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
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 1-3 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 1, the claim reads in-part, “an individual egg cup collection unit in which a plurality of individual egg cups on which eggs are placed one by one are collected”. It is unclear from the formatting of the language whether the claim is saying that the eggs are placed one by one on the cup, or if the egg cup collection unit is collected one by one. It is also not entirely clear if the collection unit or the egg cups are what is being collected. The Office will interpret as best understood, but it is recommended that the Applicant reconsider the grammatical structure of this language to more clearly recite what is being claimed.
Regarding claims 2-3, each of these claims are dependent on a rejected base claim and contain the same indefinite subject matter as the rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Nanbu (JP H0923779 A) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nanbu (JP H0923779 A) in view of Mogenet et al. (US 2010/0221093 A1) hereinafter referred to as Mogenet.
** See Applicant provided translation of Nabu (IDS of 24 July 2025) for citations.
Regarding claim 1, Nanbu discloses an egg filling apparatus (figs. 1 and 3) for filling an egg tray (11; fig. 1) with eggs, the apparatus comprising:
an individual egg cup collection unit (88, 90 – belt conveyors) in which a plurality of individual egg cups (2; figs. 1-2) on which eggs (4) are placed one by one are collected (fig. 1, paragraphs 0021-0022; Cups 2 have eggs placed on them one by one as seen in fig. 1 and then the cups 2 are collected on belt 90);
a filling location information acquisition unit (5, 22, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40) that acquires information on a location where an egg is to be placed in the egg tray (paragraphs 0025-0029, 0031 – Eggs are sorted based on weight information that determines which groups the eggs are sorted into and made available for transfer. This results in similar weighted eggs being placed on the same tray 11. As such, this information is used to determine where the egg is placed via the transfer mechanism 94 on a tray by ensuring that the egg is only placed on a tray designated for that weight of egg.);
an egg transfer mechanism (94) that transfers (paragraphs 0021-0023) an egg from an individual egg cup in the individual egg cup collection unit (88, 90) to the egg tray (11) based on filling location information acquired by the filling location information acquisition unit (paragraphs 0031-0033 - Eggs are sorted based on weight information that determines which groups the eggs are sorted into and made available for transfer. This results in similar weighted eggs being placed on the same tray 11. As such, this information is used to determine where the egg is placed via the transfer mechanism 94 on a tray by ensuring that the egg is only placed on a tray designated for that weight of egg); and
an individual egg cup removing mechanism (90, 91, 92; alternatively just 91 and 92) that removes an empty individual egg cup from the individual egg cup collection unit (paragraphs 0021-0022, 0032).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that Nanbu fails to disclose the egg transfer mechanism (94) transfer of the egg to the tray is based on filling location information acquired by the filling location information acquisition unit, the Office alternatively points to Mogenet.
Mogenet teaches a filling location information acquisition unit (paragraph 0022 – “the detection means are in the form of a gantry fitted with sensors placed over a conveyor and whereunder the tray moves”; paragraph 0037 – “On its entry in the stabilizing system, the egg tray passes under a gantry designated by the general reference 4 on these figures, fitted with means for detecting the presence or absence of an egg in each cell of the tray”) that acquires information on a location where an egg is to be placed in the egg tray (2; paragraphs 0039-0043); and an egg transfer mechanism (6, 7) that transfers an egg from an individual egg cup in the individual egg cup collection unit to the egg tray based on filling location information acquired by the filling location information acquisition unit (paragraphs 0040-0047).
Given the teachings of Mogenet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Nanbu to further include the filling location information acquisition unit and have the egg transfer mechanism be guided based on the information acquired by this unit. Doing so would help to ensure the presence of eggs at the appropriate location. Doing so would ensure that the transferring mechanism moved the appropriate amount of eggs and that no eggs became misplaced during conveying.
Regarding claim 2, Nanbu discloses wherein the individual egg cup removing mechanism (90, 91, 92; alternatively just 91 and 92) removes an empty individual egg cup from the individual egg cup collection unit during an egg transfer operation by the egg transfer mechanism (paragraphs 0021-0022 – “The gate 91 abuts on the protector 2 conveyed by the belt conveyor 90 at the rising position to generate a slip between the protector 2 and the belt conveyor 90 to prevent the movement of the protector 2 in the D direction, and allows the movement of only the protector 2 from which the egg 4 is removed by the lifting device 94…”; paragraph 0032 – “the remaining five eggs 4 are lifted by the lifting device 94 and placed in the remaining accommodating seats of the packaging container 11, while the remaining five protectors 2 from which the eggs 4 have been removed are discharged from the belt conveyor 90”).
Regarding claim 3, Nanbu discloses an individual egg cup replenishing mechanism (#3, 6-9, 31-35; paragraphs 0015-0019, 0021-0022, 0027-0028, 0031) that replenishes the individual egg cup collection unit with an individual egg cup on which an egg is placed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited. The art not relied upon generally pertains to packaging machines that group and identify objects to be packaged.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11a-7p.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/ANDREW M TECCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731