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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on November 19, 2026. Claims 1-6 have been amended and are hereby entered. Claim 7 has been canceled. Claims 8-15 have been withdrawn per the Response to Election/Restriction filed on June 13, 2025. Claims 1-6 and 8-15 are currently pending. Any citations below referring to the claims of the instant application are directed to the marked up copy, filed November 19, 2025. This action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 19, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: In each of Fig. 1-3, an additional injector appears to have been added to the left end of the second set of injectors 16. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 11, it is suggested the amend the phrase “one injector set of the plurality of injector sets treats a single tray” to --one injector set of the plurality of injector sets is configured to treat a single tray-- to further clarify the scope of the claims.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4, lines 2-4 recites “wherein: at least one injector set…is configured to have a first operating mode and a second operating mode”, wherein the first operating mode comprises the at least one injector set being configured to treat only the first group of eggs in a tray, and wherein the second operating mode comprises the at least one injector set being configured to treat both the first and second groups of eggs in two injection cycles. It is unclear how such a configuration is achievable, given the scope established by claim 1, upon which claim 4 is dependent. Claim 1, lines 3-6, recites “a first injector set…for injecting a first fluid substance into a first group of eggs” and “a second injector set…for injecting a second fluid substance into a second group of eggs”. Thus, based on claim 1, each injector set appears to only be configured to inject a single substance into a single group of eggs. The limitations of claim 4 requiring a second operating mode with at least one injector set to inject multiple groups of eggs appears contradictory, and the scope of the claim appears indefinite.
Claim 4, line 14, recites the limitation “under the injectors of said at least one injector set”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “injectors” in the claims. Although claims 1 and 4 each refer to “injector sets” throughout, individual “injectors” are not introduced. For at least these reasons, it is unclear how the second group of eggs should be positioned relative to the at least one injector set, and the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phelps et al. (US 2016/0050891 A1), hereinafter Phelps, in view of Correa et al. (US 7,185,603 B2), hereinafter Correa, and Sova (US 5,359,875 A), hereinafter Sova.
Regarding claim 1, Phelps discloses a machine (shown in fig. 52) for injecting eggs placed in a plurality of trays (para [0220], station 40 is capable of injecting eggs in “commercial egg carrier devices or flats”, such as trays), said machine comprising:
a first injector set (first injection station 41) of a plurality of injector sets (injection stations 41, 42) for injecting a first fluid substance (para [0219] and [0229], injection stations “can inject a vaccine or other substance” that is “dispersed in a fluid medium”) into a first group of eggs (eggs 1’ identified as having a first characteristic) positioned in each tray (flat 7) of the plurality of trays (para [0229]),
at least a second injector set (second injection station 42) of the plurality of injector sets (injection stations 41, 42) for injecting a second fluid substance (para [0219] and [0229], injection stations “can inject a vaccine or other substance” that is “dispersed in a fluid medium”) into a second group of eggs (eggs 1’ identified as having a second characteristic) positioned in each tray (tray 7) of the plurality of trays, said second group of eggs being different from said first group of eggs (para [0229], groups of eggs 1’ based on first characteristic vs. second characteristic, e.g., male eggs vs. female eggs),
said machine also comprising a treatment line (treatment station 40) along which the plurality of injector sets are arranged (fig. 52, injection stations 41 and 42 are disposed along linear treatment station 40),
wherein said plurality of injector sets are spaced apart from one another such that one injector set of the plurality of injector sets treats a single tray of the plurality of trays at a time (fig. 52, injection stations 41 and 42 are shown spaced apart such that each treats a single flat 7 at a time),
Phelps does not appear to specifically disclose:
wherein each injector set of the plurality of injector sets is configured to simultaneously treat eggs to be injected in a corresponding egg group of a tray of the plurality of trays, said tray being stationary during the treatment of said egg group by the corresponding injector set, and
wherein said machine is also configured so that the injector sets of the plurality of injector sets treat trays of the plurality of trays placed under said injector sets synchronously.
However, Correa is in the field of egg injection machines (title; abstract) and teaches:
wherein each injector set (injection section 130) of the plurality of injector sets is configured to simultaneously treat eggs to be injected in a corresponding egg group of a tray (tray 168) of the plurality of trays (col 31, lines 21-29), said tray being stationary during the treatment of said egg group by the corresponding injector set (col 22, lines 54-64, tray 168 is held stationary during treatment by injector section 130 via retractable stop 292).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the egg injection machine with plurality of injector sets of Phelps to incorporate the teachings of each injector set being configured to simultaneously treat eggs and the tray being stationary during treatment as taught by Correa with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy and precision of injection (col 5, lines 14-21).
Additionally, Sova is in the field of production lines (title; abstract) and teaches:
wherein said machine is also configured so that the injector sets of the plurality of injector sets (workstations W) treat trays of the plurality of trays (matrices M) placed under said injector sets synchronously (abstract; col 3, lines 44-68; fig. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the egg injection machine with plurality of injection sets for injecting fluid substances into groups of eggs of Phelps to incorporate the teaching of operating the injection sets synchronously as taught by Sova with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve high production output (col 4, lines 1-13) and to streamline workflow by operating stations in time with one another to prevent backlog.
Regarding claim 2, Phelps as modified discloses the machine for the injection of eggs according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein:
each tray (from Phelps, flat 7) of the plurality of trays comprises a same number n of groups of eggs (from Phelps, eggs 1’) with n≥2 (from Phelps, para [0229], n=2: eggs 1’ having a first characteristic (e.g., male eggs) vs. eggs 1’ having a second characteristic (e.g., female eggs)), and
a number of sets of injectors (from Phelps, injection stations 41, 42) of the plurality of injector sets arranged along said treatment line (from Phelps, treatment station 40) is equal to n such that the n groups of eggs of each tray are treated in n injection cycles (from Phelps, fig. 52; para [0229], two groups of eggs 1’ are capable of being treated by two injection stations 41, 42 in two injection cycles, one cycle to inject eggs 1’ with first characteristic (e.g., male eggs) and another cycle to inject eggs 1’ with second characteristic (e.g., female eggs)).
Regarding claim 3, Phelps as modified discloses the machine for the injection of eggs according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein:
the plurality of injector sets (from Phelps, injection stations 41, 42) comprises only the first and the second injector sets arranged along said treatment line (from Phelps, treatment station 40; fig. 52), and
the first group of eggs (from Phelps, eggs 1’ having a first characteristic) of each tray (from Phelps, flat 7) of the plurality of trays moving along said treatment line is treated by the first injector set (from Phelps, first injection station 41) and then each tray of the plurality of trays is moved along the treatment line so as to position the second group of the eggs (from Phelps, eggs 1’ having a second characteristic) of each tray of the plurality of trays to be injected under the second injector set (from Phelps, second injection station 42) for treatment (from Phelps, fig. 52; para [0229]).
Regarding claim 5, Phelps as modified discloses the machine for the injection of eggs according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein said machine comprises a retractable stop (from Correa, retractable stop 292) for immobilizing or releasing a moving tray (from Correa, tray 168) of the plurality of trays moving along said treatment line (from Correa, track 150) at each injector set (from Correa, injector section 130; col 22, lines 54-64, tray 168 is held stationary during treatment by injection section 130 via retractable stop 292) of the plurality of injector sets.
Although Phelps as modified does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the retractable stop is a plurality of retractable stops, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized multiple retractable stops, with the motivation of more securely holding trays in place during treatment, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Phelps et al. (US 2016/0050891 A1), hereinafter Phelps, in view of Correa et al. (US 7,185,603 B2), hereinafter Correa, and Sova (US 5,359,875 A), hereinafter Sova, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ceva Poultry (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMRzJtRD0Ds, last visited 03/16/2026).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112 issue(s) identified above, Phelps as modified discloses the machine for the injection of eggs according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein:
at least one injector set (from Phelps, first injection station 41) of the plurality of injector sets (from Phelps, injection stations 41, 42) is configured to have a first operating mode (from Phelps, para [0229]),
the first operating mode of the at least one injector set being configured to treat only the first group of eggs (from Phelps, eggs 1’ having a first characteristic) of a tray (from Phelps, flat 7) of the plurality of trays (from Phelps, para [0229], injection station 41 is capable of treating eggs 1’ having a first characteristic), wherein said tray of the plurality of trays remains immobile during the injection of the first fluid substance in at least some of the eggs of the first group of eggs (from Correa, col 22, lines 54-64, tray 168 is held stationary during treatment by injector section 130 via retractable stop 292).
Phelps as modified does not appear to specifically disclose wherein:
the at least one injector set of the plurality of injector sets is configured to have a second operating mode,
the second operating mode of the at least one injector set being configured to treat the first and the second groups of eggs of said tray of the plurality of trays in two injection cycles, wherein during the second operating mode said tray of the plurality of trays is moved between the two injection cycles to position the second group of eggs of said tray of the plurality of trays under the injectors of said at least one injector set.
However, Ceva Poultry is in the field of egg injection machines (title; timestamp 3:51, video depicts a machine for injecting eggs) and teaches wherein:
the at least one injector set of the plurality of injector sets is configured to have a second operating mode (mode shown in timestamp 3:58-4:10),
the second operating mode of the at least one injector set being configured to treat the first and the second groups of eggs of said tray of the plurality of trays in two injection cycles (timestamp 3:58-4:10, video depicts all groups of eggs of a tray being injected in two injection cycles), wherein during the second operating mode said tray of the plurality of trays is moved between the two injection cycles to position the second group of eggs of said tray of the plurality of trays under the injectors of said at least one injector set (timestamp 3:58-4:10, video depicts an initial injection cycle injecting a first group of eggs on a tray, shifting of the tray containing the eggs, then a second injection cycle injecting a second group of eggs on the tray).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the egg injection machine with plurality of injector sets each having a first mode of operation of Phelps as modified to incorporate the teachings of the second mode of operation configured to treat first and second groups of eggs in two injection cycles as taught by Ceva Poultry with a reasonable expectation of success to increase efficiency of the machine by maximizing the number of eggs that can be injected with a smaller number of injectors.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Phelps et al. (US 2016/0050891 A1), hereinafter Phelps, in view of Correa et al. (US 7,185,603 B2), hereinafter Correa, and Sova (US 5,359,875 A), hereinafter Sova, and further in view of Schnupper et al. (US 2015/0071741 A1), hereinafter Schnupper.
Regarding claim 6, Phelps as modified discloses the machine for the injection of eggs according to claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein:
the machine is configured so that each injector of the plurality of injector sets is capable of selectively and independently taking a first distinct position and a second distinct position,
the first distinct position being a contactless position with an egg of the first or second group of eggs placed in a tray of the plurality of trays, and
the second distinct position being a contact position with said egg of the first or second group of eggs to inject the first or second fluid substance therein.
However, Schnupper is in the field of egg injection machines (title; abstract) and teaches:
the machine (egg processing apparatus 100) is configured so that each injector (injection devices 300) of the plurality of injector sets (egg processing head 200) is capable of selectively and independently taking a first distinct position (“non-contact position” para [0039]) and a second distinct position (“contact position” para [0039]),
the first distinct position being a contactless position with an egg (egg 5) of the first or second group of eggs placed in a tray (flat 20) of the plurality of trays (fig. 5; para [0039], “secure the injection devices 300 associated with non-live eggs in a non-contact position”), and
the second distinct position being a contact position with said egg of the first or second group of eggs to inject the first or second fluid substance therein (fig. 5; para [0039], “lift plate 240 lowers to a maximum range such that eggs 5 identified as live are contacted (contact position) by the injection devices 300”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the egg injection machine with plurality of injector sets of Phelps as modified to have configured injectors to selectively and independently take a first distinct position and a second distinct position as taught by Schnupper with a reasonable expectation of success to allow for more precise injection of predetermined eggs, thereby preventing injection of non-viable or necrotic eggs to prevent contamination of viable eggs (para [0005] and [0039]-[0041]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 6-10 of 14), filed November 19, 2025, regarding the rejection of at least claim(s) 1 under §103 have been fully considered, but they are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Phelps et al. (US 2016/0050891 A1) in view of Correa et al. (US 7,185,603 B2) does not teach “wherein said machine is also configured so that the injector sets of the plurality of injector sets treat trays of the plurality of trays placed under said injector sets synchronously” (Remarks, page 7 of 14). However, in the instant rejection, Sova (US 5,359,875 A) has been used to further modify Phelps in view of Correa for teaching the limitation in question, thereby rendering Applicant’s arguments against Phelps in view of Correa moot.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 10-13 of 14), filed November 19, 2025, regarding the rejection of claim(s) 6 under §103 have been fully considered, but they are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach “each injector…being capable of selectively and independently taking a first distinct position and a second distinct position”, “the first distinct position being a contactless position…”, “the second distinct position being a contact position…” (Remarks, page 10 of 14). However, in the instant rejection, Schnupper et al. (US 2015/0071741 A1) has been used to modify Phelps as modified for teaching the limitation in question, thereby rendering Applicant’s arguments against the previously cited prior art moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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 at (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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647