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 .
Application Status
Claims 12-30 are pending and have been examined in this application. Claims 1-11 are cancelled. Claims 12-13 and 23 are amended, claims 14-22, 24-30 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 § 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.
Claims 12-30 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 12 recites “if the touch sensor detects” … “if the touch sensor does not detect”. The term “if” in these instances are indefinite as they suggest a conditional state, making the scope of the claim unclear as to whether or not these limitations are required in the apparatus. Examiner suggests amending “if” to “when”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 14-18, 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.
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 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.
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 if 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 if 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).
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 17, Hebrank’989 as modified by Vellinger, Hebrank’214, and Smith teach the egg injection device according to claim 12, wherein the PLC is configured to control the stepper motor to displace the injection needle (Velligner; stepper motor 143 which drives the needle) (Smith; Abstract, [0024], the system utilizes a PLC which receives signals from sensors and controls the injection device) 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; 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 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 remarks filed 10/10/2025 are acknowledged and the Final Rejection has been corrected above. The response to the arguments filed 06/13/2025 are included below.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Hebrank’989 does not teach the position sensor, and argues that “Herbank’989 merely describes a sensor that detects movement of the injection tool relative to its mounting structure with the purpose of inferring whether an egg is present in the corresponding tray pocket”, and argues that “the position sensor of the claim 12 detects a “final displacement” of the injection needle and the position sensor is only triggered if the touch sensor fails to detect embryo contact during the needle’s downward displacement.” … “the “final displacement” of the injection needle is the position reached when the needle completes its full programmed stroke without having previously triggered the touch sensor… This position corresponds to a contact between the needle support platform and the position sensor and is interpreted as a failure to detect embryo contact. Thus, the final displacement of the injection needle is achieved only in the absence of embryo in the egg”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that applicant’s argument is drawn to elements not in the claims. 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 definition of the final displacement, and what ‘final displacement’ means as it corresponds to the full programmed stroke and the contact between the needle support platform and the position 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).
As written, the claims currently require “a position sensor configured to detect a final displacement of the injection needle”. It is asserted that as written, the “final displacement” here is not defined as corresponding to any contact between structures (such as the support platform and the position sensor). “Final displacement” is a broad recitation and could be interpreted as an end displacement of a needle. Hebrank’989’s sensor, which detects injection tool position, detects a “final displacement” of the injection tool, as position would correspond to displacement. The claims as-written do not exclude the interpretation of Hebrank’929’s sensor as detecting a “final displacement” of the needle, as it has not been further defined in the claim with respect to the structures of the position sensor, support platform, or the touch sensor as described by applicant in the arguments.
Applicant argues, with respect to the touch sensor, that Hebrank’217 fails to teach the touch sensor and argues that the sensor is configured to “infer general needle depth and the sensor does not identify embryo contact” … “the sensor of claim 12 is a part of a syngergistic system of components undisclosed in the cited references” … “the sensor of Hebrank’217 does not trigger any responsive control action.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the above cited passages of Hebrank’217 in the rejection. Hebrank’217 indicates that the embryo is one of the “compartments” considered in the reference, and that upon contact with the desired compartment, advancement of the needle is halted (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). It is thus asserted that Hebrank’214 teaches a touch sensor in the form of its pressure sensor which assists in detecting the presence of the embryo as one of the many desired compartments.
Applicant argues, with respect to the PLC, that the PLC of Smith is “limited to managing vaccine flow and dosage timing” and “does not control needle movement, let alone coordinate the use of both a touch sensor and a position sensor to regulate needle displacement.” “Further, Smith’s injection mechanism seems to be pneumatic actuation, and there is no mechanism for detecting embryo contact or adjusting needle depth accordingly in the egg.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the PLC of Smith is limited to managing vaccine flow and dosage timing and seems to be pneumatic in actuation, 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).
Specifically, the rejection is to state that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the references such that the controller is specifically a PLC type controller. It is asserted that the regulation of needle displacement including the touch sensor and position sensor are taught in Hebrank’989 and Hebrank214. In this case, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a general “controller” for a “PLC controller” as claimed. See the 103 rejection above.
Applicant argues hat there would be no motivation to combine the references, and that the combination amounts to hindsight reconstruction. Applicant argues against the combination of Hebrank’989 and Vellinger, and argues that Vellinger’s stepper motor does not teach or suggest “precise control for avoiding damage to the embryo”. Applicant argues that the combination of Hebrank’989 and Hebrank’217 “merely describes assessment of the pressure difference to determine location of the needle. Hebrank’217 fails to describe detection of any contact between the needle and structure using a sensor.” Applicant also argues against the combination of Hebrank’989 and Smith, and argues that “Smith merely describes a PLC for controlling dosage and not for any component movement. Smith is silent regarding component movement coordination between the PLC, sensors, and needle.”
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 and Smith, both references teach advantageous structures 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. PLC controllers, as suggested by Smith, are generally known in the art for being a control system which is flexible with programming and cost effective. Both Vellinger and Smith suggest these specific types of motors and controllers, respectively, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use these specific devices in Hebrank’989.
In the case of Hebrank’217, Hebrank’217 explicitly discusses the usage of touch sensors to detect the particular compartments, such as the embryo. (see the response to arguments above, and the 103 rejection above).
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.
Applicant argues that there is no reasonable expectation of success, and argues that “the cited references, alone or in combination, fail to describe a unified system that achieves precise, safe, and biologically sensitive delivery of substances into fertilized eggs without injuring the embryo of claim 12. Claim 12 integrates a touch sensor, a position sensor, a stepper motor, and a PLC that continuously monitors both the position and touch sensors, in a synergistic system that stops the needle upon detecting embryo contact, ensuring safe and accurate delivery into the amniotic fluid, and prevents injection altogether when no embryo is detected” … “None of the cited references even suggests the feedback mechanism, or the control logic by which the PLC processes both touch and position signals to regulate needle movement dynamically.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is asserted that Hebrank’989, the primary reference, suggests a system by which the egg may be inoculated with substances in a manner which is considered safe for the egg. While Smith and Vellinger are introduced to teach that the controller is specifically a PLC, and that the motor is a stepper motor, Hebrank’214 discusses the ability to detect specific compartments in the eggs, including the embryo, and stopping the movement of the needle which contributes to safely and precisely delivering substances at desired locations without piercing the embryo.
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 feedback mechanism, the control logic by which the PLC processes both touch and position signals to regulate needle movement dynamically) 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). Applicant appears to argue a variety of structures and interrelated systems which are not currently present in claim 12. At present, claim 12 does not recite any limitations which overcome the current rejection as the limitations recited are broad elements which do not necessarily require the structures or functions as argued by applicant throughout the remarks. As written, these elements (the stepper motor, the touch sensor, the position sensor, and the PLC) are not limited in scope such that the current interpretation is excluded, as there are no additional structures or relationships between the cited structures that would define the positioning, the interaction, or the functionality of each one over the current rejection.
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 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