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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the drum sieve 2 and 2’ of Kriegl correspond to different steps in the separation process and are not identical. While this may be true, the Examiner does not believe that it overcomes the rejection because the claim does not stipulate that the first larvae separating device and the at least one additional larvae separating device are identical in structure.
The Applicant further argues that there is no mention of the liquid stream passing through two distinct separating devices. The Examiner disagrees because there are two distinct drum sieves which are both capable of some degree of separation between liquids and solids. The Applicant assumes that the drum sieve 2 and 2’ comprise a single entity.
The Applicant further argues that Kriegl does not disclose the feature of water recirculation. The Examiner disagrees because as currently stated in claim 1, the water must only be available for further use in the system. The claim is not so limiting as to detail the actual mechanism by which water is transferred back to the inlet of the cleaning system such as a closed loop pipe network.
The Applicant further argues that Kriegl does not disclose a water circuit that recycles water from the second separation step. This argument is irrelevant because the amended claim 1 does not actually detail the means by which this is accomplished. There is no mention of a recirculation loop during an intermediate step, only that recirculation occurs at some point in the system.
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) 1-3, 5-16, 19-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "separated water". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3, 5-16, and 19-20 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Kriegl (US Pub. 5,507,947).
Regarding claim 1, Kriegl discloses a cleaning system for cleaning living insects, in particular living insect larvae or living worms, comprising:
a collecting device for receiving and mixing the insects or the worms with water to form a mixture (Fig. 1, inlet 1 and the preceding pipe collect matter);
a first conveying device for conveying the mixture from the collecting device (Fig. 1, inlet 1 also conveys the matter to the drum);
and, a first larvae separating device for separating the insects or the worms from the water from the mixture conveyed by the first conveying device (Fig. 1, drum sieve 2);
at least one additional larvae separating device for further separation of the insects or the worms from the water from the conveyed mixture, wherein preferably the separated water is available for further use in the insect facility, in particular in the cleaning system, in particular at least partially recirculated in the cleaning system, the at least one additional larvae separating device is arranged downstream from the first larvae separating device (Fig. 1, driveable drum sieve 2’);
wherein the separated water is available for further use in an insect facility, in particular in the cleaning system, and in particular is at least partially recirculated in the cleaning system (Col. 2, lines 1-7: “This measure enables advantageously that the entire particle-containing liquid flowing through the feed inlet is at least once circulated, that is at least once passes either in the housing or in the area of the trough through the perforations. so that the solids before being discharged by the liquid are freed from possibly adhering sludge residues, fecal residues or the like, and the particle residues remain in the liquid”).
Regarding claim 2, Kriegl discloses at least one storage tank for mass storage of the mixture, wherein the at least one storage tank is arranged downstream from the first conveying device (Fig. 1, collecting containers 12), wherein the cleaning system further comprises:
at least one additional conveying device for conveying the mixture, wherein the at least one additional conveying device is arranged between the first conveying device and the storage tank or downstream from the storage tank (Fig. 1, driveable drum sieve 2’).
Regarding claim 3, Kriegl discloses at least one additional collecting device for receiving and mixing the insects or the worms with water to form a mixture, wherein the at least one additional collecting device is arranged downstream from the first larvae separating device (Fig. 1, driveable drum sieve 2’).
Regarding claim 5, Kriegl discloses wherein at least one additional water supply is provided for the rewatering of the mixture (Col. 2, lines 8-12: “According to a further feature of the invention, spray nozzles may be arranged on the outside of the drum sieves along at least one surface line, however along several surface lines which are offset to each other by about 60°”), which opens after the first larvae separating device into a circuit and/or into the additional collecting device and/or into the at least one storage tank, and/or wherein at least one water tank is provided for storing water and for dispensing water into the circuit, and/or wherein at least one filter device is provided for filtering the separated water from the first larvae separating device and/or the at least one additional larvae separating device (Col. 2, lines 1-7: “This measure enables advantageously that the entire particle-containing liquid flowing through the feed inlet is at least once circulated, that is at least once passes either in the housing or in the area of the trough through the perforations. so that the solids before being discharged by the liquid are freed from possibly adhering sludge residues, fecal residues or the like, and the particle residues remain in the liquid”).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kriegl (US Pub. 5,507,947) in view of Bar (US Pub. 2022/0314288 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kriegl discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Bar, wherein the conveying device is designed as a contact-free pump, wherein the contact-free pump is in particular a peristaltic pump (Pg. 2, [0029]: “The substrate and biowaste are treated at the entrance to the facility by various pre-processes that may include sterilization, crushing, and storing, to produce a resulting particle size and texture suitable for efficient digestion by the insect larvae. Each pre-process requires dedicated apparatus, and is carried out until achieving a viscous pulp, after which the substrate and biowaste are received in separate reservoirs. Prior to being introduced to drum 5, the substrate and biowaste are delivered by a corresponding pump, e.g. a peristaltic pump, from the corresponding reservoir to a container supported on roller conveyor system 15, which is generally horizontally disposed to facilitate conveyance of the container to the vicinity of inlet port 2. The substrate and biowaste are then mixed together within the container”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the conveying device of Kriegl to be a peristaltic pump as taught by Bar as an improved means for conveyance.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kriegl (US Pub. 5,507,947).
Regarding claim 10, Kriegl discloses a screen drum having a shell section which has meshes (Fig. 1, drum sieve 2);
a transport screw within the screen drum for transporting the insects or the worms from an entry end of the screen drum to an exit end of the screen drum (Screen drums are known in the art to contain an interior transport screw to convey the material to the end of the drum).
However, Kriegl fails to disclose a screen drum having a shell section which has meshes with a mesh width of at least one of: 1.0 mm to 2.5 mm, 1.3 mm to 2.0 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a mesh range as prescribed to adequately retain the material being filtered, since it has been held that 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, Kriegl as modified discloses the claimed invention in addition to wherein the shell section of the screen drum is a wedge wire sieve (Fig. 1, drum sieve 2 is a wedge wire sieve).
However, Kriegl fails to disclose wherein the screen drum has an internal diameter of 500 mm to 3,000 mm, 1,000 mm to 1,500 mm, more of 1,100 mm to 1,250 mm, and/or wherein the transport screw has a screw length extending over the entire length of the screen drum, and/or wherein the transport screw has a screw height of at least one of: 5 mm to 300 mm, 50 mm to 150 mm, and 70 mm to 100 mm, and/or wherein the transport screw has a pitch of at least one of: 200 mm to 600 mm, 300 mm to 400 mm, and 330 mm to 375 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the device using the prescribed dimensions for adequate flow capacity, since it has been held that 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Kriegl as modified discloses the claimed invention in addition to at least one spray bar is provided for spraying a liquid by means of a plurality of nozzles, wherein the at least one spray bar is arranged within the screen drum, and/or the at least one spray bar is arranged outside the screen drum (Col. 2, lines 8-12: “According to a further feature of the invention, spray nozzles may be arranged on the outside of the drum sieves along at least one surface line, preferably however along several surface lines which are offset to each other by about 60°”). However, Kriegl fails to disclose wherein the at least one spray bar has 5 to 40 nozzles, preferably 8 to 28 nozzles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select within this range of nozzles for adequate watering of the mixture, since it has been held that 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kriegl (US Pub. 5,507,947) in view of Vamvakas (US Pub. 4,545,908).
Regarding claim 13, Kriegl as modified discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Vamvakas, wherein at least one cleaning element is provided to clean the shell section of the screen drum, wherein the at least one cleaning element is designed to clean the outer side of the screen drum and/or wherein the at least one cleaning element is designed as a brush element, wherein the at least one cleaning element extends over the entire length of the screen drum (Col. 3, lines 52-59: “Also provided are brushes 70, 71 secured to the bottom hopper edges 17, 18, respectively, and extending downwardly therefrom which operatively contact the drums to clean the outer surfaces thereof and forestall clogging of the drum perforations 38. Additionally, a brush 76 is secured to a bottom wall 77 of the tank, interiorly thereof, and operatively contacting the filter 44 to clean the exterior cylindrical surface thereof”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drum of Kriegl to contain the brush of Vamvakas to prevent the accumulation of debris around the drum.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7-8, 17-18 are allowed.
Claim(s) 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim(s) 6, 15-16, 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. 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, Joshua Michener can be reached on 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights