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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 2/18/2026 is acknowledged.
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 17 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the lid". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 13-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE (CN 209218799) in view of Seong (KR 100225049) and further in view of Green (US 4,063,383).
Regarding claim 13 HE discloses a method of inoculating liquid culture for spawn production,the method comprising:a) providing an inoculation apparatus comprising: (See HE Abstract and Fig. 1)
an auto-fill syringe comprising a nozzle and an inlet port;(Se HE Fig. 1 wherein an autofill syringe comprises a nozzle,i.e. inlet to syringe barrel 1 from 13)
a connection line with a first end connecting to an outlet and a second end connecting to the inlet port; and an injection means connected to the nozzle;(See HE Fig. 1 wherein a connection line 14 is connected to a liquid culture vessel outlet and a second end connected to an inlet port at 13. There is also an injection means 12 fluidically connected to the nozzle.)
c) growing the mycelial liquid culture to a desired maturity and d) injecting the liquid spawn into bags to grow on a substrate(See HE [0011]-[0013] wherein liquid mycelial culture is injected from the vessel into bags to grow on a substrate.)
HE does not specifically disclose the details of the vessel holding the liquid mycelium culture.
Seong discloses a vessel and method for containing and growing liquid mycelium culture comprising:an outlet port; an injection port; and a breather port; (See Seong Fig. 1 wherein there is an outlet port on 29, an injection port 26, and a breather port on 28c and the method comprises injecting mycelial liquid culture into the vessel;) growing the mycelial liquid culture to a desired maturity, and d) removing the liquid spawn from the container using a tube.(See Seong Description wherein liquid mycelium is injected into the vessel, grown to a desired level, and discharged from the vessel for further use.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a vessel and growth methods therein as described by Seong in the method of HE because such a vessel and growth methods are known in the art to provide a sterile and efficient source of liquid mycelial culture as would be desirable in the method of HE and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing the specific vessel and methods of Seong in the method of HE which requires a liquid mycelium source without describing specifics thereof.
HE discloses injecting the liquid spawn into bags to grow on a substrate but does not specifically disclose spawn containers having sterilized grains.
Green discloses a bag having sterilized grain therein for inoculation with a liquid culture and growth therein for production of a fungi. (See Green Abstract Fig. 1, and Col. 1 Lines 20-25 wherein sterilized grain is placed in a bag and inoculated with mycelium.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a sterilized grain substrate bag as described by Green in the method of HE because such a bag is known in the art to provide a cost effective and sterile device to allow the growth of fungi from liquid inoculant as would be desirable in the method of HE and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing the specific bag of Green in the method of HE which requires a bag without describing specifics thereof.
HE does not specifically disclose serially inoculating a plurality of spawn containers by injecting the mycelial liquid culture on to the sterilized grains in the spawn container however it is noted that such a modification would have required mere duplication of method steps, i.e. injecting liquid culture into a plurality of bags, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary kill in the art at the time of filing to increase the amount of grains inoculated and because mere duplication of parts or process steps has no patentable significance, unless a new and unexpected result is produced, since it involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14 HE discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the method wherein the spawn container comprises a spawn bag (See Green Abstract wherein the container is a bag) and the injection means comprises a needle (See HE Fig. 1 wherein the injection means comprises a needle 12)
HE does not specifically disclose inoculating the same bag multiple times without withdrawing the needle however it is noted that such a modification would have required mere duplication of method steps, i.e. injecting liquid culture into a bag, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary kill in the art at the time of filing to increase the amount of culture injected and because mere duplication of parts or process steps has no patentable significance, unless a new and unexpected result is produced, since it involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15 HE discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the method wherein the injection means comprises a second nozzle comprising a plurality of holes and wherein step e) comprises inoculating the sterilized grains with simultaneous multiple streams of mycelium liquid culture.(See HE Fig. 1 wherein the injection means comprises a second nozzle 12 having a plurality of holes 15 and the grains are inoculated by passing through said holes simultaneously in multiple streams.)
Regarding claim 16 HE discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the method wherein step c) comprises providing temperature regulated aeration to the culture. (See Seong wherein air is added to the device via air inlet tube 24 and temperature is controlled between 22-28 degrees C)
Regarding claim 18 HE discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the method wherein step e) comprises inoculating at a rate of some amount of the mycelium liquid culture per pound of the sterilized grains but does not disclose the specific rate.
In regards to the inoculating rate it is noted that the reference does not explicitly disclose inoculating at a rate of 20 to 60 mL of the mycelium liquid culture per pound of the sterilized grains. As the cost of materials and speed of growth on grain are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said inoculating rate, with said material cost and growth speed both increasing as the inoculating rate is increased, the precise inoculating rate would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed inoculating rate cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the inoculating rate in the method of He to obtain the desired balance between the material cost and the speed of growth (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 19 HE discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above as well as the method wherein the grain is selected from the group consisting of rye, barley, rice, millet, wheat, and popcorn. (See Green Col. 1 Lines 20-25 wherein the grain is rye.)
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE (CN 209218799) in view of Seong (KR 100225049) and Green (US 4,063,383) as applied to claims above and further in view of Custom Culture Equipment (“https://mushroom-consulting.com/custom-culture-equipment/ captured Sep. 25, 2021)
Regarding claim 17 HE discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above but does not specifically disclose a blending of a culture into a slurry.
Custom Culture Equipment discloses exchanging a lid of a mycelium liquid vessel with a lid having a blender attachment and blending into a slurry to provide a liquid mycelium culture. (See Description or blender lid usage)
It would have been obvious to replace the lid of the vessel with a blending lid and blending the liquid mycelium culture into a slurry as described by Custom Culture Equipment in the method of HE because doing so allows reduces the amount of time required to obtain a ready to use culture and associated costs as would be desirable in the method of HE.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M HURST whose telephone number is (571)270-7065. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7AM-4PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Marcheschi can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN M HURST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights