CTNF 19/091,047 CTNF 91072 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 5, 8-14, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreto et al. (US 2015/0128482), hereinafter Moreto in view of Macadar Angier (US 2019/0223426) . In re. claim 1, Moreto teaches an insect release device comprising: a vessel (20) (fig. 5) defining a volume (fig. 6), the vessel comprises first (22-1) and second (22-2) surfaces substantially opposite each other (fig. 5), the first surface defining an opening (28-1) into the volume (para [0018]); a population of insect larvae or pupae or adult insects (16) disposed within the volume (para [0018]). Moreto fails to disclose and a seal positioned to sufficiently obstruct the opening to prevent an adult insect from passing through the opening, the seal adhered to the first surface. Macadar Angier teaches a seal positioned to sufficiently obstruct the opening to prevent an adult insect from passing through the opening, the seal adhered to the first surface (para [0118]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Moreto to incorporate the teachings of Macadar Angier to have a seal positioned to sufficiently obstruct the opening, the seal adhered to the first surface, so that the contents do not spill during transportation. In re. claim 2, Moreto as modified by Macadar Angier (see Moreto) teach the insect release device of claim 1, wherein the vessel further comprises a third surface (22) coupling the first surface to the second surface, the third surface defining a perimeter of the vessel (fig. 5). In re. claim 3, Moreto as modified by Macadar Angier (see Moreto) teach the insect release device of claim 1, wherein the second surface defines a cone (figs. 5-6) and wherein the first surface defines a planar surface (surface at opening (28-1) is planar) (figs. 5-6). In re. claim 5, Moreto as modified by Macadar Angier (see Moreto) teach the insect release device of claim 1, wherein the insect release device is constructed of a biodegradable material (para [0018]). In re. claim 8, Moreto as modified by Macadar Angier (see Macadar Angier) teach the insect release device of claim 1, wherein insect food is disposed within the volume (para [0109]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Moreto to incorporate the teachings of Macadar Angier to have food disposed within the volume, for the purpose of aiding in survival after emergence from the eggs. In re. claim 9, Moreto as modified by Macadar Angier (see Moreto) teach the insect release device of claim 1, further comprising a damp surface disposed within the volume (glue known to be damp when applied) (para [0016]). In re. claim 10, Moreto teaches a method of releasing insects into an environment, comprising: providing an insect release device comprising: a vessel (20) (fig. 5) defining a volume (fig. 6), the vessel comprises first (22-1) and second (22-2) surfaces substantially opposite each other (fig. 5), the first surface defining an opening (28-1) into the volume (para [0018]); a population of insect larvae or pupae or adult insects (16) disposed within the volume (para [0018]); carrying the insect release device to a release location (via aircraft) (para [0022]); and depositing the insect release device at the release location (air dropping) (para [0022]). Moreto fails to disclose and a seal positioned to sufficiently obstruct the opening to prevent an adult insect from passing through the opening, the seal adhered to the first surface. Macadar Angier teaches a seal positioned to sufficiently obstruct the opening to prevent an adult insect from passing through the opening, the seal adhered to the first surface (para [0118]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Moreto to incorporate the teachings of Macadar Angier to have a seal positioned to sufficiently obstruct the opening, the seal adhered to the first surface, so that the contents do not spill during transportation. In re. claim 11, Moreto as modified by Macadar Angier (see Moreto) teach the method of claim 10, wherein carrying the insect release device to the release location is performed by an airborne vehicle; and wherein depositing the insect release device at the release location comprises dropping the insect release device by the airborne vehicle (para [0022]). In re. claim 12, Moreto as modified by Macadar Angier method of claim 10, further comprising removing the seal. It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Moreto as modified by Macadar Angier to remove the seal, for the predictable result of enabling the endoparasitic insect to egress the interior of the enclosure and populate the exterior environment after transportation. In re. claim 13, Moreto as modified by Macadar Angier (see Moreto) teach the method of claim 10, wherein the vessel further comprises a third surface (22) coupling the first surface to the second surface, the third surface defining a perimeter of the vessel (fig. 5). In re. claim 14, Moreto as modified by Macadar Angier (see Moreto) teach the method of claim 10, wherein the second surface defines a cone (figs. 5-6) and wherein the first surface defines a planar surface (surface at opening (28-1) is planar) (figs. 5-6). In re. claim 16, Moreto as modified by Macadar Angier (see Moreto) teach the method of claim 10, wherein the insect release device is constructed of a biodegradable material (para [0018]). In re. claim 19, Moreto as modified by Macadar Angier (see Macadar Angier) teach the insect release device of claim 10, wherein insect food is disposed within the volume (para [0109]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Moreto to incorporate the teachings of Macadar Angier to have food disposed within the volume, for the purpose of aiding in survival after emergence from the eggs. In re. claim 20, Moreto teaches a method of manufacturing an insect release device, comprising: forming a first surface of the insect release device (22-1); forming a second surface of the insect release device (22-2) (fig. 5); permanently coupling the first and second surface (to cylinder (22) to form the insect release device and define a interior volume (fig. 5); depositing a population of insect larvae or pupae or adult insects within the interior volume (16) (para [0018]). Moreto fails to disclose sealing an opening formed by the second surface. Macadar Angier teaches sealing an opening formed by the second surface (para [0118]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Moreto to incorporate the teachings of Macadar Angier to have a seal an opening formed by the second surface, so that the contents do not spill during transportation . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreto as modified by Macadar Angier as applied to claim s 1 and 10 respectively above, and further in view of Clendinning et al. (US 3,921,333), hereinafter Clendinning . In re. claim 6, Moreto as modified by Macadar Angier teach the insect release device of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the vessel is constructed of a biodegradable material (para [0018]). Moreto as modified by Macadar Angier fail to disclose the biodegradable material comprises one or more of (i) a cornstarch foam, (ii) one or more pectin capsules, (iii) paper, (iv) a mushroom-based foam, or (v) a plant-based plastic substitute. Clendinning teaches the biodegradable material comprises a plant-based plastic substitute (col. 13, ln. 1-10). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Moreto as modified by Macadar Angier to incorporate the teachings of Clendinning to have the recited biodegradable material, for the purpose of providing increased structural integrity of the vessel while maintain its biodegradability. Further, 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. In re. claim 17, Moreto as modified by Macadar Angier (see Moreto)teach the insect release device of claim 10, wherein at least a portion of the vessel is constructed of a biodegradable material (para [0018]). Moreto as modified by Macadar Angier fail to disclose the biodegradable material comprises one or more of (i) a cornstarch foam, (ii) one or more pectin capsules, (iii) paper, (iv) a mushroom-based foam, or (v) a plant-based plastic substitute. Clendinning teaches the biodegradable material comprises a plant-based plastic substitute (col. 13, ln. 1-10). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Moreto as modified by Macadar Angier to incorporate the teachings of Clendinning to have the recited biodegradable material, for the purpose of providing increased structural integrity of the vessel while maintain its biodegradability. Further, 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 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 4, 7, 15, and 18 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 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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. /C.D.H./ Primary Examiner Art Unit 3647 /Christopher D Hutchens/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647 Application/Control Number: 19/091,047 Page 2 Art Unit: 3647 Application/Control Number: 19/091,047 Page 3 Art Unit: 3647 Application/Control Number: 19/091,047 Page 4 Art Unit: 3647 Application/Control Number: 19/091,047 Page 5 Art Unit: 3647 Application/Control Number: 19/091,047 Page 6 Art Unit: 3647 Application/Control Number: 19/091,047 Page 7 Art Unit: 3647 Application/Control Number: 19/091,047 Page 8 Art Unit: 3647
