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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/09/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 06/09/2026 is acknowledged.
It is further noted that claims 17-20 have been cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13, line 7 states “one or more meshes coupled”. Examiner believes this is a grammatical error and should read “one or more meshes are coupled”.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4, lines 1 states “the first mesh stretches along on a bottom surface”. It is unclear which bottom surface the mesh stretches along. The bottom surface could be the bottom surface of the growth chamber or the bottom surface of the growth container. Further clarification and correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farmer et al (CA3161379A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Farmer teaches the following:
A two-stage system for producing microbe-based products comprising fungi (page 9, lines 16-17)(a growth system for growing fungal biomass)
The chambers of the second vessel 20 (growth chamber environment) are hollow cylinders 200 (growth container, which is a cylinder) which has an inoculated substrate 202 pre-spread over it (page 25, lines 20-26, and Fig. 2A-B, below).
The cylinder is comprised of screen or mesh, the inoculated substrate is then pre-spread on the screen or mesh cylinder and then the cylinder is loaded into the second vessel (growth chamber environment)(page 25, lines 20-26)(a first mesh or section of a first mesh at least partially extending along a circumference of the growth container, wherein the first mesh is configured to expose the inoculated substrate to the growth chamber environment and allow growth of fungal biomass through the first mesh)
PNG
media_image1.png
520
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Farmer teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Farmer further teaches the growth container has a first longitudinal growth side and a second longitudinal growth side opposite the first longitudinal growth side (see Fig. 2B, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
340
729
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Farmer teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Farmer further teaches the growth container is hung in the growth chamber (see Fig. 2A, above).
Regarding Claim 7, Farmer teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Farmer further teaches a revolving solid cylinder in which the cylindrical chamber 200 (growth containers) are loaded (page 25, lines 27-28)(rotator system configured to rotate or shift orientation of the growth container during incubation).
Regarding Claim 13, Farmer teaches the following:
A two-stage system for producing microbe-based products comprising fungi (page 9, lines 16-17)(a growth system)
The chambers of the second vessel 20 (growth chamber environment) are hollow cylinders 200 (matrix of growth containers)(page 25, lines 20-26, and Fig. 2A-B, below)
PNG
media_image3.png
625
683
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A first set of vertically distributed growth containers and a second set of vertically distributed growth containers spaced horizontally from the first set of vertically distributed growth containers (see Fig. 2A, below)
The cylinder is comprised of screen or mesh, the inoculated substrate is then pre-spread on the screen or mesh cylinder and then the cylinder is loaded into the second vessel (growth chamber environment)(page 25, lines 20-26)(wherein each growth container has a surface area exposed to a growth chamber environment and configured to hold an inoculated substrate, wherein each growth container is a cylinder or a rectangular box; and one or more meshes coupled to the growth containers, wherein each mesh is vertically oriented and at least partially extends along a circumference of each growth container, wherein each mesh is configured to expose the inoculated substrate to the growth chamber environment and allow growth of fungal biomass through the mesh)
Regarding Claim 14, Farmer teaches all of the limitations of Claim 13 (see above). Farmer further teaches the first set of vertically distributed growth containers and the second set of vertically distributed growth containers are in an in-line configuration… wherein the in-line configuration comprises: at least one growth container of the first set of vertically distributed growth containers is horizontally aligned with at least one growth container of the second set of vertically distributed growth containers (see Fig. 2A, above).
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.
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 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer et al (CA3161379A1) in view of Chang (TW202124708A).
Regarding Claim 3, Farmer teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Farmer does not teach explicitly teach the growth container is constructed of a material selected from stainless steel, aluminum, polypropylene, polyethylene, nylon, polycarbonate, silicone, biodegradable material, or biobased material, and the first mesh is constructed of a material selected from stainless steel, aluminum, polypropylene, polyethylene, nylon, polycarbonate, silicone, biodegradable material, or biobased material.
Chang teaches culture substrate for the mass production of cell biomass (para 3). Chang further teaches preferably the material of the mesh layer may include polyethylene or nylon (para 32).
It would have been one obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select polyethylene or nylon for the mesh of Farmer. One would have been motivated to make this selection as Chang teaches it to be a suitable material in the production of biomass and it would have resulted in an effective mesh screen. Further, since the growth container and the mesh of Farmer are made of the same material, the selection of material from Chang would apply to both the mesh and container of Farmer.
Regarding Claim 6, Farmer teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Farmer does not explicitly teach the first mesh and/or a second mesh have an aperture, which are the same or vary in a range of 0.5 mm to 25 mm, and wherein the spacing for the openings of the first mesh and/or the second mesh are in a range of 1 mm to 50 mm from center to center.
Chang teaches the mesh layer with pores of 1mm to 5mm, preferably made of polypropylene or nylon (para 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the mesh as taught by Chang for use in the device of Farmer. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it would help facilitate the flow of nutrients and air (para 42).
Note: the spacing for the openings from center to center would necessarily be at least 1 mm as the openings are 1 mm.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer et al (CA3161379A1) in view of Koehler (DE3622172A1).
Farmer teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Farmer does not teach a flexible and removable second mesh outermost to said first mesh on said growing container.
Koehler teaches a device for cultivating microorganisms such as fungi (para 1). Koehler further teaches surrounding a porous cylindrical body (first mesh) with a cylindrical mesh (second mesh) or grid spaced apart (para 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Farmer with a second mesh as taught by Koehler. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it is known to surround a porous body (growth container of Farmer) with a mesh in order to ensure that only the spore ends of the mold fungi protruding from the cylindrical net (growth container of Farmer) need to be stripped off (para 25) as these ends with the spurs are important for further use.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer et al. (CA3161379A1) in view of Cremonese (EP3831922A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Farmer teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Farmer does not teach a tubing system inside the growth containers configured to maintain moisture content of the substrate in a range between 50% to 75%.
Cremonese teaches a system for cell growth surface within roller tubes used as reaction vessels in a cell culture system with a cage-like structure (Abstract). Cremonese further teaches the roller tube includes a perfusion assembly inside the roller tubes consisting of an arrangement of tubes, seals, and valves which is in fluid communication with a media exchanger (para 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Farmer with the perfusion system as taught by Cremonese. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it would allow the supply of cell growth media to the cylinders (para 9).
Further, the growth containers configured to maintain moisture content of the substrate in a range between 50% to 75% is an intended use of the device. . A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (see MPEP 2114). The device of Farmer in view of Cremonese would be capable of keeping the moisture content between 50% and 75% and therefore meets the claim.
Regarding Claim 9, Farmer in view of Cremonese teaches all of the limitations of Claim 8 (see above). Cremonese further teaches a tube having a bladder or bag within that supplies fresh media to cell growth vessels and a volume of space between the inside of the tube and the bladder to receive spent media from the cell growth vessels (para 9)(the tubing system is used as an irrigation and drainage system, allowing a continuous or intermittent feeding of water and/or nutrients to the substrate).
Regarding Claim 10, Farmer in view of Cremonese teaches all of the limitations of Claim 8 (see above). Cremonese further teaches the tubing system to allow a continuous or intermittent flow of liquid (para 9). The liquid being used to cool the growth container during incubation is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus and all of the structural limitations have been disclosed. The device of Farmer in view of Cremonese is capable of the liquid cooling the growth container during incubation absent clear evidence otherwise . As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Farmer in view of Cremonese (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding Claim 11, Farmer in view of Cremonese teaches all of the limitations of Claim 8 (see above). The tubing system used as a delivery system to allow feeding of a liquid inoculum to the substrate pre-incubation is directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus and all of the structural limitations have been disclosed. The device of Farmer in view of Cremonese is capable of using the tubing system as a delivery system to allow feeding of a liquid inoculum to the substrate pre-incubation absent clear evidence otherwise. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Farmer in view of Cremonese (see MPEP §2114).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer et al. (CA3161379A1) in view of Park et al. (KR20190012647A).
Farmer teaches the following:
A two-stage system for producing microbe-based products comprising fungi (page 9, lines 16-17)(a growth system for growing fungal biomass)
PNG
media_image1.png
520
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The chambers of the second vessel 20 (growth chamber environment) are hollow cylinders 200 (growth container, which is a cylinder) which has an inoculated substrate 202 pre-spread over it (page 25, lines 20-26, and Fig. 2A-B, below) and each cylinder is comprised of screen or mesh (first mesh and second mesh opposite each other), the inoculated substrate is then pre-spread on the screen or mesh cylinder and then the cylinder is loaded into the second vessel (growth chamber environment)(page 25, lines 20-26)
Farmer does not teach the growth container comprising one or more solid frame portions, at least one solid frame portion extending at a bottom of the growth container; and a first side mesh and a second side mesh opposite to the first side mesh, the first side mesh and the second side mesh being coupled to the one or more solid frame portion, wherein the first side mesh and the second side mesh are planar and extend in respective vertical planes, and wherein the first mesh and the second mesh are configured to expose the substrate to a growth chamber environment and allow growth of the fungal biomass along a horizontal direction from the substrate and through the first side mesh and the second side mesh.
PNG
media_image4.png
481
619
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Park teaches a device for facilitating the mass production of microalgae (para 1). Park further teaches a cylindrical vessel with an outer frame part and a mesh-type permeable blade part (para 8 and Fig. 1, below). Park teaches the one or more solid frame portions, one of which extends as the bottom of the growth container, a first side mesh, a second side mesh opposite the first side and coupled to the frame (see Fig. 1, below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cylindrical mesh of Farmer with a frame as taught by Park. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it would help provide structure and provide a receiving space within the interior of the mesh (para 8).
Further, with the addition of the outer frames to the device of Farmer, it would result in the first side mesh and the second side mesh are planar and extend in respective vertical planes, and wherein the first mesh and the second mesh are configured to expose the substrate to a growth chamber environment and allow growth of the fungal biomass along a horizontal direction from the substrate and through the first side mesh and the second side mesh absent clear evidence to the contrary. In Farmer (see above figure) the first side mesh and the second side mesh are planar and extend in respective vertical planes and they expose the fungi (substrate) to a growth chamber environment which allows the growth of the fungal biomass along a horizontal direction.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer et al. (CA3161379A1) in view of Wakefield et al. (FR3107900A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Farmer teaches all of the limitations of Claim 14 (see above). Farmer further teaches a revolving solid cylinder (hanging system) with cylindrical openings to retain the cylindrical chambers (page 25, lines 27-28). Farmer does teach the hanging system configured to support the first set of vertically distributed growth containers and the second set of vertically distributed growth containers (see Fig. 2A, above). Farmer does not teach the hanging system comprises a set of cables connectable to each growth container of the first set of vertically distributed growth containers and the second set of vertically distributed growth containers.
Wakefield teaches an invention related to microalgae cultivation (para 1). Wakefield further teaches the linking device between the support (the growth container) and a motor can be a belt, a cable, a rack, or any other connecting element (para 86).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Farmer with a cable instead of a rack to support the growth containers. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Wakefield teaches them to be equivalents in the art useful for the connections between two parts.
Regarding Claim 16, Farmer in view of Wakefield teaches all of the limitations of Claim 15 (see above). Farmer further teaches a revolving solid cylinder in which the cylindrical chamber 200 (growth containers) are loaded (page 25, lines 27-28). As this support cylinder was replaced by the cables as taught by Wakefield, the rotator would rotate, via the cables, each growth container of each set.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN E LEPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3971. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/J.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights