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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/24/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The limitation “anchoring means” in claim 7 is interpreted as the hooks that engage by elastic deformation in opening per the specification pg 9, ln 13-14 and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,5-11,13-16 is(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.
Claim 1 recites “the thickness extending in a dimension transverse to the plurality of bars and the stem,”. However, this renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by this recitation. It is unclear how the thickness extends in a dimension traverse to the plurality of bars when the thickness is a part of the plurality of bars themselves, i.e. , i.e. the thickness extends in which direction and related to which parts of the rearing chamber?
Claims 2,5-11,13-16 are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
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) 1,2,5,6,10,13,14,15,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gema (ES 2232308 A1) in view of Hughes (US 5351643 A) in view of Selby et al. herein Selby (US 10448623 B1), and in view of Mendez et al. herein Mendez (US 20180326421 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gema discloses:
An insect rearing box comprising: (abstract and figs)
lateral walls (5)
and top (2)
and bottom covers (3)
detachably coupled with the lateral walls to configure a rearing chamber; (“Diet tray 2 is removable so you can change the tray assiduously, considerably reducing the risk of the occurrence of fungi and other contaminants in food diet tray 2 which are transmitted to the larvae L. The appearance of such fungi and other contaminants it is due to the need to maintain high humidity environmental conditions inside the breeding device 1 to promote growth of L. larvae Furthermore, the fact that the tray is removable diet 2 allows also to change a diet tray when larvae other end with food stored in the same or oral inoculation of infectious viral material. In addition, at each change of diet tray 2 it is possible to control the state and growth of larvae L.The waste tray 3 is used for receiving droppings L larvae inside the rearing unit 4. Once the tray is full of waste is convenient to switch to another empty, so that the waste tray 3 it is also fully manipulable and changeable.”)
and a plurality of bars placed inside the rearing chamber, (grids of 7)
and transversally arranged with respect to the top and bottom covers, (see transversally arranged bars of 7)
wherein the plurality of bars have top and bottom ends located adjacent respectively to the top and bottom covers respectively, (see how top and bottom ends of grid in 7 are arranged adjacent to 2 and 4)
PNG
media_image1.png
243
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and wherein the lateral walls include a first pair of opposing walls (see annotation above for opposing walls)
with ventilations windows (see windows in opposing walls that mesh 8 covers)
and two or more panels (7, “growth partitions”)
having a plurality of channels that directly communicate with the windows, (“Growth partitions have its central area formed by meshes or grids to facilitate aeration of the inside of the box and humidity control.”)
Gema doesn’t teach:
wherein the top ends or the bottom ends of the plurality of bars are free ends.
Hughes teaches:
An insect rearing device (abstract and figs)
and wherein the top ends or the bottom ends of the plurality of bars are free ends. (40, Fig 8+10, col 8 ln 3-23)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of bars of Gema to comprise the features as taught by Hughes to provide the insects an edge surface to maximize larval density (col 8 ln 53-65).
The combination of Gema and Hughes further discloses:
wherein the two or more panels are placed inside the rearing chamber, wherein the two or more panels have the plurality of bars and are parallel to each other, (panels 7 of Gema are inside of rearing chamber and are parallel to each other and modified to have the plurality of parallel bars of Hughes 40)
wherein each panel of the two or more panels has generally a planar configuration (Gema: 7 is planar)
and a stem, (Hughes: see 41)
wherein the plurality of bars extend orthogonally from the stem, (see how the plurality of bars 40 extend orthogonally from the stem 41)
The combination of Gema and Hughes doesn’t teach:
wherein the plurality of bars are flat, and the plurality of bars have a thicknesses that progressively decreases from a stem towards the free end, the thickness extending in a dimension traverse to the plurality of bars and the stem,
Selby teaches:
wherein the plurality of bars are flat, (1502, Fig 15)
and the plurality of bars thicknesses progressively decreases from a stem towards the free ends (1502, Fig 15, at least left and right bars have a thickness decreasing from stem toward free ends of the bars)
the thickness extending in a dimension traverse to the plurality of bars and the stem, (as best understood due to the 112b above, the ends of left and right bars have a thickness that extends in a traverse direction from the stem towards the ends of the bars)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of bars of Gema as modified such that they comprise the features of being flat and decreasing in thickness as taught by Selby to increase the overall surface area of the habitat (col 8, ln 58-60). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
The combination of Gema, Hughes, and Selby doesn’t disclose:
and wherein the stem runs transversally to the plurality of bars joining them at a middle area of each panel and wherein the top and bottom ends of the plurality of bars are free ends.
Mendez discloses:
and wherein the stem runs transversally to the plurality of bars joining them at a middle area of each panel and wherein the top and bottom ends of the plurality of bars are free ends. (stem 20 runs transversally to plurality of bars 70a+70b joining them at a middle area of each panel fig 9b-f and the top and bottom ends of the plurality of bars 70+70b are free i.e. not attached to any additional structure)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the insect rearing box of Gema as modified such that it comprises the features of the stem as disclosed by Mendez to allow for the transfer of insects between the plurality of bars (para0007).
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Gema, Hughes, Selby, and Mendez discloses claim 1 and the combination further teaches:
wherein the plurality of bars are straight and parallel to each other, and wherein the plurality of bars
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Gema, Hughes, Selby, and Mendez discloses claim 1 and the Gema further teaches:
wherein the box is a rectangular prism, (Fig. 1)
having two pairs of opposing lateral walls, (see lateral walls of 5)
and wherein the top and bottom covers are generally flat and parallel to each other. (see how 2 and 3 are flat and parallel to each other)
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Gema, Hughes, Selby, and Mendez discloses claim 1 and the Gema further teaches:
wherein the top and bottom covers press-fitted to the lateral walls, and detachable from the lateral walls by pulling away from the lateral walls. (“Diet tray 2 is removable so you can change the tray assiduously, considerably reducing the risk of the occurrence of fungi and other contaminants in food diet tray 2 which are transmitted to the larvae L. The appearance of such fungi and other contaminants it is due to the need to maintain high humidity environmental conditions inside the breeding device 1 to promote growth of L. larvae Furthermore, the fact that the tray is removable diet 2 allows also to change a diet tray when larvae other end with food stored in the same or oral inoculation of infectious viral material. In addition, at each change of diet tray 2 it is possible to control the state and growth of larvae L.The waste tray 3 is used for receiving droppings L larvae inside the rearing unit 4. Once the tray is full of waste is convenient to switch to another empty, so that the waste tray 3 it is also fully manipulable and changeable.”)
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Gema, Hughes, Selby, and Mendez discloses claim 1 and the Gema further teaches:
wherein the stem is placed at the top of the panel, and the stem has a sharp edge. (stem in 7 is placed at the top and comprises a sharp edge by 90o corner of 7)
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Gema, Hughes, Selby, and Mendez discloses claim 1 and Selby teaches:
wherein the plurality of bars have rough surfaces. (1200, Fig 12, col 6 ln 48-57)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of bars of Gema as modified such that they comprise the features as taught by Selby to increase the surface area available to climb by the insects (col 6 ln 48-57).
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Gema, Hughes, Selby, and Mendez discloses claim 1 but doesn’t explicitly teach:
wherein the two or more panels and top and bottom covers are made of a plastic material.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the panels, top and bottom covers such that they were made of a plastic material as claimed to provide for a cost-effective waterproof material for use. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of Gema, Hughes, Selby, and Mendez discloses claim 1 and the combination further discloses:
wherein the plurality of bars are arranged as a matrix in a top plan view of the rearing chamber. (see how bars 40 of Hughes form a matrix in a top plan view in rearing chamber 4 of Gema)
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of Gema, Hughes, Selby, and Mendez discloses claim 1 and Gema further discloses:
where the plurality of channels are parallel and span the length of the two or more panels. (see how the grids/meshes of the panels 7 are parallel and span its length)
Claim(s) 7-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gema in view of Hughes in view of Selby in view of Mendez, as applied to claims 1 above, and in view of McMahon (US 11702241 B2).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Gema, Hughes, Selby, and Mendez discloses claim 1 and the Gema further teaches:
wherein the lateral walls are rectangular and integrally formed as a generally planar and unitary body (see lateral walls 5 which are rectangular, integral, planar, and unitary)
The combination of Gema, Hughes, Selby, and Mendez doesn’t disclose:
wherein the lateral walls are formed as a foldable unitary body, and wherein the lateral walls are linearly arranged in the unitary body such that each adjacent wall is joined by a folding line, and wherein two free sides of end walls in the linear arrangement are provided with co- operating anchoring means, and by folding the walls 90o by the folding lines the anchoring means, can be engaged.
McMahon teaches:
A plastic container (abstract and figs)
wherein the lateral walls are formed as a foldable unitary body, (Fig 1, 5-6)
and wherein the lateral walls (14+18+16+20)
are linearly arranged in the unitary body such that each adjacent wall is joined by a folding line, (50+52+54+56+58)
and wherein two free sides of end walls in the linear arrangement are provided with co- operating anchoring means, and by folding the walls 90o by the folding lines the anchoring means, can be engaged. (52+54, col 5 ln 1-9)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify plastic container of Gema as modified to comprise the foldable features as taught by McMahon to allow the walls of the box to be folded for convenient storage when the box is not in use.
Gema as modified doesn’t explicitly disclose:
wherein the lateral walls are formed as a foldable unitary body by injection molding a plastic material,
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the body such that it were made of a plastic material as claimed to provide for a cost-effective waterproof material for use. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966. Since the intended use is to create a unitary body, it is does not matter what process is used to result in the product. Therefore, Gema as modified meets the limitation of this claim.
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Gema, Hughes, Selby, Mendez, and McMahon discloses claim 7 and the Gema further teaches:
wherein the ventilations windows are covered by a mesh, (see 8 in opposing walls 5, “The breathing holes 8 are useful for humidity control inside the device 1 and to enable breeding breathing larvae L. These holes 8 are covered with a grid or mesh to prevent the escape of larvae inside L breeding device 1.”)
and the first pair of opposing walls are parallel to the two or more panels (see annotation above for pair of opposing side walls and see how they are arranged parallel to the panels 7)
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Gema, Hughes, Selby, Mendez, and McMahon discloses claim 8 and the Gema further teaches:
wherein the mesh is integrally formed in the unitary body during the injection molding. (see how 8 in opposing walls are integrally formed in the unitary body 5)
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966. Since the intended use is to create a unitary body, it is does not matter what process is used to result in the product. Therefore, Gema as modified meets the limitation of this claim.
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Gema, Hughes, Selby, Mendez, and McMahon discloses claim 8 and the Gema further teaches:
PNG
media_image2.png
259
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the lateral walls include a second pair of two opposing walls having vertically arranged guides (see annotation above for second pair of opposing walls 6)
and each panel has tongues at their ends (edges of 7)
such that a tongue can slide on a guide, and wherein each panel can be inserted in two opposing guide. (“Growth partitions 7 are arranged perpendicular to the diet tray 2 and the waste tray 3 and held vertical by the action of the guide grooves 6. These partitions 7 are removable one by one by the guide units 6, and extraction is intended to enable change of larvae L of a device breeding one another, in order that the larvae of a particular device breeding 1 are dedicated to different purposes such as the production of virus or deposition egg in later larval stages, breeding on different devices. It is therefore not necessary to remove the larvae one by one, but without touching them are extracted by the partitions 7. growth is only necessary to remove the partition 7 of a first device and insert breeding device in a second breeding, leaving the other growth partitions 7 with corresponding L larvae attached in breeding the first device to be intended for another purpose.”)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s arguments that Selby does not disclose “the thickness extending in a dimension transverse to the plurality of bars and the stem” (see pg 1-7) have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. It is firstly noted that the recitation renders claim 1 vague and indefinite because it is not clear what applicant means by this recitation. It is not clear how the ”thickness extends in a dimension traverse to the plurality of bars” when the thickness is a part of the plurality of bars themselves, i.e. the thickness extends in which direction and related to which parts of the rearing chamber? Applicant’s arguments point to Figs 9A+9C to show the positioning of such a dimension and points to the tapering nature of the bars but the claim fails to clearly claim such an orientation. It is respectfully submitted that Selby discloses that the bars include a thickness which progressively decreases from the stem towards the free end in a dimension traverse to the plurality of bars and stem (as best understood) i.e. a traverse plane taken from a top of the bar close to the stem includes a larger thickness while a traverse plane taken from the bottom of the bar towards the free ends includes a smaller thickness.
In regards to applicant’s arguments that Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Menendez's transfer mechanism into the insect rearing box systems of Gema as modified since the combination would not function to provide an insect rearing system. This is not found persuasive because the combination would still necessarily function to allow insect rearing to take place since that is the primary function of Gema and the stem and bars of Menendez can certainly enhance the function of the insect rearing system by allow for insect transfer to also be provided between the bars. Furthermore, the insects can still attach to the exterior surfaces as disclosed by Gema. With regards to applicant's arguments that the proposed combination does not allow for air circulation through the insect rearing box. Applicant's arguments are not found persuasive because Gema discloses ventilation windows that provide for air circulation within the system. The stem and bars of the combination do not preclude air circulation since air would circle in through both the windows of Gema and through the mesh of Menendez.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHADA M ALGHAILANI whose telephone number is (571)272-8058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30am - 4:30pm 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, Peter Poon can be reached on 571-272-6891. 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.
/SHADA ALGHAILANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643