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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification recites both “bongkrekic” and “bongkreic” throughout. The latter should be corrected to “bongkrekic”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in line 1 after “fuciformis” delete “suitable” to place the claim in better form and for consistency with the body of the claim.
In line 2, delete “circulation” and insert “transportation” for consistency with the body of the claim (e.g., line 28).
In line 9, delete “the” after “by selecting”.
In line 11, delete “to enter subsequent cold-chain circulation” since the limitation is redundant and does not significantly add to the claim. Line 28 already recites performing cold-chain transportation.
In line 27, after “during the” delete “storage” and insert “storing” to place the claim in better form and for consistency with line 26.
In line 29, delete “and” after “fuciformis;” and insert “wherein the cold-chain transportation comprises”.
In line 61, insert “the” before “external packaging”.
In line 65, delete “,” after “bases”.
In line 68, delete “,” after “bases”.
Regarding claim 2, in line 1 delete “suitable” and in line 2 delete “circulation” and insert “transportation” for the same reasons stated for claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, in line 1 delete “suitable” and in line 2 delete “circulation” and insert “transportation” for the same reasons stated for claim 1.
In line 6, insert “the” before “ground”.
Regarding claim 6, in line 1 delete “suitable” and in line 2 delete “circulation” and insert “transportation” for the same reasons stated for claim 1.
In line 2, after “wherein” delete “in the storage step” and insert “during the storing” for consistency with claim 1.
In line 4, after “of the packaging” delete “; and the storage temperature is controlled between 1oC and 3oC” since the limitation is redundant. Claim 1 already recites the storage temperature, which would have necessarily been “controlled”, in line 27.
Regarding claim 7, in line 1 delete “suitable” and in line 2 delete “circulation” and insert “transportation” for the same reasons stated for claim 1.
In lines 6 and 7, insert “a” before “receipt” and “storage”, respectively.
Regarding claim 8, in line 1 delete “suitable” and in line 2 delete “circulation” and insert “transportation” for the same reasons stated for claim 1.
In line 14, insert “to” before “between”.
Further regarding claims 1, 6 and 8, all instances of “h” should be amended to “hours” or “hour”, respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a fresh tremella fucifomis fruiting body with tremella bases” renders the claim indefinite since the first portion of the limitation recites a singular fruiting body whereas the second portion recites multiple bases. The singular/plural relationship between the two is unclear.
The limitation “a fresh tremella fucifomis fruiting body without tremella bases” renders the claim indefinite for the same reason stated above.
The limitation “is capable of effectively controlling production of bongkrekic acid toxin” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the “controlling production of bongkrekic acid toxin” is actually required. It is unclear what is encompassed by the term “effectively”, and further unclear what is encompassed by “controlling”.
The limitation “precooling the pretreated fresh tremella fuciformis stacked into a stack and put in cold storage” lacks antecedent basis. There is no previous recitation that the tremella is stacked and put into a cold storage.
In line 49 the limitations “tremella fuciformis fruit body with tremella bases” and “tremella fuciformis fruiting body without tremella bases” render the claim indefinite for the same reasons stated above.
In line 52, the limitation “or not subjecting the pretreated fresh tremella fuciformis to the internal packaging” renders the claim indefinite since the limitation contradicts the limitation “using packaging materials comprising an internal packaging material” in lines 35-36. The claim recites limitations both requiring (lines 35-36) and excluding (line 52) internal packaging. It is unclear which of the two is actually required by the claim.
In line 52, the limitation “subjecting…to the internal packaging, wherein during the internal packaging” renders the claim indefinite since the limitation appears to be directed to a process of “internal packaging”, but the claim does not previous recite such a process. The claim only recites “using…an internal packaging material” in line 36. It is unclear if the limitation of line 52 is referring to that of line 36, or a different feature.
In line 55, the limitation “each piece of the packaging paper” lacks antecedent basis. There is no previous recitation that multiple pieces of packaging paper are used.
In line 55, the limitation “one fresh tremella fuciformis fruiting body with tremella base” is inconsistent with “bases” (plural) previously recited in the claim. It is unclear if the claim encompasses multiple bases or a single base with the fruiting body.
In line 66, the limitation “an ice pack not less than 33 g” renders the claim indefinite since the claim previous recites “ice packs” (plural). It is unclear if the claim requires multiple ice packs or a single ice pack.
In line 68, the limitation “which is not subjected to the internal packaging” renders the claim indefinite since the limitation contradicts lines 35-36 as stated above.
In line 69, the limitation “an ice pack not less than 15 g” renders the claim indefinite since the claim previous recites “ice packs” (plural). It is unclear if the claim requires multiple ice packs or a single ice pack.
In line 72, the limitation “not using the internal packaging” renders the claim indefinite for the same reason stated above.
In line 80, the limitation “an ice pack not less than 27 g” renders the claim indefinite for the same reason stated above.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “of one tremella slice…to another tremella slice” renders the claim indefinite since the limitation lacks antecedent basis. There is no previous recitation of “slicing” the tremella.
The limitation “with no more than 3 layers in each clean and dry hollow plastic turnover box” render sthe claim indefinite since the claim previously recites the “tremella fucifomis with the fungal stick” is placed on a clean and dry shelf, not the hollow plastic turnover box. It is unclear if the tremella with the fungal stick is placed on a shelf or in a box.
The limitations “tremella fuciformis fruiting body with tremella bases side by side on the shelf” and “tremella fuciformis fruiting body with tremella bases placed on each layer of the shelf” renders the claim indefinite since the claim previously recites the fruiting body with tremella bases is placed in the turnover box, not the shelf. It is unclear if the tremella with the bases is placed on a shelf or in a box.
Claims 3 and 6-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (CN 103583670 A) in view of D2 (CN 110200065 A) and D3 (CN 105494603 A).
Citations to D1, D2 and D3 are made with respect to the respective translations provided with the Office Action of 9/10/2025.
Regarding claim 1, the preamble recites “the fresh tremella fuciformis is selected from: a fresh tremella fuciformis fruiting body with tremella bases, a fresh tremella fuciformis fruiting body without tremella bases, or a fresh tremella fuciformis with a fungal stick”, where the term “or” indicates alternatives. For the sake of examination, the limitation “with tremella bases” is chosen. Thus, the alternatives “without bases” and “with a fungal stick” is hereon construed to not be required, and all subsequent limitations associated with “fungal sticks” is similarly construed to not be required. For precooling, the “cold store” alternative is chosen for examination, and the “vacuum precooling” is construed to not be required.
D1 teaches a method for storage and preservation of fresh Tremella fuciformis, hereon referred to as “tremella”, comprising selecting fresh tremella that is free from rot and mold and removing dirt and impurities on the surface (paragraph 26), the fresh tremella having a water content of less than or equal to 90% (paragraph 4), “immediately” pretreating by placing the tremella into cold storage and precooling to a temperature of 0-4oC (paragraph 27), packaging the treated tremella using MAP technology (paragraph 29), storing the tremella at a temperature of 0-4oC until the tremella is shipped out of the warehouse and put on the market (paragraph 31).
Regarding the temperatures of precooling, the “stack center”, and storage, the process of D1 teaches precooling and storing as stated above. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that the tremella can be “stacked” during the above operations, particularly to minimize footprint. Further, the reference recognizes that temperature “has an important influence on the preservation of edible fungi” (paragraph 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process to include the claimed temperatures, durations, and center stack temperature since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results, where reduced temperature is understood to facilitate preservation, since the reference already recognizes that tremella has a “high decay rate” (paragraph 4) and “immediately” cools the selected tremella, thereby suggesting that the process is time-sensitive, and since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as enhanced shelf-life and minimizing product loss to decay.
D1 does not specify whether or not the tremella body includes the base.
D3 teaches harvesting the tremella while keeping the base intact (paragraph 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of D1 such that the tremella includes bases since the reference teaches the selected fresh tremella can be of uniform size, standard shape, and desired mass (paragraph 44), thereby suggesting control of the manner by which the tremella is harvested, since the prior art recognizes harvesting the tremella with bases, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and to minimize waste.
D1 does not teach a temperature of the packaging operation is less than or equal to 18oC, pretreatment being completed within 2 hours of picking, precooling within 5 hours, a time of the pretreated tremella entering the packaging operation room to the completion of the packaging not exceeding 1 hour, and the packaging completed within 48 hours after precooling.
Regarding the temperature of packaging, D1 recognizes that temperature “has an important influence on the preservation of edible fungi” (paragraph 5), and teaches cooling to a temperature below 18oC as stated above.
D3 teaches obtaining the tremella on September 5th, cooling, packaging, and finally transporting on September 6th (paragraphs 26-30) i.e., within 24 hours. The reference teaches tremella easily molds and rots after harvesting, where it is desirable to transport the tremella within a short period of time (paragraphs 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of D1 to pretreat within 2 hours after picking, precooling within 5 hours, package at the claimed temperature range, and complete packaging within 1 hour of entering the packaging operation room and within 48 hours after precooling since the prior art recognizes that it is desirable to transport the tremella within a short period of time, and therefore to minimize processing time after harvesting, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed features, and since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such shelf-life, preservation of desirable characteristics, and minimizing product loss to decay.
D1 does not teach cold-chain transportation as claimed.
It is noted that the “transporting” limitation includes a number of alternatives separated by the term “or”. For the sake of examination, the alternatives “refrigerated vehicle”, “not subjecting the pretreated fresh tremella fuciformis to the internal packaging”, and “the plastic logistics packaging container for single-layer packaging” are chosen. Thus, the non-chosen alternatives (i.e., internal packaging material, foam logistics packaging container, carton, and ice packs) are construed to not be required.
D2 teaches fresh tremella and cold chain preservation thereof (paragraphs 11-12), where the tremella is treated and packaged (paragraph 16), followed by loading into a hollow plastic box frame with a cover, construed to be a “plastic logistics packaging container”, and placing into a refrigerated truck at 4oC for cold chain transportation (paragraph 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of D1 to transport the fresh tremella with bases by refrigerated vehicle using plastic logistics packaging container since the reference already teaches distribution of the packaged tremella and modified atmosphere packaging with refrigeration can significantly inhibit the respiration intensity to delay maturation and aging process (paragraph 5), since the process of cold-chain transportation of tremella is recognized by the prior art, and therefore to similarly ensure extended shelf-life and optimal quality throughout the distribution process.
D1 does not teach the method capable of effectively controlling production of bongkrekic acid toxin.
Applicant’s specification states that Bongkrekic acid toxin is produced when contaminated tremella is maintained at elevated temperatures e.g., 5-10oC for 12 days (page 21 lines 26-27; page 26 lines 1-3).
The combination applied above teaches the same process of pretreating, cooling, and cold-chain transportation within 48 hours, and particularly teaches cooling and transporting at a temperature below 5oC. D1 also teaches sterilization of pathogens using radiation (paragraph 5). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the process of the prior art combination to be “capable of effectively controlling production of bongkrekic acid toxin”.
D1 does not teach the plastic logistics packaging container complying with regulations of GB/T 34344.
D3 teaches packaging materials that meet food hygiene standards (paragraph 28)
While the particular type of regulation standard is not disclosed, such standards are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify D1 to use a plastic logistics packaging container that complies with the claimed regulations in order to adhere to legal requirements, and to ensure product quality.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites alternatives separated by “or”. For the sake of examination, the alternative “selecting a clean and dry hollow plastic turnover box” is chosen. The shelf limitations are construed to not be required.
D1 does not teach selecting a clean and dry hollow plastic turnover box that complies with the regulations as claimed.
D2 teaches the tremella is placed into a hollow plastic box frame (paragraph 17). While the reference does not explicitly recite “clean and dry”, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “clean and dry” packaging is desirable to minimize risk of contamination or other issues with the packaged tremella.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of D1 to place the tremella in a clean and dry plastic turnover box during pretreatment since such packaging is well-known in the food packaging art, to minimize the space required for treating and holding the tremella, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and as a matter of manufacturing choice for characteristics of the packaging (e.g., weight, sturdiness, rigidity, etc.)
While the particular type of regulation standard is not disclosed, such standards are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to modify D1 to use a plastic turnover box that complies with the claimed regulations in order to adhere to legal requirements, and to ensure product quality.
Regarding the orientation and number of layers of the tremella placed in the box, it would have been obvious to place the respective tremella in the claimed orientation since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, to minimize the space required for treating and holding the tremella, and to minimize the risk of damage during storage and transport.
Regarding claim 3, it is noted that, based on the selection of alternatives in claim 1, the limitation “precooling the pretreated fresh tremella fuciformis placed on the shelf” and onward is construed to not be required by the claim.
D1 does not teach placing the tremella in the box during precooling and controlling a placement of the stack relative to a wall, the ground, a top lighting lamp, and an air cooler, and does not teach controlling a distance between a stack and a wall, the ground, a top lighting lamp, an air cooler, between stacks, and a stack height.
However, the reference teaches that tremella is temperature sensitive and loses sensory and nutritional qualities when dried (paragraphs 4-5). Further, stacking food in a desired location is commonly practiced in the prior art, where selection of such a location would have considered environmental factors that affect temperature and moisture/humidity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to place the tremella into a plastic turnover box during precooling to control a distance between a stack of the tremella and the claimed structures since the prior art recognizes such containers used for tremella, and therefore to maximize capacity of the process and minimize footprint, for the same reasons stated for claim 2, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed features, and in order to maintain the tremella in optimal conditions (e.g., sufficient room for airflow, minimizing damage to the tremella if placed too close to the lamp or the air cooler, minimizing risk of the stack falling over, etc.).
Regarding claim 6, the combination applied to claim 1 renders obvious packaging and cold-chain transportation of the tremella within 24 hours.
Regarding claim 8, D2 teaches a refrigerated vehicle at 4oC for cold chain transportation as stated for the combination applied to claim 1.
Regarding the refrigerated vehicle complying with regulations of QC/T 449, and the duration of transport to delivery, t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify D1 to comply with the regulations for the same reasons stated for claim 2, and to transport and deliver the tremella in the claimed time period for the same reasons stated for claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of D2 and D3 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hsu (US 2018/0249723 A1).
Regarding claim 7, D1 does not teach marking after storing, the mark including receipt, delivery, storage and transportation marks complying with the claimed regulations.
Hsu teaches food packaging includes product identification label 310 containing information such as shipping location and/or shipping time (paragraph 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to mark the packaging as claimed since the prior art recognizes tracking markers for transport and storage, where such markers are well known in the art in order to provide continuous tracking of the package, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed features, and to provide relevant information for accurate delivery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/8/2025 with respect to claim 1 have been considered, but the instant Office Action relies on new grounds of rejection. It is noted that new issues are raised under 35 USC 112(b) which necessitated the new grounds of rejection. Further, the prior art recognizes that tremella has a short shelf life and is negatively impacted by elevated temperature, where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to minimize the duration between harvesting and delivery in order to ensure the tremella is delivered at optimal quality.
Applicant argues D1 is silent regarding performing pretreatment that comprises selecting tremella with a water content less than or equal to 90% to enter cold-chain circulation.
This is not persuasive since the reference explicitly teaches tremella has a water content below 90%, where selection of tremella having desired characteristics would have been obvious based on desired texture and preservation qualities.
Applicant argues control of bongkrekic acid is not mentioned in any of the cited references.
This is not persuasive since the combination applied to claim 1 teaches or renders obvious the recited features, and since Applicant’s specification discloses the acid content increases when the tremella is maintained at elevated temperatures. Since the prior art combination teaches cooling and cold-chain circulation as claimed, as well as sterilization, one of ordinary skill would have expected similar control of bongkrekic acid.
Applicant argues the instant application does not use chemical/physical treatments taught by D1 nor biological treatments taught by D2.
This is not persuasive since claim 1 recites the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising”, and the argued features are not excluded by the language of the claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues the cited references do not teach holes punched into the plastic packaging container, and ice pack configuration for tremella in different forms.
This is not persuasive since the feature is directed to an alternative embodiment (separated by the term “or”) as explained in the prior art rejection above. Since the “plastic packaging container…used as the internal packaging material” is optional as indicated by the limitation “subjecting or not subjecting the…tremella…to the internal packaging” the argued feature is construed to also be optional. Likewise, the features of the ice pack configuration and type of tremella (without bases or with fungal sticks) are alternatives not required by the claim since “refrigerated vehicle” and “tremella…with bases” were chosen for examination.
Applicant’s argument against the dependent claims is not persuasive for the same reasons stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)-270-3475. 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.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792