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
The submission entered December 8, 2025 in response to an Office Action mailed June 17, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 20-32 are pending. Claim(s) 1-19 is/are cancelled. Claim(s) 20-32 is/are newly presented.
The objections to the specification presented in the Office Action listed above are hereby withdrawn.
The objections to the drawings presented in the Office Action listed above are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “device configured to generate a media flow…further configured to add a carrier additive to the media flow” [Claim 24], “device configured to move the channel” [Claim 26] must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
See “device configured to generate the media flow” in claim 22 with “device” being the generic placeholder and “configured to generate the media flow” being the modifying functional language. The specification discloses a compressor.
See “device for generating a media flow” in claim 23 with “device” being the generic placeholder and “for generating a media flow” being the modifying functional language. The specification discloses a compressor.
See “device configured to generate a media flow…further configured to add a carrier additive to the media flow” in claim 24 with “device” being the generic placeholder and “configured to generate a media flow…further configured to add a carrier additive to the media flow” being the modifying functional language. The specification discloses a compressor for generating a media flow but fails to disclose structure that both generates a media flow and adds a carrier additive.
See “device configured to move the channel” in claim 26 with “device” being the generic placeholder and “configured to move the channel” being the modifying functional language. The specification fails to disclose a corresponding structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
It is noted that “device for transporting a plurality of insects” in claim 23 is not being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because the claim recites a “channel”, which is considered to be sufficient structure for the function of “transporting”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 24-32 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 24 recites “device configured to generate a media flow…further configured to add a carrier additive to the media flow”. While the specification provides support for a device configured to generate a media flow (the disclosed compressor), the specification fails to support a device that both generates a media flow and adds a carrier additive. As such, the claim language lacks support in the specification and is considered to be new matter.
Regarding Claim(s) 26, the claim recites “a device configured to move the channel”, however, the specification fails to disclose a corresponding structure for performing the function. As such, the claim language lacks support in the specification and is considered to be new matter.
Claims 25-32 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 24-32 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(s) 24, claim limitation “device configured to generate a media flow…further configured to add a carrier additive to the media flow” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification provides support for a device configured to generate a media flow (the disclosed compressor), the specification fails to support a device that both generates a media flow and adds a carrier additive. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claim(s) 25, the language “the channel being configured to selectively connect the chamber with one of multiple chambers or locations’ renders the claim indefinite because the language does not clearly delineate between chambers. Descriptive language such as “first chamber” and “second chamber” is suggested to clearly delineate between chambers.
Claims 25-32 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stark (USPN 10647527).
Regarding Claim(s) 24, Stark (USPN 10647527) teaches a device for transporting a plurality of insects from a chamber (container 2) to a location (receptacle 11) through a channel (conveyor line 4), the device comprising: a media-flow generating device (compressor 8) configured to generate a media flow suitable for transporting the plurality of insects at least partially actively from the chamber to the location; the media-flow generating device being further configured to add a carrier additive (water through humidifier 9) to the media flow, the carrier additive being suitable for protecting the plurality of insects during transport and an amount of the carrier additive being metered as a function of an amount of the transported insects. The device is used to transport plastic pellets. Water is added to the pipe (1) through humidifier (9), the water being considered a carrier additive. The water protects the pellets by reducing abrasion on the pellets. The amount of water is dependent on the amount of pellets to control the humidity content of the pellets [Col. 3:45-56]. It is noted that recitations toward the transporting of insects are considered to recitations of intended use and recitations directed toward the material operated upon, neither of which are considered to structurally limit the invention. See MPEP 2111.02 and MPEP 2115. The device of Stark would be capable of transporting insects.
Regarding Claim(s) 25, Stark teaches multiple chambers and/or locations [Col. 4:65-67, “a plurality of containers to one or a plurality of receptacles”; at least one introduction opening for at least one chamber (there would inherently be an opening where the conveyor line meets the receptacle), the at least one introduction opening being suitable for feeding insects; and the channel being configured to selectively connect the chamber with one of the multiple chambers or locations [Col. 4:61-67, “conveyor line 4 may have a sequential and/or branched configuration”, “conveyor line formed of a plurality of conveyor sections is in particular used to connect one or a plurality of containers 2 to one or a plurality of receptacles 11”].
Regarding Claim(s) 27, the claim recites the manner of operating the device, which does not differentiate the claimed device from the prior art. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim(s) 28, Stark teaches a compressor station (compressor 8).
Regarding Claim(s) 31, Stark teaches the device of claim 24; therefore, Stark teaches the station of claim 31.
Regarding Claim(s) 32, Stark teaches the device of claim 24; therefore, Stark teaches the installation of claim 32.
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.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Sundholm (US Pub 20150246773 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 26, Stark teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach a device configured to move the channel at least partially in a direction of at least one chamber or location. Sundholm (US Pub 20150246773 A1) teaches a device (drive means 10) configured to move a channel (pipeline 2) to connect the channel with different containers (50A-D). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a device configured to move the channel at least partially in a direction of at least one chamber or location since the elements were known in the art and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could have combined the elements and achieved predictable results. The device would allow material to move to multiple locations as needed.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Clancy et al. (USPN 4014577).
Regarding Claim(s) 29, Stark teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the compressor station is a selected from a group consisting of a side-channel compressor and piston compressor. Clancy et al. (USPN 4014577) teaches a piston compressor (10) to generate an air flow. Using a piston compressor to generate an air flow is well-known in the pneumatic conveying arts, as shown by Clancy et al. Using a piston compressor in place of the compressor of Stark would amount to nothing more than simple substitution. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a piston compressor for the compressor of Stark as simple substitution. One of ordinary skill would select the compressor based on factors such as availability and economic viability.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark.
Regarding Claim(s) 30, Stark teaches the limitations described above and teaches the channel including bends (13), yet fails to teach the channel including bends having a bend radius greater than 0.5 meters. However, a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the bend radius of a bend as engineering expedient in order to fit the channel within the space confines of the application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-23 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art fails to anticipate or fairly suggest a method for transporting a plurality of insects, the method comprising generating a media flow that acts on the plurality of insects; and adding a carrier additive to the media flow, combined with the rest of the claim language. Andreev et al. discloses generating a media flow that acts on a plurality of insects, but fails to teach adding a carrier additive to the media flow.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. 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, MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653