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 1, and 3-6, and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Each claim must begin with a capital letter and end with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See MPEP 608.01(m)
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. This is not an all-inclusive list and applicant must review all claims for clarity.
In claims 1, 4, and 6, Applicant consistently refers to different parts as “it”. This renders the claims indefinite, as it is often unclear exactly which part is being referred to. For example, Claim 6 states: “When the sensor (16A) identifies that the section separated by flap (13A) is empty, it sends an electrical signal to the Programmable Logic Controller (PLC).” In this limitation, it is unclear what is sending the electrical signal to the PLC. In another example, Claim 1 Page 2 states: “It is fixed by one edge to a metal shaft (13E) (13G).” It is unclear what is fixed by one edge, thus rendering the claims indefinite.
In Claims 1 and 6 there are numerous instances of insufficient antecedent basis for different parts, thus rendering the claims indefinite. For example, claim 1 page 1 recites the limitation “a small lever arm (14C) that is connected to the rod of a pneumatic actuator.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the rod.” In another example, claim 1 states “in front of the entrance to the first buffer compartment (13).” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the entrance” and “the first buffer compartment.” New parts should be introduced using “a”. For example “a first buffer compartment comprising an entrance.”
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 use several phrases that render the claims indefinite, as it is unclear whether the limitations are required or not. Examples of this language include: “an option” “in this arrangement” “could include” “preferably” and “may be.” Phrases such as these, make it unclear what the scope of the claim is, and whether these limitations are optional or required.
In claim 1, page 3, “The birds (P) are delivered into the head (2) through the top (the opposite side to the hatch (2B)).” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the language in the parenthesis is necessarily required by the claimed invention, and how it further limits the scope of the claimed invention.
In Claim 1, Applicant introduces “the flap (14)” on page 1. Applicant later introduces “Flaps (13A)(13B)”. It is often unclear which flaps are being referred to throughout the claim, thus rendering the claim indefinite. The Office recommends changing the name of the flaps in the buffer mechanism (13A)(13B) to doors, in order to prevent confusion.
In Claim 1, Applicant introduces three conveyor belts (11)(12)(13). Applicant then proceeds to interchangeably use the word “conveyor” when referring to one of the three conveyors, for example “which is fixed to the opposite side of the conveyor belt” or “The flap is positioned at the side of the fast conveyor belt.” It is often unclear which conveyor belt is being referred to. The Office recommends consistently using “the first conveyor” “the second conveyor” and “the third conveyor” throughout the claims.
Claim 3 states “an inclined conveyor or another means, before step a), to transport the birds.” However, claim 3 depends from claim 1 which is an apparatus claim that does not have any steps, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mizrach et al. (US 2022/0132811) teaches a similar system and method for sexing chicks with multiple conveyors (105, 106, 108, 117). The conveyors move the chicks to a sorting unit (sorting unit 103; Figures 1 and 3) where the chick is placed into a container (112). The container is moved up and down between a first vertical position (119b) and a second, lower vertical position (119a) in order to cause the chick to spread its wings (Figures 3; Paragraphs [0063]-[0064]; Claims 1 and 25). During this movement a camera (122) photographs the chick and sends the images to a controller, where the controller can determine the sex of the chick (Paragraph [0065]). The container is then sent to the segregating unit (104) where the chick is sorted into one of three categories (Paragraph [0076]).
Karimpour (US 2020/0315136) teaches a similar method of sexing chick, comprising a series of conveyors (conveyors 12, 20, 34, 38, 48; Figure 2). On the angled conveyor (20), an actuator (30) changes the angle of the conveyor, in order to cause the chick to open its wings (Figure 6; Paragraph [0044]). Additionally, fans (42; Figure 6) are placed around the conveyor to blow air upwards at the chick (Paragraph [0034]). The cameras (18) then take images of the chick (Paragraph [0044]) which are sent to a processor to determine the sex of the chick (32; Paragraphs [0040] and [0045]). The chicks are then sorted by sex (Paragraph [0045]).
Boukamcha et al. (US 2024/0284877), Ninet et al. (US 2024/0099275), Donval (US 2022/0400655), and Nadreau et al. (US 2009/0000915) are considered relevant prior art as they pertain to similar systems and methods of conveying chicks through a sex sorting system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642