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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to Amendments made on 7/2/2025, in which: claims 1-3, 5-14 are previously presented and claim 4 is canceled.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greeley (US 10926295) in view of Sobecki (US 10772309).
Regarding claim 1, Greeley discloses a method of sorting insects comprising successive steps of: - providing a mixture of insects (1906, 2010) comprising nymphs (Column 5, lines 19-22), and - sieving (1908, 2012) leading to a separation of the nymphs (Column 5, lines 19-22) from the rest of the insects (40A, 40B, 40C), said sieving step comprising sieving (1908, 2012) said mixture (1906, 2010) with a sieve (8) having a screen (22) of plastic material (Column 12, lines 47-52), wherein the step of sieving (1908, 2012) of the mixture (1906, 2010) with a screen (22) comprises imparting movement (via element 10) to the screen (22) of plastic material (Column 12, lines 47-52) in a plane of extension of the screen (22), said movement being free of any component at a right angle to said plane of extension (Fig. 2) of the screen (22), but does not expressly disclose the sieving step imparting circular or oval movement to the sieve.
However, Sobecki discloses a similar sieving apparatus for pupae separation with a sieve structure (100) that is connected to a rotational actuator (1010), lifting actuator (1012) and lateral actuator (1014) allowing for vertical, horizontal and rotational movement of the sieve (100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention/application, to modify Greeley, by imparting circular or oval movement to the sieve, as taught by Sobecki, for the purpose of allowing for movement of the sieve structure to separate the population of insects, larvae, pupae based on their size.
Regarding claim 2, Greeley discloses the invention substantially as set forth above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the screen of plastic material is a polyurethane screen sieve.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention/application to make the screen material of any desired material in order to properly separate the contents within the device, since 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.
Regarding claim 3, Greeley discloses wherein the screen of plastic material (Column 12, lines 47-52) inclined (element 8 is inclined, Fig. 2) relative to a horizontal plane (52).
Regarding claim 5, Greeley discloses wherein the mixture (1906, 2010) comprises larvae of various dimensions (Column 8, lines 58-67), and wherein the sieving step (1908, 2012) furthermore enables separation of the larvae based upon their dimensions (Column 8, lines 58-67).
Regarding claim 6, Greeley discloses wherein the sieving step (1908, 2012) comprises sieving of the rest of the mixture (2016) after separating the nymphs with at least a second sieve (2018).
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greeley (US 10926295) and Sobecki (US 10772309) in view of Kim (KR 20040082593).
Regarding claims 7-10, 14, Greeley discloses a device for sorting insects comprising - a feeder (via step 1906, 2010, 2016) enabling the supply of a mixture containing nymphs (Column 5, lines 19-22), - a sieving device (8) comprising a sieving screen (22) of plastic material (Column 12, lines 47-52), the sieving device (8) being configured movement (via element 10) to the sieving screen (22) of plastic material (Column 12, lines 47-52) in a plane of extension of the sieving screen (22) of plastic material (Column 12, lines 47-52), said movement (via element 10) being free of any component at a right angle to said plane of extension of the sieving screen (22) of plastic material (Column 12, lines 47-52), but does not expressly disclose imparting circular or oval movement to the sieve and the use of a densimetric separator, and the insect mixture passes into the densimetric separator and the densimetric separator comprises at least one apparatus selected from: a densimetric table, a dust separator, and a densimetric column.
However, Sobecki discloses a similar sieving apparatus for pupae separation with a sieve structure (100) that is connected to a rotational actuator (1010), lifting actuator (1012) and lateral actuator (1014) allowing for vertical, horizontal and rotational movement of the sieve (100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention/application, to modify Greeley, by imparting circular or oval movement to the sieve, as taught by Sobecki, for the purpose of allowing for movement of the sieve structure to separate the population of insects, larvae, pupae based on their size.
However, Kim discloses a similar system comprising a densimetric separator (Fig. 11), and the insect mixture passes into the densimetric separator (Fig. 11), and the densimetric separator (Fig. 11) comprises at least one apparatus selected from: a densimetric table, a dust separator (179), and a densimetric column.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention/application, to modify Greeley, by a densimetric separator, and the insect mixture passes into the densimetric separator, as taught by Kim, for the purpose of further separating the mixture, particulate material, and any other material within the device.
Regarding claim 11, Greeley discloses the invention substantially as set forth above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the screen of plastic material is a polyurethane screen sieve.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention/application to make the screen material of any desired material in order to properly separate the contents within the device, since 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.
Regarding claim 12, Greeley discloses wherein the screen of plastic material (Column 12, lines 47-52) inclined (element 8 is inclined, Fig. 2) relative to a horizontal plane (52).
Regarding claim 13, Greeley discloses wherein the sieving step (1908, 2012) comprises sieving of the rest of the mixture (2016) after separating the nymphs with at least a second sieve (2018).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants arguments that it would not have been obvious to combine prior art Sobecki with the device of Greeley as the movements of the sieve device are different, examiner respectfully disagrees. Greely as stated above discloses sieving (1908, 2012) leading to a separation of the nymphs (Column 5, lines 19-22) from the rest of the insects (40A, 40B, 40C) with a sieve (8) having a screen (22) of plastic material (Column 12, lines 47-52) that is moved in an upward and downward direction to separate the nymphs (Column 5, lines 19-22). Prior art Sobecki discloses a similar device with a sieve (100) and states that “separation of the population of pupae includes oscillating, agitating, shaking, and/or otherwise moving the sieving device (e.g., rolling). Such movements may include raising and lowering an elevation of the sieving device, translating the sieving device forward and backward, translating the sieving device side-to-side, rotating on one or more ends of the sieving device with respect to other ends, rolling the sieving device, performing any combination of the foregoing, and performing any other change to orientation and position of the sieving device. One or more of these actions can be performed simultaneously, in a predefined order, or in any other manner that causes separation of the population of pupae (Column 13, lines 7-14). Sobecki specifically states rotating the sieve device and by definition rotating means “moving in a circle around an axis or center” (Oxford Languages Dictionary). Sobecki also specifically states that “performing any other change to orientation and position of the sieving device” can be accomplished to separate the pupae. As such, by combining the general features of the device and sieve of Greeley with the multifunctional movement of the device of Sobecki which provides several different movements at the same time and includes the circular or oval movement, each of the limitations as claimed above are taught the said combination.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AARON M RODZIWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/AARON M RODZIWICZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642