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 .
The amendment and response filed on January 14, 2026 are received.
Claims 1-20 are being examined.
Restriction/Election:
Applicant’s election of the species of fungal species “Scopulariopsis brevicaulis” in the reply filed on 01/14/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-20 are being examined.
Objection(s):
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1-20 replace “where” (all occurrences) with --wherein--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejection - 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, 4, 7, 10, 11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dorta et al. (Enzyme and Microbial Technology, Volume 23, Issues 7–8, 1998, p. 501-505) as evidenced by HIMEDIA technical Data (BH or Bushnell Haas Broth, 2020, 2 pages pf PDF) .
Regarding claim 1, Dorta et al. disclose a method of producing fungal spores utilizing solid-state fermentation (SSF), the method comprising steps of combining, in a solid-state fermentation vessel, fungal spores and a solid substrate to produce a fungal culture; subjecting the fungal culture in the solid-state fermentation vessel to solid-state fermentation conditions; where the solid-state fermentation conditions include conditions for targeted production of further fungal spores by fungal cells relative to growth of the fungal cells; and collecting the further fungal spores (sporulation of fungus Metarhizium anisopliae in solid-state fermentation or SSF on a solid culture medium incubating it in a bioreactor/vessel in a temperature-controlled room under continuous artificial light, , sporulation under different temperature and density conditions, and sporulation response and maximal spore yields by thermal and humidity ingredients, etc., and harvesting spores) (See for example, p. 502 left-hand column all paragraphs – Continued on right-hand column, and p. 503 both columns).
Regarding claim 4, Dorta et al. disclose the solid-state fermentation conditions include the fungal cells having adequate nutrient supply for growth thereof (culturing on culture medium, i.e., BH or Bushnell Haas medium containing rice husk) (See for example, p. 502 left-hand column 4th paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, Dorta et al. disclose the solid substrate is selected from soy hulls, rice hulls, barley husks, wheat husks, grain hulls, grain husks, corn husks, coconut husks, bean pods, and mixtures thereof (rice hulls which is synonymous with husks) (See for example, p. 502 left-hand column 5th paragraph “Solid culture medium”).
Regarding claim 10, Dorta et al. disclose the solid-state fermentation conditions include supplying convective air flow upward through the fungal culture to thereby supply oxygen to the fungal cells (moist saturated air was continuously supplied through each column at a flow rate of 0.34 l h-1 g-1, etc.) (See for example, p. 502 left-hand column 6th paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, Dorta et al. disclose the method achieves a yield of the further fungal spores of from about 5 x 108 to 2 x 109 spores /g solid substrate (spore yields x 10-9) (See for example, p. 504 right-hand column figure 4, top graph).
Regarding claim 13, Dorta et al. disclose the solid-state fermentation vessel is a column or tower (column bioreactors) (See for example, p. 502 left-hand column 6th paragraph).
Regarding claim 14, Dorta et al. disclose the adequate nutrient supply is provided by a mineral nutrient solution (culturing on culture medium, i.e., BH medium containing rice husk) (See for example, p. 502 left-hand column 4th paragraph). It should be noted that BH or Bushnell Haas medium disclosed by Dorta et al. is a mineral nutrient solution (See for example, p. 1 of HIMREDIA technical Data).
Regarding claim 15, Dorta et al. disclose the convective air flow has a humidity of from about 95% to 100% to provide humidity to the solid-state fermentation vessel (moist saturated air was continuously supplied through each column) (See for example, p. 502 left-hand column 6th paragraph).
Regarding claim 16, Dorta et al. disclose the solid-state fermentation vessel is substantially devoid of an additional inert support or carrier other than the solid substrate, where the solid-state fermentation vessel is substantially devoid of an additional carbon source other than the solid substrate, and where the solid-state fermentation vessel is substantially devoid of an additional nitrogen source other than the solid substrate (culturing on culture medium, i.e., BH medium containing rice husk) (See for example, p. 502 left-hand column 4th paragraph). It should be noted that BH or Bushnell Haas medium disclosed by Dorta et al. is substantially devoid of an additional carbon source other than the solid substrate (See for example, p. 1 of HIMREDIA technical Data).
Regarding claim 17, Dorta et al. disclose the solid substrate includes additional water provided at a ratio of the additional water (in mL) to the solid substrate (in grams) of from about 1:1 to about 2.5 :1 (4.5 g rice bran+4.5 g rice husk + 8 g distilled water) (See for example, p. 503 Table 1 and related legend).
Regarding claim 18, Dorta et al. disclose Dorta et al. disclose the fungal culture includes a concentration of from about 1 x 104 to 1 x106 of the fungal spores per gram of the solid substrate (inoculated at a concentration of 106 spores g-1 dry matter) (See for example, p. 502 left-hand column 5th paragraph).
Regarding claim 19, Dorta et al. disclose the solid substrate is substantially entirely consumed by the fungal cells prior to the step of collecting (growth on the solid culture medium for two weeks to obtain fermented matter and harvesting spores) (See for example, p.502 left-hand column 6th paragraph, and Figure 1 A and B, showing growth and sporulation curves).
Dorta et al. therefore anticipate the claimed method of producing fungal spores utilizing solid-state fermentation (SSF).
Claim Rejection - 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 1, 4, 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorta et al. (Enzyme and Microbial Technology, 199, Volume 23, Issues 7–8, p. 501-505) and C. Krishna (Chundakkadu Krishna, Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 2005, Vol. 25, No. 1-2, p. 1-30) and Berikashvili et al. (Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins. 2018 Dec;10(4):755-761).
The teachings of Dorta et al. regarding the limitations of claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 11 and 13-19 were discussed in details above in 102 rejection.
Dorta et al. do not explicitly teach the soy hulls have a size of from about 2 mm to about 5.6 mm (claim 8), the soy hulls have a size of from about 850 pm to about 2 mm (claim 9), and porosity of solid substrate of at least 75% (claim 12).
However, Dorta et al. teach the culture medium porosity must be optimized/adjusted for an optional sporulation (See for example, p. 504 left-hand column last paragraph above Acknowledgements).
Moreover, before the effective filing date of the invention C. Krishna teaches particle size of the solid substrate must be optimized, for example, reduced by grinding, chopping, etc., and (see for example, p. 6 left-hand column “E. Substrates”, and right-hand column “F. Particle size”).
In addition, Berikashvili et al. teach using solid substrate of from 0.5 to 3mm during SSF (See for example, p. 756 right-hand column 4th paragraph).
Therefore, the porosity and the particle size of the solid substrate in the method taught by prior art would have been optimized by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, because Dorta et al. teach the culture medium porosity must be optimized/adjusted for an optional sporulation, and because C. Krishna teaches particle size of the solid substrate must be optimized, and further because Berikashvili et al. teach using solid substrate of from 0.5 to 3mm during SSF.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorta et al. (Enzyme and Microbial Technology, Volume 23, Issues 7–8, 1998, p. 501-505) as applied to claims 1, 4, 7 and 10-19 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (J. Nat. Prod. 2008, Vol. 71, p. 1052-1054).
The teachings of Dorta et al. regarding the limitations of claims 1, 4, 7 and 10-19 were discussed in details the 103 rejection above.
Dorta et al. do not teach the fungal cells and the fungal spores are of a species selected from Scopulariopsis brevicaulis (the elected species), Purpureocillium lilacinum, Myrothecium verrucaria, Aspergillus nidulans, and combinations thereof (claim 2).
However, before the effective fling date of the invention, Yu et al. teach the fungal cells and the fungal spores of the species Scopulariopsis brevicaulis (the elected species) (collecting fungal spores, wherein the method comprises the steps of producing fungal spores by fungal cells within a fungal culture, the fungus was isolated from the inner tissue of a marine sponge, the fungus was cultivated and cultured, the fungus mycelia showing single conidiophores with globose to ovoid conidia, i.e. spores, was identified as Scopulariopsis brevicaulis) (See for example, p. 1053, right-hand column, first paragraph, and also Abstract).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been capable of substituting the known and available fungal cells and the fungal spores of Scopulariopsis brevicaulis taught by Yu et al. for the fungal cells and fungal spores in the method according to the teachings of Dorta et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a method of producing fungal spores utilizing solid-state fermentation (SSF). Because, Yu et al. producing spores by culturing the fungal cells of Scopulariopsis brevicaulis.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorta et al. (Enzyme and Microbial Technology, Volume 23, Issues 7–8, 1998, p. 501-505) as applied to claims 1, 4, 7 and 10-19 above, and further in view of C. Krishna (Chundakkadu Krishna, Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 2005, Vol. 25, No. 1-2, p. 1-30) and Jin et al. (Jin C, Yu R and Shui Z, Front. Built Environ. 2018, 4: 62, p. 1-8) and Mert et al. (which is cited in IDS filed on 01/29/2025).
The teachings of Dorta et al. regarding the limitations of claims 1, 4, 7 and 10-19 were discussed in details the 103 rejection above.
Dorta et al. do not teach the conditions for targeted production of further fungal spores include subjecting the fungal culture to a pH of from about 10 to about 11 (claim 3), the conditions for targeted production of further fungal spores include subjecting the fungal culture to a salinity of greater than 10 g/L NaCl (claim 5), the salinity is from about 10 g/L NaCl to about 20 g/L NaCl (claim 6), and the method further comprising a step of adding the further fungal spores from the step of collecting to a cementitious material for repairing one or more cracks within the cementitious material (claim 20).
However, regarding claim 3, C. Krishna teaches the pH conditions of the fungal culture depends of the fungal cells and can be optimized (see for example, p. 5 left-hand column “C. pH”), C. Krishna also teaches the nutrients stimulating fungal sporulation (conidiation) include chloride and Na+ (see for example, p. 7 right-hand column “H. Nutritional Factors”).
Moreover, regarding g/L of NaCl (claims 5 and 6), before the effective filing date of the invention Mert et al. teach adding up to 9% NaCl/salinity to the fungal growth medium for conidial (spore) production (See for example, p. 126 “discussion”, Figure 1 and its legend).
In addition, regarding pH of from about 10 to about 11 (claim 3), before the effective filing date of the invention, Jin et al. teach fungi can grow in alkaline environments with pH values above 10 (See for example, p. 4 left-hand column 3rd paragraph), and pH values of concrete matrix are between 11 and 13 due to the formation of calcium hydroxide (see for example, p. 3 left-hand column 2nd paragraph).
Therefore, the pH and the salinity in the form of g/L NaCl of the in the method taught by prior art would have been optimized by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, because C. Krishna teaches the pH conditions of the fungal culture depends on the type of fungi and can be optimized and further teach sporulation is stimulated by adding mineral nutrients including Na+ and chloride, and because Jin et al. teach fungi can grow in alkaline environments with pH values above 10.
In addition, regarding the method further comprising a step of adding the further fungal spores from the step of collecting to a cementitious material for repairing one or more cracks within the cementitious material (claim 20), it should be noted that before the effective filing date of the invention, Jin et al. teach adding fungal spores to a cementitious material for repairing one or more cracks within the cementitious material (adding fungal spores as self-healing agents to concrete to promote calcium mineralization, etc.) (See for example, p. 4-5 both columns, and p. 6 right-hand column).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to modify the method taught by prior art by further adding the further fungal spores from the step of collecting to a cementitious material for repairing one or more cracks within the cementitious material with a reasonable expectation of success in providing the claimed method of claim 20. Because, Jin et al. teach adding fungal spores as self-healing agents to concrete to promote calcium mineralization.
Conclusion(s):
No claim(s) is allowed at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KADE ARIANI whose telephone number is (571)272-6083. The examiner can normally be reached IFP, Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM -4:00 PM EST.
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, Melenie L. Gordon can be reached at (571)272-8037. 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.
/KADE ARIANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1651