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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/24/2026 has been entered.
Non-compliance and Status of the Claims
Receipt of Remarks/Amendments filed on 01/24/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-80, 82-91, 93-96, 98, 100-103, and 115 are cancelled. Claims 81, 92, 99, 104, 108, 110-111, 113-114, and 116 have been amended. Claims 117-127 are new.
The reply filed on 01/24/2026 is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because of the following omission(s) or matter(s): The Examiner notes on the record that Applicant did not indicate a claim identifier for Claim 127, and therefore is non-compliant. Since the above-mentioned reply appears to be bona fide, for compact prosecution, Claim 127 will be considered new and will be examined in lieu of issuing a noncompliance.
Claims 81, 92, 97, 99, 104-114, and 116-127 are presented for examination on the merits for patentability.
Rejections not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections presently being applied to the instant application.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 03/09/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 10687551 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
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.
Claims 81, 97, 99, 105-106, 117-119, 123, and 125 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton et al. (US 2013/0319334 A1; Of record), hereinafter Newton, in view of Goettert et al. (US 2005/0279711 A1; Of record), hereinafter Goettert.
Newton discloses a system for rearing larvae using a plurality of culture trays arranged in multiple levels, each tray comprising an open-topped basin adapted to receive larvae and larval food, a feed delivery system adapted to automatically deliver larval feed to individually selected culture trays, and a water delivery system adapted to automatically deliver water to the culture trays (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 81, Newton discloses a system for automatically controlling insect rearing activities, the system comprising: a container (12) including one or more modules (16) configured with a plurality of trays (14) partitioned into sets (Fig. 1) of trays; a vacuum aspiration system with a plurality of sets of aspiration arms (Fig. 4). The culture trays have built-in larvae exits that enable mature larvae to migrate out of the culture and be transported to a centralized collection location [0040]. The number of young larvae that the tray can support after those larvae reach maturity is initially added to the tray, and the feeding rate is increased as the larvae mature, which reads on the feature of providing a source of insects [0040]. Newton describes embodiments wherein the temperature of the room in which the trays are located is maintained at a temperature of approximately 80° F to 100° F. and a relative humidity of approximately 40% to 80%, reading on the claimed controlled environment feature [0072]. The tray also comprises larval feed e.g., organic waste such as manure, restaurant waste, and brewer's grains, reading on the claimed organic matter [0045]. Newton also teaches providing automated mechanical feeding and watering that enable the larvae to be fed and watered at frequent intervals with little manual labor for large-scale larvae production [0039].
Newton does not expressly teach treating the water with activated carbon, a cation, an anion, or a membrane.
Goettert is in the field of water purification. Goettert teaches cleaning, purification, and/or sterilization of water using different processes inter alia reverse osmosis, for example, using one or more membranes to remove dissolved solids, organics, pyrogens, bacteria, as well as other bio-active elements from water [0022]. Reverse osmosis can also remove sodium, chloride, insecticides, arsenic etc. [0022]. Goettert contemplates utility of its system by egg farmers, hog farms or cattle lots or where needed for viable recycling usage; secondary water from the system could be used as cleaning or animal feed water or as irrigation on fields [0052].
One skilled in the art would know to purify water used in insect farming from insecticides, arsenic, and other agents detrimental to the growing larva. As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Goettert with Newton and use reverse osmosis water treatment using one or more membranes to remove insecticides based on the teachings of Goettert. There is an expectation that doing so would increase the survival rate of insects.
Regarding Claims 97 and 99, Newton illustrates how the walls of the building 12 in which the larvae rearing system 10 is housed can support heat exchangers 22 that recapture heat that may otherwise be lost when venting out of the building to reduce humidity; warm, moist air from within the building 12 can be vented to the atmosphere and the heat that it contains can be transferred by the heat exchangers 22 to the dry air that is brought into the building, necessarily employing condensation process, and regulating the temperature and humidity (Fig. 1; [0046], [0051], [0072]).
Regarding Claims 105-106, Newton teaches that larvae are reared in a continuous culture scheme, and young larvae can be added every few days and self-harvesting occurs on a continual basis as the mature larvae exit the trays [0040]. Newton also teaches an embodiment wherein the culture trays have no larvae exits, and once the larvae reach the desired stage of maturity, the entire contents of the trays are removed and the larvae are harvested, and the next batch of larvae are added, reading on the manual delivery system of addition of insects [0041].
Regarding Claim 117, Newton describes different embodiments of feed delivery system to supply feed (Figs. 5-12; [0054]-[0060]; Claims 1, 19-38). In one embodiment, the feeding units are positioned along the feed line to individually supply feed to selected trays [0054]. In another embodiment, a feed delivery system supply dry or somewhat wet solids to culture trays of the rearing system through open-topped feed delivery [0057]. This renders the claimed feature of the insects being in proximity to the material to support growth within the controlled environment.
Regarding Claims 118 and 119, Newton teaches larval feed includes organic waste such as manure, restaurant waste, and brewer's grains, which reds on the claimed feature of food waste, animal waste, compost etc. [0045].
Regarding Claim 123, Newton teaches brewer’s grains, which is a plant matter [0045].
Regarding Claim 125, Newton teaches the larvae rearing system including a water delivery system that comprises a plurality of water lines, and wherein the flow of water to each of the water lines is controlled with electronically-controlled valves (Fig. 2; [0047], [0052]).
Claim 92 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton in view of Goettert, and further in view of Perkins et al. (Archives of Insect Biochemistry and Physiology; Of record), hereinafter Perkins.
Newton does not teach the treated water is mixed with a mineral with the minerals recited in Claim 92.
Perkins is in a related field and investigates how dietary phosphorus affects the growth rate and population dynamics of M. sexta, and suggests the same for other larval insects (Abstract; Methods). Specifically, Perkins teaches natural and artificial diets comprising phosphorous salts of calcium and potassium (pp. 154-156). Diet phosphorus content was manipulated by varying the phosphorus salts, i.e. anions with cations, contained in the Wesson’s salt mixture (Table 1). Increased dietary phosphorus significantly increased growth rates and body phosphorus contents, and shortened the time to the final instar molt, which indicates early pupation and reducing the exposure to predation and parasitism of the caterpillars (Abstract; pp. 160-161, 165).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Perkins to Newton and add phosphorous salts of calcium and potassium in the diet of the insect, for example with varying phosphorus salt concentration in Wesson’s salt mixture. One would have been motivated to do so because Perkins have shown that increasing the dietary phosphorus significantly increased growth rates of the larva, and shortened the time to the final instar molt, which could increase the survival chances.
Claims 104, 107, 114, and 124 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton in view of Goettert, as applied to Claim 81 above, and further in view of Tibbits et al. (Controlled-environment studies. Photosynthesis and Production in a Changing Environment; Of record), hereinafter Tibbits.
The teachings of Newton and Perkins have been set forth supra.
Newton is silent on the carbon dioxide gas supplied.
Regarding Claims 104, Tibbits teaches that a number of environmental factors should be considered when developing and using controlled-environment structures, e.g. growth chambers, including temperature, lighting, humidity, and carbon dioxide (Section 5.1). Tibbits teaches that CO2 control is of significant importance in enclosed environments to monitor fluctuations and maintaining the desired level; control systems are developed around infrared gas analyzers (IRGAs) that provide continuous monitoring of CO2, which reads on the claimed sensor (Sections 5.3.4a and 5.4.4). The analyzer is connected to all chambers through a manifold and sampling system, and during the sampling period, the control system activates the release of CO2 into the sampled room or chamber, which can be uniformly regulated.
Regarding Claim 107, Tibbits teaches, when monitoring or reducing CO2 concentration, dry absorbent filters containing potassium or sodium hydroxide are used to scrub CO2 to reduce CO2 below ambient levels; a portion of the air stream of the room or chamber is diverted through the dry filter, and the amount diverted is controlled by the CO2 analyze (p. 72, Section 5.3.4).
Regarding Claim 114, Tibbits teaches that the accuracy of the CO2 control is limited by changes in atmospheric pressure, which can be monitored and corrected for pressure differences through a computer program; fluctuations can be minimized by water vapor traps, which reads on the environmental control (Section 5.3.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have employed a carbon dioxide control system according to Tibbits comprising a manifold to control the carbon dioxide concentration in the insect growing chamber of Newton in order to maintain or control the level of CO2 according to the desired/required level by the artisan. Ione would use a dry filter scrubber according to Tibbits to normalize the amount of CO2 in the air being streamed prior to analyzing. It would also be obvious to monitor the pressure and adjust the pressure using a computer program and water vapor traps to prevent drastic fluctuations in pressure which affects CO2 control.
Regarding Claim 124, Tibbits teaches automated systems that uses water pump capable of producing high pressure for cooling the air or increase vapor pressures (p. 67, R. Col., 1st paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Tibbitts with that of Newton and Goettert and use pump in delivering the treated water more efficiently to the insect chamber. Using a pump is a known technique in the art. Hence, one with ordinary skill in the art would have applied the known technique of using the pump to deliver water more effectively Applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 108 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton in view of Goettert, as applied to Claim 81 above, and further in view of Pietak et al. (Journal of KONES Powertrain and Transport; Of Record), hereinafter Pietak.
The teachings of Newton and Goettert have been set forth supra.
Regarding Claim 108, Newton does not expressly teach combusting a source of methane to generate electricity or heat, and utilizing said electricity or heat.
Pietak describes the use of methane in agriculture (Title). Pietak relays that natural gas is safe, and cheaper than propane-butane (p. 361, Section 5). Pietak teaches methane derived from biogas, which can be combusted in especially adapted boilers to produce electric energy and heat (pp. 363-365, Section 7). Pietak teaches that electricity can be produced in a generator powered by an engine fueled by biogas.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Pietak with Newton and provide heat to Newton’s system for rearing larvae using natural gas, methane derived from biogas, combusted to heat, which is an affordable source of electricity or heat for the insect chambers or trays. One would have been motivated to do so because Pietak has taught that this is a less expensive method and commonly used in agriculture. Applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 109-113, 116, and 127 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton in view of Goettert, as applied to Claim 81 above, in view of Tibbits, and further in view of Sutiarso et al. ("Design of control system for silkworm's growth chamber to improve the quality of raw-silk." (2009): 20103032422; Of record), hereinafter Sutiarso.
The teachings of Newton, Goettert, and Tibbits have been set forth supra.
Newton is silent on the computing system.
Regarding Claim 109, Tibbits teaches humidity sensors, which would necessarily have an input/output, for monitoring and control (Section 5.4.3). Tibbits recites that it is preferable to have several humidification inputs distributed around the chamber (Section 5.3.3). Tibbits expressly teaches monitoring the level of CO2, and how the readings are corrected for pressure differences through a computer program, which would necessarily have a processor and memory, and implies the means for correcting conditions (Section 5.3.4). Furthermore, Tibbits noted that guidelines for measurement and reporting of the environment of controlled environments have been developed and published by growth chamber committees, with specific details for recommended types of instruments etc. (Section 5.4).
However, in the event that Tibbits does not sufficiently render the computing system obvious, Sutiarso supports Tibbits in curing the deficiency of Newton. Sutiarso discloses the method of applying an automated control technology in the silkworm's growth rearing chamber comparing conditions between controlled and normal environment, reading on then feature of comparing setpoints (Abstract; Figs. 6-9). The method comprises (i) building rearing, (ii) developing a control system, included hardware as well as software, and (iii) growing a silkworm (Methodology). A model of the growth chamber was developed by using an "on-off" control system method comprising (i) computer programming for the control system as well as data recording, (ii) installing hardware included sensor, motor, relay, networking, and (iii) calibrating sensors, as well as validating the performance for stability, accuracy, response time, and sensitivity.
Regarding Claim 110, Sutiarso teaches programming expected conditions from the previous conditions with a required response time of 30 minutes to be in the desired condition (Section 3.6).
Regarding Claim 111, Sutiarso teaches its hardware control system to comprise a fan, lamp, and humidifier (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 112, Sutiarso teaches different signals for temperature and humidity transmitted, for example, single data point for temperature was collected every day (Figs. 2, 6- 9).
Regarding Claim 113, Sutiarso teaches its control system installed in the controlled growth chamber to comprise a humidifier, and that the control system of humidity a has a rather fast response (Fig. 2; Conclusion).
Regarding Claims 116 and 127, all the claimed elements have been taught by the prior art Newton, Goettert, Tibbits, and Sutiarso as a whole. Sutiarso clearly teaches a sensor in the growth chamber that delivers a signal to the central processing unit, which after processing the data it receives and comparing to reference value, then transmits a control signal back to adjust specific parameters (Sections 3.3 and 3.6; Conclusion).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As stated supra, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have employed a carbon dioxide control system according to Tibbits comprising a manifold to control the carbon dioxide concentration in the insect growing chamber of Newton in order to maintain or control the level of CO2 according to the desired/required level. One would also monitor the pressure, temperature, humidity of the insect rearing chamber through a computer program in accordance to guidelines developed by growth chamber committees.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the automated control technology useful for rearing chamber taught by Sutiarso to the method of Newton, and develop a control system, included hardware as well as software to grow the insects of Newton in a growth chamber with a control system with computer programming and data recording, with hardware comprising sensor, motor, relay, fan etc. for performance stability, accuracy, response time, and sensitivity. One would expect success that the response time to achieve the desired condition will be fast, and would achieve stable conditions per the teaching of Sutiarso.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 120-122 and 126 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 120 requires supplying the treated water to the material by monitoring one quality parameter of the treated water using a water quality sensor; Claim 121 requires at least 2 components in the water treatment system selected from activated carbon unit, a cation or anion material, or a membrane system; Claim 122 requires at least 3 components in the water treatment system selected from activated carbon unit, a cation or anion material, or a membrane system; Claim 126 requires storing the treated water in a water tank prior to supplying the treated water to the material. None of the references cited herewith teach these features. While other references in the art teach water tank or water quality sensor, there is no motivation to use these with the treated water system for application to insect rearing.
Response to Remarks:
Applicant argues that Goettert is not in the same field of endeavor as Applicant’s, i.e. Goettert addresses waste destruction rather than biological cultivation; that Goettert is not reasonably pertinent to the problem solved by Applicant; that Newton does not indicate presence of contaminants that would require adoption of Goettert’s reverse-osmosis system. Applicant alleges impermissible hindsight reconstruction by the Examiner.
The Examiner has considered the argument but was not persuaded. Firstly, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Secondly, instant Claims 118-119 indicate animal waste, bio-waste etc. as feedstock material, which indicates that Goettert is in fact in a related field.
Furthermore, Applicant admits that Newton automates feeding and watering but does not purify or chemically treat the water (p. 6, Section C, 1st bullet point). Goettert teaches that the secondary water from the system could be used for animal feed water, and that its system removes insecticides ([0022], [0052]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art who are raising insects to remove insecticides in the water to increase the survival rates of the insects.
Applicant argues that Newton, Goettert, Tibbits, and Sutiarso do not render Claim 116 obvious because each of these references operates in a distinct technical domain and serves a different purpose. Applicant argues that Newton only provides basic mechanical automation, and not a processor-based control architecture that measures, compares, and dynamically adjusts environmental conditions, Goettert is non-analogous art, and Tibbits and Sutiarso do not Render the claimed control system obvious because Tibbits does not teach a fully integrated feedback loop, and Sutiarso does not disclose a multi-parameter, processor-based control arrangement or stored program execution capable of coordinated adjustment of multiple conditions.
The Examiner traverses. It appears that one of Applicant’s main contention in the response is the cited rejections are drawn to a basis of obviousness with a different reason or motivation. See In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(“[T]he motivation in the prior art…does not have to be identical to that of the applicant to establish obviousness.” For example, one would use Goettert’s water system to remove insecticides in the insect rearing method taught by Newton, which does not necessarily coincide with the instant Application’s motivation, but remains a sound reasoning. Applicant is further reminded that “[i]n determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls… [A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419-20 (2007). Although it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted one of skill in the art to combine prior art elements in the way the claimed invention does, the prior art references do not have to recite a precise teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine their disclosure in order to demonstrate obviousness. Id. at 418-419. Rather, obviousness must be gauged in view of common sense and the creativity of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Id. at 420-421.
Applicant notes that Newton provides basic mechanical automation. Therefore, the claimed invention of the instant application would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention. The known work in the field of automating insect rearing would have prompted variations based on design incentives or other market forces where the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding the argument that Tibbits and Sutiarso do not render obvious the claimed control system, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Also, Sutiarso in fact discloses a multi-parameter, processor-based control arrangement or stored program execution capable of coordinated adjustment of multiple conditions by teaching a control system with computer programming with data recording, a hardware included sensor, motor, relay, networking, and calibrating sensors (p. 2).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE Y SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2038. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10-6 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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on (571) 270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.Y.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights