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 § 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.
Claims 2, 4-5, 20, 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul [US 20220369670A1] in view of Kirchner et al [US 2021/0315234A1].
Paul teaches a method for conversion of insects into nutrient streams (title) by providing fresh insect pulp (paragraph 0009), the pulp obtained by squashing, cutting, milling (paragraph 0076), heating the pulp at 60-95C or 75-85C (paragraph 0009, 0077), separating the heated pulp by decanting and/or centrifugation (paragraph 0009, 0070), decanting the heated pulp to remove the oil fraction in a pre-centrifugal step (paragraph 0079-0080), the remaining fraction is then further separated into a aqueous protein fraction and solid-containing fraction in a main centrifugation step (paragraph 0079), drying the solid and aqueous protein fractions together to provide an insect meal (paragraph 0080), and drying a separated aqueous protein fraction (paragraph 0081).
Paul does not explicitly recite pumping (claim 2), or adding 0.01-5 kg water/kg raw material (claim 5).
Kirchner et al teach a method for making insect products (title) by providing raw insect material (Figure 1, #1-2), washing in water (paragraph 0106), pumping raw material insects (paragraph 0107), comminuting the raw insect material (Figure 1, #3), adding water and heating the raw insect material at 85-95C (paragraph 0031, 0063; Figure 1, #4, 100), fractioning the heated and comminuted insects with either a 2-phase or 3-phase decanter (Figure 1, #5; paragraph 0040, 0071; Figure 4, #5-3), and drying the aqueous solid phase (Figure 4, #8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed pumping and water addition into the invention Paul, in view of Kirchner et al, since both are directed to insect processing systems, since Paul already included movement of raw insect material but simply did not mention how it was moved, since insect systems commonly included pumping of raw material insects (paragraph 0107) as shown by Kirchner et al, since pumping provided a convenient and simple means for moving the insect pulp of Paul, since adding water also provided a beneficial washing effect (paragraph 0106) as shown by Kirchner et al, and since the claimed amount of water would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures dues to factors such as the type of insect, the water content of the insects, the amount of debris accompanying the insects, and/or the water temperature in the combined method of Paul, in view of Kirchner et al.
Claims 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul, in view of Kirchner et al, as applied above, and further in view of Franklin et al [US 5,474,790].
Paul and Kirchner et al teach the above mentioned concepts. Paul does not explicitly recite further centrifugal separation to provide purified insect oil (claim 19, 21). Kirchner et al teach further separating the fatty phase to reach high purity (paragraph 0033; Figure 4, #9). Franklin et al teach a food separation process including a main centrifugal separation followed by a further centrifugal separation for polishing and purifying the fat (Figure 3; column 6, lines 24-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed further centrifugal separation into the invention of Paul, in view of Kirchner et al and Franklin et al, since all are directed to methods of separating animal material, since Paul already included separating the oil fraction, since insect systems commonly included further separating the fatty phase to reach high purity (paragraph 0033; Figure 4, #9) as shown by Kirchner et al, since food systems commonly included a main centrifugal separation followed by a further centrifugal separation for polishing and purifying the fat (Figure 3; column 6, lines 24-30) as shown by Franklin et al, and since further purifying the oil of Paul would have enabled a higher quality oil product.
Claims 1, 6, 8-10, 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul, in view of Kirchner et al, as applied above, and further in view of Armstong [US 4,146,534] and Aarts et al [US 2024/0000103A1].
Paul and Kirchner et al teach the above mentioned concepts. Paul does not explicitly recite adding back 0.01-5 kg heavy liquid phase to the raw material (claim 1, 25).
Aarts et al teach a method for making protein meal from insects (title) by separating the insects into a heavy liquid phase (Figure 1, #113), drying it into a protein meal (Figure 1, #1115), and adding back the dried protein meal to the initial material (Figure 1, #106).
Armstrong teaches a process for protein recovery (abstract) by adding back a heavy aqueous phase material back to the initial raw material (Figure 1, #29; column 8, line 4-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed adding back heavy liquid phase feature into the invention of Paul, in view of Kirchner et al, Aarts et al, and Armstrong; since all are directed to methods of processing insects and/or refining proteins, since Paul already included separation of insect raw material to produce a protein meal, since insect systems already included addition of water to the insect raw material (Figure 1) as shown by Kirchner et al, since insect systems commonly included adding back the dried protein meal to the initial material (Figure 1, #106) as shown by Aarts et al, since food separation systems commonly included adding back a heavy aqueous phase material back to the initial raw material (Figure 1, #29; column 8, line 4-7) as shown by Armstrong, since many consumers desired products with increased protein content, since adding protein material to the raw materials of Paul would have enabled the creation of products with a higher protein content, since repeated separation steps would have removed more of the undesirable solids and oils from the protein meal of Paul, and since the claimed protein amount would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures dues to factors such as the type of insect, the desired protein content of the end product, and/or the efficiency of the separation steps in the combined method of Paul, in view of Kirchner et al, Aarts et al, and Armstrong.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul, in view of Kirchner et al, Aarts et al, Armstrong; as applied above, and further in view of Franklin et al [US 5,474,790].
Paul, Aarts et al, Armstrong, and Kirchner et al teach the above mentioned concepts. Paul does not explicitly recite further centrifugal separation to provide purified insect oil (claim 7). Kirchner et al teach further separating the fatty phase to high purity (paragraph 0033; Figure 4, #9). Franklin et al teach a food separation process including a main centrifugal separation followed by a further centrifugal separation for polishing and purifying the fat (Figure 3; column 6, lines 24-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed further centrifugal separation into the invention of Paul, in view of Kirchner et al and Franklin et al, since all are directed to methods of separating animal material, since Paul already included separating the oil fraction, since insect systems commonly included further separating the fatty phase to reach high purity (paragraph 0033; Figure 4, #9) as shown by Kirchner et al, since food systems commonly included a main centrifugal separation followed by a further centrifugal separation for polishing and purifying the fat (Figure 3; column 6, lines 24-30) as shown by Franklin et al, and since further purifying the oil of Paul would have enabled a higher quality oil product.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Downing discloses centrifugal separation and oil polishing (Figure 1), D’Hondt disclose insect protein separation and recombining of fractions (Figure 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, 19-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights