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 7 & 8 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 6.
Claims 24 & 25 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 23.
When two claims in an application are duplicates in content, they cover the exact same thing, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-27 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.
Claims 1 & 13 recite the phrase "and an optional left shank guide…" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or merely an example of further structure. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 2-12 & 14-27 fail to remedy such deficiency.
Claims 6-9, 15, & 23-25 all recite the limitation "the head of the bird" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 refers to a step of “moving the forward-facing toes on the left shank of the bird towards the head of the bird” and further details the scope of such step, which has not been established within or as a part of the method as currently recited by claim 9.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Erikson et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0313409 A1; herein Son.
Re claim 13, as best understood, Son discloses a method of positioning a claw of a rear-facing toe on a shank of a bird, the method comprising:
positioning a bird in a poultry cradle (fig. 2 & 3-5 and para 18 & 45, the poultry carrier atraumatically restrains a bird therein) in a selected position (para 56-59, within the fourth toe apparatus and process, see para 61, the upright configuration, see fig. 4) relative to a system frame (fig. 1-5 and para 44, formed from the base; 90 and post; 92), wherein a left shank of the bird is located in a left shank clamp (para 37, wherein the shank restraint of the forth toe apparatus being a clamp) and a left shank guide of the poultry cradle (70; the leg clamp apparatus);
moving a seat of the bird (50/60; the poultry carrier/torso support, fig. 1-5) away from the left shank clamp after positioning the bird in the poultry cradle (para 64, when moved from the upright configuration to the inverted configuration the bird’s thigh and subsequently the shank is extended brought further away to some degree) in the selected position relative (fig. 4) to the system frame (para 56-59, wherein the inverted configuration is the selected position); and
moving a distal end of the left shank of the bird towards the left shank clamp (para 37, when securing the clamp) while moving the seat of the bird away from the left shank clamp (para 64, when moved from the upright configuration to the inverted configuration the poultry cradle is moved away from said shank restraint via the leg restraint on the thigh).
Re claim 14, as best understood, Son discloses the invention of claim 13, Son further discloses wherein moving the seat of the bird away from the left shank clamp comprises moving the seat of the bird away from the left shank clamp by moving a seat lift (50; the torso support, fig. 1-5) from a ready position (fig. 4, the inverted configuration) to a lift position (fig. 2 & 5, the upright configuration).
Re claim 15, as best understood, Son discloses the invention of claim 13, Son further discloses wherein the method comprises moving the forward-facing toes on the left shank of the bird towards a head of the bird after moving the seat of the bird away from the left shank clamp (para 64, via the motion of moving from the upright configuration to the inverted configuration and the thigh clamp).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son as applied to claim 15 above, in further view of Gorans, U.S. Patent No. 5,195,925 A; herein Go.
Re claim 16, Son discloses the invention of claim 15, Son fails to disclose moving a toe control bar from a retracted position to a control position. However, Go discloses moving a toe control bar (62; the closure plates, fig. 3-4 & 9) from a retracted position to a control position (col 4; 63-68, wherein the retracted position is open and the control position restrains the toes within channels of their own).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose moving a toe control bar from a retracted position to a control position however, Go discloses such a restraining method. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the front toe treatment and restraining aspects taught by Go to the shield of the prior art to yield the predictable result of restraining all toes of the bird therein and supplying treatment thereto. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and but rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2-6, 9-12, 18-23 & 26-27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if all rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to the subject matter of claim 1 and similarly claim 17, the prior art of record fails to show or fairly render obvious the combined limitations of the invention specifically, the steps of moving a claw sensor to a forward position proximate the left shank of the bird after moving the distal end of the left shank of the bird towards the left shank clamp; and detecting an anatomical feature on the left shank of the bird using the claw sensor in combination with the structure of the poultry cradle set forth. As such, the examiner has come to the determination that either alone or in combination with the prior art of record it would not have been obvious to meet the overall claim without impermissible hindsight. Claims 2-6, 9-12, 18-23, & 26-27 would also be allowable for containing such subject matter.
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details of why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth. See MPEP 1302.14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent No. 4,026,289 A which discloses a sensor actuated by a bird’s positioning. The Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 106035136 A which discloses an RFID sensor for detecting the foot of a bird. The Japanese Patent No. JP 5963068 B1 which discloses a sensor for detecting abnormalities in the legs or feet of broiler chickens. The Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 108601336 A which discloses a camera system for imaging of a chick for abnormalities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm 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 J Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights