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 12/25/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 10, and 53-57 are pending. Prior objections and rejections not included below are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cadesky (US 2018/0310591 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Cadesky teaches a product comprised of comminuted insects [0172] which has a gel structure [0160], which is the same as an insect paste.
Cadesky teaches that the product has improved water holding [0174] but does not specifically address a water holding capacity under the conditions described in the claim.
However, given that the prior art is similar to the claimed product, with a similar intended use, composition, and processing, there is an expectation that the product of the prior art have the property of a water holding capacity as claimed. Note that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding Claim 3, Cadesky does not address the dispersibility of the insect paste (or gel).
However, given that the prior art is similar to the claimed product, with a similar intended use, composition, and processing, there is an expectation that the product of the prior art have the property of a protein dispersibility index as claimed. Note that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Cadesky teaches that the insect product has inhibited discoloration [0159] but does not discuss the specific color of the product.
However, given that the prior art is similar to the claimed product, with a similar intended use, composition, and processing, there is an expectation that the product of the prior art have the color properties as claimed. Note that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding Claim 7, Cadesky teaches heating of an insect “milk” [0249] to 95 °C, which lies within the claimed range. Note that the insect “milk” of Cadesky is a mixture comprising comminuted insects [0248], which is the same as a pulp.
Cadesky does not address a specific cooling step. However, Cadesky describes subsequent steps of filtering and molding [0250], which is interpreted to take place at ambient temperatures, absent evidence to the contrary. Cadesky is therefore interpreted to teaching a cooling step of the insect product. Note that since Cadesky teaches cooling from an elevated temperature to an ambient temperature, Cadesky therefore teaches cooling to the intermediate temperatures (i.e. 35-45 °C and below 35 °C) for a first, second, and third time period. Cadesky therefore teaches the cooling profile as claimed.
Regarding Claim 54, Cadesky teaches the use of an insect product in food [0006]. Cadesky teaches that the product is comprised of comminuted insects [0172] which has a gel structure [0160], which is the same as an insect paste.
Cadesky teaches that the product improved water holding [0174] but does not specifically address a water holding capacity under the conditions described in the claim.
However, given that the prior art is similar to the claimed product, with a similar intended use, composition, and processing, there is an expectation that the product of the prior art have the property of a water holding capacity as claimed. Note that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01 I.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6, 10, 53 and 55-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadesky (US 2018/0310591 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Cadesky teaches the use of black soldier fly larvae [0162] but does not address the specific age of the larvae.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have utilized black soldier fly larvae at any age in the product of Cadesky. Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific limitations recited in instant claims are for any particular purpose or solve any stated problem, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of the method disclosed by the prior art by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 recites an insect paste that “can be” prepared by the steps of the Claim. The steps of the Claim are therefore not required to meet the limitations of the Claim. Regardless, Cadesky teaches heating of an insect “milk” [0249] to 95 °C for at least two minutes, which lies within the claimed temperature and overlaps the claimed duration. Note that the insect “milk” of Cadesky is a mixture comprising comminuted insects [0248], which is the same as a pulp.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claim 53, Cadesky teaches heating of an insect “milk” [0249] to 95 °C for at least two minutes, which lies within the claimed temperature and overlaps the claimed duration. Note that the insect “milk” of Cadesky is a mixture comprising comminuted insects [0248], which is the same as a pulp.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claim 55, Cadesky teaches heating of an insect “milk” [0249] to 95 °C, which lies within the claimed range. Note that the insect “milk” of Cadesky is a mixture comprising comminuted insects [0248], which is the same as a pulp.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Cadesky does not address a specific cooling step. However, Cadesky describes subsequent steps of filtering and molding [0250], which is interpreted to take place at ambient temperatures, absent evidence to the contrary. Cadesky is therefore interpreted to teaching a cooling step of the insect product. Note that since Cadesky teaches cooling from an elevated temperature to an ambient temperature (i.e. about 25 °C), Cadesky therefore teaches cooling to the intermediate temperatures (i.e. 35-45 °C and below 35 °C) for a first, second, and third time period. Note that any time period may meets the limitation of the first, second, and third time period of the claim. Cadesky therefore teaches the cooling profile as claimed.
Regarding Claims 56, Cadesky teaches heating of an insect “milk” [0249] to 95 °C for at least two minutes, which lies within the claimed temperature and overlaps the claimed duration. Note that the insect “milk” of Cadesky is a mixture comprising comminuted insects [0248], which is the same as a pulp.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding Claim 57, Cadesky teaches heating of an insect “milk” [0249] to 95 °C for at least two minutes, which lies within the claimed temperature and overlaps the claimed duration. Note that the insect “milk” of Cadesky is a mixture comprising comminuted insects [0248], which is the same as a pulp.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, Applicant argues that the assertion that Cadesky possess the claimed water holding capacity (WHC) is not supported by evidence, and the Office has not established that Cadesky’s product is substantially identical to the claimed product. Applicant additionally argues that Cadesky teaches a fundamentally different process (Page 7 of Remarks).
This argument is not convincing. Cadesky teaches the limitations of the Claims, and is therefore expected to have the same properties as the present inventive insect paste. Additionally, note that Applicant has not claimed the exclusion of, e.g. the extraction buffer or enzymatic treatment of Cadesky.
Applicant additionally argues that Cadesky does not teach or suggest the specific controlled two-stage cooling process of Claim 7 (Page 8 of Remarks). Applicant additionally alleges that the claimed cooling process is responsible for the water holding capacity.
This argument is not convincing. Since Cadesky teaches cooling from an elevated temperature to an ambient temperature, Cadesky therefore teaches cooling to the intermediate temperatures (i.e. 35-45 °C and below 35 °C) for a first, second, and third time period. Cadesky therefore teaches the cooling profile as claimed. Note that the claimed “controlled” processes of e.g. Claims 7 and 55 encompass any process which heats the insect pulp to above 45 °C and subsequently cools to below 35 °C. Additionally, note that the burden falls to the Applicant to show that the product of Cadesky does not have the claimed water holding capacity.
Applicant additionally argues that Cadesky does not teach the claimed dispersibility, or the claimed color properties (Pages 8-9 of Remarks).
This argument is not convincing. Cadesky teaches the limitations of the Claims, and is therefore expected to have the same properties as the present inventive insect paste.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues that Cadesky does not discuss the age of the black soldier fly larvae, and routine optimization cannot apply without recognition in the prior of a result effective variable.
This argument is not convincing. It would have been obvious to have used black soldier fly larvae at any age, including within the claimed ranges. Note that larval age is known in the art to be correlated with, e.g. size.
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.
/D.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights