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 Request for Continued Examination filed on June 30, 2026. Claims 1 and 4 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 Claims 8-15 have been withdrawn per the Response to Election/Restriction filed on June 13, 2025.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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 30, 2026 has been entered.
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 [0227] and [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 (para [0227] and [0229]), 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 is configured to treat 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 is capable of treating 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, eggs of an egg group are treated “substantially at the same time”), 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 at least 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 mechanical conveyance in 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, line 44 – col 4, line 13; 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 steady, 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 at least 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 07/22/2026).
Regarding claim 4, Phelps as modified discloses the machine for the injection of eggs according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein:
the first 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 first 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 at least retractable stop 292).
Phelps as modified does not appear to specifically disclose wherein:
the first injector set of the plurality of injector sets is configured to have a second operating mode,
the second operating mode of the first 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 said first 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 first 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 first 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 said first 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, as applied to claim 1 above, 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 wherein:
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. 4; para [0039], injection devices 300 are raised to a retracted 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 3-4 of 8), filed June 30, 2026, regarding the rejection of at least claim(s) 1 under §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Phelps et al. (US 2016/0050891 A1), hereinafter Phelps, does not disclose the “key timing limitation” recited in the claims (Remarks, pages 3-4 of 8).
However, the Examiner respectfully asserts that the described “key timing limitation” is taught not by Phelps alone, but in modification by Correa et al. (US 7,185,603 B2), hereinafter Correa, and Sova (US 5,359,875 A), hereinafter Sova.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 4-5 of 8), filed June 30, 2026, regarding the rejection of at least claim(s) 1 under §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Correa does not disclose “multiple injector sets arranged along a line operating synchronously” (Remarks, page 4 of 8).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner notes that Correa is merely used to modify Phelps in teaching wherein an injector set is configured to simultaneously treat eggs to be injected in a corresponding egg group of a tray, said tray being stationary during the treatment of said egg group by the corresponding injector set. In sum, Correa teaches the concept of simultaneous treatment of multiple eggs and stationary positioning of a tray during treatment. Correa does not need to teach “multiple injector sets arranged along a line”, as this is already taught by Phelps, and Correa does not need to teach “operating synchronously”, as this is later taught by Sova.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 5-6 of 8), filed June 30, 2026, regarding the rejection of at least claim(s) 1 under §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Sova is “directed to stamping/forming matrices of metal workpieces in a press” and that there is no evidence that “a person skilled in the art of automated egg injection would have consulted Sova for the specific problem solved here” (Remarks, page 5 of 8). Applicant additionally asserts that “Sova’s press-stroke synchronization is not the claimed synchronization” (Remarks, page 6 of 8) and that the cited combination would not be possible without “impermissible hindsight” (Remarks, page 6 of 8).
In response to Applicant’s arguments that Sova is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Sova is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor of mechanical conveyance in production lines. Both Sova and the instant application are concerned with treating and transferring items along a line, and one having ordinary skill in the art of egg injection production lines would have looked to the art of mechanical production lines when seeking a more effective and/or efficient way to treat a plurality of items moving along a line. Furthermore, Sova is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, which is increasing throughput on a production line (see Sova, col 4, lines 1-13). One would have further been motivated to utilize the teachings of synchronous operation of Sova in order to treat more items with fewer machine movements, thereby increasing energy efficiency of the production process.
The Examiner further notes that Sova does not need to teach “multiple spaced ‘injector sets’ each immobilizing a different ‘tray’ for simultaneous fluid injection”, as “injector sets” and “trays” are previously taught by the primary reference of Phelps. The “workstations” (W) and “matrices” (M) of Sova are considered analogous to the “injector sets” and the “trays”, respectively, for the purpose of applying the teaching of synchronous operation.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Sova’s synchronization is not the same as the claimed synchronization, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., definition of “synchronization” or “synchrony”) 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). The Examiner further notes that no explicit definitions for the terms “synchronization” or “synchrony” appear to be provided in the instant disclosure; therefore, the terms are interpreted under their plain meaning.
Finally, in response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejection of at least claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phelps in view of Correa and Sova.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights