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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/01/2026 has been entered.
Application Status
Claims 12-30 are pending and have been examined in this application. Claims 1-11, 17 are cancelled. Claim 12 is amended, claims 13-16, 18-30 are previously presented.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 02/20/2024 and reviewed by the Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 12, 14-16, 18, 22-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20060156989 A1) to Hebrank’989 in view of (US 7261860 B1) to Vellinger, (US 6244214 B1) to Hebrank’214, and (US 20050284376 A1) to Smith.
In regards to claim 12, Hebrank’989 teaches an egg injection device comprising: a. an injection needle (Hebrank’989; 32); d. a position sensor configured to detect a final displacement of the injection needle (Hebrank’989; [0012] having a sensor which detects injection tool position); and a controller configured to i. receive a signal from the sensors and control the movement of the injector (Hebrank’989; [0045] where a controller 204 is in communication with the sensors and the injection devices in order to control their movement and injection status based on the signals from the sensors).
PNG
media_image1.png
670
262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hebrank’989 fails to teach b. a stepper motor configured to displace the injection needle;
c. a touch sensor configured to detect contact of the injection needle with an embryo in the egg;
and e. a programmable logic controller (PLC) configured to: i. receive a signal from the touch sensor if the touch sensor detects contact with the embryo, in response, to control the stepper motor to stop further displacement of the injection needle; and ii. Receive a signal from the position sensor if the touch sensor does not detect embryo contact and in response sends an operational interrupt signal to the stepper motor; and iii. control the stepper motor (Of Vellinger) to displace the injection needle upon contact of the injection needle with the embryo in the egg such that: the injection needle is positioned in the amniotic fluid; or the injection needle is positioned subcutaneously or in the musculature of the embryo.
Vellinger teaches b. a stepper motor configured to displace the injection needle (Vellinger; stepper motor 143 which drives the lead screw and drives the needle carrier 144 towards egg holder 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hebrank’989 such that it utilizes a stepper motor to drive the injection needle, such as taught by Vellinger. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a motor which can stably move the needle forward in increments so as to prevent accidental injury of an embryo within.
Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger fail to teach c. a touch sensor configured to detect contact of the injection needle with an embryo in the egg;
and e. a programmable logic controller (PLC) configured to: i. receive a signal from the touch sensor when the touch sensor detects contact with the embryo, in response, to control the stepper motor to stop further displacement of the injection needle; ii. Receive a signal from the position sensor when the touch sensor does not detect embryo contact and in response sends an operational interrupt signal to the stepper motor; and iii. control the stepper motor to displace the injection needle upon contact of the injection needle with the embryo in the egg such that: the injection needle is positioned in the amniotic fluid; or the injection needle is positioned subcutaneously or in the musculature of the embryo.
Hebrank’214 teaches c. a touch sensor configured to detect contact of the injection needle with an embryo in the egg (Hebrank’214; Col 7 lines 11-34; where the pressure sensor is a type of touch sensor which, upon contact with different elements of the interior of the egg, detects the location)
And a controller configured to:
i. receive a signal from the touch sensor when the touch sensor detects contact with the embryo, in response, to control the motor to stop further displacement of the injection needle (Hebrank’214; Col 4 lines 58-62 where the embryo itself is a compartment; Col 5 lines 48-65 where when the needle is detected to have entered a desired compartment, the motion is halted); and
ii. receive a signal from the position sensor when the touch sensor does not detect embryo contact and in response sends an operational interrupt signal to the motor (Hebrank’214; Col 5 lines 22-33; where the needle does not detect embryo contact, instead detecting allantois contact and is halted i.e. the motor is operationally interrupted and stopped from moving forward); and
iii. control the stepper motor to displace the injection needle upon contact of the injection needle with the embryo in the egg (Velligner; stepper motor 143 which drives the needle) such that: the injection needle is positioned in the amniotic fluid; or the injection needle is positioned subcutaneously or in the musculature of the embryo (Hebrank’214; Col 7 lines 43-48 where the device detects the needle is in contact with muscle before dispensing vaccine 115; claim 17 and 19 where the needle tip is positioned in amnion during the method of injection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger such that it utilizes a touch sensor on the needle to determine the preselected compartments of the egg as taught by Hebrank’214 as well as to stop or interrupt the motion of the stepper motor of Vellinger upon entry into a specific compartment, as Hebrank’989 contemplates the usage of the injector to inject the avian embryo or the interior of the egg. Being able to identify the specific compartments based on the changes in pressure would assist in automatically identifying the area in which an injection should be applied, as well as stopping the motor and forward motion of the needle upon reaching the desired compartment.
Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger and Hebrank’214 fail to teach where the controller is specifically e. a programmable logic controller (PLC).
Smith teaches e. a programmable logic controller (PLC) (Smith; Abstract, [0024], the system utilizes a PLC which receives signals from sensors and controls the injection device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger and Hebrank’214 such that the controller which receives signals from the sensors and controls the stepper motor is specifically a programmable logic controller (PLC). The motivation for utilizing a specific controller such as a PLC would be to utilize a well known type of control system which is known for its reliability, flexibility in programming, and cost-effectiveness.
In regards to claim 14, Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger, Hebrank’214, and Smith teach the egg injection device according to claim 12, further comprising a perforator, wherein the perforator is configured such that a stem of an injection needle passes through the perforator (Hebrank’989; see FIG 6 with punch 31 and injection needle 32 which passes through 31).
In regards to claim 15, Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger, Hebrank’214, and Smith teach the egg injection device according to claim 12, wherein the device is configured to inoculate a substance via the injection needle into the amniotic fluid or intramuscularly or subcutaneously in the embryo (Hebrank’989; [0008] where the injection needle extends into the interior of the egg and sometimes into the avian embryo; thereby being in the amniotic fluid as in FIG 6 or in the embryo being “intramuscular” or “subcutaneous”) (Hebrank’214; Col 7 lines 43-48 where the device detects the needle is in contact with muscle before dispensing vaccine 115; claim 17 and 19 where the needle tip is positioned in amnion during the method of injection).
In regards to claim 16, Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger, Hebrank’214, and Smith teach the egg injection device according to claim 15, wherein the device is configured to return the injection needle to its starting position after inoculation of the substance (Hebrank’989; see FIG 7 where 200 is configured to move up and down and therefore configured to return to the starting position which is upwards of the injection position which is downwards of 212).
In regards to claim 18, Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger, Hebrank’214, and Smith teach the egg injection device according to claim 12, wherein the device is configured to detect: an absence of the embryo or the egg in the niche of the incubation tray, or non-perforation of the eggshell; and to not inoculate a substance (Hebrank’989; [0053] where the device detects an absence of an egg and no injection is performed).
In regards to claim 22, Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger, Hebrank’214, and Smith teach the egg injection device according to claim 12, further comprising a wireless communicator device (Hebrank’989; wireless system [0061] to communicate between the sensors and other devices), and wherein the PLC is configured to: receive the signal from the touch sensor and the position sensor (Smith; PLC) (Hebrank’989; position sensor [0012]) (Hebrank’214; touch sensor) of each of a multitude of egg injection devices (Hebrank’989; plurality of injection devices 200 [0042]); and to control the stepper motor (Vellinger; stepper motor 143) of each of the multitude of egg injection devices (Hebrank’989; plurality of injection devices 200 [0042]).
In regards to claim 23, Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger, Hebrank’214, and Smith teach the device according to claim 12 (as best understood), further including a method of injecting a substance in an egg, the method comprising: a. inserting an injection needle into the egg (Hebrank’989; [0043] needle is injected into the egg, see FIG 6); b. continuously advancing the injection needle into the egg while controlling speed of the injection needle (Hebrank’898; [0008] high speed injection, which would be a continuous advancement at a high speed); c. detecting a presence of an embryo (Hebrank’214; Col 7 lines 11-34; where the pressure sensor is a type of touch sensor which, upon contact with different elements of the interior of the egg, detects the location) by using a programmable logic controller (PLC) (Smith; Abstract, [0024], the system utilizes a PLC which receives signals from sensors and controls the injection device), the detecting comprising detecting contact of an end of the injection needle with the embryo (Hebrank’214; Col 7 lines 11-34; where the pressure sensor is a type of touch sensor which, upon contact with different elements of the interior of the egg, detects the location; and Col 4 lines 63-65 where the sensor is at the tip of the needle), ending advancement of the injection needle (Hebrank’214; Col 2 lines 19-24 where the injection motion is stopped to control depth), and detecting the position of the embryo by the PLC (Hebrank’214; Col 3 lines 16-19 where the controller is associated with the location detectors for controlling depth of penetration); d. following detecting the presence of the embryo: i. inoculating the substance into the amniotic fluid; ii. retreating the injection needle and inoculating the substance in the amniotic fluid; or iii. advancing the injection needle into the embryo and inoculating the substance subcutaneously or in the musculature of the embryo (Hebrank’214; choosing step (iii) where the needle is advanced into the musculature of the embryo; Col 7 lines 43-48 where the device detects the needle is in contact with muscle before dispensing vaccine 115); and wherein the method is performed by using the device according to claim 12 (As best understood, the apparatus of claim 12 is required).
In regards to claim 24, Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger, Hebrank’214, and Smith teach the method according to claim 23, further comprising perforating the shell of the egg prior to entering an injection needle into the egg (Hebrank’989; [0043] punch forms an opening in the egg, and only after then the needle can move through punch 31 and into the egg).
In regards to claim 25, Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger, Hebrank’214, and Smith teach the method according to claim 23, wherein continuously advancing the injection needle in the egg while controlling the speed of the injection needle further comprises controlling displacement of the injection needle (Hebrank’989; displacement based on the movement of 200 from 212) (Hebrank’214; displacement controlled based on the area of the egg desired to inject, such as the musculature; Col 7 lines 43-48; or the amniotic fluid in claims 17, 19, 20).
In regards to claim 26, Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger, Hebrank’214, and Smith teach the method according to claim 25, wherein controlling the displacement of the injection needle comprises using a stepper motor and/or the PLC (Vellinger; stepper motor 143) (Smith; PLC [0024]).
In regards to claim 27, Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger, Hebrank’214, and Smith teach the method according to claim 23, wherein step c. further comprises optionally detecting an absence of the embryo or the egg in the niche of the incubation tray, or non-perforation of the eggshell; and not inoculating the substance (Hebrank’989; [0053] where the device detects an absence of an egg and no injection is performed).
In regards to claim 28, Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger, Hebrank’214, and Smith teach the method according to claim 23, Hebrank’989 fails to explicitly teach the step of it further comprising returning the injection needle to its starting position following inoculating the substance.
Smith explicitly teaches returning the injection needle to its starting position following inoculating the substance (Smith; Abstract, where the needle is returned to its original position after the injection of a vaccine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to explicitly have the device of Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger, Hebrank’214, and Smith return to its original position after inoculating the substance such as taught by Smith. The motivation for doing so would be to prepare the injection devices for a following set of eggs by returning them to their original position.
In regards to claim 29, Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger, Hebrank’214, and Smith teach the method according to claim 23, wherein the substance comprises a nutrient, vaccine, or nutritional vaccine (Hebrank’989; nutrients, vaccines, antibiotics [0007]).
In regards to claim 30, Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger, Hebrank’214, and Smith teach the method according to claim 23, further comprising controlling the injection needle with a stepper motor (Vellinger; stepper motor 143 which drives the lead screw and drives the needle carrier 144 towards egg holder 20).
Claim(s) 13, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 20060156989 A1) to Hebrank’989 as modified by (US 7261860 B1) to Vellinger, (US 6244214 B1) to Hebrank’214, and (US 20050284376 A1) to Smith as applied to claim 12 above, in further view of NPL OrientalMotors 2017.
In regards to claim 13, Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger, Hebrank’214, and Smith teach the egg injection device according to claim 12, but fail to explicitly teach wherein the PLC is configured to calculate the displacement of the injection needle by counting a number of electrical pulses sent to the stepper motor.
OrientalMotors teaches wherein the PLC i is configured to calculate the displacement of the injection needle by counting a number of electrical pulses sent to the stepper motor (OrientalMotors ; where the programmable controller detects position based on pulses; see “The Amount of Rotation is Proportional to the Number of Pulses”, where pulses correlate to motor speed and degree of motor rotation output).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger, Smith, and Hebrank’214 such that the PLC is configured to calculate displacement with respect to the counted number of electrical pulses sent to the motor, such as taught by OrientalMotor. Vellinger, which teaches the stepper motor, suggests OrientalMotor as a stepper motor of use, and utilizing the teachings of OrientalMotor, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to explicitly utilize the calibrated number of electrical pulses to detect positioning via the PLC, since doing so would allow a user to determine the distance traveled based on the pulses of a stepper motor.
In regards to claim 19, Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger, Hebrank’214, and Smith teach the egg injection device according to claim 12, but fail to explicitly teach it further comprising a driver for controlling the stepper motor, wherein the driver is configured to receive a signal from the PLC.
OrientaMotor teaches further comprising a driver for controlling the stepper motor, wherein the driver is configured to receive a signal from the PLC (NPL OrientalMotor; where stepper motors are driven via a driver, and see the “Types of Operation Systems” which discuss programmable controllers in communication with the driver/controller and the stepping motor).
PNG
media_image2.png
242
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
279
561
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger, Smith, and Hebrank’214 such that the stepper motor explicitly has a driver which is configured to receive signals from the PLC, such as taught by OrientalMotor. Vellinger, which teaches the stepper motor, suggests OrientalMotor as a stepper motor of use, and utilizing the teachings of OrientalMotor, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to explicitly utilize a driver as opposed to not using a driver, since a driver is ideal for controlling the signal and operation of the motor based on the signals from the programmable controller.
In regards to claim 20, Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger, Hebrank’214, Smith, and OrientalMotors teach the egg injection device according to claim 19, further comprising a wireless communicator device (Hebrank’989; wireless system [0061] to communicate between the sensors and other devices) configured to receive the signal from the PLC (Smith; which teaches the PLC), wherein the signal from the PLC is a wireless signal, and the wireless communicator device is configured to activate the driver (Hebrank’989; wireless signals) (NPL OrientalMotor; pulse signals which activate the driver and stepper motor).
In regards to claim 21, Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger, Hebrank’214, Smith, and OrientalMotors teach the egg injection device according to claim 20, wherein the driver is configured to receive the signal from the position sensor (NPL OrientalMotor; “Closed Loop Stepper Motor and Driver Package” which discusses a position sensor communicating to the driver).
PNG
media_image4.png
232
638
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the touch sensor of the instant invention is different from the pressure sensor of Hebrank’214, and argues that the touch sensor is configured to detect contact of the injection needle with an embryo without needing to penetrate the embryo, while the pressure sensor of Hebrank’214 detects pressure changes as it moves from one compartment to another.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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., the mechanism of the touch sensor and the way it is different from the pressure sensor) 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).
For instance, applicant argues that the touch sensor is structurally distinct from the pressure sensor, however there is no recitation of the structure of the touch sensor in the claims to distinguish it and its capabilities from the pressure sensor. The claim recites that the touch sensor detects contact of the injection needle with an embryo, which the pressure sensor does as evidenced in the rejection above. The pressure sensor detects contact with the embryo, and the claims as written do not exclude the interpretation of a pressure sensor.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to combine the references, including Vellinger’s stepper motor and argues that the stepper motor of Vellinger would not solve the problem of blind advancement, and argues that Vellinger would guide a person to penetrate the embryo for proper embryo fixation rather than to incrementally advance a needle to prevent embryo injury.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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 the case of Vellinger, Vellinger teaches advantageous mechanisms within the realm of art related to Hebrank’989. In Hebrank’989, the disclosure references a motor and a controller, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to seek specific types of motors and controllers in the art. Stepper motors, suggested by Vellinger, are generally known in the art for their incremental movements which would be advantageous because it contributes to the stabilization of a needle as it moves in small increments.
It is thus asserted that one of ordinary skill in the art, with the general information available to them in the art, when looking to devices and systems related to the inoculation of eggs and when presented with the references of Hebrank’989, Vellinger, Smith, and Hebrank’214 would have been motivated to make the substitutions to arrive at the claimed invention as written.
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that Vellinger would suggest penetrating the embryo for embryo fixation, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Vellinger is used to indicate that a stepper motor as a viable motor for the use of inoculation of eggs would have been contemplated by one of ordinary skill in the art, and one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the specific stepper motor in place of the general “motor” cited by Hebrank’989. Vellinger’s fixation method is not being bodily incorporated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYN T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8-6.
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 on (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.
/KATELYN T TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights