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 1-9 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.
Regarding claims 1-3, 9, “said hole” and “said through hole” lacks proper antecedent basis as it is unclear how many holes are intended. Consistent terminology is recommended.
The other claims are indefinite based on their dependencies.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hebrank et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2009/0091742).
Regarding claims 1, 2, Hebrank et al. disclose (Figs. 4-6) an optically accessible system for studies on embryonated eggs characterized in that it comprises a disc (112) having a concave inner surface (130) to reflect the profile of an egg; said disc comprises a central through hole (hole for 122); said hole is closed by a transparent plate (124) to make said system optically accessible; said through hole. The language “is adapted to be placed alongside the respiratory membrane of an embryonated egg from which, in the portion where said system is to be made optically accessible, the shell has been partially removed” is intended use as such a structured device may act on any type of egg or state of egg. That is, the language does not serve to further structurally limit the invention. As seen in Figs. 4 and 5 a first edge of the disc is circular and coaxial with the hole as claimed.
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebrank et al. in view of Meter (U.S. PGPUB 2021/0072211).
Regarding claim 9, Hebrank et al. disclose the invention as set forth above. The through hole of Hebrank et al is placed alongside a respiratory membrane (membrane is along the entire interior of egg) of embryonated egg (see embryo in Figures). Hebrank et al. do not disclose a method of removing at least a portion of shell from an egg. Meter teaches ([0014]) removing egg shell to improve detection. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the invention to remove egg shell in the apparatus and method of Hebrank et al. Meter to improve detection as taught, known and predictable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable once the 112 rejections are overcome and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH LUU whose telephone number is (571)272-2441. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5:30PM.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/THANH LUU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights