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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/6/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 5/6/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the steps in Group 1 cannot practically be performed by hand. This is not found persuasive because MPEP §808.02 recites that for the purposes of the initial requirement of a restriction, a serious burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown if the examiner shows by appropriate explanation either separate classification, separate status in the art, or a different field of search as defined in MPEP §808.02. Since the Examiner has shown a different classification for the two groups of claims, a burden for examining both groups has been shown.”
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Popa et al. (US 2018/0360008).
Regarding Claim 1: Popa discloses a method of for growing dipteran larvae [abstract; 0138]. Popa discloses that the propagation method can be scaled up or down [0032]. Popa discloses modifying mixture containing larval feed by sterilizing or drying to control the growth of mold (a potential pathogen) [0084; 0085]. Popa discloses the larval feed as containing organic/food waste [0015; 0077] and placing it in an incubation container. Popa discloses that the method includes growing black soldier fly larvae [abstract; 0050]. Popa discloses adding water to the incubation container [0082; 0083]. Popa discloses adding larvae to the incubation container with feed and water [0087]. Popa discloses mixing the mixture by hand or with a mixer/spreader/rake device [0089]. Popa discloses harvesting the larvae [0096-0098]. Popa discloses generating protein meal from the larvae [abstract; 0102; 0103; 0134-0136].
Regarding Claim 3: Popa discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Popa discloses placing larvae bedding material (static pile) in an incubation container and then adding feed [0064; 0074-0076]. Popa discloses aerating the bedding [0064].
Regarding Claim 5: Popa discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Popa discloses aerating the bedding layer (static pile) and using small fans to aerate the bedding [0064]. Popa discloses dry air flow applied to the bedding at a desired temperature of 55 -95°C [0073].
Regarding Claim 7: Popa discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Popa discloses determining and achieving desired levels of moisture and temperature of feed mixture [0084; 0086; 0087] which is synonymous with the recitation that the “predetermined level corresponds to a moisture and/or temperature level of the modified organic waste”.
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popa et al. (US 2018/0360008).
Regarding Claim 2: Popa disclose as discussed above in claim 1. Popa discloses using hands or a mixer/spreader/raker for mixing the feed mixture and does not disclose a modification of the temperature of the feed [0063; 0089]. Although Popa does not explicitly disclose using one or more windrow turner, it would have been obvious to utilize a method of turning the feed to distribute the moisture since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Further, the determination of patentability is based on the recited method and does not depend on the specifics of the apparatus used to execute the method. Here, the products resulting from the process of Popa including protein meal are the same or substantially similar to those obtained in the inventive process and therefore does not depend upon the apparatus of claim 8.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popa et al. (US 2018/0360008) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Tomberlin et al. (US 2021/0084873) and Leo (US 2021/0137137).
Regarding Claim 4: Popa discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Popa discloses the inclusion of ingredients that can qualify as compost including lignocellulosic materials [0066; 0067].
Popa does not explicitly disclose further comprising: causing a biolayer of finished compost to be placed over the modified organic waste to serve as insulation and a filter for noxious emissions.
Tomberlin discloses a method of feeding black soldier fly larvae [abstract]. Tomberlin discloses placing the larvae in between a fermented nutrient source (feed) and a dry nutrient source [0044; claim 23]. Tomberlin discloses that the top layer absorbs excess moisture [0052].
Leo discloses a method of providing feed to insects including black soldier fly larvae [abstract; 0035]. Leo discloses various types of waste and compost as feedstock for insects [0014; 0291; 0470]. Leo discloses sourcing insect larvae [0535; 0544; 0693; 0761].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Popa to further include a layer of dry feed material as in Tomberlin in order to aid in managing the moisture, deterring escape of the larvae from the container and providing another feed source for the larvae.
Further it would have been obvious to modify the layer of modified Popa to include compost as in Leo since Leo discloses compost as a nutrient source for larvae. Further it is known in the art that lignocellulosic materials are used as compost and since Popa discloses use of these materials for reducing odors [0067] it would have been obvious to include them as provided for by Tomberlin.
The Examiner notes that the limitation “to serve as insulation and a filter for noxious emissions” is a recitation of intended use and in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, the recitation must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. MPEP 2103 states that intended use language "does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim". The above mentioned phrase does not limit the claim to any particular structure, so it is not interpreted to limit the scope of the claims. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popa et al. (US 2018/0360008) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Ghosh (US 2022/0087228).
Regarding Claim 6: Popa discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Popa discloses that the method is amendable to automation [0046].
Popa does not explicitly disclose further comprising: using one or more neural networks to predict the predetermined level that allows the BSFL to grow with the modified organic waste.
Ghosh discloses a method for maintaining livestock infrastructure [abstract ]. Ghosh discloses using neural networks to help manage healthy growing conditions in various types of animals and insects[0014-0017; 0022; 0023].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Popa to include the step of utilizing a neural network as in Ghosh to manage the growing/husbandry levels to allow for optimal growth of the larvae.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICIA C TURNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3733. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-4:00 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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/Felicia C Turner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights