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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III (Claims 4 and 8; drawn to an extraction method of a Hermetia illucens AMP) in the reply filed on October 13, 2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3 and 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (Groups I-II and IV-V), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Rejoinder
Group II has been rejoined for examination.
DETAILED ACTION
The claims filed on April 2, 2026, have been acknowledged. In light of the Applicant’s elected invention, claims 1 and 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 2-4 and 8 are pending and examined on the merits.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous office action mailed January 2, 2026, are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either newly applied or are reiterated and are the only rejections and/or objections presently applied to the instant application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).The applicant claims foreign priority from CN202211531619.6 filed on December 1, 2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, received August 28, 2023. While a certified copy of the foreign patent application CN202211531619.6 is provided with the instant application, a certified English translation of said foreign patent application has not been provided.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. CN202211531619.6 filed on December 1, 2022, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. This application does not provide information related to a method of rearing Hermetia illucens nor for producing a Hermetia illucens antimicrobial peptide involving rearing hermetia illucens larva. Instead, CN202211531619.6 is drawn to breeding Hermetia illucens larva which involves sexual reproduction while rearing does not.
Therefore, claims 2-4 and 8 receive the filing date of the instant Application, filed on July 11, 2023, as none of the claims receive foreign priority.
Specification
The amendment filed April 2, 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:
Applicant has amended the term breeding to instead be rearing throughout the Application. However, the amendments to recite rearing instead of breeding is considered new matter as the meaning of rearing is different than breeding as they are not equivalents and is not considered to have support in the originally filed Application.
For example, Sandrock et al. (Insects 13: 1-31. 2022. Published April 2022) uses both terms throughout their document and these terms are not used interchangeably. Sandrock repeatedly uses the term rearing/reared throughout to identify that larva were grown and developed on different diets. On the contrary, Sandrock uses the term breeding throughout to identify sexual reproduction for developing different strains of Black Soldier Fly, Hermetia illucens (whole document). Therefore, the prior art is considered to treat the terms rearing and breeding as having different meanings that may involve some overlap but are not equivalents.
Furthermore, the Applicant has not identified where the amendments to change rearing to breeding in the specification find support in the originally filed Application. As such, the Applicant has insufficiently identified the basis for these amendments.
Therefore, the amendments are considered new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
New Matter
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 2-4 and 8 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4, amended on April 2, 2026, recites has amended the term breeding to instead be rearing in claims 2-4. Clear support for the new limitation cannot be found in the instant application or priority documents. Accordingly, the amendments to Claims 2-4 are considered to constitute new matter.
MPEP 2163.06 notes “If new matter is added to the claims, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph - written description requirement. In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981).” MPEP 2163.02 teaches that “Whenever the issue arises, the fundamental factual inquiry is whether a claim defines an invention that is clearly conveyed to those skilled in the art at the time the application was filed...If a claim is amended to include subject matter, limitations, or terminology not present in the application as filed, involving a departure from, addition to, or deletion from the disclosure of the application as filed, the examiner should conclude that the claimed subject matter is not described in that application”. MPEP 2163.06 further notes “When an amendment is filed in reply to an objection or rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, a study of the entire application is often necessary to determine whether or not “new matter” is involved. Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure” (emphasis added).
In the remarks filed on April 2, 2026, Applicant does not identify where the amendment to recite rearing instead of breeding finds support in the originally filed Application. A search of the previously filed specification and claims showed that these documents do not reference rearing, only breeding. As identified above, the meaning of rearing is considered different than breeding as they are not equivalents.
Sandrock et al. (Insects 13: 1-31. 2022. Published April 2022) uses both terms throughout their document and these terms are not used interchangeably. Sandrock repeatedly uses the term rearing/reared throughout to identify that larva were grown and developed on different diets. On the contrary, Sandrock uses the term breeding throughout to identify sexual reproduction for developing different strains of Black Soldier Fly, Hermetia illucens (whole document). Therefore, the prior art is considered to treat the terms rearing and breeding as having different meanings that may involve some overlap but are not equivalents.
If Applicant believes that support for the new limitations, as now recited in Claims 2-4, is present and clearly envisaged in the instant application or earlier filed priority documents, applicant must, in responding to this Office Action, point out with particularity, where such support may be found.
Declarations and new references cannot demonstrate possession of a concept after the fact.
Therefore, the amendments are considered new matter.
Claim 8 is also rejected because of its dependency on claim 4.
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Insects 11: 1-11. 2020) and further in view of Cho et al. (Journal of Ecology and Environment 44: 1-9. 2020), Meneguz et al. (PLoS One 13: 1-15. 2018), Klammsteiner et al. (Front. Microbiol. 12: 1-16. 2021), Lievens et al. (Sustainability 14: 1-14. 2022. Published September 2022), Sandrock et al. (Insects 13: 1-31. 2022. Published April 2022), Larouche (Masters Thesis: Processing methods for the black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) larvae: From feed withdrawal periods to killing methods. 2019. Published February 2020), and Ho et al. (Scientific Reports 11: 1-11. 2021). This is a new rejection made in response to Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Applicant’s traversal has been considered but is moot in response to the new rejection of record.
Lee teaches a method of extracting antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) from Hermetia illucens larva (HIL) comprising:
Maintaining HIL, inoculating fifth instar HIL with one of five species of Lactobacillus (an antimicrobial liquid) using a fine needle (diameter 0.35 mm, length 40 mm) comprising 101 to 109 cfu/mL of Lactobacillus species by abdominal puncture and then the larva were held at room temperature for 24 hours with starvation. Then, the hemolymph was isolated and assessed for antimicrobial activity and AMP mRNA expressions (page 2, paragraph 2-page 3, paragraph 4).
Lee is silent regarding rearing of the larva.
However, Cho teaches that three day old black soldier fly larvae (BSFL) (Hermetia illucens) can be obtained for rearing and experimentation regarding the growth and survival effects of microplastics and salt concentration in the feed during rearing (page 2, column 1, paragraph 1-page 5, column 2, paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious that three day old HIL could be reared prior to injection of the antimicrobial liquid as Cho already teaches that three day old larva can be obtained and maintained prior to starting an experiment. Because the prior art teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention, there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding turning over the medium daily during rearing, Meneguz teaches that they examined the effects of altering pH of the feed for Black soldier fly larva during rearing and that they used a daily feeding system wherein an aliquot of 40g (on wet basis) of diet (30% alfalfa, 50% wheat bran and 20% corn meal, with a 70% moisture content) was provided daily (page 2, paragraph 6-page 8, paragraph 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious that the HIL could be fed daily as Meneguz identifies that daily feeding was a known method of feeding HIL and this ensures that the amount of food provided to the larva can be controlled each day. Because the prior art teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention, there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the medium, Lee is silent regarding any medium used during rearing of their larva.
However, Meneguz teaches that they fed their larva the Gainesville diet (30% alfalfa, 50% wheat bran and 20% corn meal, with a 70% moisture content) from day 0 after hatching to day 5 before starting their experiments and continued to day 15 in the control group (page 2, paragraph 6-page 5, paragraph 1). Meneguz teaches that pH of the feed can alter larval weight but that the larva naturally produce compounds that change the pH of the feed to pH 9 over time (Figures 1 and 3 and page 5, paragraph 2-page 10, paragraph 1).
Meneguz does not identify the salt content of their feed.
However, Cho teaches that salt (NaCl) in the feed led to reduced larval weight and pupation ratio (page 4, column 2, paragraph 3-page 7, column 2, paragraph 1 and Figure 4).
Meneguz and Cho do not identify whether there is oil in their feed.
However, Klammsteiner teaches that they examined the impact of oil on black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) larvae growth and development and found that the oil fraction inhibited biomass gain by at least 85% and ultimately led to a larval mortality of up to 96% (abstract and Figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to use a medium comprising comprises wheat bran and is free of salt, oil, and pH adjustment with a moisture content of 65% to 70%. Meneguz already teaches that a control diet for larva comprises wheat bran at 70% moisture content. Therefore, it would have been obvious that this control diet could also be used in the method of Lee. Furthermore, Meneguz teaches that the larva modify the feed pH to pH 9 over time and that pH can alter larval growth. Therefore, there is no reason to modify the pH as the larva will modify it to pH 9 on their own. Additionally, Cho and Klammsteiner teaches that salt and oil negatively impact larval growth and development. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use a diet without oil and salt. Because the prior art teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention, there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the density of the larva during rearing, as an initial matter, the it is not identified how the cm3 measurement is made regarding the height measurement for density. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is that any reasonable height measurement can be used for determining density, such as the height of the rearing container or the height of the substrate within the rearing container.
Lee, Cho, Meneguz, and Klammsteiner do not rearing their larva at a density of 1 larva/cm3.
However, Lievens teaches that they reared their Black soldier fly larvae in glass rearing containers (11.5 cm x 17 cm) up to a density of 3.32 larvae/cm2 (650 larvae), and covered with a lid containing two apertures with a diameter of approximately 4 cm for ventilation. The larvae were fed with the substrates (with a layer thickness of approximately 2 to 3 cm) shown in Table 1 to investigate whether they were affected by PVC micro-, meso-, and macroplastics in terms of growth performance, survival rate, and bioconversion (abstract and page 3, paragraph 2). When accounting for the width and length of the container and the height of the substrate, the 650 larva are reared at a density of 1.11 larva/cm3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a larval density of 1 larva/cm3 during rearing to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reason to use 1 larva/cm 3 with a reasonable expectation of success because Lievens teaches that they reared larva at a density of 1.11 larva/cm3 for all of their experiments (see Table 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious that a similar density could be used for other experiments with the larva. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.05 states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the 1.11 larva/cm3 is close to 1 larva/cm3, it would have been obvious that 1 larva/cm3 could also be used. Because the prior art teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention, there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Lee does not teach wherein the larva are sieved prior to inoculating the larva with an antimicrobial liquid.
However, Sandrock teaches a method of sieving larva for experimental use. Neonates of each strain that hatched within a synchronised 12 h age cohort went through five days of nursery before they were separated from residues by sieving (1 mm mesh size), which also ensured larvae of homogenous size (page 5, paragraph 3).
Larouche teaches that it is common to harvest larva for further experimentation by sieving the larva to separate the larva from their feeding substrate. Larouche teaches that sieving is the most commonly used method in industry and consists of sieving the substrate while keeping the larvae into the sieve (page 9, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the method of extracting AMPs from HILs hemolymphs of Lee with the rearing and sieving larva for further experimentation of Sandrock to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reason to combine with a reasonable expectation of success because Lee teaches a general method of maintaining HIL before performing their experiments while Sandrock successfully reduces to practice that neonates can be reared for 5 days before they were separated from residues by sieving, Furthermore, Larouche teaches that sieving is the most commonly used method for collecting larva for further experimentation as it allows separation of larva from the feeding substrate during rearing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill that the rearing and collection method of Sandrock could be combined with the method of extracting AMPs from HIL of Lee as this was a commonly used method in the field for collecting larva for experimentation. Because the prior art teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention, there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Lee is silent regarding the age of the larva outside of stating that they are fifth instar larva.
Sandrock teaches that larva can be collected at age 5 days old through sieving (page 5, paragraph 3), Larouche teaches that larva can be collected at 4 days old and 10 days old through sieving (page 54, paragraph 4-page 55, paragraph 1), and Ho teaches that they collected and inoculated 20 10 day old larva for immunization studies by injecting the larva with either E. coli, S. aureus or combined bacterial strains (1 ×103 CFU/g, 10 μl) using insulin needles and that E. coli and S. aureus are commonly used to generate AMPs in HIL (page 6, paragraph 2-page 7, paragraph 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of extracting AMPs from HIL of the combined method of Lee, Cho, Meneguz, Klammsteiner, Lievens, Sandrock, and Larouche by collecting 8 day old larva prior to injecting a microbial liquid to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reason to modify with a reasonable expectation of success because Sandrock teaches that larva can be collected at age 5 days old through sieving, Larouche teaches that larva can be collected at 4 days old and 10 days old through sieving, and Ho teaches that 10 day old larva can be collected for immunization studies. As such, the combined teachings of Sandrock, Larouche, and Ho identify that larva can be collected at any point between ages 4-10 days old through sieving for further experimentation. It is also worth noting that the claims broadly encompass sieving days before the antimicrobial liquid is delivered as there is no timeframe identified between the collecting and injecting. Furthermore, Larouche specifically identifies that larva can be collected at multiple stages before experimentation. As 8 day old larva lie within the range of possible collecting ages identified by Sandrock, Larouche, and Ho, it would have been obvious that the larva could be collected at 8 days old before injecting them with a microbial liquid. Additionally, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It is routine procedure to optimize component amounts to arrive at an optimal product that is superior for its intended use, since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See M.P.E.P. §2144.05(I). Because the prior art teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention, there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Although Lee teaches that they inoculated fifth instar HIL (older than 3 day old larva) with one of five species of Lactobacillus (an antimicrobial liquid) using a fine needle (diameter 0.35 mm, length 40 mm) comprising 101 to 109 cfu/mL of Lactobacillus species by abdominal puncture, Lee does not identify that they injected the antimicrobial liquid into the larva.
However, Ho teaches that they collected and inoculated 20 10 day old larva for immunization studies by injecting the larva with either E. coli, S. aureus or combined bacterial strains (1 ×103 CFU/g, 10 μl) using insulin needles and that E. coli and S. aureus are commonly used to generate AMPs in HIL (page 6, paragraph 2-page 7, paragraph 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious that one could inject the Lactobacillus species of Lee into the HIL to produce AMPs as Ho successfully reduces to practice that insulin needles comprising 10 μL of bacteria (E. coli and/or S. aureus) can be used to inoculate HIL.
Although Lee teaches that they inoculated their larva with different Lactobacillus strains at a concentration of 109 cfu/mL (equal to 106 cfu/μL), Lee does not teach inoculating the larva with S. aureus to produce AMPs.
However, Ho teaches that they collected and inoculated 20 10 day old larva for immunization studies by injecting the larva with either E. coli, S. aureus or combined bacterial strains (1 ×103 CFU/g, 10 μl) using insulin needles and that E. coli and S. aureus are commonly used to generate AMPs in HIL (page 6, paragraph 2-page 7, paragraph 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the combined method of Lee, Cho, Meneguz, Klammsteiner, Lievens, Sandrock, Larouche, and Ho of extracting AMPs from HILs hemolymphs after injecting them with different Lactobacillus strains by injecting the HILs with S. aureus instead to produce different AMPs, as identified by Ho, to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reason to inject them with S. aureus instead to produce AMPs with a reasonable expectation of success because Lee and Ho teach similar methods for inoculating HIL with different bacteria to produce AMPs and Ho teaches that S. aureus is commonly used to generate AMPs in HIL and successfully reduces to practice that HIL can be inoculated with S. aureus to produce AMPs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that they could have injected S. aureus to produce AMPs instead of different strains of Lactobacillus. Because the prior art teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention, there is a reasonable expectation of success.
As stated supra, Lee teaches that larva can be with bacteria at a concentration of 109 cfu/mL (equal to 106 cfu/μL) and Ho, as stated supra, teaches that 10 μL can be used to inject bacteria into the HIL.
As these concentrations and liquid amounts have been previously used to inoculate HIL, it would have been obvious that they could be used as part of this method of inoculating HIL with S. aureus. Because the prior art teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention, there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Lee is silent regarding whether they placed the larva in a ventilated glass vessel furing starvation.
However, Lievens, as stated supra, teaches that they reared their Black soldier fly larvae in glass rearing containers (11.5 cm x 17 cm) up to a density of 3.32 larvae/cm2 (650 larvae), and covered with a lid containing two apertures with a diameter of approximately 4 cm for ventilation. The larvae were fed with the substrates (with a layer thickness of approximately 2 to 3 cm) shown in Table 1 to investigate whether they were affected by PVC micro-, meso-, and macroplastics in terms of growth performance, survival rate, and bioconversion (abstract and page 3, paragraph 2).
As Lievens already shows that a ventilated glass container can be used for rearing Black soldier fly larva with a substrate, it would have been obvious that these containers could also be used for the starvation period as all that would change is not adding the substrate.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Insects 11: 1-11. 2020) and further in view of Cho et al. (Journal of Ecology and Environment 44: 1-9. 2020), Meneguz et al. (PLoS One 13: 1-15. 2018), Klammsteiner et al. (Front. Microbiol. 12: 1-16. 2021), Lievens et al. (Sustainability 14: 1-14. 2022. Published September 2022), Sandrock et al. (Insects 13: 1-31. 2022. Published April 2022), Larouche (Masters Thesis: Processing methods for the black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) larvae: From feed withdrawal periods to killing methods. 2019. Published February 2020), and Ho et al. (Scientific Reports 11: 1-11. 2021) as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Deng et al. (Science of the Total Environment 845: 1-20. 2022. Published July 2022). This is a new rejection made in response to Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Applicant’s traversal has been considered but is moot in response to the new rejection of record.
The teachings of Lee, Cho, Meneguz, Klammsteiner, Lievens, Sandrock, Larouche, and Ho are as discussed above.
The combined teachings of Lee, Cho, Meneguz, Klammsteiner, Lievens, Sandrock, Larouche, and Ho do not teach using an 8-mesh sieve to separate the larva from the medium.
However, Deng teaches that they separated black soldier fly larva (BSFL; Hermetia illucens larva) from waste residues using an 8-mesh sieve before storing them for one day without feeding. Then the BSFL were processed for chemical analysis (abstract and page 2, column 2, paragraphs 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the 1 mm sieve identified by Sandrock in the combined method of Lee, Cho, Meneguz, Klammsteiner, Lievens, Sandrock, Larouche, and Ho of extracting AMPs from HILs hemolymphs by using an 8-mesh strainer instead, as identified by Deng, to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reason to substitute the sieves with a reasonable expectation of success because Deng successfully reduces to practice that an 8-mesh sieve can be used to collect larva prior to starving them (as was done by Lee) for separating the larva from residues and substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that 8-mesh sieve can be used to collect larva and separate them from the substrate for later experimentation as it has been used for this exact purpose by Deng. Because the prior art teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention, there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
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 KEENAN A BATES whose telephone number is (571)270-0727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Doug Schultz can be reached at (571) 272-0763. 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.
/KEENAN A BATES/Examiner, Art Unit 1631
/JAMES D SCHULTZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1631
Prosecution Insights