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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on December 08, 2025. Claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 11-12 have been amended and are hereby entered. Claims 13-14 have been added. Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined. This action is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 1, it is suggested to amend the phrase “the infeed” to --the infeed device-- to maintain terminology consistent with that of claim 8.
In claim 9, lines 1-2, it is suggested to amend the phrase “the infeed [device] dispenses…” to --the infeed [device] is configured to dispense…-- to further clarify the scope of the claim.
In claim 11, lines 1-2, it is suggested the amend the phrase “the outfeed device removes…” to --the outfeed device is configured to remove…-- to further clarify the scope of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Regarding claim 1, lines 9-10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the axial end surfaces” in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear whether this limitation refers to the previously recited “opposite end surfaces” in claim 1, line 4 or to different end surfaces, and the scope of the claim is thus rendered indefinite. Claims 2-14 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, line 2, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the plastic” in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear whether this limitation refers to the previously recited “plastic film” in claim 1, line 7 or to another plastic element, and the scope of the claim is thus rendered indefinite.
Claim 7, lines 3-4, recites the limitation “the group consisting of aluminium, stainless steel and steel”. The scope of the claimed group is unclear, as the options “stainless steel” and “steel” appear to encompass overlapping materials. Specifically, it is unclear if “steel” refers to all types of steel, including stainless steel, or if “steel” refers to non-stainless steel only, as “stainless steel” has already been recited. The ambiguity in the recited group thus renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 8, line 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the lining” in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear whether this limitation refers to the previously recited “plastic film” in claim 1, line 7 or to another element, and the scope of the claim is thus rendered indefinite. Claims 9-11 are also rejected for recitation of the limitation “the lining”, which similarly lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 8, line 3, introduces the limitation “a rack bottom”. However, claim 1, line 3 previously introduces “at least one elongate rack bottom”. It is thus unclear whether the “rack bottom” introduced in claim 8 refers to the same or a different element than the “rack bottom” of claim 1. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 11, line 2, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the insect larvae”. Specifically, it is unclear whether this limitation refers to the “insects” recited in claim 1, line 1 or to another element, and the scope of the claim is thus rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 12, lines 3-4, the limitation “wherein the plastic film is propelled over the rack bottom in a flat state across substantially a whole length of the rack bottom” contains the relative term “substantially”, which renders the claim indefinite. In this case, it is unclear as to how much of the rack bottom the plastic film must be propelled across in order to meet the claim language. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite.
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)(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) 1-3, 5-8, 10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Urbanski et al. (US 2019/0166812 A1), hereinafter Urbanski.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Urbanski discloses a device for rearing insects (title; abstract), comprising
a rack (middle modules 5a-5f of technological line 1) with at least one elongate rack bottom (system of metal transverse brackets 12) which extends in the rack between opposite end surfaces thereof (fig. 1-2) and is provided with a set of upward directed wings (profiled lateral sidewalls 6a, 6b) on either side (fig. 1; para [0051]),
wherein the rack bottom is covered with a continuous plastic film (conveyor belt 11; fig. 2-3; para [0019], belt 11 is made of plastic) which also extends laterally over an upward directed part of each of the wings (fig. 3; para [0048], belt 11 is supported by upward directed part of sidewalls 6a, 6b),
wherein the plastic film is movable over the rack bottom in an axial direction (fig. 2; para [0056]) and is removable from the rack at at least one of the axial end surfaces (end sidewalls 9 and 10; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Urbanski discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the rack (middle modules 5a-5f of technological line 1) comprises a number of similar rack bottoms (systems of metal transverse brackets 12) at successive levels (levels 2) one above the other (fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Urbanski discloses the device according to claim 2, and further discloses wherein the rack bottoms (systems of metal transverse brackets 12) comprise a number of substantially parallel bars (transverse brackets 12) which extend in said axial direction (fig. 2, transverse brackets are lined up such that they collectively extend in an axial direction) and maintain a mutual intermediate space (space 7; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Urbanski discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the plastic (conveyor belt 11) is selected from the group consisting of polypropylene, polyethylene, ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (para [0019], belt 11 may be made of plastic, such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or polypropylene (PP)).
PNG
media_image1.png
247
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1. Urbanski Fig. 3, Partial View (Examiner-Annotated)
Regarding claim 6, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Urbanski discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the wings (profiled lateral sidewalls 6a, 6b) each comprise a continuous plate body (fig. 1 and 3), which plate body comprises an upright wall (see annotated fig. 1, denoted by dotted lines) and a lying bottom (see annotated fig. 1, denoted by solid line), wherein the bottom of each of the wings is connected fixedly to the rack bottom (system of metal transverse brackets 12; fig. 3; para [0058]).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Urbanski discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein at least the rack bottom (system of metal transverse brackets 12) comprises a metal selected from the group consisting of aluminium, stainless steel and steel (para [0018], brackets 12 may be made of stainless steel or galvanized steel).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Urbanski discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein an infeed device (driving shaft 15 on either of rear module 3 or front module 4, depending on movement direction of belt 11) is coupled operatively to an inlet of the rack (inlet of middle modules 5a-5f of technological line 1; fig. 2; para [0056]), which infeed device is intended and configured to carry the lining axially into the rack over a rack bottom (para [0056]; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Urbanski discloses the device according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein an outfeed device (driving shaft 15 on either of rear module 3 or front module 4, depending on movement direction of belt 11) is coupled operatively to an outlet of the rack (outlet of middle modules 5a-5f of technological line 1; fig. 2; para [0056]), which outfeed device is intended and configured to carry the lining axially out of the rack (para [0056]; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Urbanski discloses a method for rearing insect larvae in a rearing device (title; abstract), wherein at least one device according to claim 1 is utilized as the rearing device (see rejection for claim 1), and wherein the plastic film (conveyor belt 11) is propelled over the rack bottom (system of metal transverse brackets 12) in a flat state across substantially a whole length of the rack bottom (para [0056]; fig. 2, belt 11 remains level as it moves between rear module 3 and front module 4).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Urbanski discloses the method of claim 12, and further discloses wherein the insect larvae are fly larvae (para [0028], Hermetia illucens is the scientific name of the black soldier fly).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Urbanski discloses the method of claim 13, and further discloses wherein the fly larvae are black soldier fly larvae (para [0028], Hermetia illucens is the scientific name of the black soldier fly).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urbanski et al. (US 2019/0166812 A1), hereinafter Urbanski.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Urbanski discloses the device according to claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the plastic film comprises a polyolefin film.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the plastic film out of polyolefin, with the motivation of utilizing accessible materials well understood in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urbanski et al. (US 2019/0166812 A1), hereinafter Urbanski, in view of Kim et al. (KR 20190110257 A).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Urbanski discloses the device according to claim 8, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the infeed dispenses at least one of a food source and insect larvae onto an exposed surface of the lining.
However, Kim is in the field of insect rearing (title) and teaches wherein the infeed (left side of breeding unit 100, comprising organic waste supply unit 300 and larval supply unit 400) dispenses at least one of a food source and insect larvae onto an exposed surface of the lining (conveyor belt 120; fig. 4; page 13/16, last paragraph and page 14/16, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insect rearing device with lining and infeed device of Urbanski to have made the infeed device capable of dispensing a food source and larvae onto the lining as taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success to place feed and insect larvae onto the rearing device near the beginning of a rearing process.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Urbanski discloses the device according to claim 10, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the outfeed device removes the insect larvae from the lining.
However, Kim is in the field of insect rearing (title) and teaches wherein the outfeed device (right side of breeding unit 100, comprising collecting unit 200) removes the insect larvae from the lining (conveyor belt 120; fig. 2; page 13/16, eighth paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insect rearing device with lining and outfeed device of Urbanski to have made the outfeed device capable of removing insect larvae from the lining as taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success to collect insect larvae and leftover feed once rearing is complete for later processing (page 13/16, eighth paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 4-5 of 6), filed December 08, 2025, regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1 under §103 have been fully considered, but they are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Zhou (CN 110800698 A) in view of Massaro (US 2019/0191677 A1) does not teach “wherein the rack bottom is covered with a continuous plastic film, which also extends laterally over an upward directed part of each of the wings” and wherein this “plastic film is movable over the rack bottom in an axial direction and is removable from the rack at at least one of the axial end surfaces” (Remarks, page 4 of 6). However, in the instant rejection, Urbanski et al. (US 2019/0166812 A1) has been substituted for Zhou in view of Massaro for teaching the limitation in question, thereby rendering Applicant’s arguments against Zhou in view of Massaro moot.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
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 ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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, Kimberly Berona, can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647