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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment and argument filed 05/01/2026, in response to the final rejection, are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Any previous rejection or objection not mentioned herein is withdrawn.
Claims 1-26 are pending of which claims 1-11 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/11/2025.
Claims 12-26 are being examined on the merits.
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.
Claim 12-17, 19-20 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustus Pattillo (US20200093155A1). This rejection is maintained with slight modifications due to the arguments filed on 05/01/2026.
Pattillo’s general disclosure is to a panel of mycological polymer consisting entirely of fungal mycelium is post-processed to impart desired characteristics thereto, such as, texture, flavor and nutritional profile for use as a foodstuff or a tissue scaffold. (see abstract).
Pattillo teaches methods of producing food ingredient comprising culturing filamentous fungi by culturing and harvesting filamentous fungal biomass (see claim 44) and teaches cutting the shelf-stable protein transversally and longitudinally (see claims 11-12 or 0111-0112). With the broadest reasonable interpretation the “filamentous fungal biomass” can be interpreted as a panel because as the applicant recites in their own application “In some embodiments, a contiguous aerial mycelium of the present disclosure can be obtained by removing a contiguous extra-particle aerial mycelial growth from a growth matrix as a contiguous 3-dimensional object, which may be referred to herein as a panel” (see 0068). Pattillo teaches wherein the fungal mass is the aerial components (see 0179). Pattillo teaches using grains for fermenting the filamentous fungi (see claim 60 and 0038). Pattillo further teaches wherein the fungal biomass is compacted or pressed (see claim 61) and with the broadest reasonable interpretation is the same as compressed. Pattillo also teaches that the filamentous mycelium can retain over 80% water (see 0025).
Regarding claim 13, Pattillo teaches slicing the fungal biomass (see claim 61) and this process would be the same as cutting a part of the biomass into a strip.
Regarding claims 14-16, Pattillo teaches cutting slabs of the biomass at a thickness 1 inch (see 0060) and with the broadest reasonable interpretation a slab can be considered a block and a standard shrimp size can also be an inch depending on the type of shrimp being used as a standard.
Regarding claim 17, Pattillo teaches rolling and molding the fungal biomass to otherwise shape or size (see claim 61).
Regarding claims 19-20, Pattillo teaches wherein the fungal biomass is suitable as a shelf-stable protein product (see title, abstract and claim 1).
Pattillo does not specifically teach cutting at least a portion of the panel (biomass) in a direction substantially parallel to the growth grain. However Pattillo teaches traversal and longitudinal cutting of the biomass (see claims 11-12) and the direction to cut parallel to the growth grain is a mere matter of judicious selection and one in which would at times necessarily happen during harvesting of the biomass and/or would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art as this could allow for an easier cut through the biomass and/or allow for creating specific desired shapes for the final product. For instance, shear stress is a known as a type of stress where force acts parallel to the surface of a material causing layers within to slide past each other and this is a type of cutting commonly used when cutting foods to determine texture and tenderness. Cutting parallel as opposed to directly on top would assist with the cutting process as internal pieces slide past each other.
Therefore it would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art to cut parallel to the growth grain as this would allow for creating specific desired shapes for the end product and would allow for ease of cutting.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Augustus Pattillo (US20200093155A1) as applied to claims 12-17, 19-20 and 26 above, and further in view of Daniel Sahuc (FR2560010A1). This rejection is maintained with slight modifications due to the arguments filed on 05/01/2026.
Pattillo teaches the method of processing an edible aerial mycelium as instantly claimed however is silent on the use of conveyor belts when rolling out shapes for the food product.
Sahuc’s general disclosure is to conveyors for dough rolling machines.
The present invention relates to a reversible drive mechanism with variable speed of the conveyors of a dough sheeter, for pastry. This rolling mill is of the type comprising those of two superimposed rolling cylinders of adjustable spacing, a first endless belt conveyor located on one side of the rolling rolls, and a second endless belt conveyor located on the opposite side, with a reversible motorized drive mechanism connected to the two rolling cylinders and to the drive rollers of the two conveyors. The drive mechanism comprises means making it possible to obtain a reduction in the speed of that of the conveyors used as the conveyor for bringing the dough to the rolling rolls” (see description first para.) Sahuc teaches that the mechanism has variable speeds (see claim 1).
Although Sahuc teaches specifically that these conveyors are for rolling dough persons having skill in the art would appreciate that conveyors taught for rolling dough could also be useful in rolling shapes of other processed food products and can be used in conjunction with the methods taught by Pattillo. Pattillo teaches rolling to create shapes of the fungal biomass and thus it is obvious to add conveyors operating at different speeds for helping to streamline the process of rolling out shapes. Therefore it would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art to use conveyors operating at different speeds for streamlining the process of manufacture, as this is common and conventional in the art and the use of conveyors makes streamlining manufacturing processes much easier.
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pattillo (US20200093155A1) as applied to claims 12-17, 19-20 and 26 above, and further in view of Ozaki Hirotada and Kimura Seiji (JPS5814192B2). This rejection is maintained with slight modifications due to the arguments filed on 05/01/2026.
Pattillo teaches the method of processing an edible aerial mycelium as instantly claimed however is silent on the edible mycelium being a shrimp alternative product.
Pattillo teaches flavoring the composition with natural flavorings like seaweed extract and different mushroom components (see 0130) and teaches creating different meat like proteins/analogs/alternatives from the fungal biomass (see 0004-0009, 0011-0014, 0131).
Pattillo also teaches “the step of de-watering the fungal mycelium. The high moisture retention properties of the mycelium make it necessary to remove some liquid for ideal moisture contents that mimic meat” (see 0165) and this would indicate drying the biomass (panel) to a desired water activity level as claimed in instant claim 25. Additionally, Pattillo teaches dehydrating and drying to control for moisture content (see 0190 and claim 44).
Hirotada’s general disclosure is to methods for obtaining flavoring substances from shrimp and krill to be used as flavoring agents (see abstract).
Hirotada teaches “In summary, the present invention is based on the fact that the flavor of shrimp exists in the components contained in krill or the endothelium of shrimp, and that the substance can be accurately separated by separating salt-soluble proteins and separating water-soluble proteins by isoelectric precipitation. By discovering that the shrimp flavor is strongly expressed when it is separated and heated to 95°C or higher, and more preferably in a dry state with a moisture content of 50% or less, we have discovered that krill or shrimp This method pioneered the complete utilization of resources by fractionating the salt-soluble protein, water-soluble protein, shrimp flavoring agent, and meal that mainly consists of internal organs and shells. Example 1 100 g of disemboweled krill was diluted 10 times with clear water, the ionic strength was adjusted to 0.05 with common salt, crushed using a homogenizer, the shell was separated, and the remaining solution was separated using a centrifuge. Salt-soluble proteins were removed, the pH was adjusted to 5 with hydrochloric acid, and the precipitate of water-soluble proteins was removed using a centrifuge to obtain a pale yellow to white transparent aqueous solution” (see page 3). Hirotada also teaches controlling moisture content of less than 50% of less (see page 3, para. 4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to persons having skill in the art before the effective filling date to create a shrimp alternative by using different flavoring agents known to give a shrimp flavor. For instance one could combine the seaweed and mushroom flavors, taught by Pattillo, to create a marine and umami flavor profile mimicking that of shrimp. Pattillo teaches each of these as flavoring agents which can be used. Additionally one can rely on Hirotada who teaches creating a shrimp flavor for flavoring agents by heating to 95 degrees Celsius or higher in an aqueous saline (salt) solution because Hirotada teaches this method and this method is instantly claimed. The shrimp and krill can act as the additive as instantly claimed which would also acts as the flavorant and colorant as instantly claimed. The process from Hirotada teaches creating shrimp flavors which can be utilized in the process taught by Pattillo for creating a shrimp alternative product. Also it is obvious to control for the water content when creating food-based products as can be appreciated by both Pattillo and Hirotada’s teachings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that in order to be obvious the prior art must teach or suggest each and every limitation of the claimed invention. This however is not the case as knowledge from those skilled in the art can supply reasons to render the limitations obvious. For instance the applicant seems to believe that since the prior art does not specifically recite to cut the fungal biomass in a direction of the growth grain that their invention is somehow different than the prior arts. As discussed in the above rejection and recited again here: “Pattillo teaches traversal and longitudinal cutting of the biomass (see claims 11-12) and the direction to cut parallel to the growth grain is a mere matter of judicious selection and one in which would at times necessarily happen during harvesting of the biomass and/or would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art as this could allow for an easier cut through the biomass and/or allow for creating specific desired shapes for the final product. For instance, shear stress is a known as a type of stress where force acts parallel to the surface of a material causing layers within to slide past each other and this is a type of cutting commonly used when cutting foods to determine texture and tenderness. Cutting parallel as opposed to directly on top would assist with the cutting process as internal pieces slide past each other”. These are articulated reasons why a person of skill would have made obvious the limitation for cutting the fungal mass with the growth grain. Because it is simply easier and for shaping the fungal pieces. The applicant’s invention is not different than that of the prior art merely because they have decided to cut the fungi in one direction rather than another. A person having ordinary skill in the art would know how to cut the fungal biomass and this is a matter of judicious selection.
The applicant argues that Pattillo’s teaching of cutting longitudinally or transversally are to characterized for cutting after the food ingredient is harvested and sized. The applicant also argues that their invention requires that it should be done upon harvesting. This is not a limitation in the invention as argued here in their response. The applicant believes that their new amendment which requires the mycelium to retain 80% moisture helps to overcome the prior art, however it does not as Pattillo teaches this limitation (see above rejection).
The applicant believes that Pattillo does not teach compressing. Pattillo teaches wherein the fungal biomass is compacted or pressed (see claim 61) and with the broadest reasonable interpretation is the same as compressed.
Conclusion
Currently no claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB ANDREW BOECKELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Anand Desai can be reached at 571-272-0947. 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.
JACOB A BOECKELMANExaminer, Art Unit 1655
/ANAND U DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Prosecution Insights