DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE under 37 CFR 1.114), the Response, and Amendment filed 03/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following rejections by virtue of the amendment or cancellation of the claims: (1) the objection to claim 253 has been withdrawn; (2) the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection of claim 400 has been withdrawn; and (3) the 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) rejections of claims 393-401 over Leo have been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 253, 368, 393-397, 402-406, 408, 410-419, 457-497
Withdrawn claims: 402-406, 408, 410-419, 457-497
Previously cancelled claims: 1-252, 254-367, 369-392
Newly cancelled claims: 398-401, 407, 409, 420-456
Amended claims: 253, 368, 393-394, 397
New claims: 457-497
Claims currently under consideration: 253, 368, 393-397
Currently rejected claims: 253, 368, 393-397
Allowed claims: None
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/14/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 457-497 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 457-460 and 466-467 are directed to non-elected Species C (i.e., method wherein the feedstock is a particular substance).
Claims 461-465, 472-477, and 497 are directed to non-elected Species K (i.e., methods involving characteristics and further treatment of the extracted insect lipid).
Claims 468-471 are directed to non-elected Species G (i.e., methods of growing insects in an enclosure with flowing air).
Claims 478-484 and 493 are directed to non-elected Species Q (i.e., method comprising treatment of lipid-depleted insect and/or extracted insect lipid).
Claims 485-486, 492, 494, and 496 are directed to non-elected Species B (i.e., methods of processing the separated insects).
Claims 487-491 are directed to non-elected Species I (i.e., method of separating insects, feedstock, and waste by sifting).
Claim 495 is directed to non-elected Species J (i.e., method of separating insects, feedstock, and waste by cyclone).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 457-497 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Furthermore, in the Final Action filed 11/14/2025, claims 402-406, 408, and 410-419 were identified as being directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 402-406 are directed to non-elected Species O (i.e., method comprising tracking data and transporting insects).
Claims 408 and 410-419 are directed to non-elected Species B (i.e., methods of processing the separated insects).
Therefore, claims 402-406, 408, and 410-419 were identified as being withdrawn claims in the Final Action filed 11/14/2025 and are still considered to be withdrawn claims. These claims should have the claim status identifier of “Withdrawn” or “Withdrawn- Currently Amended” instead of “Previously Presented” or “Currently Amended”.
Claim Objections
Claim 394 is objected to because “separated insects separated insects” should be read as “separated insects”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 397 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claim 397 recites the limitation "the separated breeding material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of this examination, claim 397 is considered to depend from claim 396.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 253 and 368 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Araneda (US 2012/0123141; previously cited).
Regarding claim 253, Araneda teaches a method comprising the steps of: (a) providing a feedstock/breeding substrate (corresponding to substrates such as manure, organic residue, organic detritus, biotreatment of urban runoff, wheat bran, vegetable scraps, and a mixture thereof); and (b) supplying the feedstock to insects wherein the insects eat the feedstock; and (c) growing the insects in a mixture of the insects and the feedstock [0019], [0028]. Araneda teaches that the larvae or pupae are gathered from the feedstock/breeding substrate [0019]-[0020], [0028], thereby disclosing step (d) of separating the insects from the mixture to produce an insect-depleted mixture and separated insects, wherein the insect-depleted mixture comprises the feedstock and a reduced amount of insects relative to the mixture; and wherein the separated insects comprise a reduced amount of the feedstock and the waste relative to the mixture. Insects are living organisms and thus, contain protein and lipids so that the separated insects in step (d) comprise lipids and protein as presently claimed. Araneda teaches that the method then comprises the step of: (e) processing the separated insects by euthanizing (corresponding to storing the collected material under freezing conditions), freezing, cooling, drying, and grinding the separated insects to produce processed insects [0020]. Araneda teaches that the method then comprises the step of: (f) extracting the lipid from the processed insects to produce the extracted insect lipid and the lipid-depleted insects, wherein the lipid-depleted insects have a reduced amount of the lipid relative to the processed insects; and wherein the extracted insect lipid comprises a reduced amount of the protein relative to the processed insects [0020].
Regarding claim 368, Araneda teaches the invention as described above in claim 253, including the method comprises breeding at least a portion of the insects to produce a source of insect eggs; and incubating and hatching the insect eggs to produce hatched insects, wherein the hatched insects are provided as the source of insects in step (b) [0018]-[0019].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 393-397 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araneda (US 2012/0123141; previously cited) as applied to claim 368 above, in view of Pastor (Pastor et al., “Introducing improvements in the mass rearing of the housefly: biological, morphometric and genetic characterization of laboratory strains”, 2014, Bulleting of Entomological Research, 104, pages 486-493).
Regarding claim 393, Araneda teaches the invention as described above in claim 368, including insects product the source of insect eggs [0018]-[0019]. Araneda also teaches that the insects from which the lipids are extracted come from an established fly breeding system; and that such breeding systems are known in the art [0020], [0028].
Araneda does not disclose that at least a portion of the separated insects are the source of the insect eggs.
However, Pastor teaches an insect breeding system (corresponding to laboratory colony) which was established by separating insects from breeding material/feedstock (corresponding to pig manure) and dividing the collected insects into separate cages, wherein the insects produced eggs (page 487, 2nd column, 1st-2nd, 4th paragraphs). Therefore, Pastor teaches that insects separated from feedstock may be used as the source of insect eggs.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Araneda to include having at least a portion of the separated insects produce insect eggs as taught by Pastor. Since Araneda teaches that the insects from which lipids are extracted come from an established fly breeding system and teaches that such breeding systems are known in the art [0020], [0028], but does not disclose specific features of a breeding system, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Pastor in order to determine features of a suitable breeding system, thereby rendering the claimed production of eggs from at least a portion of separated insects obvious.
Regarding claim 394, modified Araneda teaches the invention as described above in claim 393, including providing breeding material to insects to lay eggs into; incubating the insect eggs within the breeding material; hatching the insect eggs from the breeding material to produce the hatched insects; and providing the hatched insects as the source of insects in step (b) (Araneda [0018]-[0019]), wherein the eggs are provided by the at least a portion of the separated insects (Pastor, page 487, 2nd column, 1st-2nd, 4th paragraphs).
Regarding claim 395, modified Araneda teaches the invention as described above in claim 394, including that the breeding insects are supplied and provided a breeding material comprising animal waste (corresponding to manure or feces), agricultural residue, paper, and industrial waste (the last two components correspond to vegetable/animal flours and vegetable scraps and leftovers from meat processing plants) to lay the eggs into (Araneda [0019], [0028]; Pastor, page 487, 2nd column, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claims 396 and 397, modified Araneda teaches the invention as described above in claim 394, including that the hatched larvae or pupae are gathered from the breeding material; and that the insects are divided into cages and may be provided as a source of insects in step (b) (Araneda [0019]-[0020]; Pastor, page 487, 2nd column , 2nd paragraph). The separation of the insects from the breeding material provides separated breeding material as recited in present claim 396. Pastor discloses that the breeding material may be removed from the cages and replaced everyday (page 487, 2nd column 3rd paragraph), but does not specify as to whether the breeding material is the same breeding material that was removed or that the breeding material is new breeding material. However, both the use of new breeding material and the use of at least a portion of old breeding material is known in the art of insect breeding colonies. Therefore, the claimed usage of at least a portion of the separated breeding material as recited in present claim 397 is rendered obvious, especially in light of no assertion of unexpected results attributed to such a method step.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections: Applicant amended claim 253 to fully address the objection. Therefore, the objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of claims 397 and 400: Applicant canceled claim 400; therefore, the rejection of claim 400 is withdrawn. Applicant did not amend claim 397 to address the rejection; therefore, its rejection is maintained as written herein.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) of claims 253, 368, and 393-401 over Leo: Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered and are considered to overcome the anticipation rejections of claims 393-397 over Leo. Claims 253 and 368 are currently rejected as being anticipated by Araneda.
Applicant cancelled claims 398-401. Applicant amended claim 253 to remove the limitation regarding the insects comprise one or more selected from the group consisting of Orthoptera order of insects, beetles, mealworms, cockroaches, Tenebrio molitor, and Hermetia illucens, thereby changing the effective filing date of the claims so that Leo no longer serves as prior art (Applicant’s Remarks, page 2, section II).
Applicant’s amendments overcome the anticipation rejections over Leo. However, in the new grounds of rejection, claims 253 and 368 are shown to be anticipated by Araneda and claims 393-397 are shown to be rendered obvious by the combination of Araneda and Pastor. Therefore, the rejections stand as written herein. The rejections of claims 398-401 are moot due to the cancellation of the claims.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) of claim 253 over Yang: Claim 253 is no longer rejected over Yang as was written in the Final Office Action filed 11/14/2025. Claim 253 is currently rejected as being anticipated by Araneda.
Applicant’s arguments in parts B and C of section A on pages 3-4 of Applicant’s Remarks regarding obviousness rejections over Yang and the combination of Araneda and Yang are moot as such rejections were not made in the Final Office Action. Obviousness rejections over Araneda also were not made in the Final Office Action. Arguments against Araneda alone will be addressed since now Araneda serves as prior art for the current anticipation rejections of claims 253 and 368; and serves as a primary reference in combination with Pastor in the current obviousness rejections of claims 393-397.
Applicant argued that Araneda does not disclose or suggest growing insects in a mixture of insects and feedstock; and separating feedstock from that mixture to produce separated insects prior to processing and lipid extraction (Applicant’s Remarks, page 3, section III.A.)
However, Araneda discloses a method comprising the steps of: (a) providing a feedstock/breeding substrate (corresponding to substrates such as manure, organic residue, organic detritus, biotreatment of urban runoff, wheat bran, vegetable scraps, and a mixture thereof); and (b) supplying the feedstock to insects wherein the insects eat the feedstock, thereby creating a mixture of insects and feedstock; and (c) growing the insects in the mixture of the insects and the feedstock [0019], [0028]. Araneda teaches that the larvae or pupae are gathered from the feedstock/breeding substrate prior to processing and lipid extract [0020], [0028]. As such, Araneda teaches growing insects in a mixture of insects and feedstock; and separating feedstock from that mixture to produce separated insects prior to processing and lipid extraction. Since the prior art has been shown to teach growing insects in a mixture of insects and feedstock; and separating feedstock from that mixture to produce separated insects prior to processing and lipid extraction, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections of the claims stand as written herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly Kershaw whose telephone number is (571)272-2847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/KELLY P KERSHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1791