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 Objections
Claims 3, 6, 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “a single second conveyor” which was understood to be the same structure as “a second conveyor” recited in claim 1. Applicant should revise the language of claim 3 to read -such that said facility comprises only one said second conveyor- if the claim is meant to emphasize that there can not be multiple second conveyors present.
Claim 6 recites “each chute” however only a singular chute was introduced in claim 1. The Office understands there to be only a singular chute, as the majority of the disclosure only references a single chute. Applicant should revise the language to read -said chute-.
Claim 15 recites “a second container conveyed by said second conveyor under said station”. The Office understood “said station” to be directed toward “at least one spraying station” recited earlier in the claim. However claim 15 is dependent on claim 1 which recites “a plurality of processing stations”. To avoid potential confusion, Applicant should revise the language to read -under said spraying station-.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 12-15 are 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.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is unclear whether the fluid must be a vaccine or if it could be another fluid such as water without medicinal properties.
Claims 13-15 are rejected due to dependency on claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applied (US 20180343830 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Applied discloses a facility for high-speed processing of newly hatched fowl (10), said facility having an upstream end and a downstream end (Fig. 1), said facility being intended to receive, at its upstream end, first containers wherein said live newly hatched fowl are placed (first containers not required by the claim, upstream of 10 is capable of receiving containers thus teaching this limitation), characterized in that
said facility comprises at least one first linear conveyor (belt 28), which defines a conveying axis along which a plurality of processing stations (paras 32-33, lanes 27 contain spray heads 37, Fig. 4) are arranged, said first conveyor having an upstream end and a downstream end (Figs. 1,4),
at least some of said processing stations being identical so that the fowl of a single first container in motion between said upstream and downstream ends of said at least one first conveyor can receive the same processing by being shared across the various identical processing stations (para 33 discusses spray heads 37 in each lane 27),- at least each one of said identical processing stations (lane 27) comprising a chute (angled belt 30, Figs. 1,2,7) for conveying fowl thus processed from said corresponding processing stations to second containers (container 48),
said facility comprising stationary supports (S, annotate Fig. below) for supporting said second containers (48), which are arranged below said corresponding first conveyor (28), said supports also being placed level with or substantially level with a second conveyor (belt 49) located under said corresponding first conveyor (28), so that each second container (48) can be moved, when it is full, from its stationary support to said second conveyor in order to be discharged (Containers 48 could be moved from support S to meet this limitation).
PNG
media_image1.png
463
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2: Applied discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses at least two first conveyors (belt 28, Fig. 5) arranged parallel to one another (Fig. 5 shows multiple parallel belts 28).
Regarding claim 3: Applied discloses the limitations of claim 2 as shown above, and further discloses said first conveyors (28) are spaced apart by a distance (created by dividers 26, para 37, also seen in Fig. 5) such that said facility comprises a single second conveyor (49) located under said first conveyors (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4: Applied discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses the upstream end of said facility is intended to receive first containers (first containers not positively recited, this intention is thus met) comprising newly hatched fowl and debris to be sorted resulting from the hatching in order to allow the manual separation of these fowl and this debris (para 31 discusses a first conveyor 14 at the upstream end of the facility and a chick/shell separator 12, capable of meeting this limitation).
Regarding claim 5: Applied discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses each of the identical processing stations (lanes 27) comprises a device (spray heads 37) for injecting at least one veterinary product into fowl and other similar birds (para 54, “For example, it may be desired to deliver a first substance or vaccine to the chicks as they travel along the sixth conveyor belt 28”).
Regarding claim 7: Applied discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses means for conveying empty second containers to supply each of the identical processing stations (belts 22, 24, 28, 30 are conveyors which could be used to convey empty containers 48, thus meeting this limitation).
Regarding claim 8: Applied discloses the limitations of claim 7 as shown above, and further discloses said conveying means consist of a linear inclined roller conveyor (angled belt 30, Fig. 7), which makes it possible to slide second empty containers along its movement axis by gravity (this limitation would be possible).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applied as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koiwai (JP H06245662 A).
Regarding claim 6: Applied discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Applied fails to teach said chute has an open upper end and a lower end shaped to define an intake with a gentle slope opening onto a second container placed on its stationary support.
However, Koiwai teaches said chute (chute 20) has an open upper end and a lower end shaped to define an intake with a gentle slope opening onto a second container (container 16) placed on its stationary support (Figs. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the chute as disclosed by Applied with the transportation to a second container as taught by Koiwai with a reasonable expectation of success because the method of using a chute to transport the chick to the container would decrease the likelihood that the animal is hurt as a result of a steep drop.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applied as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu (CN 110663584 A).
Regarding claim 9: Applied discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Applied fails to teach said at least one first conveyor which conveys the fowl has a constant conveying speed of between 10 and 20 m/min based on the desired rate.
However, Lu teaches said at least one first conveyor which conveys the fowl has a constant conveying speed of between 10 and 20 m/min based on the desired rate (page 9 of translated NPL attached discusses a conveying speed of 10 m/min).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the conveyor as disclosed by Applied with the conveyor speed as taught by Lu with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a slow constant speed would allow for the operators to determine whether the chicks are being processed in the desired manner. Another benefit would be that the speed would result in a greater amount of stability for the conveyor mechanism.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applied as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lepek (US 20220053743 A1).
Regarding claim 10: Applied discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Applied fails to teach a device for detecting the filling of the container, which transmits measurement signals that are processed by a processing unit, said processing unit connected to an alarm device to transmit an end-of-filling signal and/or to move an end-of-travel flap placed at the end of the chute, the movement of said flap allowing said chute to send a fowl sliding along the latter to a different second container.
However, Lepek teaches a device (counting device) for detecting the filling of the container, which transmits measurement signals that are processed by a processing unit, said processing unit (controller 40) being connected to an alarm device to transmit an end-of-filling signal (para 126, “The controller may obtain readings from a counting device, to get an idea of how full the container is, or may receive a trigger signal, say associated with lapsed time for filing a single container, or a number of pupae in the container may be sensed to have reached a pre-defined value.”)( and/or to move an end-of-travel flap placed at the end of the chute, the movement of said flap allowing said chute to send a fowl sliding along the latter to a different second container (Limitations of this claim do not require the movement of the flap if a signal is provided, Lepek’s signal therefore reads upon this claim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the container as disclosed by Applied with the trigger signal as taught by Lepek with a reasonable expectation of success because such signal could assist the operators in determining when the container is ready to be dispatched therefore optimizing the speed at which the facility is operating. Another benefit would be that this signal decreases the probability that animals are harmed as a result of overcrowding.
Regarding claim 11: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 10 as shown above.
Applied as modified by Lepek discloses the claimed invention except for said processing unit sends a signal and/or pivots an end- of-travel flap when the filling of said container reaches at least 90%, and better still at least 95% of its maximum capacity. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the trigger signal set to a pre-defined value of 90% of the container’s maximum capacity, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Providing this pre-defined value as a condition for the trigger signal would achieve the predictable result of having a majority of the container filled with animals thus optimizing the conveyor processing system, while at the same time decreasing the opportunity for overcrowding to occur within the container and thus decreasing the probability an animal is injured.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art not relied upon are within applicant’s related field of handling or conveyor systems for fowls/chickens.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 EST.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/EDGAR REYES/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights