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 Interpretation
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.
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, 2, 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kirchner et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0315234).
Kirchner discloses an installation for treating arthropod larvae, comprising at least one piece of equipment (Figures 1 & 2) producing glue water (numeral 400; paragraphs 75-80), which is extracted from a mixture of ground larvae (paragraphs 70-73), and a glue water circuit supplying a ground larvae treatment equipment comprising a glue water evaporator (7) as set forth in paragraphs 87-90.
Regarding claim 2, Kirchner also discloses a decanting system (5-1) for separating solid and liquid phases of the ground larvae, having three outlets including:
A solid phase outlet (shown at 500) connected to a meal dryer (8) as set forth in paragraph 90;
A first liquid outlet (shown at 400) connected to the glue water circuit (paragraphs 77-80); and
A second liquid outlet (shown at 600) connected to an oil collection circuit (paragraphs 77-82 and 88).
Concerning claim 7, Kirchner continues to disclose that the meal dryer (8) intrinsically has disks at an outlet of the meal dryer with extraction scoops for directing the meal toward the outlet of the meal dryer (paragraph 90).
With respect to claim 13, the reference also discloses a thermal regulation means for ensuring that a temperature of the ground larvae at an inlet to the decanting system (5-1) is between 80°C and 95°C (paragraphs 31, 59 and 101-109).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirchner et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0315234) in view of Leo (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0137137).
Kirchner is relied upon as set forth above. Kirchner does not appear to disclose that the meal dryer comprises a vacuum chamber. Leo discloses an installation for treating arthropod larvae that includes at least one piece of equipment for producing glue water, and a meal dryer to dry a solid phase of the grown insects (Abstract; Figures 1 & 5-12). The reference continues to disclose that the meal dryer comprises a vacuum chamber in order to successfully deplete the solid phase of water without burning or charring said solid phase (paragraphs 76, 479 and 677). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the meal dryer of Kirchner with a vacuum chamber in order to successfully deplete the solid phase of water without burning or charring said solid phase as exemplified by Leo.
Thus, claim 4 is not patentable over Kirchner in view of Leo.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 6 and 8-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C JOYNER whose telephone number is (571)272-2709. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, MICHAEL MARCHESCHI can be reached at (571) 272-1374. 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.
/KEVIN JOYNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights