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 § 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.
Claim 52 is 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. In claim 53, use of the phrase “and/or” makes it unclear as to what exactly is being claimed. It appears that four or five different inventive concepts are being recited in one claim.
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 52 is rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117. In claim 53, the alternatives (i.e. the use of the apparatus “for insects”, “for plants” for “algae or fungi”, and/or for “organic substances and mixtures in the maturation process” and or “fermentation process”) are not considered to share a single structural similarity and common use.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
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) 34 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by (JP H09172910 A; reference 12 on Applicants IDS filed 2/28/2025) (hereinafter Ref. 12). Ref. 12 discloses a device (claim 1; figures 1-3) for supplying sustenance to insects, comprising at least one vertical transport apparatus (claims 2-3; figures 1a-b) and at least one horizontal transport apparatus (paragraphs [0008]-[0009] and [0014]; figures 1a-b), wherein the at least one container (1) can be moved in a vertical direction by means of the vertical transport apparatus (claims 2-3; figures 1a-b) and in a horizontal direction by means of the horizontal transport apparatus (paragraphs [0008]-[0009] and [0014]; figures 1a-b), and comprises a sustenance supply apparatus (paragraphs [0009], [0016] and [0024]; claim 5) with which sustenance can be supplied to a container content of the container (1) and/or the container (1) itself, wherein the device has at least one measuring apparatus (paragraphs [0006]-[0007] and [0014]-[0015]; claims 1-3) by means of which it is possible to ascertain characteristics of the at least one container (1) which can be moved horizontally by means of the horizontal transport apparatus (paragraphs [0006]-[0007] and [0014]-[0015]; claims 1-3) and/or of the container content, along a route of the horizontal transport apparatus (paragraphs [0006]-[0007] and [0014]-[0015]; claims 1-3), before, during and/or after the horizontal transport, wherein the at least one measuring apparatus is assigned to the horizontal transport apparatus (paragraphs [0006]-[0007] and [0014]-[0015]; claims 1-3).
Claim(s) 34 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by (CN 112 913 783 A; reference 9 on Applicants IDS filed 2/28/2025) (hereinafter Ref. 9). Ref. 9 discloses a device (figures 1-4; claim 1) for supplying sustenance to insects; vertical transport apparatus (claim 2); horizontal transport apparatus (claims 1-2); container ("tray" in claim; and 92 in figures 1-4); sustenance supply apparatus (91, claims 1 and 5); has a measuring apparatus (claim 5; and paragraphs [0020]- [0021]) by means of which it is possible to ascertain characteristics of the at least one container (92) which can be moved horizontally by means of the horizontal transport device (claim 5; and paragraphs [0020]-[0021]) and/ or of the container content, along a route of the horizontal transport apparatus (claim 5; and paragraphs [0020]- [0021]), before, during and/or after the horizontal transport.
Claim(s) 34 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by (CN 113 040 102 A; reference 10 on Applicants IDS filed 2/28/2025) (hereinafter Ref. 10). Ref. 10 discloses a device (figures 1-11; claim 1) for supplying sustenance to insects; vertical transport apparatus (paragraphs [0045] and [0053]; 43 and 434 in the drawings); horizontal transport apparatus (paragraph [0045]; 7 in the drawings; and claim 1); container ("box" in claim 1); sustenance supply apparatus (8, 81, 82, 83, 84 and 85 in the drawings; claims 1 and 7); has a measuring apparatus (paragraphs [0067]-[0083]; 7, 72 and 73 in the drawings; claim 1) by means of which it is possible to ascertain characteristics of the at least one container ("box" in claim 1) which can be moved horizontally by means of the horizontal transport device (paragraphs [0067]-[0083]; 7, 72 and 73 in the drawings; claim 1) and/or of the container content, along a route of the horizontal transport apparatus (paragraphs [0067]-[0083]; 7, 72 and 73 in the drawings; claim 1), before, during and/or after the horizontal transport.
Claim(s) 34-38,41-49,51,52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by (CN 111 557 277 S A; reference 7 on Applicants IDS filed 2/28/2025) (hereinafter Ref. 7). Ref. 7 discloses a device (claim 1; figures 2-3) for supplying sustenance to insects; vertical transport apparatus (10, 101; claim 4); horizontal transport apparatus (claims 1-4; 4 in the drawings); container (3, in figure 2; "breeding box" in claim 1); sustenance supply apparatus (7 in figure 2; claim 1); has a measuring apparatus (2, 5 and 6 in the drawings; claims 1, 3, 6, 7 and 9) by means of which it is possible to ascertain characteristics of the at least one container (3) which can be moved horizontally by means of the horizontal transport device and/or of the container content, along a route of the horizontal transport apparatus (claims 1-4), before, during and/or after the horizontal transport; for claims 37-38 see paragraphs [0042] and [0062].
Claim(s) 34 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by (WO 2022/081014 A1); reference 19 on Applicants IDS filed 2/28/2025) (hereinafter Ref. 19). Ref. 19 discloses a device (figures 1-3; claims 1 and 13) for supplying sustenance to insects; vertical transport apparatus (claims 1, 4, 10 and 13; page 10, line 29 to page 11, line 27); horizontal transport apparatus (page 10, line 29 to page 11, line 27; claims 1, 4, 10 and 13); container; sustenance supply apparatus (claim 5); has a measuring apparatus by means of which it is possible to ascertain characteristics of the at least one container (claim 15) which can be moved horizontally by means of the horizontal transport device (claim 15) and/or of the container content, along a route of the horizontal transport apparatus (claim 15), before, during and/or after the horizontal transport.
Claim(s) 34 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by (CN 112 705 554 A; reference 8 on Applicants IDS filed 2/28/2025) (hereinafter Ref. 8). Ref. 8 discloses a device (figures 1-9; claim 1) for supplying sustenance to insects; vertical transport apparatus (claim 1); horizontal transport apparatus (claim 1); container ("container" in claim 1); sustenance supply apparatus (claims 1 and 9); has a measuring apparatus (claims 1, 4, 6 and 9) by means of which it is possible to ascertain characteristics of the at least one container (claims 1, 4, 6 and 9) which can be moved horizontally by means of the horizontal transport device (claims 1, 4, 6 and 9) and/or of the container content, along a route of the horizontal transport apparatus (claims 1, 4, 6 and 9), before, during and/or after the horizontal transport.
Claim(s) 34 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by (CN 107 801 695 A; reference 4 on Applicants IDS filed 2/28/2025) (hereinafter Ref. 4). Ref. 4 discloses a device (figures 1-20; claim 1) for supplying sustenance to insects; vertical transport apparatus (claims 2, 7 and 9); horizontal transport apparatus (claim 1); container ("tray" in claims 1-9); sustenance supply apparatus (claims 1-2); has a measuring apparatus (paragraphs [0091]-[0098] and [0128]-[0157]) by means of which it is possible to ascertain characteristics of the at least one container (paragraphs [0091]-[0098] and [0128]-[0157]) which can be moved horizontally by means of the horizontal transport device (paragraphs [0091]-[0098] and [0128]-[0157]) and/or of the container content, along a route of the horizontal transport apparatus (paragraphs [0091]-[0098] and [0128]-[0157]), before, during and/or after the horizontal transport.
Claim(s) 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by (KR 101 801 103 B1); reference 15 on Applicants IDS filed 2/28/2025) (hereinafter Ref. 15). Ref. 15 discloses a device (claim 1; figures 1-6) for supplying sustenance to insects, comprising at least one vertical transport apparatus (claim 1; 410, 420 in figures 1-4) and at least one horizontal transport apparatus (claims 1-4 and claim 1; 60 and 30 in figures 1-4), wherein the at least one container (10) can be moved in a vertical direction by means of the vertical transport apparatus (claim 1; 410, 420 in figures 1-4) and in a horizontal direction by means of the horizontal transport apparatus (claims 1-4; 60 and 30), and comprises a sustenance supply apparatus (paragraphs [0016] and [0029]) with which sustenance can be supplied to a container content of the container (10) and/or the container itself (10), wherein the device has at least one measuring apparatus (paragraphs [0021]-[0023], [0029], [0032]-[0033], [0045] and [0049]) by means of which it is possible to ascertain characteristics of the at least one container (10) which can be moved horizontally by means of the horizontal transport device (claim 1) and/or of the container content, along a route of the horizontal transport apparatus (paragraphs [0021]-[0023], [0029], [0032]-[0033], [0045] and [0049]), before, during and/or after the horizontal transport, wherein the at least one measuring apparatus is assigned to a the horizontal transport apparatus (claim 1); a use of a device (claim 1; figures 1-6) according to at least one of claims 1 to 23 for supplying sustenance to algae or fungi (claim 1).
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.
Claim(s) 39 and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ref. 7 in view of Massaro et al. (US 2018/092339); reference 2 on Applicants IDS filed 2/28/2025) (hereinafter Massaro). Ref. 7 discloses a device (claim 1; figures 2-3) for supplying sustenance to insects; vertical transport apparatus (10, 101; claim 4); horizontal transport apparatus (claims 1-4; 4 in the drawings). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide an inactivation or cleaning module in order to cleanse and disinfect the container as a matter of safety. With respect to claim 50, to use the collected data for machine learning in order to improve the accuracy of the modules or to further customize the modules.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ref. 12. Ref. 12 discloses a device for supplying sustenance to insects, comprising at least one vertical transport apparatus and at least one horizontal transport apparatus, however a sampling module associated with the horizontal transport device is not disclosed. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a sampling module on the apparatus of Ref. 12 in order to ensure quality of the container contents.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art shows examples of insect transport devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVONNE ABBOTT whose telephone number is 571-272-6896. The examiner can normally be reached 7am -5:30pmEST Monday- Thursday.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/YVONNE R ABBOTT-LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights