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 .
Application Status
This action is responsive to the claims filed 13 November 2025.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and being examined.
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.
“rotation means for rotating the roller” in claim 1. Which is interpreted as “[t]he axial shaft 16 of the roller 6 is rotatably driven by the rotation means, which are a motor that rotatably drives the axial shaft 16.” (Specification p. 6)
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackley (US 6,286,421) in view of Ackley ‘900 (US 3,868,900).
PNG
media_image1.png
440
345
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 6: Ackley teaches a machine (10-fig.1) for filling a container (42-fig.1) with insect larvae (12-fig.1; 12 is capable of being insect larvae), wherein the container has a plurality of compartments distributed in rows for receiving a larva in each compartment (fig.2; 7:43-52), the machine comprising a hopper (28-fig.1) for receiving the larvae, a roller (annot. fig.) which is arranged adjacent to the hopper and has lines of openings (annot. fig.) on its outer surface for adhering a larva at each opening (7:19-34), a vacuum pump (44-fig.1) for applying a vacuum inside the roller and adhering the larvae to the openings, a conveyor (36-fig.1) for moving the container according to a forward movement direction towards the roller (7:19-34), the container being moved through an area below the roller and the roller being arranged in a transverse position with respect to the forward movement direction of the container (36-fig.1; 7:4-34), and rotation means for rotating the roller in a manner that is synchronized with the forward movement of the container from a loading position in which the larvae from the hopper are adhered to the openings of the roller to an unloading position in which one of the lines of openings of the roller faces the compartments of one of the rows of the container (7:4-34), such that when the vacuum is removed from the line of openings in the unloading position, the larvae are released, with one larva being arranged in each compartment of the row of the container (see fig.1 showing the vacuum is only applied during part of the conveying process and is not applied when transferring to container).
Ackley does not expressly disclose a conveyor belt.
However, Ackley ‘600 teaches a conveyor belt (47-fig.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Ackley, by having the second conveying member be a conveyor belt, as taught by Ackley ‘600, as a well-known alternative conveying member.
Ackley as modified by Ackley ‘900 further teaches:
Claim 7: The machine according to claim 6, wherein the roller (Ackley: annot. fig.) has channels (Ackley: annot. fig.) inside, each channel is in fluid communication with one of the lines of openings (Ackley: annot. fig.), and one of the ends of the roller is rotatably attached to a fixed collector having a first sector (Ackley: annot. fig.) that is in fluid communication with the vacuum pump, such that during the rotation of the roller a vacuum is applied to the openings of the channels that are connected to the first sector, with the vacuum being absent in the rest of the openings (see 44 fig.1; 7:19-33).
Claim 14: Ackley teaches the process according to claim 6.
Ackley does not expressly teach the vacuum of between 0.2 bar and 0.7 bar is applied through the openings that have a diameter of between 0.5mm to 2mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to have the vacuum between 0.2 and 0.7 bar and openings having a diameter of between 0.5mm to 2mm, since it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141. Further, in re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Examiner notes that there is no stated criticality in the specification for these ranges.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackley (US 6,286,421) in view of Ackley ‘900 (US 3,868,900), further in view of Parks (US 5,826,633).
Ackley as modified by Ackley ‘900 further teaches:
Claim 8: The machine according to claim 7.
Ackley as modified by Ackley ‘900 does not expressly teach the fixed collector has a second sector arranged in the unloading position that is in fluid communication with air injector, such that during the rotation of the roller, air is injected into the openings of the channel that are connected to the second sector.
However, Parks teaches fixed collector has a second sector (60-fig.8) arranged in the unloading position that is in fluid communication with air injector, such that during the rotation of the roller, air is injected into the openings of the channel that are connected to the second sector (12:22-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Ackley and Ackley ‘900, by having an ejection air stream, as taught by Parks, to ensure the articles are fully expelled out of the roller and into the container opening.
Claim 9: The machine according to claim 6.
Ackley as modified by Ackley ‘900 does not expressly teach a sensor arranged downstream of the roller according to the forward movement direction of the container, the rotation of the roller being maintained while the sensor is active.
However, Parks teaches a sensor arranged downstream of the roller according to the forward movement direction of the container, the rotation of the roller being maintained while the sensor is active (12:22-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Ackley and Ackley ‘900, by having a sensor, as taught by Parks, to ensure there is an article to be placed into a container.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackley (US 6,286,421) in view of Ackley ‘900 (US 3,868,900), further in view of Bardy (US 2,901,209).
Ackley as modified by Ackley ‘900 further teaches:
Claim 10: The machine according to claim 1.
Ackley as modified by Ackley ‘900 does not expressly teach a sensor is a limit switch which is arranged on one side of the conveyor belt and is configured to contact the container.
However, Bardy teaches a sensor is a limit switch configured to contact a container (7:44-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Ackley and Ackley ‘900, by having limit switch, as taught by Bardy, to ensure proper alignment before a filling operation proceeds, thus preventing unfilled of partially filled containers.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackley (US 6,286,421) in view of Ackley ‘900 (US 3,868,900), further in view of Spiers (US 6,837,281).
Ackley as modified by Ackley ‘900 further teaches:
Claim 11: The machine according to claim 6.
Auckley as modified by Ackley ‘900 does not expressly teach a first collection tray which is arranged adjacent to the roller in a position that is between the loading position and a position immediately preceding the unloading position, according to the rotation of the roller, to collect by gravity larvae that are adhered to the outer surface of the roller without being adhered to the openings.
However, Spiers teaches a first collection tray (360,306,308,340-fig.2) which is arranged adjacent to the roller in a position that is between the loading position and a position immediately preceding the unloading position, according to the rotation of the roller, to collect by gravity larvae that are adhered to the outer surface of the roller without being adhered to the openings (4:65-5:14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Ackley and Ackley ‘900, by having a collector, as taught by Spiers, so extra articles that are not retained by the vacuum drum can be collected and recycled back to the hopper for future filling operations.
Claim 12: The machine according to claim 6.
Ackley as modified by Ackley ‘900 does not expressly teach a second collection tray which is arranged adjacent to the roller in a position below the hopper and vertically aligned with the hopper, to collect larvae that slip through a space between the hopper and the roller.
However, Spiers teaches a second collection tray (360,306,308,340-fig.2) which is arranged adjacent to the roller in a position below the hopper and vertically aligned with the hopper, to collect larvae that slip through a space between the hopper and the roller (4:65-5:14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Ackley and Ackley ‘900, by having a collector, as taught by Spiers, so extra articles that are not retained by the vacuum drum can be collected and recycled back to the hopper for future filling operations.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackley (US 6,286,421) in view of Ackley ‘900 (US 3,868,900), further in view of in view of Murokh (US 2014/0123601).
Ackley as modified by Ackley ‘900 further teaches:
Claim 13: The process according to claim 6.
Ackley as modified by Ackley ‘900 does not expressly teach the hopper moves with respect to the roller according to a back-and-forth movement in a transverse direction with respect to the forward movement direction to distribute the larvae from the hopper onto the roller.
However, Murokh teaches a hopper (182-fig.6) moves with respect to the roller according to a back-and-forth movement in a transverse direction with respect to the forward movement direction to distribute the larvae from the hopper onto the roller (¶[0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Ackley and Ackley ‘900, by having vibrating hopper, as taught by Murokh, “to agitate the capsules in the reservoir, thereby preventing the agglomeration and assisting the loading into the channels.” (Murokh ¶[0024])
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ackley (US 6,286,421) in view of Ackley ‘900 (US 3,868,900), further in view of Ackley ‘081 (US 8,373,081).
Ackley as modified by Ackley ‘900 further teaches:
Claim 15: The machine according to claim 6.
Ackley as modified by Ackley ‘900 does not expressly teach a collection drawer which is arranged upstream of the roller at one end of the machine and in a position below the conveyor belt.
However, Ackley ‘081 teaches a collection drawer (92-fig.5) which is arranged upstream of the roller at one end of the machine and in a position below the conveyor belt (at least9:60-10:5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Ackley and Ackley ‘900, by having a reject bin, as taught by Ackley ‘900, so if any of the articles do not meet the required standards they can be rejected before being further processed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 1: the subject matter of a process for filling a container with insect larvae is allowable over the prior art because of the combination of process step limitations set forth in the claim and their relationship to one another. Dependent claims 4-5 are also allowable over the prior art as they depend from allowable claim 1.
Claim 1 includes the following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of claim 1, are what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claim 1 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
“- supplying the larvae to a hopper which is arranged adjacent to a roller having lines of openings on the outer surface thereof for adhering a larva at each opening,
- applying a vacuum inside the roller for adhering the larvae to the openings,
- moving the container in a linear forward movement direction towards the roller …
- removing the vacuum from the line of openings in the unloading position in order to release the larvae, with one larva being arranged in each compartment of the row of the container.”
The prior art of record that comes closest to teaching the limitations is Ackley (US 6,286,421), which teaches a process for filling a container comprising: supply a product to a hopper, applying a vacuum inside a roller, moving a container towards the roller, rotating a roller from a loading position to an unloading position, and removing the vacuum from the roller. Ackley ‘900 (US 3,868,900) teaches the container moving in a linear forward movement direction. The prior art is silent in regard to a process for filling a container with insect larvae, wherein the openings of the roller hold a larva during the process. Therefore, the combination set forth in the claims are not discussed, taught, or suggested in the prior art.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 8-11, filed 13 November 2025, with respect to claims 1-5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC §102 and §103 rejections of claims 1-5 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 13 November 2025 in regard to claim 6 and dependents have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument:
“Neither Ackley nor Ackley '900 disclose a vacuum pump focused on keeping the larvae in the openings from the loading position to the unloading position.” (Remarks p.13-14)
Examiner’s response:
Claim 6 recites “a vacuum pump for applying a vacuum inside the roller and adhering the larvae to the openings” and “the vacuum is removed from the line of openings in the unloading position”, no where in the claim does it recite that the vacuum is continuously applied from the opening to the unloading position. The claim merely requires there to be a vacuum to hold an object to an opening at any point of operation of the machine and that there is no vacuum at the unloading position. Therefore, Ackley does teach the claim limitations as written.
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 KATIE L GERTH whose telephone number is (303)297-4602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-4pm (CT).
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571)272-4524. 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.
/KATIE L GERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731