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 .
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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Norgaard et al. (US 2022/0000144 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Norgaard et al. teaches a method for producing enriched biomass for use as a feed source (abstract) for invertebrates such as fly larvae (paragraph 57), where the biomass includes a sludge sourced from paper manufacture (paragraph 49) and therefore considered to be a type of “pulp and paper biosludge”, the biosludge comprising lignocellulose (paragraph 63), the method comprising heating the biosludge to a temperature of 120-200oC in a reactor to hydrolyze the components into sugars and to destructure the lignocellulose matrix (paragraph 69). The retention time in the reactor can be e.g., 2-4 hours (paragraph 93). Sugar is disclosed in Applicant’s specification to be a degradation product that can be digested by larvae (paragraph 26), and a sufficient heating time is disclosed to be between 5 and 600 minutes (paragraph 12). Therefore, the process of Norgaard et al. is construed to heat the biosludge for a “period of time to break down the lignocellulose to a form that can be digested by the larvae, thereby producing the larvae feed mix comprising the broken-down lignocellulose”.
Regarding claim 2, Norgaard et al. teaches the feed can be obtained from biosludge that is hygienized (paragraph 14 and 21). Further, the reference teaches the biosludge can be treated by a combination of thermal and enzymatic hydrolysis (paragraph 63), where enzymatic hydrolysis can be performed at e.g., 75oC (paragraph 71).
Regarding claim 3, Norgaard et al. teaches heating to a temperature of 120-200oC in a reactor for a duration greater than 5 minutes as stated for claim 1, and can be sterilized (paragraph 73).
Regarding claims 5-6, Norgaard et al. teaches the biosludge is pretreated with water and heat (i.e., wet biosludge) as stated for claim 1, fermented to obtain a protein composition (paragraph 104), then dried to obtain the feed (paragraphs 14 and 106). The drying is performed by known dewatering devices (paragraph 107).
Regarding claim 7, Norgaard et al. teaches the retention time in the reactor can be e.g., 2-4 hours (paragraph 93)
Regarding claim 8, Norgaard et al. teaches adding one or more additives such as protein, carbohydrate, and/or fat sources to adjust the nutritional content of the feed (paragraphs 83 and 111).
Regarding claim 9, Norgaard et al. teaches water is added to the biosludge to form an at least partially aqueous medium while maintaining at a temperature between 55-90oC (paragraph 80). The process is therefore construed to be a type of dilution of the biosludge.
Regarding claim 10, Norgaard et al. teaches heating the biosludge in the reactor at a temperature between 120-200oC as stated for claim 1, where the biosludge is combined with “strong acid that is diluted in water” (paragraph 69). The process is therefore construed to be a type of dilution of the biosludge.
Regarding claim 15, Norgaard et al. teaches the biosludge can be heated to a temperature between 55-90oC (paragraph 80).
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.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norgaard et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5-10 and 15 above, and further in view of Medoff (US 2010/0124583 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Norgaard et al. does not teach heating is performed on a biosludge that has been dewatered.
Medoff teaches a method to produce food products from biomass (abstract), including lignocellulosic feedstock from paper and pulp waste streams (paragraph 111), where the feedstock is partially or fully dried (paragraphs 112 and 196).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Norgaard et al. to dewater the biosludge before heating since the prior art recognizes the feedstock material can be dried prior to processing, since there is no evidence of unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and in order to obtain a feedstock having a desired water content based on the amount of water to be added during processing e.g., hydrolysis or fermentation.
Regarding claim 16, Norgaard et al. teaches dewatering as stated for claim 6, but does not teach the dewatering device comprises a centrifuge.
Medoff further teaches dewatering by centrifuge (paragraphs 454 and 764).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Norgaard et al. to dewater the biosludge using a centrifuge since the reference does not particularly limit the type of dewatering device, since the prior art recognizes centrifuges used for dewatering treated biosludge, and since there is no evidence of unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and therefore as a substitution of art recognized equivalents suitable for the same purpose of removing water from a substance.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norgaard et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 5-10 and 15 above.
Regarding claim 17, Norgaard et al. does not specify the temperature range of 100-190oC.
However, the temperature can be from 120-200oC as stated for claim 1. Further, the fermentation process can be performed at a temperature of e.g., 80-110oC, based on the type of organism used for said process (paragraph 80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Norgaard et al. to use the claimed temperature range since the reference teaches multiple ranges overlapping the claimed range, since there is no evidence of unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and since the values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as desired rate of hydrolysis and type of organism used for fermentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claimed invention is based on the thermal treatment on its own breaking down the lignocellulose to a form that can be directly digested by larvae, whereas Norgaard uses a first pretreatment step followed by fermentation, the microbes digest the biomass and consume part of the nutritional content without breaking down the lignocellulose to the same extent as the claimed invention, and the resulting feed includes microbes.
This is not persuasive since the claim as currently drafted recites the transitional phrase “comprising”, and thus does not exclude other steps for obtaining the feed mix. Likewise, there is no indication that the thermal treatment “on its own” forms the feed mix, and no indication that the resulting feed cannot include microbes. Norgaard teaches heating to 120-200oC for 2-4 hours to hydrolyze the lignocellulose, which appears to be the same as Applicant’s claimed process as explained for claim 1. Further, the pretreatment makes it possible “to destructure the lignocellulosic matrix”, and results in a fraction “enriched with sugars”. Sugar is disclosed in Applicant’s specification to be a degradation product that can be digested by larvae (paragraph 26), and a sufficient heating time is disclosed to be between 5 and 600 minutes (paragraph 12), which encompasses the duration taught by Norgaard. Absent evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill would have expected the pretreated sludge of Norgaard to also be digestible by the larvae.
Applicant argues Norgaard uses microbes as a source of protein, and the lignocellulose itself is not broken down sufficiently to be used as a feed for the larvae.
This is not persuasive since Norgaard explicitly teaches adding one or more additives such as protein, carbohydrate, and/or fat sources to adjust the nutritional content of the feed (paragraphs 83 and 111). Further, the reference states the lignocellulose is destructured and pretreating obtains sugars, which are digestible by larvae as stated above, and the heating conditions during pretreatment appear to be the same as that of the claimed process. Applicant argues “the lignocellulose itself is not broken down sufficiently to be used as a feed for the larvae”, but has not shown evidence this is actually the case.
Applicant’s argument against the dependent claims is not persuasive for the same reasons stated above.
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 BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)-270-3475. 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.
/B.K/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights