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 ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on 01/27/2026 is duly acknowledged.
Claims 1-22 as currently amended/presented are pending in this application.
Claims 1-10 (non-elected invention of Group I) remain withdrawn.
Claims 11-22 (elected Group II, with traverse; directed to “A vegetative mycelium composite textile…”), as currently amended/presented, have been examined on their merits in this action hereinafter.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/US21/16437 (filed on 02/03/2021), which claims domestic benefit from a US PRO 62/969,636 filed on 02/03/2020.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 -Withdrawn
In view of current amendments to claim 11 and 16, the 112(b) rejection as previously made by the examiner has been withdrawn.
NOTE: 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - Made/Maintained
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claims 11-22 (as amended/presented) are/remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chase et al (US 2019/0390399 A1; US-PGPUB cited in applicant’s IDS dated 07/29/2022) taken with Ross et al (US 2018/0014468 A1; previously made of record by the examiner) and Edebo (US 6,423,337 B1; USPAT cited in IDS dated 07/29/2022).
Claim 11 (as currently amended) is directed to “A vegetative mycelium composite textile at least 10 mm by 10 mm by 0.5 mm in size, the vegetative mycelium composite grown as a component of a fungal organism under controlled growth conditions and comprising:
a. a mycelial microstructure further comprising mycelial compounds having a mass density and comprising chitin and polysaccharides;
b. non-fungal materials forming a composite textile with said mycelial compounds;
c. whereby the vegetative mycelium composite textile has average pore size of between 3.0mm and 6.0mm, and thereby improved macroscopic properties of high water retention, tensile strength, flexural strength, and tear strength;
d. whereby mycelial material makes up at least 50% of the weight of the composite; and
e. wherein the vegetative mycelium composite textile exhibits a tensile strength of at least 8MPa.”
Claim 16 (as currently amended) is directed to “A vegetative mycelium composite textile at least 10 mm by 10 mm by 0.5 mm in size, the vegetative mycelium composite grown as a component of a fungal organism under controlled growth conditions and comprising:
a. a mycelial microstructure further comprising mycelial compounds having a mass density and comprising chitin and polysaccharides;
b. non-fungal materials forming a composite textile with said mycelial compounds;
c. whereby the vegetative mycelium composite textile has average pore size of between 3.0mm and 6.0mm, and thereby improved macroscopic properties of high water retention, tensile strength, flexural strength, and tear strength;
d. whereby mycelial material makes up at least 50% of the weight of the composite; and
e. wherein the vegetative mycelium composite textile exhibits a tongue tear strength of at least 8N.”
See also limitations of dependent claims 12-15 and 17-22 as currently presented.
Chase et al (2019) disclose a vegetative mycelium (see Abstract, A flexible fungal composite with an engineered and/or improved mechanical properties such as tear strength, tensile strength and resistance to separation; para [0015]-[0016] In a preferred embodiment, the fungal composite comprises a fungal matrix.... Preferably, the fungal matrix is a mycelium matrix) composite textile (para [0032] FIG. 4 shows a bar graph representing a quantitative comparison of strength and flexibility of mycelium and a potential embedded textile) 0.5 mm in width, (see Table 1, Thickness 0.6-4.0 mm; see Fig. 2 for depiction of matrixes that are 0.6-4.0 mm thick) the vegetative mycelium material grown as a component of a fungal organism (see Abstract, see Abstract, A flexible fungal composite with an engineered and/or improved mechanical properties) under controlled growth conditions (para [0017] A first objective of the present invention is to provide a fungal composite having improved mechanical properties that are engineered, controlled, and of greater commercial value than either of the two combined materials alone; para [0046] The fungal composite achieves the improved strength through space-filling of the fungal matrix within the matrix of the polyester felt as well as through physical and chemical linking of the fungal matrix and the embedded material through ... penetration of fungal hyphae into the polyester fibers, surface adhesion of the fungal hyphae onto the surfaces of the polyester fibers and any other suitable mechanism; where mechanical properties are controlled and the growth of fungal hyphae is a mechanism of increasing the strength, the growth must also be controlled); wherein a mycelial microstructure further comprising mycelial compounds (para [0015]-[0016] In a preferred embodiment , the fungal composite comprises a fungal matrix ... Preferably , the fungal matrix is a mycelium matrix) having a mass density (see Table 1 Specific weight 600-1250 g/cm2; where articles of Table 1 are depicted in Fig. 2; where articles with a specific weight and dimensions are deemed to have a mass density) comprising chitin and polysaccharides (that are intrinsic to fungal hyphae/or mycelia); wherein non-fungal materials forming a composite textile with said mycelial compounds (see Chase et al, para [0032] FIG. 4 shows a bar graph representing a quantitative comparison of strength and flexibility of mycelium and a potential embedded textile; see Abstract- A flexible fungal composite with an engineered and/or improved mechanical properties such as tear strength, tensile strength and resistance to separation. The fungal composite is generated by embedding a second material within a fungal matrix); whereby the vegetative mycelium composite textile has a high spatial density of hyphal branches and hyphal connections, (see para [0046] The fungal composite achieves the improved strength through space-filling of the fungal matrix within the matrix of the polyester felt as well as through physical and chemical linking of the fungal matrix and the embedded material through ... penetration of fungal hyphae into the polyester fibers, surface adhesion of the fungal hyphae onto the surfaces of the polyester fibers and any other suitable mechanism; where improved strength that is caused by increased hyphal connections would result in a high density of hyphal penetrating branches and adhesive connections) and thereby providing improved macroscopic properties (see para [0018], for instance); wherein the vegetative mycelium composite textile exhibits intrinsic properties such as tensile strength of at least 8 MPa (see Table 1 Ultimate Tensile Strength ... 5-50 MPa); and a tongue tear strength of at least 8N (see Table 1 Specific Weight 600-1250 g/m2.....Tongue Tear ... 2.5-15 kg; where 15 kg force is equivalent to at least about 147 Newtons).
However, a vegetative mycelium composite textile which has “a high spatial density of hyphal branches and hyphal connections with an average pore size of between 3.0μm and 6.0μm”; wherein the mycelial material makes up at least 50% of the weight of the composite; or the dimensions of the materials are at least 10 mm by 10 mm by 0.5 mm; or wherein the improved property includes water retention (see instant claims 11 and 16), in particular, have not been explicitly disclosed by the cited reference of Chase et al, as discussed above.
It is to be noted that regarding an average pore size of between “3.0μm and 6.0μm”, where pore size is a measurement of hyphal density (see instant Specification, para [00039] Mechanical analysis .... including ... average pore size (hyphae per unit area); Instant Fig. 10 where pores area depicted as white arrows; para [00043] As shown in Fig. 10, longest pore length of ten randomly chosen pores is marked by a white line. Large arrowheads above each line are added for the sake of clarity; see hyphal branches seen in Chase et al, Fig. 1 B but where pore size at this scale is not explicitly disclosed). Given such disclosure from Chase et al, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to measure factors like the density of the fungal hyphae and to optimize properties such as the growth of hyphae to be whatever values optimize the mechanical strength through routine experimentation because Chase et al is teaching the growth and penetration of hyphae as determinative of the desired mechanical properties, and the increased hyphal density would be a parameter and/or measurement of such growth and penetration resulting in improved macroscopic properties.
Moreover, Ross et al (2018), while teaching method of producing fungal materials and objects made therefrom (see title, Abstract, para [0164]-[0165], for instance), disclose fungal composite materials wherein cellulose-based, synthetic, or other organic fibers/fabrics/textile forms can be incorporated, and that can have suitable pores (pore size larger than 1 micron; i.e. > 1mm; see para [0165]) through which fungal mycelia grow and ultimately provide enhanced mechanical properties for the composite material with desired tensile and compressive strength. Additionally, they disclose that such mycelial structures may be formed in any desired shape and sizes (see para [0002], [0012], [0174]-[0175], for instance) including 2D or 3D forms. Thus, an artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to modify the method disclosed by Chase et al in order employ porous materials and/or grow the mycelium to such density in order to obtain an average pore size that is between 3.0μm and 6.0μm, or as per need depending on the desired mechanical properties of the composite.
In addition, Edebo (2002) teaches a fungal material that has water retention/absorption properties (see Abstract, The present invention relates to a porous structure of prepared fungal cell wall components, whereby the cell wall material is derived from a fungí selected from the division Zygomycota, the fungal material in the form of a suspension is subjected to drying in such a way that the material obtains a porous structure, the structure has a liquid absorbing property) and the use of these articles for wound treatment and personal hygiene (see col. 1, ln 10-16; and also see Example 9, col. 9, ln 15-25 Herein two schematic examples of occlusion bandages are shown. In the bandages, freeze dried fungal cell wall material from suspensions of 1 to 3% fungal cell wall material were used. The density of the freeze dried material can be varied depending upon the content of fungal cell wall material of the suspension. Then the capillaries of the material are affected as well and thereby the absorption and spreading ability. The properties of the material can thus be changed as desired and as given priority to).
Therefore, given the disclosure from Edebo regarding the tunable water retention properties of the fungal mycelial materials, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the water absorption capabilities of the article of Edebo in order to absorb as much or as low amount of water as possible without damaging the article as Edebo discloses these materials used in bandages or articles of personal hygiene. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust and/or optimize the mycelial composite composition disclosed by Chase et al, when taken with Ross et al and Edebo, to further adjust the water absorbing and/or retaining properties of the articles and composites where similar fungal-based mycelial materials are being used, i.e. due to their intrinsic water retaining properties, as explicitly disclosed and demonstrated by Edebo, albeit for bandages or articles of personal hygiene. In addition, given the combined disclosure in the cited prior art, since, the functional properties of the claimed “vegetative mycelium composite textile” would also depend on a specific species of fungi, specific feeding substrates and/or growth conditions, etc., and specific spatial density of the hyphae, including amount of water and other controlled conditions that may be tailored to obtain desired physical and mechanical properties, such optimization or adjustments in the amount of mycelium in the “composite textile” would have been obvious and/or fully contemplated by an artisan of ordinary skill in the art depending on the need, unless evidence/data provided on record to the contrary, especially for the entire scope of the product as currently claimed (which is currently lacking on record; see instant specification, Table on pages 11-12, for instance).
Thus, the claim as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as claimed.
As per MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, F.3d, 2004 WL 1067528 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004)(The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.). This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless applicant has provided a clear definition in the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/2026 (as they pertain to the 103a rejection over pending claims of record) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons discussed in the rejection above, and at least for the following reasons of record:
Regarding the 103a rejection of record, applicant’s main arguments pertain to the recited limitations of hyphal branches and hyphal connections with an “average pore size of between 3.0 mm and 6.0 mm” (see REM, sections A to C, in particular), which are duly noted and considered. However, first, it is to be noted that instant independent claims 11 and 16, as presented, are not limited to any specific fungal species, and they do not recite any specific “non-fungal materials” and/or characteristics thereof forming the claimed “vegetative mycelium composite textile” per se. Secondly, the rejection of record over the cited prior art references of Chase et al taken with Ross et al and Edebo is not an anticipation rejection per se.
Additionally, Chase et al is teaching the fungal growth and penetration of hyphae as the determinative factor for the desired mechanical properties of the composite (Chase et al, [0015]-[0016] and [0046], as discussed above), and the fact that non-fungal materials can be suitably chosen by an artisan in the art depending on the need/requirements in order to make the porous fungal composites via fungal growth (Ross et al, [0164]-[0165], as discussed above), such adjustments in pore size range would have been obvious and fully contemplated by an artisan of ordinary skill in the art, at least given the benefits and motivation of superior mechanical re-enforcement provided by the fungal hyphal/mycelial growth and/or interconnections into the desired porous materials. Although, the average pore size range of “between 3.0 mm and 6.0 mm” has not been explicitly stated/exemplified by the cited prior art references, and the pores taught by Ross et al are directed to the non-fungal material (as currently being argued by applicants), the fact that porous materials are employed in order to prepare mechanically re-enforced fungal-based composites and are directly taught by both prior art references of Chase et al taken with Ross et al, as discussed above, provides sufficient support for the fact that an artisan in the art would have been reasonably successful in making such porous composites by regulating the fungal growth on the embedded materials and control the pore size as per requirements in the art. It is also noted that applicants have not provided any evidence/data (commensurate with the entire scope of the claim) supporting any specific unexpected benefit/advantage of such average pore size range per se, other than reciting the improved intrinsic functional and mechanical properties of the fungal composite (of water retention, tensile, flexural and tear strengths) that are already taught and/or suggested by the combined teachings from the cited prior art references of Chase et al taken with Ross et al and Edebo (see Chase et al, and detailed discussion above). Thus, the arguments that such porosity parameters for the fungal mycelial composite cannot be reasonably optimized by an artisan of ordinary skill in the art (see REM, section C) using the teachings and/or suggestions from the cited prior art of Chase et al taken with Ross et al and Edebo, is duly noted and considered, but is not found to be persuasive. The arguments regarding Edebo, that “it does not cure the missing microstructural limitation” (see REM, section D) is also duly considered, but is not found to be persuasive because Edebo was relied upon to show that fungal hyphae/mycelial material is intrinsically water absorbing and retaining, and that such functional property of the composites using incorporation of fungal hyphae can be controlled depending on the amount of the mycelia incorporated. It is to be noted that instant claims do not eliminate use of dried fungal materials per se, as currently being argued by the applicants. Additionally, since the amount of incorporated fungal hyphae/mycelia would directly depend on the type of the fungus grown, and the requirements of the desired composite and its functional features, such adjustments in the amount/weight of the fungal mycelia would have been deemed obvious and/or fully contemplated by an artisan of ordinary skill in the art given the combined teachings/suggestions provided by the cited prior art references as discussed in the 103(a) rejection above, unless evidence/data provided on record to the contrary that are reasonably commensurate with the claimed scope of the product.
The 103(a) rejection is therefore properly made/maintained.
Conclusion
NO claims are currently allowed.
Pertinent Art:
1. Haneef M. et al., 2017 (NPL cited in applicant’s IDS dated 07/29/2022)- “Advanced Materials from Fungal Mycelium: Fabrication and Tuning of Physical Properties”- Scientific Reports, Jan., 24th, 2017, pages 1-11 (discloses the fact that “Depending on their feeding substrate, the final fibrous structures showed different relative concentrations in polysaccharides, lipids, proteins and chitin. Such differences are reflected as alterations in morphology and mechanical properties”; see Abstract on page 1, in particular; and entire document regarding different types of measurements for physical-mechanical properties, section “Methods”, in particular).
2. Islam M.R. et al., 2017 (NPL cited in applicant’s IDS dated 07/29/2022)- “Morphology and mechanics of fungal mycelium”, Scientific Reports, Oct. 12th, 2017, pages 1-12 (discloses the fact that “Mycelium has a filamentous network structure with mechanics largely controlled by filament elasticity and branching, and network density…The monotonic mechanical behavior of the mycelium is non-linear both in tension and compression. The material exhibits considerable strain hardening before rupture under tension, it mimics the open cell foam behavior under compression and exhibits hysteresis and the Mullins effect when subjected to cyclic loading”; see Abstract and entire page 1, and section “Methods”, in particular).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATYENDRA K. SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-8790. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00- 5:00.
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, LOUISE W HUMPHREY can be reached at 571-272-5543. 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.
SATYENDRA K. SINGH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1657
/SATYENDRA K SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1657