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 .
The Amendment filed Feb. 2, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 16, 21-32, and 35-39 are pending. Claims 1-2, 32, and 35-37 have been amended. Claims 38-39 are new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 16, 25-27, 29-31 and 35-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera (US 2012/0123141 A1; May 17, 2012) in view of Cornwell et al. (US 2015/0181837 A1; July 2, 2015).
Regarding claim 1, Herrera teaches a method to produce an insect lipid extract and lipid-depleted insects comprising supplying a feedstock to a plurality of insects comprising a lipid such that the insects eat at least a portion of the feedstock ([0028]), harvesting the insects ([0029]), and extracting lipid from the harvested insects to product insect lipid extract and lipid-depleted insects ([0030]-[0032]). As the lipid is extracted from the insects, the lipid-deleted insects would necessarily have a reduced amount of lipid relative to the harvested insects.
While Herrera discloses the method as described above, Herrera fails to teach that the method comprises a computerized system programmed to automate one or more of the claimed steps.
Cornwell discloses an automatic animal feeding device comprising a control system with a processor coupled to one or more sensors that is configured to control automating transfer of feedstock to an animal ([0096], [0128]-[0129]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the supplying feedstock step of Herrera be automated as it is well known in the art for a feeding step to comprised an automatic device comprising a sensor as taught by Cornwell.
As stated in MPEP 2144.04 III: Providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same results is obvious over the prior art.
As Herrera in view of Cornwell meet step (i), steps (ii) and (iii) are not required as they are recited in the alternative, e.g. “OR”.
Regarding claim 16, Herrera teaches that the plurality of insects includes an order of insects other than Orthoptera order of insects ([0019]).
Regarding claim 25, Herrera teaches extracting said lipid from said harvested insects with a lipid extraction unit, wherein the unit separated solid and liquid phases, wherein the solid phase includes the lipid deleted insects and the liquid phase comprises the extracted lipid ([0030]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 26, Herrera teaches extracting said lipid from said harvested insects with a lipid extraction unit, wherein the unit separated solid and liquid phases, wherein the solid phase includes the lipid deleted insects and the liquid phase comprises a material comprising protein and the extracted lipid ([0030]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 27, Herrera teaches that part of the liquid phase is recovered in order to be reused ([0032]), wherein it is recycled ([0020]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for at least a portion of the second liquid phase be recycle back to the extraction unit such that it can be reused.
Regarding claim 29, Herrera teaches an extracted lipid as described above, but fails to teach that it comprises a mixture of said lipid and water and/or an emulsion of said lipid and water.
However, depending on the type of extraction used, it would have been obvious to have the extract comprise a mixture of said lipid and water and/or an emulsion of said lipid and water. Further, it would have been obvious to have the extract comprise a mixture of said lipid and water and/or an emulsion of said lipid and water depending on the desired use of the lipid extracted.
Regarding claim 30, Herrera teaches that the extracted lipid comprises stearic acid and the lipid-deleted insects comprising protein (Table 1, [0030]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 31, Herrera teaches that the harvested insects are separated from at least a portion of the feedstock before the extraction step ([0028]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 35, as stated above with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the supplying feedstock step of Herrera be automated as it is well known in the art for a feeding step to comprised an automatic device comprising a sensor as taught by Cornwell.
It further would have been obvious to automate all the steps in the process of Herrera in order to eliminate the need for manual effort. As stated in MPEP 2144.04, automating the harvesting and extracting steps provides the same result and therefore would have been obvious to do so.
Regarding claim 36, Herrera teaches a method to produce an insect lipid extract and lipid-depleted insects comprising supplying a feedstock to a plurality of insects comprising a lipid such that the insects eat at least a portion of the feedstock ([0028]), harvesting the insects ([0029]), separating at least a portion of the feedstock from the harvested mixture before the extraction step ([0028]-[0032]), and extracting lipid from the harvested insects to product insect lipid extract and lipid-depleted insects ([0030]-[0032]). As the lipid is extracted from the insects, the lipid-deleted insects would necessarily have a reduced amount of lipid relative to the harvested insects.
While Herrera discloses the method as described above, Herrera fails to teach that the method comprises a computerized system programmed to automate one or more of the claimed steps.
Cornwell discloses an automatic animal feeding device comprising a control system with a processor coupled to one or more sensors that is configured to control automating transfer of feedstock to an animal ([0096], [0128]-[0129]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the supplying feedstock step of Herrera be automated as it is well known in the art for a feeding step to comprised an automatic device comprising a sensor as taught by Cornwell.
As stated in MPEP 2144.04 III: Providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same results is obvious over the prior art.
As Herrera in view of Cornwell meet step (i), steps (ii) and (iii) are not required as they are recited in the alternative, e.g. “OR”.
Regarding claim 37, Herrera teaches a method to produce an insect lipid extract and lipid-depleted insects comprising supplying a feedstock to a plurality of insects comprising a lipid such that the insects eat at least a portion of the feedstock ([0028]), harvesting the insects ([0029]), and extracting lipid from the harvested insects to product insect lipid extract and lipid-depleted insects ([0030]-[0032]). As the lipid is extracted from the insects, the lipid-deleted insects would necessarily have a reduced amount of lipid relative to the harvested insects.
While Herrera discloses the method as described above, Herrera fails to teach that the method comprises a computerized system programmed to automate one or more of the claimed steps.
Cornwell discloses an automatic animal feeding device comprising a control system with a processor coupled to one or more sensors that is configured to control automating transfer of feedstock to an animal ([0096], [0128]-[0129]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the supplying feedstock step of Herrera be automated as it is well known in the art for a feeding step to comprised an automatic device comprising a sensor as taught by Cornwell.
As stated in MPEP 2144.04 III: Providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same results is obvious over the prior art.
As Herrera in view of Cornwell meet step (i), steps (ii) and (iii) are not required as they are recited in the alternative, e.g. “OR”.
Regarding claim 38, as stated above with respect to claim 1, as Herrera in view of Cornwell meet step (i), steps (ii) and (iii) are not required as they are recited in the alternative, e.g. “OR”. Therefore, the extraction operating parameter is not required.
Regarding claim 39, Herrera teaches that the extracting step includes a solvent ([0030]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera (US 2012/0123141 A1; May 17, 2012) in view of Cornwell et al. (US 2015/0181837 A1; July 2, 2015) as applied to claim 1 above, and further evidenced by UMass (Manure as a Nutrient Resource, Retrieved from Internet URL: https://www.umass.edu/agriculture-food-environment/crops-dairy-livestock-equine/fact-sheets/manure-nutrient-resource#:~:text=Introduction,organic%20matter%20within%20the%20soil.).
Regarding claim 2, Herrera teaches that the feedstock comprises manure, organic residue, biotreatment or bioconversion of urban runoff, wheat bran, decomposing vegetable scraps, and a mixture of these ([0028]).
Therefore, Herrera teaches that the feedstock comprises a material that can be animal waste, bio-waste, compost, crop residue, etc.
Further it is well known that manure comprises minerals such as potassium and phosphorus as evidenced by UMass.
Therefore, Herrera teaches that the feedstock comprises a material that can be bio-waste and a mineral that can be potassium or phosphorus, thus meeting the claimed two or more ingredients recited.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera (US 2012/0123141 A1; May 17, 2012) in view of Cornwell et al. (US 2015/0181837 A1; July 2, 2015) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Papadoyianis et al. (US 2008/0075818 A1; March 27, 2008).
Regarding claim 21, Herrera teaches that the plurality of insects includes an order of insects other than Orthoptera order of insects ([0019]), but fails to actually include Orthoptera.
Papadoyianis teaches a method of processing insects into protein meal, wherein the insects can be of the order Orthoptera ([0011]).
As it is well known in the art to process the claimed order of insects into different parts for desired use, it would have been obvious for the method of Herrera to include insects of the order Orthoptera. This is merely substitution of one known insect for another and would have been obvious to do so depending on the desired properties of the harvested insects.
Claims 22-24, 28 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera (US 2012/0123141 A1; May 17, 2012) in view of Cornwell et al. (US 2015/0181837 A1; July 2, 2015) as applied to claims 1 and 26 above, and further in view of Builder et al. (CA 2587547 A1; May 18, 2006).
Regarding claims 22-24 and 28, Herrera discloses the process as described above, but fails to further teach pumping or filtering the extracted lipid and also fails to teach using a decanter for the extraction.
Builder discloses a method of processing insects wherein proteins are extracted. Builder teaches that the extraction can further include pumping, filtering, and can be performed using a decanter, which would necessarily separate based on density (Derwent Abstract).
As it is well known in the art for an extraction method for insects to be performed using a decanter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the extracting step of Herrera be performed with a decanter. This is merely a substitution of one known extraction device for another to yield the same result of effectively separated insect parts.
It would have been obvious to further pump and filter the extracted lipid depending on the desired purity and end use of the extract lipid.
All the claimed steps are well known in the art of processing insects and therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 32, Herrera teaches a process as described above, but fails to specifically teach the feedstock comprising a maximum cross-sectional dimension that is smaller than the minimum cross-sectional dimension of the insects, wherein the feedstock is separated from the insects through the use of a screen having openings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the feedstock to have a particulate size that is smaller than the insects as the insects are consuming the feedstock. Further, Builder teaches that the insects can be separated based on size by passing through a sieve, or screen having openings (Derwent Abstract).
As it is well known in the art to use a screen for separating, it would have been obvious to use a screen for separating the insects and feedstock of Herrera before lipid extraction in order to only harvest and extract lipid from the insect.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments were found persuasive to overcome the 112 and 102 rejections from the previous Office Action and therefore they have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Herrera and Powers not teaching the amended claim language comprising a control system with a processor coupled to a sensor have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration and in light of applicant’s amendment now including a sensor, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cornwell.
Cornwell discloses an automatic animal feeding device comprising a control system with a processor coupled to one or more sensors that is configured to control automating transfer of feedstock to an animal ([0096], [0128]-[0129]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the supplying feedstock step of Herrera be automated as it is well known in the art for a feeding step to comprised an automatic device comprising a sensor as taught by Cornwell.
As stated in MPEP 2144.04 III: Providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplishes the same results is obvious over the prior art.
As Herrera in view of Cornwell meet step (i), steps (ii) and (iii) are not required as they are recited in the alternative, e.g. “OR”.
For the reasons stated above, a 103 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 STEPHANIE A KOHLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1075. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
/STEPHANIE A KOHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights