DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C.
102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the
statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new
ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would
be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the
basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use,
on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 17, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,058,530 to Van De Ven.
Regarding Claims 15, 19, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 34, Van De Ven teaches a housing system
and method for poultry comprising an animal habitation area divided into a first partial habitation
area (Van De Ven Fig. 2 left #17; applicant doesn't claim the structural features of the partial
habitation area, Van De Ven #17 satisfies the broad nature of the claim) and a second partial
habitation area (Van De Ven Fig. 2 right #17) by a centrally disposed row of nests (Van De Ven
Fig. 1 and 2 #2, #3, #4, #5 walls of the nests); wherein the centrally disposed row of nests
comprises a first nest assembly with a first egg channel (Van De Ven Fig. 2 #6 left) and a
second nest assembly with a second egg channel (Van De Ven Fig. 2 right #6). Van De Ven teaches the first nest assembly and the second nest assembly are accessible to poultry from
opposite access sides, the access side for the first nest assembly faces the first partial
habitation area and the access side for the second nest assembly faces the second partial
habitation area (Van De Ven Fig. 2 shows a left and right nest that are accessible form opposite
sides and each opposing entrance faces a respective #17 habitation area).
Regarding Claim 16, Van De Ven teaches the first egg channel is disposed between the
first nest assembly and the second partial habitation area; the second egg channel is disposed
between the second nest assembly and the first partial habitation area; and the first egg channel
and the second egg channel run parallel to each other and/or parallel to the longitudinal
direction of the centrally disposed row of nests (Van De Ven Fig. 2 left and right #6 are parallel
and #6 is between #17 and nest walls #2, #3, #4, #5).
Regarding Claim 17, Van De Ven teaches a first cover section of the first egg channel
that is provided with a first cover, wherein the first cover is partly formed by the first nest
assembly and partly formed by a first cover floor, and wherein the first cover floor is configured
to serve as a usable space for the poultry (Van De Ven Fig. 2 #14 and unnumbered floor
beneath #6; #15 on cover #14 is used by the poultry); and/or a second cover section of the
second egg channel that is provided with a second cover, wherein the second cover is partly
formed by the second nest assembly and partly formed by a second cover floor, and wherein
the second cover floor is configured so as to serve as a usable space for the poultry.
Regarding Claims 27 and 28, Van De Ven teaches the first nest assembly has one, two,
or a plurality of individual or family laying nests (Van De Ven right side of nests in Fig. 2; Fig. 1
shows a plurality via walls and divider #2 and #3); the second nest assembly has one, two or a
plurality of individual or family laying nests (Van De Ven left side of nests in Fig. 2); a one, a
plurality of, or all of the individual or family laying nests of the first nest assembly or of the
second nest assembly is or are configured as a tilting floor nest or as a nest with or without an
ejection device; and/or a one, a plurality of, or all of the individual or family laying nests of the first nest assembly or of the second nest assembly has or have a nest entrance which is raised
with respect to the first or second partial habitation area (applicant claims this last portion of the
claim in the alternative which means the structure is not necessary if the first limitations of the
claim are structurally satisfied, Van De Ven structurally satisfies both portions of the claim even
though it is not required by the claim language; Van De Ven Fig. 2 nest is raised above #17,
applicant doesn't quantify how much nor does applicant structurally claim how it is raised, Van
De Ven satisfies the broad and alternatively nature of the claim limitations).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C.
102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the
statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new
ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would
be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness
rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed
invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have
been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be
negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 15-21 and 23-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over German Patent DE 202007015498 to Fienhage in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,058,530 to
Van De Ven.
Regarding Claims 15, 29, 30, 31 and 32, Fienhage teaches a housing system and
method for poultry comprising: an animal habitation area divided into a first partial habitation
area and a second partial habitation area (Fienhage Fig. 1 #15 and #16) by a centrally disposed
row of nests (Fienhage Fig. 4 #37 and #38); wherein the centrally disposed row of nests comprises an egg channel (Fienhage Fig. 5 #17). Fienhage is silent on explicitly teaching
separate egg channels i.e. a first nest assembly with a first egg channel and a second nest
assembly with a second egg channel. However, Van De Ven teaches the general knowledge of
one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to have separate first and second egg channels for
a row of nests in opposing facing directions (Van De Ven Fig. 2 #6). It would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Fienhage with teachings of Van De
Ven before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of
success to separate and sort eggs. The modification is merely the application of a known
technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or "obvious
to try" choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable
expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 34, Fienhage as modified teaches wherein the first nest assembly and
the second nest assembly are accessible to poultry from opposite access sides, and the access
side for the first nest assembly faces the first partial habitation area and the access side for the
second nest assembly faces the second partial habitation area (Fienhage Fig. 4 #37 and #38
face opposite directions)
Regarding Claim 16, Fienhage as modified teaches the first egg channel is disposed
between the first nest assembly and the second partial habitation area; the second egg channel
is disposed between the second nest assembly and the first partial habitation area; and
the first egg channel and the second egg channel run parallel to each other and/or parallel to
the longitudinal direction of the centrally disposed row of nests (Fienhage Fig. 1 and 4 and Van
De Ven Fig. 2 #6 left and right side).
Regarding Claim 17, Fienhage as modified teaches a first cover section of the first egg
channel that is provided with a first cover, wherein the first cover is partly formed by the first
nest assembly and partly formed by a first cover floor, and wherein the first cover floor is
configured to serve as a usable space for the poultry (Fienhage Fig. 4 #39 and #23); and/or a
second cover section of the second egg channel that is provided with a second cover, wherein
the second cover is partly formed by the second nest assembly and partly formed by a second
cover floor, and wherein the second cover floor is configured so as to serve as a usable space
for the poultry.
Regarding Claim 18, Fienhage as modified teaches a lower section of the first egg
channel runs wholly or partially below the second nest assembly; and/or a lower section of the
second egg channel runs wholly or partially below the first nest assembly (Fienhage #17 and
Van De Ven #6).
Regarding Claim 19, Fienhage as modified teaches the first nest assembly and the
second nest assembly are accessible to poultry from opposite access sides; and the access
side for the first nest assembly faces the first partial habitation area and the access side for the
second nest assembly faces the second partial habitation area (Fienhage Fig. 3 and 4 #37
faces #16 and #38 faces #15).
Regarding Claims 20 and 33, Fienhage as modified teaches in the longitudinal direction
of the centrally disposed row of nests, the first nest assembly and the second nest assembly are
disposed in succession and/or are separated from one another by a passageway (Fienhage
Fig. 3 and 4 passage between #37 and #38).
Regarding Claim 21, Fienhage as modified teaches the passageway has a passageway
cover (Fienhage Fig. 3 and 4 #41) for covering for a passageway section of the first egg channel
and/or of the second egg channel, and wherein the passageway cover is configured to serve as
a usable space for the poultry (Fienhage the space above #41 is usable by the poultry).
Regarding Claim 25, Fienhage as modified teaches the first partial habitation area is
configured as a slatted floor and/or has an inclination downwards towards the centrally
disposed row of nests; and/or wherein the second partial habitation area is configured as a
slatted floor and/or has an inclination downwards towards the centrally disposed row of nests
(Fienhage Fig. 1 and 5 inclined and #20 wire mesh satisfies slatted).
Regarding Claim 26, Fienhage as modified teaches the inclination of the first partial
habitation area and the second partial habitation area is configured as a uniform inclination
(Fienhage Fig. 5 #30).
Regarding Claim 27, Fienhage as modified teaches the first nest assembly has one, two,
or a plurality of individual or family laying nests; the second nest assembly has one, two or a
plurality of individual or family laying nests (Fienhage Fig. 3 #37 and #38 are the first and
second nests); a one, a plurality of, or all of the individual or family laying nests of the first nest
assembly or of the second nest assembly is or are configured as a tilting floor nest or as a nest
with or without an ejection device; and/or a one, a plurality of, or all of the individual or family
laying nests of the first nest assembly or of the second nest assembly has or have a nest
entrance which is raised with respect to the first or second partial habitation area (applicant
claims this last portion of the claim in the alternative which means the structure is not necessary
if the first limitations of the claim are structurally satisfies, Fienhage as modified structurally
satisfies both portions the claim even though it is not required by the claim language; Fienhage
Fig. 3 #32 is above the floor and is thus is raised, applicant doesn't quantify how much nor does
applicant structurally claim how it is raised, Fienhage satisfies the broad and alternatively nature
of the claim limitations).
Regarding Claim 28, Fienhage as modified teaches on including a plurality of first nest
assemblies and a plurality of second nest assemblies which are respectively disposed in
alternation in the longitudinal direction of the centrally disposed row of nests in succession
and/or separated from one another (Van De Ven teaches each side having a plurality Fig. 1 #5
plurality created by #3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further
modify the teachings of Fienhage with the teachings of Van De Ven before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to separate the hens as
taught by Van De Ven. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a
known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or an obvious engineering
design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation involving the duplication of a
known element for a multiple effect to house more hens for large scale productions [In re Harza,
274 F.2d 669, 671, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960)].
Regarding Claim 23, Fienhage as modified teaches the first egg channel is disposed to
receive eggs from the first nest assembly and/or from the second partial habitation area through
a first egg receiving gap (Van De Ven #6; Fienhage #17) ; the first egg channel is disposed
below a lower end of the first partial habitation area and/or below a lower end of the second
partial habitation area; (Van De Ven Fig. 2 left #6) the first egg channel comprises a first
conveying device for conveying eggs in the longitudinal direction of the centrally disposed row of
nests; the second egg channel is disposed to receive eggs from the second nest assembly
and/or from the first partial habitation area through a second egg receiving gap; the second egg
channel is disposed below a lower end of the first partial habitation area and/or below a lower
end of the second partial habitation area (Van De Ven #6; Fienhage #17); and/or the second
egg channel comprises a second conveying device for conveying eggs in the longitudinal
direction of the centrally disposed row of nests.
Regarding Claim 24, Fienhage as modified teaches the first and second conveying
device each comprise a conveyor belt (Van De Ven #6 and Fienhage #18).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German
Patent DE 202007015498 to Fienhage in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,058,530 to Van De Ven as
applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,477,840 to Auffarth
Regarding Claim 22, Fienhage as modified teaches the first partial habitation area is
inclined towards the centrally disposed row of nests; the second partial habitation area is
inclined towards the centrally disposed row of nests (Fienhage Fig. 5 #25), but is silent on
explicitly teaching the first partial habitation area has one or more feeding devices, one or more
drinkers, and/or one or more perches; and/or the second partial habitation area has one or more feeding devices, one or more drinkers, and/or one or more perches. However, Auffarth
teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide
perches on opposite a nest in a habilitation area (Auffarth Fig. 1 and 2 #150). It would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Fienhage with
the teachings of Auffarth before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a
reasonable expectation of success to enhance poultry keeping for hens as taught by Auffarth.
The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for
improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are more detailed than the claim limitations themselves. Applicant references details found in the specification to support his reasoning, but the claims remain very broad and lack structural details to distinguish. Structural limitations must be explicitly stated in the claims. It is the claims that define the scope of protection, not the specification. While the specification must describe the invention, limitations not found in the claims cannot be used to prove patentability. Structural details need to be recited in the claims. 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).
Van De Ven satisfies the structural limitations of a first and second partial habitation area divided by a centrally disposed row of nests (Van De Ven Fig. 1 and 2 #2, #3, #4, #5 walls of the nests). Van De Ven Fig. 1 shows two nests side by side and Fig. 2 shows that there two nests of mirrored symmetry on the back side of the nests in Fig.1. These four nests constitute a centrally disposed row of nests. The examiner identified elements #17 on the left and right side of Fig. 2 as satisfying the broad limitation of a first and second partial habitation area since elements #17 are two surfaces that support and are intended for the poultry to have contact with when using the device i.e. an area of habitation. The identified nests are “central” to the left and right partial habitation areas #17 and divide the two partial habitation areas. The language of a “partial habitation area” is very broad and does not provide the structural details that make up or define the area. In other words, the claims do not include any structural limitations of the partial habitation areas to differentiate them over the prior art of record. The examiner maintains that applicant’s claims 15, 16, 17, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34 are anticipated by Van De Ven since it establishes each and every element of the rejected claim.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the examiner maintains that there is both suggestion and motivation to combine the teachings Fienhage with the teachings of Van De Ven and there is knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to motivation and suggestion, Van De Ven suggests and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize motivation for having an individual egg channel for a fewer number of nests when there is a row of a plurality of nests present. Van De Ven teaches that the nests are in a central location and each front opening of the nests is on either side of a central line and face opposite directions. The left nests of the central line have an egg channel and the nests facing right of the central line have their one egg channel. Van De Ven establishes that nests that have opposite opening faces should have their own egg channel and that when a plurality of nests are present in a poultry house that not all of the nests should share one egg channel. It is common practice in the art when there is a plurality of nests present to not have all the eggs in one channel. Van de Ven by design establishes the known advantage of open faces of poultry nests facing in the same direction should have their own egg channel. A skilled person could refer to Van De Ven and arrive at the claimed subject matter in an obvious manner. The rejection is based on an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. Fienhage teaches nests in a central row that have open faces in opposing directions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the egg channel of Fienhage into two channels each on associated with its respective facing nest as taught by Van De Ven.
With regard to knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, it is an accepted and industry practice to reduce contact between numerous eggs to reduce collision between eggs. Reducing the number of eggs colliding into other eggs reduces breakage. Thus, there is motivation to prevent to many eggs from going down one channel.
In addition, merely taking a singular integral, shared channel and separating it into two separate channels is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or "obvious to try" choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Dividing the channel of Fienhage into two channels would not destroy nor teach away from the core layout of Fienhage. The location of the egg channel would remain where Fienhage has it centrally placed; the modification is merely dividing from one channel into two channels that service the nest closest to each respective channel. The channel would remain in its intended location and its function to transport eggs would remain the same upon modification.
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).
The independent claim limitations are broad and could even be satisfied by a stacked configuration of either Van De Ven or Fienhage. For example, looking at the limitations of the independent claims, if one stacked Van De Ven Fig.2 both layers would have a central row of nests and the bottom layer could have a first nest assembly with a first egg channel, the egg channel of the bottom layer and the top stacked layer could satisfy a second nest assembly with a second egg channel, the egg channel of the top layer. Van De Ven teaches the option of stacking (Van de Ven Col. 3 line 30, 37, 38). The examiner maintains the rejections presented in the 06 November 2025 office action, but uses this example to further illustrate the broad nature of the current claim limitations. With out the structural relationships of the elements explicitly present in the claims, lends to a variety of interpretations.
The examiner maintains that applicant hasn’t patentably distinguished over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA M VALENTI whose telephone number is (571)272-6895. The examiner can normally be reached Available Monday and Tuesday only, eastern time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREA M VALENTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
27 March 2026