The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Claims 38-57 are currently under examination and the subject matter of the present Office Action. 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. Claim s 38-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for treatment of an inflammatory intestinal disease , does not reasonably provide enablement for prophylaxis of an inflammatory intestinal disease . The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. This is a scope of enablement rejection. While determine whether a specification is enabling, one considers whether the claimed invention provides sufficient guidance to make and use the invention, if not, whether an artisan would have required undue experimentation to make and use the claimed invention and whether working examples has been provided. When determining whether a specification meets the enablement requirements, some of the factors that need to be analyzed are: the breadth of the claims, the nature of the invention, the state of the prior art, the level of one of ordinary skill, the level of predictability in the art, the amount of direction provided by the inventor, the existence of working examples, and whether the quantity of any necessary experimentation to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure is "undue" (In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Claim 38 recites a method for prophylaxis or treatment of “inflammatory intestinal disease . ” However, the phrase “prophylaxis,” given its broadest reasonable interpretation with the specification, requires that no tissue or individual would present any symptom of the disorder before treatment with the elected compound. There is no evidence, either in the specification or in the prior art, that any method to date can accomplish this goal. Furthermore, there is no support for the prevention of any disorder, as is required by the claims, and neither can such support be obtained through reasonable extrapolation of the data. The definition of the word prophylaxis encompasses keeping from happening, averting or impeding. The prior art teaches the pathophysiology of inflammatory intestinal disease remains vague ( abstract; Kumar et al. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Nanotechnology, Vol. 13, Issue 2, March – April 2020). Hence, a skilled practitioner in the art could recognize that the prophylaxis of inflammatory intestinal disease indicates that the subject will never experience any characteristics associated with inflammatory intestinal disease . The amount of guidance present in the specification and the absence of data indicating that inflammatory intestinal disease does not occur by administration of the claimed composition , and the state of the prior art, Applicant is not enabled for the prevention of inflammatory intestinal disease . Due to the large quantity of experimentation necessary to determine whether inflammatory intestinal disease could be prevented by the claimed composition of the instant invention and the lack of direction/guidance presented in the specification regarding the same, the absence of working examples which can clearly be assessed the complex nature of the invention, the state of the prior art which establishes the inability of any treatment to prevent initial outbreak of inflammatory intestinal disease , undue experimentation would be required of the skilled artisan to make and/or use the claimed invention in its full scope . 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 40-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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. E Claims 40-47 require that the insect protein composition is “derived” from a component of the larvae of black soldier fly. The claim fails to identify what constitutes this derivation. For purposes of examination, “derived” will be interpreted as the larvae of the black soldier fly. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.— Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim s 38 and 49-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Independent claim 38 recites treatment or prophylaxis of an inflammatory intestinal condition in a human subject or an animal, while dependent claims 49 and 50 recite administration to a “healthy human subject” or “an animal not suffering from inflammatory intestinal disease,” respectively. Given that the independent claim requires treatment of an inflammatory intestinal condition, it is unclear how these dependent claim limitations further limit the independent claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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. Claim(s) 38-57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Paul (WO 2021/054824; submitted in IDS). Paul teaches the oral administration of an insect protein composition to a human or a cat or dog comprising an insect protein composition comprising the larvae of black solider fly wherein the larvae have been minced, enzymatically hydrolyzed or is water soluble (see claims 24-44). The specification defines prophylaxis from the disease to be prevention of the disease (see page 28, line 17-18). In order to prevent one must necessarily administer before the presence of disease and therefor e the administration of the composition to a human or a cat or dog would then prevent inflammatory intestinal disease. Claim(s) 38 - 52 and 55- 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar et al. (Fish and ShellFish Immunology, 109, 116-124, 2021 ; submitted in IDS ). Kumar et al. teach the prevention of intestinal enteritis with administration of an oral administration of black soldier fly larvae (BSFL) in fish feeds (abstract). The BSFL composition comprises water and is cold pelleted (page 117, second column, last paragraph). 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. 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 (s) 38-57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (Fish and ShellFish Immunology, 109, 116-124, 2021; submitted in IDS) in view of Apte et al. (US 2017/0286620). The teachings of Kumar et al. are set forth supra. Kumar is silent on the administration of glucosamine. Apte et al. teaches the use of glucosamine to treat gastrointestinal conditions (claim 18). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date to administering glucosamine in combination with the BSFL composition of Kumar et al. One would have been motivated to do so for the alleviation and prevention of gastrointestinal conditions, such as intestinal enteritis. As such, one would have a reasonable expectation of success that the combination would be therapeutically effective. Regarding the amount of glucosamine present in the composition, the effective amount present in a composition is well within the skill of the artisan at the time of the invention and would not have required undue experimentation or have been outside the realm of knowledge generally available to the skilled artisan. Thus, the amount that would have actually been employed would have reasonably been expected to vary widely and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, would have been inconsistent with that which is presently claimed. CONCLUSION No claim is found to be allowable. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANNA PAGONAKIS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3505 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F . 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, Karin Ferriter , can be reached at 571-272-4509. 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. AP /ANNA PAGONAKIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6221