DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are: (means for obtaining; means for determining; means for returning) in claim 1; (means for obtaining) in claim 2; (irradiation means; imaging means; means for generating; means for sexing) in claim 3; (light detection means; spectrum obtaining means; sexing means) in claim 5; (a communication step; step of obtaining; step of determining; step of returning) in claim 6; (step of obtaining) in claim 7; (irradiation step; imaging step; step of generating step of sexing) in claim 8; (light detection step; spectrum obtaining step; sexing step) in claim 10.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
(1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
(2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1 and 6 are each focused to a statutory category namely “system” or “machine”.
Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two: Independent Claims 1 and 6 recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely: “applying, communication means for communicating with terminals of a group of corporations and sole proprietors involved in production, distribution, and selling of a hen egg”; “applying, means for obtaining information on operations of the corporations and sole proprietors from the respective terminals, the operations having been performed for the hen egg in compliance with a predetermined animal welfare regulation and managing the information on the operations”; “applying, means for determining that management complying with the animal welfare regulation has been performed for the selling of the hen egg by verifying the information on the operations, and issuing a certificate according to a result of the determination on the hen egg”; “applying, means for returning a proportion of money collected as a result of selling the hen egg with the certificate to each of the corporations and sole proprietors that have performed the management complying with the animal welfare regulation, the proportion corresponding to a degree of contribution to the management.”.
The claims recite the abstract idea of operations having been performed for the hen egg in compliance with a predetermined animal welfare regulation and managing the information on the operations. The content of the claimed invention pertains to continuous management complying with the animal welfare regulation, the proportion corresponding to a degree of contribution to the management.
To perform the claim invention, the steps implemented are consisting of production, distribution, and selling of a hen egg.
Accordingly, these claims fall under categories for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as well as commercial interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or mental processes.
Therefore, the abstract idea of these claims are grouped under certain methods of organizing human activities categories; determining that management complying with the animal welfare regulation has been performed for the selling of the hen egg by verifying the information on the operations, and issuing a certificate according to a result of the determination on the hen egg.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole describe how to generally “apply” the concept of determining that management complying with the animal welfare regulation has been performed for the selling of the hen egg by verifying the information on the operations, and issuing a certificate according to a result of the determination on the hen egg.
Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed as certain methods of organizing human activities for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as well as commercial interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Dependent Claims 2 and 7:
The additional limitations of the claimed invention merely narrow the previous recited abstract idea limitations and are further directed to additional abstract ideas such as method of organizing human activities, as described in Claims 2 and 7.
For the reasons described above with respect to Claims 2 and 7, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claims 1-2 and 6-7 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “applying, communication means for communicating with terminals of a group of corporations and sole proprietors involved in production, distribution, and selling of a hen egg”; “applying, means for obtaining information on operations of the corporations and sole proprietors from the respective terminals, the operations having been performed for the hen egg in compliance with a predetermined animal welfare regulation and managing the information on the operations”; “applying, means for determining that management complying with the animal welfare regulation has been performed for the selling of the hen egg by verifying the information on the operations, and issuing a certificate according to a result of the determination on the hen egg”; “applying, means for returning a proportion of money collected as a result of selling the hen egg with the certificate to each of the corporations and sole proprietors that have performed the management complying with the animal welfare regulation, the proportion corresponding to a degree of contribution to the management.”, etc... in Independent Claims 1 and 6 are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception to organizing human activities categories; determining that management complying with the animal welfare regulation has been performed for the selling of the hen egg by verifying the information on the operations, and issuing a certificate according to a result of the determination on the hen egg (see MPEP §2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Furthermore, Dependent Claims 2 and 7 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception.
Finally, the Examiner assesses that the contents of the claimed invention encompass a limited Field of Use and Technological Environment (see MPEP §2106.05(h)). More specifically, the steps of the claimed invention involve organizing human activities categories; determining that management complying with the animal welfare regulation has been performed for the selling of the hen egg by verifying the information on the operations, and issuing a certificate according to a result of the determination on the hen egg. This requirement merely limits the claims on the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer (see FairWarning, IP, LLC. V. latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 104-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest applied Prior Art of record fails to disclose or reasonably suggest wherein irradiation means for irradiating each of hen eggs within a predetermined period of time from start of incubation with light having a predetermined wavelength; imaging means for imaging each of the irradiated hen eggs; means for generating a sexing model using, as training data, a result of separately sexing the hen eggs and image data obtained by the imaging of the hen eggs; and means for sexing a new target hen egg by inputting an image data obtained for the target hen egg by the irradiation means and the imaging means into the sexing model.
Prior Art of record
The Prior Art which are pertinent to Applicant’s invention but were not relied upon:
Seguin et al. (USPAP 2025/0287,490), recites, “Lighting is also used in livestock rearing. Just like humans, many animals have internal biological clocks that regulate their physiological processes. Appropriate lighting generally helps synchronizing these circadian rhythms, promoting regular patterns of activity, rest, and feeding behavior. Consistent lighting schedules can improve animal welfare and reduce stress. Lighting influences the growth and development of animals by affecting hormone production and metabolic processes. For example, providing supplemental lighting to poultry can stimulate egg production and promote growth, leading to increased productivity in egg-laying hens and broilers.”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR ALAVI whose telephone number is (571)272-7386. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:00-4:30.
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, Vu Le can be reached at (571)272-7332. 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.
/AMIR ALAVI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668 Friday, January 9, 2026