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 .
DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the papers filed on 08 June 2026.
CLAIMS UNDER EXAMINATION
Claims 15, 18-23, 26-28, 30-34 and 36 are pending and have been examined on their merits.
PRIORITY
Provisional Application 62/701,906, filed on 23 Jul 2018, is acknowledged.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The previous rejections have been withdrawn due to claim amendment.
REJECTIONS:
The rejections have been modified to address amended claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 15, 18-19, 21, 23, 26-28, 31-34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greetham et al. (previously cited; Mycological Biopolymers Gown In Void Space Tooling. US20150033620 published 05 February 2015) as evidenced by Carlton et al. (previously cited; US2022/0354068), Patel et al. (previously cited; Coleus Forskohlii 2022 pages 1-25), Hartl et al. (previously cited; Fungal chitinases: diversity, mechanistic properties and biotechnological potential. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2012)93:533–543) and Millipore (previously cited; chelators, pages 1-4).
Greetham teaches a mycological biopolymer product containing fungal mycelium (Abstract). The material is “free of any stipe, cap, or spores” (see Abstract; see claim 1 of Greetham). The biopolymer product is undifferentiated (Abstract). The art teaches hyphae ([0096]). The biopolymer product grows into a “void space” (Abstract; [0011]). It is interpreted to be an aerial mycelium because it is not submerged or grown in liquid. While Greetham teaches inoculation with a nutritive substrate, the product is extracted from the substrate (Abstract). Therefore the product does not comprise any growth media. The art teaches environmental conditions that “accelerate tissue production” ([0012]). Therefore the product is a tissue. Greetham uses a rectangular shaped tool to produce the biopolymer (see Figure 4). Therefore the art is interpreted to produce a panel.
The art teaches a horizontal tool to create a horizontal mycelium (Figure 6B). The art teaches the structure making up the horizontal mycelium (FIG. 6B) is extremely aligned with a highly oriented network. The horizontally grown biopolymer has greater tensile strength in the direction of growth ([0090]). The art teaches horizontal growth is “laterally from the substrate” ([0087]). This is interpreted to be growth in a direction of thickness.
Greetham teaches forskolin is a modifier which may be sprayed onto the surface of the biopolymer to alter the morphology of the mycelia ([0058] [0071] [0096]). A “plant derived flavoring ingredient” encompasses any plant component with a flavor. A flavor is defined as a blend of taste and smell (Merriam Webster Dictionary). As evidenced by Patel, forskolin is a plant compound with a sweet aroma (smell) and bitter taste (hence, a flavor) (see last paragraph of page 5). Therefore it reads on a plant derived flavoring ingredient.
While Greetham teaches the product is modified with forskolin, the art does not do so with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claim.
It would have been obvious to add forskolin to the biopolymer. One would have been motivated to do so to alter the morphology of the mycelia, as taught by Greetham. KSR Rationale E indicates that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and commonsense” (MPEP 2143 “Rationale E. Obvious to Try” section). One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Greetham teaches it can be done. Because the art teaches a mycological biopolymer panel that reads on the claim, it is suitable for use as a foodstuff. Therefore claim 15 is rendered obvious.
Greetham teaches water can be added ([0034]). As evidenced by Millipore, water is a natural chelator (see page 1). Therefore water reads on claims 18-19.
Forskolin is broadly interpreted to read on an aromatic since it has a sweet smell. Therefore claim 21 is included in this rejection.
The art teaches various morphological modifiers may be sprayed onto the surface of the biopolymer or misted in the environment to alter the morphology of the mycelia, for example calcium ([0061] [0096]). Calcium is a mineral. Therefore claim 23 is included in this rejection.
Greetham teaches the product of the invention literally grows itself, using little to no energy to produce the biopolymer apart from the energy used in sterilization, growth conditions, and drying ([0009]). Therefore the art suggests sterilization. A sterilized product reads on the limitations recited in claim 26.
Because the biopolymer taught by Greetham reads on the undifferentiated aerial mycelium with well-aligned macromolecular structures recited in claim 15, it would be expected to have the properties recited in claims 27-28.
As evidenced by Hartl et al., chitinases are naturally occurring enzymes found in fungi (see Abstract). Therefore chitinases would be present in the fungi taught by Greetham. Therefore claims 31-32 are included in this rejection.
Greetham the product can be sanded, cut or milled to shape after drying. Cutting is interpreted to read on trimming. Therefore claim 33 is rendered obvious.
Greetham teaches calcium can be added to the product (supra). Therefore it is an additive. Claim 34 recites an “animal-derived additive”. This is a product by process limitation that does not distinguish the claimed additive from the calcium additive taught by the art. Therefore claim 34 is included in this rejection.
The art teaches the product is treated to increase strength and density ([0064]). The art teaches compressing the biopolymer material to the desired dimensions and density or 3D shape and incubated for an additional 0 to 72 hours to increase strength and density ([0064]). Therefore one would optimize the incubation time to achieve the desired density. Therefore claim 36 is included in this rejection.
Therefore Applicant’s Invention is rendered obvious as claimed.
APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
The arguments made in the response filed on June 8, 2026 are acknowledged.
Argument 1: The Applicant argues Greetham does not teach an additive within the claimed panel. The Applicant states there is no motivation to modify Greetham in view of Patel. The Applicant argues that because Patel discloses forskolin has a “bitter taste”, the reference teaches away from the claimed combination. Because claim 15 is explicitly limited to an edible tissue panel suitable for use as a foodstuff, a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to formulate an appealing meat alternative would be actively discouraged and turned away from introducing an ingredient known to impart an unpalatable, bitter flavor profile.
Response to Argument 1: The “plant derived flavoring ingredient” recited in the base claim encompasses any plant component with a flavor. It is not limited to a specific flavor profile or ingredient. A flavor is defined as a blend of taste and smell (Merriam Webster Dictionary). Greetham teaches the mycological biopolymer can be modified with forskolin. Patel is cited as an evidentiary reference. As evidenced by Patel, forskolin is a plant compound (i.e., plant-derived) with a sweet aroma (smell) and bitter taste (hence, a flavor). Therefore it would read on a plant derived flavoring ingredient. The arguments are directed to an “appealing meat alternative”. These are not claim limitations. Therefore the argument is not persuasive.
Argument 2: The Applicant argues Greetham is confined to the field of heavy industrial manufacturing, seeking to replace "ethylene vinyl acetate foams, polyvinyl chloride plastics, [and] polyurethane foams" with rigid "structural composite cores." Conversely, the present invention is directed to an edible tissue panel specifically texturized and formulated for human consumption and mastication. The Applicant argues Greetham constitutes non-analogous art because it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
Response to Argument 2: The claims are not directed to mastication or human consumption. The claims are directed to a tissue panel. Greetham teaches a mycological biopolymer panel. It comprises undifferentiated fungal aerial mycelium with the claimed alignment. Greetham explicitly teaches it does not contain stipe, cap or spores. Greetham teaches the polymer can be modified the polymer with forskolin. As evidenced by Patel, forskolin is a plant compound with a sweet aroma and flavor. Because the art teaches the claim limitations, it is suitable for used as a foodstuff. The Greetham reference is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor: processing aerial fungus to produce undifferentiated, mycological biopolymer tissues comprising aligned fibers.
Claims 20, 22 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greetham as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kozubal et al. (Edible foodstuffs and bioreactor design. US2022/0400726 with benefit of 16/116836 filed on 29 August 2018 now Patent 1144251) as evidenced by Wrona et al. (previously cited; 10 Powerful Nutrients Found Only in Meat. 09 June 2022).
Claim 15 is rejected on the grounds set forth above. The teachings of Greetham are reiterated.
The art is silent regarding the use of a colorant (claim 20).
Greetham does not teach the use of heme molecules (claim 22).
Greetham is silent regarding the presence of pin holes (claim 30).
Kozubal et al. disclose a food material comprising fungal mycelium and animal meat (see claim 1 of Kozubal). Kozubal teaches the fungal mycelium comprises aerial hyphae (see claim 13 of Kozubal). The art teaches the use of color additives ([0097]).
It would have been obvious to add a colorant to the composition taught by Greetham. One would have been motivated to do so since Greetham teaches a mycelial composition and Kozubal teaches colorants can be added to mycelial compositions. One would add color when formulating into a meat like product, as taught by Kozubal. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Kozubal teaches colorant can be added to compositions comprising fungal mycelium. One would have expected similar results since both references are directed to products made of aerial mycelium Therefore claim 20 is included in this rejection.
Kozubal teaches the composition comprises animal meat. As evidenced by Wrona et al., animal meat contains heme iron (see page 13).
It would have been obvious to combine animal meat with the composition taught by Greetham. One would have been motivated to do so since Greetham teaches a mushroom product and Kozubal teaches adding meat (containing heme) to a mushroom product. One would do so when using the mushroom product as a food. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Kozubal teaches meat can be added to a product containing aerial mycelium. One would have expected similar results since both references are directed to products made of aerial mycelium. Therefore claim 22 is included in this rejection.
Kozubal teaches perforation with a fork, knife or other tenderizer tool ([0185]). Perforation with a fork is broadly interpreted to produce an array of pin holes.
It would have been obvious to perforate the product taught by Greetham with pin holes. One would have been motivated to do so since Greetham teaches a mushroom product and Kozubal teaches perforating a mushroom product. One would do so when using the mushroom product as a food as taught by Kozubal. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Kozubal teaches products containing aerial mycelium can be perforated. One would have expected similar results since both references are directed to products made of aerial mycelium. Therefore claim 30 is included in this rejection.
Therefore Applicant’s Invention is rendered obvious as claimed.
CONCLUSION
No Claims Are Allowed
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE MOSS whose telephone number is (571) 270-7439. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sharmila Landau can be reached on (571) 272-0614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the APIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATALIE M MOSS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights