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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the third conveyor line must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The drawings are also objected to because what is likely supposed to be “32” in Fig. 4 has been cropped in half. A replacement figure with a complete, clear number is requested. The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 102.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in [0128], the line should likely be amended to recite --[[15]]20: base--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 15 there are twenty recitations of “it.” It is requested all twenty instances are amended to remove the word “it” and replace it with what is specifically being referred to. In claim 1, line 5 should be amended to end with the word --and--. In claim 9, line 9 should likely be amended to recite --the[[se]] N--. In claim 10, the second to last paragraph is unclear and should possible be amended to recite --a number of eggs M, where M is less than N--; and that paragraph should also be amended to end with the word --and--. In claim 15, the fourth line on page 7 should be amended to end with the word --and--.
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.
Claims 3 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the free end" in line 4. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the conveying flow" in line 3. Claim 12 recites the limitation "the empty individual devices" in the second to last line. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the third conveyor line" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Consequently, claims 7-10, 13 and 14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite since they require all the limitations of rejected claim 6.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8 and 9 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Both the bodies of claims 8 and 9 are identical to claim 1. The only differences appear in the preambles; however, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reading (US 3,060,660).
Referring to claim 1: Reading teaches an individual egg transport device, characterized in that it includes:
- an upper cup 83 provided to receive an egg 62,
- a base 84 provided to ensure a stable position of the upper cup on a conveying element 95, 96,
- a gripping element allowing a gripping member 90 to grasp the individual device in order to transport it from a first location to a second location (column 3, lines 50-73).
Referring to claim 3: Reading teaches a surface such as a bump capable of allowing the individual device to be gripped by a suction cup 61.
Referring to claim 4: Reading teaches a peripheral groove (between collars 86).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 5 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 6, 8-10 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 7 and 11-14 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. Suh (CA 2937333 C), ADJANOHOUN (CN 116709912 A) and Bliss et al. (US 3,169,354) all teach an egg transport and/or handling device. IMHOF (US 2013/0302486 A1) teaches an olive device held together magnetically [0028], [0046], while noting a relation to egg devices [0007]. Similarly, Ramler et al. (US 5,344,202) teaches a system including a vacuum cup 158 to pick-up an individual article 9, while noting a relation to egg devices (column 1, lines 38-44).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A LOIKITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/Catherine Loikith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3674
09 June 2026
Prosecution Insights