DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the paper filed 1 October 2025. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-28 are currently pending and under examination.
This application is a divisional of U.S. Patent Application 16/803667, filed February 27, 2020, now U.S. Patent No. 11,039,635, which claims benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/811421, filed February 27, 2019.
Withdrawal of Rejections:
The rejection of claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement, is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-19, and 22-28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al., is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 4, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al., and further in view of in view of Kozubal et al., is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al., and further in view of in view of Zapata et al., is withdrawn.
New Rejections Necessitated by Amendment:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 27, which depends from claim 1, recites that the feedstock is a liquid feedstock comprising a carbon source and a nitrogen source. Claim 1 as amended now recites that the feedstock is a liquid feedstock. As such, the limitation that the feedstock is a liquid feedstock in claim 27 fails to further limit this subjected matter now in claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-19, and 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al. (US 2018/0014468, Published Jan. 18, 2018 – Previously Presented), in view of Filho et al. (Edible Protein Production by Filamentous Fungi using Starch Plant Wastewater, Waste and Biomass Valorization, Vol. 10, Published online 7 March 2018, pp. 2487-2496).
With regard to claims 1 and 27, referring to Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5A, 5B, and 8, Ross et al. teach a device comprising: a container (200); one or more membrane/mesh scaffold (40/204) disposed within the container, each membrane/mesh scaffold having a top and bottom, which is a first and second surface; a nutritive vehicle, which is a feedstock (202); and a filamentous fungus inoculum (10/80). Taken together, the device including the container, membrane/mesh scaffold, feedstock, and inoculum, are a bioreactor.
The membrane/mesh scaffold is be placed on top of the feedstock, where the feedstock contacts the bottom surface of the membrane/mesh scaffold, but not its top surface (see Fig. 5A-B). In an embodiment, fungal material that has grown through the membrane/mesh scaffold is delaminated, which is completely removed, from the membrane/mesh scaffold and the feedstock underneath it, and the fungal material is then reapplied onto the membrane/mesh scaffold at a different geometric orientation (Para. 169). This reapplication is dispersing a filamentous fungus inoculum onto the top side, which is the second surface, of the membrane/mesh scaffold, wherein this newly oriented filamentous fungus grows into fungal material, which is a biomat, that is formed solely on the second surface of the membrane/mesh scaffold, as the original fungal material was delaminated from the first surface (bottom) of the membrane/mesh scaffold and underlying feedstock.
The feedstock utilized by Ross et al. is a solid lignocellulosic substrate, because it is easy to obtain, relatively inexpensive, and can be processed in extremely large volumes (Para. 12). Ross et al. also teach that the feedstock may consist of at least one of straw, hay, hemp, wool, cotton, rice hulls, recycled hardwood/softwood sawdust, water, calcium carbonate, nitrogen, sugar rich grains, and shrimp shells (Para. 189). Ross et al. further teach that liquid feedstocks are known in the art (Para. 12), and that the feedstock can include any material adequate to provide for the growth of the fungal material (Para. 134). However, it is not specifically taught that the utilized feedstock is a liquid feedstock.
Filho et al. teach the use of wastewater, which is a liquid, from a wheat-starch plant as feedstock for edible filamentous fungi, obtaining protein-rich fungal biomass (Abs.). The liquid wastewater from a wheat-starch plant contains nitrogen and carbohydrates (Abs.), which contain carbon. Wheat accounts for 35.9% of the total 23.6 million tons of crops processed annually, where starch production requires up to 1.8 parts of water per part of wheat flour, thus generating large volumes of wastewater that must be treated (p. 2487, Left col., para. 1 to Right col., para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ross et al. with Filho et al., because both teach the production of fungal biomass grown using a feedstock that can include water, carbon and nitrogen. The use of a liquid feedstock, including wastewater from a wheat-starch plant, is known in the art as taught by Filho et al. The use of liquid wheat-starch plant wastewater as the feedstock as taught by Filho et al., as the feedstock in the bioreactor of Ross et al., amounts to the simple substation of one known filamentous fungal feedstock for another, that is likewise easily obtained, inexpensive as it is a waste product, and available in extremely large volumes given the amount water needed for starch production. Wheat-starch plant wastewater would have been expected to predictably and successfully provide an alternative feedstock usable by filamentous fungus for growth as desired by Ross et al., where wheat-starch plant wastewater is likewise an inexpensive and abundant feedstock material.
With regard to claim 2, Ross et al. teach that the container is a bag, where the first and second surface of the membrane/mesh scaffold, are first and second surfaces of at least a portion of the bag (Para. 136, Line 9-14).
With regard to claim 3, Ross et al. and Filho et al. render obvious the bioreactor as claimed, including all components as claimed, as discussed with regard to claim 1. As these components cannot be separated from their properties and functions, the feedstock is necessarily capable of being subjected to a positive or negative pressure imparted on a side of the feedstock opposite at least one of the first surface and the second surface of the at least one membrane/mesh scaffold.
With regard to claim 5, Ross et al. and Filho et al. render obvious the bioreactor as claimed, including all components as claimed, as discussed with regard to claim 1. As these components cannot be separated from their properties and functions, the density of the biomat produced using the taught bioreactor would necessarily be at least about 0.05 g/cm3; and the density of the biomat produced using the taught bioreactor after drying would necessarily be at least about 0.01 g/cm3.
With regard to claim 6, as Ross et al. teach that the biomat (212) comprises at least one layer (Fig. 8-13).
With regard to claims 7 and 8, Ross et al. and Filho et al. render obvious the bioreactor as claimed, including all components as claimed, as discussed with regard to claim 1. As these components cannot be separated from their properties and functions, the tensile strength of the biomat produced using the taught bioreactor would necessarily be at least about 3 or 100 kpa; or at least about 3 or 1,020 grams-force/cm2.
With regard to claims 9 and 10, Ross et al. teach that the membrane/mesh scaffold is a layer of nylon textile (Para. 264, Line 1-6), which is a polyamide, and a nylon net filter.
With regard to claim 11, Ross et al. teach that the membrane/mesh scaffold is a porous ceramic plate (claim 13).
With regard to claims 12 and 13, Ross et al. teach that the pore size of the membrane/mesh scaffold is larger than 1 micron (Para. 165, Line 4-6), wherein larger than 1 micron is deemed to be encompassed within between about 0.2 µm and about 25 µm, and between about 5 µm and about 11 µm, as no specific definition for “about” has been indicated by Applicant.
With regard to claim 15, Ross et al. and Filho et al. render obvious the bioreactor as claimed, including all components as claimed, as discussed with regard to claim 1. As these components cannot be separated from their properties and functions, the bioreactor of Ross et al. and Filho et al. is necessarily capable of providing the function of the biomat separating from the at least one membrane/mesh scaffold spontaneously.
With regard to claim 16, Ross et al. and Filho et al. render obvious the bioreactor as claimed, including all components as claimed, as discussed with regard to claim 1. As these components cannot be separated from their properties and functions, the bioreactor of Ross et al. and Filho et al. is necessarily capable of providing the function of when the biomat is removed from the at least one membrane/mesh scaffold, a new inoculum of filamentous fungi remains on the at least one membrane/mesh scaffold.
With regard to claims 17-19, Ross et al. teach that the filamentous fungus can belong to an order including Polyporales, and can be selected from Ganoderma lucidum, Polyporous squamosus, and Trametes versicolor (Para. 136), wherein Polyporous squamosus and Trametes versicolor belong to the family Polyporaceae.
With regard to claims 22-24, Ross et al. teach that the membrane/mesh scaffold is a single composite membrane where a first and second surface comprise different materials; the membrane/mesh scaffold comprises at least two membrane layers, where the first surface is a surface of the first membrane/mesh scaffold, and the second surface is a surface of the second membrane/mesh scaffold; and the first and second membrane/mesh scaffold are in physical contact with each other (Fig. 10-13).
With regard to claims 25 and 26, Ross et al. further teach that the at least one membrane/mesh scaffold can be a gas-permeable membrane, and a selectively permeable membrane (Para. 144, 194, 203). As such, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan from the teachings of Ross et al., that the membrane/mesh scaffold can be a gas-permeable membrane, including a selective gas-permeable membrane.
Ross et al. and Filho et al. render obvious the bioreactor as claimed, including the inclusion of a selective gas-permeable membrane, as claimed. As the bioreactor including the selective gas-permeable membrane cannot be separated from its properties and function, the bioreactor as rendered obvious would necessarily provide the function of selectively separating a first gas produced during growth of the biomat into a gas headspace on a first side of the selective gas-permeable membrane, and selectively separating a second gas produced during growth of the biomat into a gas headspace on a second side of the select gas-permeable membrane.
With regard to claim 28, Ross et al. and Filho et al. render obvious the bioreactor as claimed, including all components as claimed, as discussed with regard to claim 1. As these components cannot be separated from their properties and functions, the bioreactor of Ross et al. and Filho et al. is necessarily capable of providing the function that the biomat can be harvested substantially intact from the second surface of the at least one membrane/mesh scaffold.
Claims 1, 4, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al. and Filho et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of Kozubal et al. (WO 2017/151684, Published 2017 – Previously Presented).
The teachings of Ross et al. and Filho et al. as applied to claim 1 have been set forth above.
With regard to claims 4 and 14, Ross et al. further teach that the fungal material in the bioreactor can be used to produce a product (Para. 181).
Ross et al. do not teach that the bioreactor further comprises cyanobacteria, wherein the cyanobacteria provide at least one of oxygen gas and carbon to promote growth of the biomat; and that the container is enclosed and substantially airtight, wherein the container encloses a gas headspace into which the biomat grows.
Kozubal et al. teach a bioreactor for producing a biomat of a filamentous fungus, where the biomat is utilized for the production of fungal products, where the bioreactor comprises a container, a membrane, a feedstock substrate disposed within the container, and an inoculum of filamentous fungus (Abs.; Para. 78, 86). Microorganisms utilized further include bacteria, including cyanobacteria (Para. 68), wherein as cyanobacteria cannot be separated from their properties, the cyanobacteria would necessarily provide oxygen gas or carbon to promote growth of the biomat. Kozubal et al. teach a tray and rack system used for surface fermentation to form the biomat, where plastic wrap encloses the rack system to create a container that controls conditions, including the rate of airflow (Para. 147), which is a container that is enclosed and airtight, and includes a gas headspace above each tray into which the biomat grows.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ross et al. and Filho et al. with Kozubal et al., because Ross et al. and Kozubal et al. teach a bioreactor used for the production of a biomat, the bioreactor including a container, a membrane, an inoculum of microorganisms, and a feedstock for the growth the microorganisms. The inclusion of cyanobacteria, and a container that is enclosed and airtight, wherein the container encloses a gas headspace into which the biomat grows, is known in the art as taught by Kozubal et al. The inclusion of cyanobacteria as taught by Kozubal et al. in the bioreactor of Ross et al. and Filho et al. would have been expected to predictably and successfully provide an additional biomass source for growth of the biomat as desired by Ross et al. Additionally, the inclusion of an airtight container as taught by Kozubal et al. in the bioreactor of Ross et al. and Filho et al. amounts to the simple substitution of one known container type for another, and would have been expected to predictably and successfully provide a container for biomat growth in the bioreactor as desired.
Claims 1, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al. and Filho et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of Zapata et al. (Testing the Potential of Using Fungi to Convert Human Waste into Protein, Valparaiso University, Department of Biology, Biology Faculty Presentations, (1-1-2011), pp. 1-2 – Previously Presented).
The teachings of Ross et al. and Filho et al. as applied to claim 1, have been set forth above.
With regard to claims 20 and 21, Ross et al. teach that the nutritive vehicle, which is a feedstock, includes any material adequate to provide for the growth of the fungal material (Para. 134). However, Ross et al. do not specifically teach that the feedstock includes the feces or urine of an animal, including a human.
Zapata et al. teach that filamentous fungi can utilize human solid waste (feces) as a feedstock, including to produce a high protein food product (Abs.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ross et al. and Filho et al. with Zapata et al., because Ross et al. and Zapata et al. teach filamentous fungi and their feedstock. The use of human feces as a feedstock for filamentous fungus is known in the art as taught by Zapata et al. The inclusion of human feces as the feedstock in the bioreactor of Ross et al. and Filho et al. amounts to the simple substitution of one known feedstock for another. The use of human feces would have been expected to predictably and successfully provide a feedstock for the filamentous fungi in the bioreactor to utilize for growth and production of the biomat.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant’s amendments, all previous rejections have been withdrawn. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are moot. However, new rejections have been set forth above.
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
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 JENNIFER M.H. TICHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 9:00am-7:00pm ET.
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, Sharmila G. Landau can be reached at (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 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.
/JENNIFER M.H. TICHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1653