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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed 9/1/2023 are accepted.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 11-20, in the reply filed on March 10, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 March 10, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings filed 9/01/2023 are accepted.
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 11-20 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.
With regards to claim 11, it is unclear what is meant by “a plurality of waste-sourced fungal material composite.” Specifically, does the pressing process result in a single composite or multiple composites. Similar numerical agreement issues are found throughout the claims. Furthermore, it is unclear if a single mold is utilized or multiple molds-one for each of the plurality of composites.
Furthermore, it is unclear how “the plurality of waste-sourced fungal material
composite(s)” are arranged when the adhesive is applied. Is more than one composite present? Does the composite have to be stacked in order to form “an adhesive layer” on a plurality of composites?
With regards to claim 12, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the bonding between the plurality of waste-sourced mycelium substrates”. Thus, it is unclear at which stage in the process the invention “does not require any mechanical means to hold the plurality of waste-sourced mycelium substrates together.”
With regards to claim 13, said claim is held to be indefinite because there is a subject-verb tense error. The claim states “the bonding agent is applied to the plurality of waste-
sourced substrates, which is then shaped and cured to form the plurality of waste-sourced
fungal material composite.” Since there are a plurality of substates, it seems the claim should read “which are then….” rather than “which is then….” Furthermore, it seems “composite” should read “composites” if there are a plurality of them.
With regards to claim 14, said claim is held to be indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for the term “the plurality of mycelium material”.
With regards to claim 15, said claim is held to be indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for the term “ the plurality of waste-sourced fungal material composite.”
With regards to claim 17, it is believed said claim should read “substrates”, not “substrate”, since there are a plurality of them.
With regards to claim 19, said claim should read “are” not “is” and “serve” not “serves” as there are a plurality of substrates.
With regards to claim 18, it is unclear what is meant by a “ plurality of waste-sourced fungal material composite mixture.” Furthermore, there is no antecedent basis for “the plurality of waste-sourced fungal material composite.”
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.
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al (US 2024/0068141-PCT filed 12/21/2021) in view of Huggins et al (US 12,108,777) and Davijani (US 2024/0191407).
Stewart teaches a method for creating bonding of fungal material composite (see Figure 6). Said process is understood to be stitchless as the process of Stewart does not requiring stitching.
With regards to claims 11 and 18, said process comprises forming a durable sheet comprising filamentous fungus (0060-herein said fungal sheet is understood to read on the claimed “mycelium substrates)
b) processing the plurality of durable sheets including drying (0036-herein understood to read on the claimed “desiccation process” and said drying step is implicitly understood to result in the removal of “excess moisture from the plurality of waste-sourced mycelium substrates”);
c) the durable sheets are then mixed with a crosslinker (0036-herien understood to read on the claimed “bonding agent”) and subjected to a heating and pressing process (0036-herein, the resulting product is understood to read the claimed “plurality of waste-sourced fungal material composite). Furthermore, the press used for heat pressing is understood to read on the claimed “mold” since it results in the shaping of the material. Alternatively, Stewart teaches the composite may be shaped using a flat or textured mold (0144).
e) forming the plurality of waste-sourced fungal material composite into a desired
shape by applying a heat and pressing process to the plurality of waste-sourced fungal material
composite (0169);
f) the composite sheet is subsequently further dried (0169)-herein understood to read on the claimed “enabling dehydration to prevent further growth of the plurality of waste-sourced\ fungal material composite. Said drying may take place in a dehydrator (0144; 0276) which is understood to read on the claimed “drying chamber.”
Stewart is relied upon as above, but does not teach the mycelium substate may be waste-sourced, for example from a fermentation waste steam. However, Huggins teaches a process of producing mycelium (abstract) wherein the mycelium may be sourced from brewery waste water (col 3, lines 28+). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to utilize waste source mycelium as the mycelium source taught in Stewart as such practices of re-use are generally environmentally and economically beneficial.
Stewart also does not teach d) applying an adhesive layer to the plurality of waste-sourced fungal material composite thereby enabling the formation of a solid continuous layer of the plurality of waste-sourced fungal material composite. However, Davijani teaches a composite matter comprising mycelium material (abstract). Davijani teaches the laminate may be formed by uniformly applying an aqueous adhesive to the cultivated mycelium material using various coating methods such a spraying, roll coating, saturation, and the like (0153). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of or ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply a layer of any of the adhesives disclosed in Davijani (include PSAs) adhesive between the layers of the composite made in Stewart utilizing any known coating method. The motivation for doing so would have been Davijani teaches such uniform layers of adhesive application are useful for laminating mycelium layers.
With regards to claim 12, Steward it silent to the use of “ mechanical means to hold the plurality of waste- sourced mycelium substrates together”
With regards to claim 13, Stewart teaches the crosslinker is applied to the durable sheets
before they are dried and heat pressed to form the plurality of “fungal material composite.” (0036)
With regard to claim 14, Stewart does not require the plurality of mycelium material to be
attached to one or more portions of another mycelium material by “sewing,
stitching, stapling or other mechanical means.”
With regards to claim 15, Stewart is understood to read on said claim and is understood to be “carbohydrate-based” as the durable sheets disclosed therein do not rely on the oils or other organic compounds that causes delamination.
With regards to claim 16, Higgins renders obvious utilizing a plurality of mycelium materials
sourced from fermentation waste streams as set forth above.
With regards to claims 17 and 19, the durable sheets of Stewart mycelium substrate is
biodegradable and serves as a sustainable alternative to animal leather in various applications (003-004).
With regards to claim 20, Stewart teaches the resulting product may be used as gloves, footwear, bags, and cases (0210-211)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787