration phase; when the single arm is in constant speed phase, the flow rate is also in constant speed phase; when the single arm is in the deceleration phase, the flow rate is also in the deceleration phase; such that a uniform distribution of fluid droplets is achieved over said tray (Pg 2, last two ¶s – Pg 3, first 2 ¶s: homogeneous distribution when nozzle speed is constant and flow rate is constant and, in order to maintain homogeneity, as nozzle displacement slows, metering flow must decrease and, as the nozzle accelerates, metering flow must increase; Pg 5, ¶11: flow controlled such that “the ratio between the flow rate of the fluid product and the measured speed of the outlet orifice 32 is substantially constant”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically provided the control device of Johnston with the specific capability of moving the arm with acceleration, constant speed and deceleration phases, with synchronized flow rate phases, as in De Talhouet, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to facilitate stable reciprocating motion while ensuring homogenous distribution of fluid across the tray, regardless of the speed of the reciprocating arm (Pg 7, second to last ¶), thereby improving the uniformity of dosage to chicks, regardless of their position in the tray.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston and De Talhouet, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Bevensee (WO 2006081316, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Bevensee, as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections addressed above.
Regarding claim 7: Johnston as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the plurality of dispensing nozzles on the single arm includes a first group (nozzle arranged on first of the two components 30 of the arm) and a second group (nozzle arranged on second of the two components 30 of the arm), the nozzle in each group arranged in such a way that the entire dimension of the tray in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction is covered by the nozzles when said tray is received on said work surface (see Fig 1 spray covers entire tray width; ¶0012).
Johnston as modified fails to disclose that the first group is a set of dispensing nozzles (plural), for dispensing at least one first fluid and the second group is a set of dispensing nozzles (plural) for dispensing at least one second fluid, distinct from the at least one first fluid, the first and second sets of dispensing nozzles being arranged in such a way that an entire dimension of the tray (15) in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction is covered by the first and second sets of dispensing nozzles when said tray (15) is received on said work surface.
Bevensee further discloses a fluid dispensing device for poultry comprising a first set of dispensing nozzles (nozzles Fig 1.32 of first spray alignment system Fig 1.34; Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18, line 10) for dispensing at least one first fluid (Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18, line 10; fluid in first of the two containers 80) and a second set of dispensing nozzles (nozzles 32 of second spray alignment system 34; Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18, line 10) for dispensing at least one second fluid, distinct from the at least one first fluid (Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18, line 10; fluid in second of the two containers 80), the first and second sets of dispensing nozzles being arranged in such a way that an entire dimension of the tray in a second direction perpendicular to a first direction, the first direction being the direction the nozzles move over the tray, is covered by these first and second sets of dispensing nozzles when said tray is received on a work surface (see Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a plurality of dispensing nozzles in each group (i.e. on each component 30 of the arm), as in Bevensee, rather than having a singular dispensing nozzle in each group, as in Johnston, each group being supplied by a separate fluid reservoir containing distinct fluids, as in Bevensee, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it would allow for the spraying of larger volumes of fluid or faster, and more uniform fluid distribution in large trays; also, as disclosed in Bevensee, supplying each nozzle set with its own fluid allows for the distribution of two fluids in one passage, therefore decreasing the amount of tray/chick handling time and improving efficiency (Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18, line 10). Moreover, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 8: Johnston as modified discloses the limitations of claim 7 above and further discloses that the apparatus is configured to provide a time offset between dispensing of at least one first fluid by means of said first set of dispensing nozzles and at least one second fluid by means of said second set of dispensing nozzles (time offset inherent to spacing between nozzle sets on arm; Bevensee also discusses sequential distribution of the two fluids - Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18, line 10).
Regarding claim 9: Johnston as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 above and further discloses wherein said first and second sets of dispensing nozzles are spaced apart on said single arm in the first direction by a distance (see Fig 8 & 1, even when linked, there would be a distance between the nozzle sets because the spray head 30 is broader than the nozzle holding component 31; see also Bevensee Fig 4, given the hoods 35, the nozzles of the nozzle sets could not be in contact, therefore there would be a distance between them) that determines said time offset (spacing distance capable of determining time offset in sequential operation).
Regarding claim 10: The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 7 above and Bevensee further discloses that said first set of nozzles comprises nozzles for dispensing a fluid by spraying and in that said second set of nozzles includes nozzles for dispensing a fluid by spraying or needles for ejecting individual drops of a fluid (Abstract: “spray nozzles”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston and De Talhouet, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hayzer (WO 2005094387, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Hayzer, as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections addressed above.
Regarding claim 11:
Johnston as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein said control device is configured to adjust the positioning of said arm on a first end of said tray before said droplets of fluid are dispensed (functional language: inherently capable of such action as arm movement and pump activity is controlled by control device.)
Johnston as modified fails to disclose at least one optical device for determining the dimensions of said tray, and fails to explicitly disclose wherein said control device is configured to adjust the positioning of said arm on a first end of said arm on a first end of said tray before said droplets of fluids are dispensed.
Hayzer discloses an apparatus for delivering substances to poultry in a tray (Fig 2.15) via nozzles (Fig 6.10) characterized in that it comprises at least one optical device (Pg. 9, lines 30-31: camera) for determining the dimensions of a tray (functional language: capable of determining dimensions of the tray; Pg. 9, lines 26-32), and wherein a control device specifically adjusts the positioning of the nozzles on a first end of said tray before fluid is dispensed to the poultry (Pg. 9, lines 26-29; Pg. 11, lines 5-9)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included an optical device, such as that in Hayzer, in the device of Johnston, and provide the control device with the explicit functionality of adjusting the positioning of the arm on a first end of the tray before said droplets of fluid are dispensed, as in Hayzer, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because, as disclosed in Hayzer, an optical device would help in accurately positioning the nozzles to the proper application position over the tray prior to fluid distribution (Pg. 9, lines 30-31).
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston and De Talhouet, as applied to claim 12 above, in view of Bevensee, as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections addressed above.
Regarding claim 13:
Johnston as modified discloses the limitations of claim 12 above and further discloses wherein the plurality of dispensing nozzles carried by the single arm includes a first group (nozzle arranged on first of the two components 30 of the arm) and a second group (nozzle arranged on second of the two components 30 of the arm), the nozzle in each group arranged in such a way that an entire dimension of the tray in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction is covered by the nozzles when said tray is received on said work surface (see Fig 1 spray covers entire tray width; ¶0012), and wherein droplets of the at least one first fluid are dispensed by the dispensing nozzle of the first group (per interpretation of ‘at least one first fluid’ above) and droplets of the at least one second fluid are dispensed by the dispensing nozzle of the second group (per interpretation of ‘at least one second fluid’ above).
Johnston as modified fails to disclose that the first group is a first set of dispensing nozzles (plural), and the second group is a second set of dispensing nozzles (plural), the first and second sets of dispensing nozzles being arranged to cover an entire dimension of the tray in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and wherein droplets of the at least one first fluid are dispensed by the first set of dispensing nozzles and droplets of the at least one second fluid are dispensed by the second set of dispensing nozzles simultaneously.
Bevensee further discloses a fluid dispensing device for poultry comprising a first set of dispensing nozzles (nozzles Fig 1.32 of first spray alignment system Fig 1.34; Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18, line 10) and a second set of dispensing nozzles (nozzles 32 of second spray alignment system 34; Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18, line 10), the first and second sets of dispensing nozzles being arranged to cover an entire dimension of the tray in a second direction perpendicular to a first direction, the first direction being the directions the nozzles move over the tray (see Fig 3), and wherein droplets of at least one first fluid (Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18, line 10; fluid in first of the two containers 80) are dispensed by said first set of dispensing nozzles (Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18), and droplets of at least a second fluid (Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18, line 10; fluid in second of the two containers 80) are dispensed by said second set of dispensing nozzles (Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18); the dispensing of said at least one first fluid and said at least one second fluid occurring simultaneously (Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18, line 9: both nozzle sets spray at the same time as the tray moves beneath the sets, thereby only requiring the tray to pass under the nozzle sets once)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a plurality of dispensing nozzles in each group (i.e. on each component 30 of the arm), as in Bevensee, rather than having a singular dispensing nozzle in each group, as in Johnston, each group being supplied by a separate fluid reservoir containing distinct fluids and said fluids being dispensed by the respective nozzle sets simultaneously, as in Bevensee, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it would allow for the spraying of larger volumes of fluid or faster, and more uniform fluid distribution in large trays; also, as disclosed in Bevensee, supplying each nozzle set with its own fluid allows for the distribution of two fluids in one passage, therefore decreasing the amount of tray/chick handling time and improving efficiency (Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18, line 10). Moreover, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 14:
Johnston as modified discloses the limitations of claim 12 above and further discloses wherein the plurality of dispensing nozzles on the arm include a first group (nozzle arranged on first of the two components 30 of the arm) and a second group (nozzle arranged on second of the two components 30 of the arm), the nozzle in each group arranged in such a way that the entire dimension of the tray in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction is covered by the nozzle (see Fig 1 spray covers entire tray width; ¶0012), the droplets dispensed by the second group nozzles being separate from the droplets dispensed from the first group of nozzles (distance between two nozzles means drops do not hit at same time/location), and discloses the step of dispensing the fluid by spraying/ejecting droplets (¶0032).
Johnston as modified fails to disclose that the first group is a first set of dispensing nozzles (plural), and the second group is a second set of dispensing nozzles (plural), the said nozzles of each set being arranged to cover the entire dimension of the tray in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and the steps:
initially droplets of at least one first fluid are dispensed by spraying by means of the first set of dispensing nozzles, and
subsequently at least one second fluid, distinct from said at least one first fluid to be sprayed is dispensed by ejecting individual drops by means of the second set of dispensing nozzles.
Bevensee further discloses a fluid dispensing device for poultry comprising a first set of dispensing nozzles (nozzles Fig 1.32 of first spray alignment system Fig 1.34; Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18, line 10) and a second set of dispensing nozzles (nozzles 32 of second spray alignment system 34; Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18, line 10), the first and second sets of dispensing nozzles being arranged to cover the entire dimension of the tray in a second direction perpendicular to a first direction, the first direction being the directions the nozzles move over the tray (see Fig 3), and the steps:
initially, droplets of at least one first fluid (Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18, line 10; fluid in first of the two containers 80) are dispensed by spraying by means of the first set of dispensing nozzles (Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18), and
subsequently (inherently subsequentially based on the sequential arrangement of the nozzles as the tray moves under them; Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18, line 9), at least one second fluid, distinct from said at least one first fluid (Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18, line 10; fluid in second of the two containers 80, different from first) is dispensed by ejecting individual drops by means of the second set of dispensing nozzles (Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18; spraying droplets is ejecting individual drops, each drop is separate/individual from other drops sprayed/ejected from nozzle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a plurality of dispensing nozzles in each group (i.e. on each component 30 of the arm), as in Bevensee, rather than having a singular dispensing nozzle in each group, as in Johnston, each group being supplied by a separate fluid reservoir containing distinct fluids and said fluids being dispensed by the respective nozzle sets sequentially, as in Bevensee, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it would allow for the spraying of larger volumes of fluid or faster, and more uniform fluid distribution in large trays; also, as disclosed in Bevensee, supplying each nozzle set with its own fluid allows for the distribution of two fluids in one passage, therefore decreasing the amount of tray/chick handling time and improving efficiency (Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18, line 10). Moreover, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 15:
Johnston as modified discloses the limitations of claim 14 above and further discloses wherein steps a) and b) are carried out in a single pass of the single arm above said tray (Bevensee: Pg. 17, line 29 – Pg. 18, line 10: sequential spray as tray passes under nozzles), said first and second sets of dispensing nozzles being arranged on said single arm so as to generate a time offset between steps a) and b) (see Fig 8 & 1, even when linked, there would be a distance between the nozzle sets because the spray head 30 is broader than the nozzle holding component 31; see also Bevensee Fig 4, given the hoods 35, the nozzles of the nozzle sets could not be in contact, therefore there would be a distance between them; distance results in time offset).
Regarding claim 16:
Johnston as modified discloses the limitations of claim 15 above and further discloses that the time offset between steps a) and b) is determined so as to guarantee effective treatment of the birds with said at least one second fluid (time offset determined, being that an apparatus with a distance between nozzles was selected prior to use, as understood based on applicant’s remarks; fluid is dispensed on birds, therefore they are treated effectively).
Regarding claim 17:
Johnston as modified discloses the limitations of claim 14 above and further discloses that step a) is carried out when said single arm is moving from a first edge to a second edge of said tray, said second edge being opposite the first edge, on a forward path extending along the first direction, and step b) is carried out when said single arm is moving from the second edge to the first edge on a return path along the first direction (Johnston: ¶0013 – reciprocal passes of spray head; claim 19; when nozzle sets move over tray, first set of nozzles, being ‘in front’ would move over a chick (i.e. step a), on return path, second set of nozzles, now being ‘in front’ would again move over a chick in the tray (i.e. step b)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, the applicant suggests that Johnston does not disclose a single control device that jointly controls both the motor speed of the arm drive unit and the syringe-type plunger device.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a single control device) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Regardless, even if the applicant were to claim a ‘single’ control device, the bounds of what may be considered as included in that ‘single control device’ are exceedingly broad, as there is no set structural requirement for the control device. As in the rejection above, the ‘control device’ or ‘single control device’ may be interpreted, under broadest reasonable interpretation, as all controlling elements in the apparatus including those which controls the drive unit and those which control the fluid supply, the motor speed controlling element being simply a part of the overall single control device, as with the structure controlling fluid supply.
On page 8, the applicant suggests that Johnston does not disclose that the arm’s speed profile is broken into explicit acceleration, constant-speed, and deceleration segments, and that the syringe/plunger motion (or flow rate profile) is commanded to follow matching acceleration/plateau/deceleration phases (synchronization).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On page 9, the applicant contends that De Talhouet also fails to disclose a single control device that controls both arm motor speed and plunger feed velocity, given the robot motors 12 are commanded by a control cabinet 14, and the dosing pump is commanded by a separate controller.
As above, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a single control device) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Regardless, even if the applicant were to claim a single control device, the bounds of what may be considered as included in that ‘single control device’ are exceedingly broad, as there is no set structural requirement for the control device. As in the rejection above, the ‘control device’ or ‘single control device’ may be interpreted as all controlling elements in the apparatus of either Johnston or De Talhouet, including that which controls the drive unit and those which control the fluid supply, the motor controlling element being simply a part of the overall single control device, as with the structure controlling fluid supply.
On page 10, the applicant argues that De Talhouet claims synchronization of flow rate and nozzle speed via proportional adjustment to yield a constant ratio, but that this does not teach the claimed phase-locking of the motion profiles of the arm/syringe plunger that share the same acceleration, constant-speed, and deceleration phases.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that, by maintaining a constant ratio between the arm speed and the flow rate, the controller is synchronizing/locking motion phases of the arm (acceleration, constant speed, deceleration), with corresponding flow rate/plunger phases (acceleration, constant speed, deceleration). Given the ratio needs to be constant between the flow and the arm speed, if the arm is in an acceleration phase (speed increasing), the controller would need to synchronize the flow rate to proportionally increase (flow rate increasing), which would result in a corresponding acceleration phase for the flow rate. Similarly for a deceleration phase/constant speed. Since the values are proportionally linked, their phases are also linked. This concept is specifically discussed in De Talhouet, Page 2, last two ¶s – Page 3, first two ¶s.
On pages 10-11, the applicant argues that De Talhouet contemplates reactive flow adjustment, where flow rate is adjusted based on measured nozzle speed, whereas, in contrast, the claimed invention requires synchronized motion profiles of the arm and plunger, with synchronized respective phases, and that maintaining a proportional relationship between flow rate and nozzle speed does not disclose or suggest synchronization of discrete motion phases.
Unlike the applicant suggests, the claims do not preclude reactive flow adjustment, rather claim 2, and the disclosure of the applicant’s invention, specifically note that the applicant’s invention functions in the same manner – there is a detection element that detects motor speed, and the detection element emits signals for synchronizing motor speed and plunger speed/flow rate, as in De Talhouet. The inherent synchronization of motion profiles of the arm and plunger is explained above. As a note, it seems like the applicant is attempting to imply that the claims are more limiting in terms of the controller programming – that perhaps the control device is programmed with specific commands for action of the plunger/motor over certain time periods (e.g. in first 10s, motor programmed such the arm accelerates at 3 m/s^2 and flow rate increase being 2 m^3/s^2; in second 10s, motor programmed such that arm accelerates at 0 m/s^2 and flow rate increase is 0 m^3/s^2; in third 10s, motor programmed such that arm accelerates at -3m/s^2 and flow rate change is -2m/s^2), and that the flow rate acceleration/deceleration rate is defined independently of the arm acceleration/deceleration, but still synchronized. This is not the case, the claim language is not so specific, but rather simply requires control over motor/plunger speed and flow rate, such that during certain time periods, the arm is accelerating/decelerating/moving at constant speed, and the flow rate/plunger speed is synchronized to be accelerating/decelerating/staying constant as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang (CN-207639417-U), Yu (CN-203470269-U), Zhiquan (CN-206924130-U), and Zhang (CN-209220652-U) exhibit similarities to the present invention.
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 BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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, Joshua Huson, can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights