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 Objections
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-4, “INSECT LARVAE FATTENING MODULE” should be in lowercase and include a/the in the forefront.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
The required means for rearing the insect larvae, as it pertains to claim 1.
The automation systems, the valves and of the water and power connections, as it pertains to claim 1.
A means for folding away the mat, as it pertains to claim 3.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
The limitation “the required means” in claim 1 is being interpreted as what is positively required in the body of the claim below the preamble. .
The limitation “means for folding the mat” in claim 4 is being interpreted as any manual/automatic means that can fold the mat reasonable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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(s) 1-4 is(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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 1 recites “the interior of which”. There is a lack of antecedent basis.
Claim limitation “the required means for rearing insects” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claims as well as the specification do not disclose what constitutes these means. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim 1 recites “the required means”. There is a lack of antecedent basis. Further it is not clear what is structurally required by this recitation? The specification does not define what the required means for rearing the insect larvae is thereby rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “the insect larvae”. There is a lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites “a hot or cold water conditioning pipe (8) on their bottom” However, it is unclear what structure’s bottom is being referred to thereby rendering the claim vague and indefinite?
Claim 1 recites “the feed substrate”. There is a lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites “to which is added an air ventilation duct” However, it is unclear what structure the air ventilation duct is being added to thereby rendering the claim vague and indefinite?
Claim 1 recites “the cabling of temperature”. There is a lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites “the outside”. There is a lack of antecedent basis. Further it is unclear what is being referred to as “outside” in this recitation.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the machinery chamber (2) is open to the outside by means of
a micro-perforated plate (12) for the air intake to permit adequate functioning of a heating and cooling aerothermal device (13) and accommodates the control elements for the automation systems, the valves and of the water and power connections as well as an electrical panel (14)”. However, it is not clear what is being positively required in this limitation. Additionally, there is no detailed mention in the specification or shown in the figures making it unclear what is required of the micro-perforated plate/a heating and cooling aerothermal device/control elements for the automation systems, valves, water and power connections/electric panel.
Claims 2-4 are rejected based on their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim 2 recites “the adult larvae and fertilizer waste” there is a lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites “ a heat insulation (9)” however, it is unclear if this is the same heat insulation plate recited in claim 1 or not.
Claim 3 recites “a heat insulation (9) can be arranged on the bottom” However, it is unclear what structure’s bottom is being referred to thereby rendering the claim vague and indefinite? Further the recital of “can be” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is positively required or not.
Claim 3 recites “the vertical sides (20)” there is a lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites “the evacuation adult larvae and fertilizer waste” there is a lack of antecedent basis.
Claim limitation “a means for folding away the mat is arranged.” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claims as well as the specification do not disclose what constitutes these means. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim 3 recites “a means for folding away the mat is arranged”. It is unclear what the means for folding away the mat is and where it is arranged. The specification, as well as the drawings, do not disclose specifically what the means for folding away the mat is. Thereby rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claim 4 recites ” the bottom (21) of the fixed and continuous longitudinal trays (4)” there is a lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 4 recites “ a heat insulation plate(9)” however, it is unclear if this is the same heat insulation plate recited in claim 1 or not.
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(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baptistan et al. herein Baptistan (US 20220217957 A1) in view of Sabeg et al. herein Sabeg (US 20200323173 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Baptistan discloses:
INSECT LARVAE FATTENING MODULE, (abstract and figs)
formed in a large space or room, (room of 2000, fig 6)
the interior of which has been equipped with the required means for rearing the insect larvae, (2020+2010+2030+1000, para0130-0132)
characterized in that the module is formed inside at least one container (1), (inside 1000, fig 1)
wherein two differentiated chambers are arranged within the same container (1) (1000 within 2000, fig 6, para0126)
and which are arranged to form a machinery chamber or container (2)(fig 6)
and another larvae rearing chamber or container (3), (1000, fig 1)
in which a set of fixed and continuous longitudinal trays (4) (1100,1200,1300,para0076-0078)
are arranged supported by shelves (5) at different levels, (see fig 1)
which have folds (6) at their edge to prevent larvae from escaping, (1101, para0104)
which in addition have a hot or cold water conditioning pipe (8) on their bottom (7) (1150,1250,1350, para0090)
and a heat insulation plate (9) extending on the outside of the bottom, (see plate surrounding 1150+1250+1350)
all of which is arranged such that the trays receive the feed substrate and the larvae to be reared, (para0068)
to which is added an air ventilation duct (10) for drying the substrate (2030,2010,2020,para0130-0133)
and a channel (11) for the cabling of temperature control sensors of the substrate arranged above each tray, (channel of 1100+1200+1300 fig 1 that receives temperature control sensors 1104,1204,1304 above trays 1100,1200,1300, para0089)
wherein the machinery chamber (2) is open to the outside by means of a micro-perforated plate (12) (aeration control device, para0131-0132)
for the air intake to permit adequate functioning of a heating and cooling aerothermal device (13) and accommodates the control elements for the automation systems, the valves and of the water and power connections as well as an electrical panel (14) (para0130-0134,0138).
Baptistan doesn’t disclose:
humidity control sensors of the substrate arranged above each tray
Sabeg discloses:
humidity control sensors of the substrate arranged in each tray (para0102)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tops of the trays of Baptistan such that they comprised a humidity control sensor for each tray as disclosed by Sabeg to ensure proper humidity within the container to optimize rearing.
Regarding claim 2:
Baptistan as modified discloses claim 1 and further discloses:
characterized in that the adult larvae and fertilizer waste are evacuated from the trays by means of a movable pneumatic suction system (15), which discharges through a flexible nozzle (16) into a hopper (17) or tank outside the container. (para0115-0118)
Regarding claim 3:
Baptistan as modified discloses claim 1 and further discloses:
characterized in that the conditioning pipe (8) covered by a heat insulation (9) can be arranged on the bottom (7) of the fixed and continuous longitudinal trays (4) supported by the shelves (5) at different levels, (see trays 1100,1200,1300 supported by shelves at different levels fig 1)
so that the bottom of the tray is flat, enabling a movable strong fabric or canvas mat (18) to be arranged thereon, on which the feed substrate with the larvae can be received and which is able to move longitudinally over the tray by means of rails (19) arranged on the vertical sides (20) of the trays facilitating the evacuation of the adult larvae and fertilizer waste through an open end of the tray, where a means for folding away the mat is arranged. (para0119)
Regarding claim 4:
Baptistan as modified discloses claim 1 and further discloses:
characterized in that the bottom (21) of the fixed and continuous longitudinal trays (4) can be inclined towards a lateral of the tray, where a longitudinal cavity (22) is formed for accommodating a worm screw (23), the conditioning pipe (8) covered by a heat insulation plate (9) being arranged on the outside of the inclined bottom, all of which is arranged such that the worm screw conveys the adult larvae and fertilizer waste to a lower discharge pipe (24) of the trays. (para0115,0119)
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHADA M ALGHAILANI whose telephone number is (571)272-8058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30am - 4:30pm EST).
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, Peter Poon can be reached on 571-272-6891. 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.
/SHADA MOHAMED ALGHAILANI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643
