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
Status of the Claims
Receipt of Remarks/Amendments and replacement Abstract filed on 06/04/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-80, 82-91, 93-96, 98, 100-103, and 115 are cancelled. Claims 81, 92, 97, 99, 104, 107, 109-111, 113, 116-120, and 124-127 have been amended. 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Rejections not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn.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.
Modified Rejection As Necessitated by the Amendment Filed 06/04/2026
Specification
The Replacement Abstract filed 06/04/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The Abstract now refers to “A method to maintain insects” within a controlled environment, which is not supported in the original Application as filed. Applicant did not provide any explanation for the Abstract substitution, and did not point to where support could be found for the amendment. As such, Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action. If Applicant believes this rejection is in error, Applicant must disclose where in the originally filed Specification support for the entire scope of the substitute Abstract can be found.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 81, 92, 97, 99, 104-114, and 116-127 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 81 and 116 introduce new matters as the claims recite the limitation: “a method to maintain insects”, which does not appear to have support in either the instant specification and/or claims as originally filed. The limitation of: “a method to maintain insects” was not described in the Specification as filed, and a person skilled in the art would not recognize in the Applicant's disclosure a description of the invention as presently claimed. The Specification growing insects within a chamber, and maintaining the different conditions such temperature, pH etc. ([0118], [0279], [0456], [0527]; Fig. 4) and , but does not explicitly describe the instantly claimed limitation, i.e. “a method to maintain insects”, as written. Giving plain meaning to “maintain” in the absence of a definition in the disclosure, maintaining insect does not necessarily encompass breeding and mass-producing to increase population size, but rather implies keeping the population constant. As such, the scope of growing insects versus maintaining insects differ. Therefore, it is the Examiner's position that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of filing of the instant application. From MPEP 2163.06: “Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.” Applicant has not directed the Examiner to the support in the specification for the amendments. All claims depending from Claims 81 and 116 would not be interpreted as containing new matter in their own recitations, however, these claims are still rejected as they depend on the independent claims. If Applicant believes this rejection is in error, applicant must disclose where in the Specification support for the entire scope of the amendment can be found.
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 81, 92, 97, 99, 104-114, 116-117, and 120-127 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.
Claim 81 is rejected for indefiniteness for the recitation of “a method to maintain insects” because the disclosure does not provide the scope or definition to the word “maintain”, and one skilled in the art would not know what is encompassed in maintaining insects based on the disclosure. As such the metes and bounds of the claim is unclear and the claim is rejected.
Claims 81, 116, and 126 are rejected for indefiniteness for the recitation of “using a tank” and “supplied to the tank”. First, it is not known how one would use a tank to supply treated water to a material for Claims 81 and 116. Second, the Specification describes different tanks including an insect liquid mixture tank [0058], a mixing tank [0058], a feedstock tank [0247], a mineral tank [0249], a water tank [0254], an enhancer tank [0261] etc. Therefore, it is unclear as to which tank is used to supply the treated water to the material and/or the tank that the treated water is being supplied to.
Claims 81 and 116 recite “material”, “said material”, “cation material”, and “anion material”. As written, there is a question as to whether the “material” and “said material” is the same or encompass the cation and anion materials. The metes and bounds of “material” and “said material” is not known, and the claim is rejected.
Claims 92, 113, and 124-125 recite “said material”, which is indefinite. These claims depend from Claim 81 which appears to recite two or three different materials, vide supra. One skilled in the art would not know which material is being referred to by “said material” because Claim 81 refer to different materials. in Claims 92, 113, 1and 124-125.
Claims 97, 99, 104-114, 117, and 120-127, which depend from Claims 81 are also rejected.
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, 117-120, 123, and 125-126 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newton et al. (Of record), hereinafter Newton, in view of Goettert et al. (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 [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 supplying treated water using a tank and a water treatment system consisting of activated carbon, a cation, an anion, or a membrane.
Goettert is in the field of water purification. Goettert teaches using a tank, wherein cleaner water is pumped from the bottom of the tank, passed through an ultra filter system, and fed to a reverse osmosis system ([0040]-[0043]). Goettert also 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]. As such, Goettert teaches the claimed water treatment system. Additionally, Goettert teaches the claimed tank in Claim 126.
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 cleaner water such as the water pumped from a tank and passed through an ultrafiltration system taught by Goettert. Further, one would then feed the water through 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 reads on the claimed feature of food waste, animal waste, compost, organic matter etc. [0045].
Regarding Claim 120, the amended claim requires monitoring at least one quality parameter associated with the treated water using a sensor. Goettert teaches its system optionally include different sensors to monitor inter alia water temperature and undesirable elements, rendering the claim obvious.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the sensors taught by Goettert to monitor, for example, water temperature and undesirable elements to ensure the quality of the treated water is sufficient to grow insects.
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. (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 and deliver with the treated water. 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. (Of record), hereinafter Tibbits.
The teachings of Newton and Perkins have been set forth supra.
Newton is silent on the carbon dioxide.
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 adsorbent filters and activated charcoal which reads on the odor control system; the dry adsorbent filter is used to scrub CO2 (p. 72, Section 5.3.4; Fig. 5.1).
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. Because Tibbits use adsorbent filter and activated charcoal, the odor is also controlled.
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. (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. 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.
Remarks:
In the Remarks file 06/04/2026, Applicant did not indicate any traversal to the rejections in the Office Action 05/22/2026. Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the Examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed at this time.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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