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 response and the amendment filed on November 25, 2025 are received.
New claims 32, 35 and 38-40 are added.
Claims 15-18 are canceled by Applicant.
Claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 21-24, 27-29, 31, 33, 34 were previously canceled.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, 25, 26 ,30 and 36-40 are pending in this application, claims 14, 19, 25, 26, 30, 39 and 40 are withdrawn from further consideration (See Restriction/Election below), and claims 1-6, 8, 11, 13 and 36-38 are being examined.
Restriction/Election:
Applicant's election with traverse of, Group I (claims 1-6, 8, 11, 13 and 36) in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged.
The exclusion of claim 37 from Group I in the restriction requirement (of 08/25/2025) was an inadvertent typo.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Chongqing does not teach each and every limitation of independent claim 1. Chongqing's disclosure aims to process toxic tobacco waste to mitigate pollution utilizing Rhizopus oryzae metabolism. Accordingly, Chongqing discloses compositions and methods for a Rhizopus oryzae seed culture medium used for short-term spore germination and pre-culture prior to fermentation. In contrast, Applicant's method expressly requires "production of a fungal fermentation medium" to support long-term growth and high biomass yield for edible fungi. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a seed medium serves a different purpose, composition, and performance criteria than a fermentation medium designed for food-grade biomass. Therefore, Applicant submits that the claims do not lack unity of invention over Chongqing and respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the restriction”.
This is not found persuasive because the method of claim 1 (of Group I) requires the step of (a) extracting an aqueous extract(s) from the at least one industrial and/or agricultural side stream, and step (b) is optional, and as indicated in the restriction requirement, Groups I and III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of extracting an aqueous extract(s)from the at least one industrial and/or agricultural side stream, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of CN 1082036693 (which is also cited in IDS filed on 12/01/2023) who teaches (See for example, Abstract; claims 1-10; examples 1-6) a liquid extract obtained by boiling tobacco waste in acidified water, or by pretreatment of tobacco waste by i) dilute acid, ii) steam explosion (such as at 4 MPa, and 220 ° C, see example 1).
Also see claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Qin et al. (see below 102 rejections for details).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14, 19, 25, 26, 30, 39 and 40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions (Groups II-VII), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/25/2025.
Objection(s):
Specification:
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (See p. 4 “Summary of the invention”). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim(s):
Claims 4 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 2, delete “is washed”.
In claim 8, line 1, replace “(a’)” with –(a)--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejection - 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 6 and 11 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “(i) separating proteins from the aqueous extract(s)” in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because claim 1 does not recite an aqueous extract(s) containing proteins.
Suggestion to obviate the rejection: provide antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 11 the phrase "byproducts from the soy industry like soybean pulp ("okara")" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Suggestion to obviate the rejection: delete the phrase.
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Aggelopoulos et al. (Recycling, 2018, Vol. 3, 12, p. 1-12).
Regarding claim 1, Aggelopoulos et al. disclose a method for the production of a fungal fermentation medium from at least one lignocellulosic material comprising at least one industrial and/or agricultural side stream, the method comprising: (a) extracting an aqueous extract(s) from the at least one industrial and/or agricultural side stream; and (b) optionally combining the aqueous extract(s) obtained in step (a) with at least one nutrient supplement for fungal cultivation (agroindustrial side-streams and wastes (AISS) to produce added-value products that are based on single cell protein (SCP), substrates consisting of brewer’s spent grains (BSG), malt spent rootlets (MSR), cheese whey, molasses, orange, and potato pulps, etc., were used for growing the edible mushroom Pleurotus ostreatus) (See for example, p. 2 paragraphs 2.1., and 2.2., and p. 3 Table 1.).
Regarding claim 11, Aggelopoulos et al. disclose wherein the industrial and/or agricultural side stream is a solid side stream selected from spent grain, cereal brans, cotton, cotton seed husks, bagasse, cocoa shells, cocoa, cocoa pods, cotton and oil press cakes from sunflower, peanut, hazelnut, palm oil, olive, shells and husks from nuts, grass and leaves waste, wood chips, coffee grounds, coffee husks, coffee silverskin, rapeseed, and/or byproducts from the soy industry like soybean pulp ("okara") (raw Brewer’s spent grain or BSG) (See for example, p. 2 paragraphs 2.1.).
Aggelopoulos et al. therefore anticipate the claimed method for the production of a fungal fermentation medium from at least one lignocellulosic material.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 13 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Qin et al. (Industrial Crops and Products, Volume 125, 2018, p. 443-453).
Regarding claim 1, Qin et al. disclose a method for the production of a fungal fermentation medium from at least one lignocellulosic material comprising at least one industrial and/or agricultural side stream, the method comprising: (a) extracting an aqueous extract(s) from the at least one industrial and/or agricultural side stream; and (b) optionally combining the aqueous extract(s) obtained in step (a) with at least one nutrient supplement for fungal cultivation (a pretreatment method at least one lignocellulosic material comprising at least one industrial and/or agricultural side stream, , i.e., Brewer’s spent grain or BSG by hydrothermal pretreatment under different conditions including temperatures from 60, 75 and 90 °C for 1 up to 24 h, etc.) (See for example, p. 444 right-hand column paragraph 2.2.4., Table 1., and p. 443 “1. Introduction”).
Regarding claim 2, Qin et al. disclose wherein the step (a) includes a washing step performed with liquid water at the temperature of 50 °C to 100 °C (hydrothermal pretreatment under different conditions including temperatures from 60, 75 and 90 °C for 1 up to 24 h, etc.) (See for example, p. 444 right-hand column paragraph 2.2.4., Table 1., and p. 443 “1. Introduction”).
Regarding claim 11, Qin et al. disclose wherein the industrial and/or agricultural side stream is a solid side stream selected from spent grain, cereal brans, cotton, cotton seed husks, bagasse, cocoa shells, cocoa, cocoa pods, cotton and oil press cakes from sunflower, peanut, hazelnut, palm oil, olive, shells and husks from nuts, grass and leaves waste, wood chips, coffee grounds, coffee husks, coffee silverskin, rapeseed, and/or byproducts from the soy industry like soybean pulp ("okara") (raw Brewer’s spent grain or BSG) (See for example, p. 444 right-hand column paragraph 2.2.4., and p. 443 “1. Introduction”).
Regarding claim 13, Qin et al. disclose the method … and/or further comprising the step of recovering a solid lignin residue of step (a') (separating solid lignin residue from liquid fraction) (See for example, p. 445 paragraph 2.3.4.).
Regarding claim 36, Qin et al. disclose wherein the aqueous extract(s) is extracted from the at least one industrial and/or agricultural side stream with an aqueous solution comprising 1% w/w or less of acid or base in step (a) (treating BSG with 110 mM NaOH 1:20 w/v) (See for example., p. 444 left-hand column paragraph 2.2.1.).
Regarding claim 37, Qin et al. teach the aqueous extract(s) is extracted from the at least one industrial and/or agricultural side stream with an aqueous solution comprising 1% w/w or less of acid or base in step (a) (sequential pretreatment of defatted BSG with 110 mM NaOH 1:20 w/v) (See for example, (See for example, p. 444 paragraph 2.2.1.).
Regarding claim 38, Qin et al. disclose wherein (a) is performed with water at a pH of between 2.0 and 12.0 (alkaline-acid pretreatment, treating BSG with 110 mM NaOH) (See for example., p. 444 left-hand column paragraph 2.2.1.).
Qin et al. therefore anticipate the claimed method of claims 1, 2, 11, 13 and 36-38.
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 1-6, 8, 11, 13 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qin et al. (Industrial Crops and Products, Volume 125, 2018, p. 443-453) as applied to claims 1, 2, 11, 13 and 36-38 above, and further in view of Aggelopoulos et al. (Recycling, 2018, Vol. 3, 12, p. 1-12) and Thiering et al. (Biotechnol Prog. 2001, Vol. 17, No.3, p. 513-21) and Brodeur et al. (Enzyme Res. 2011, Volume 2011, Article ID 787532, 17 pages) and Kumar et al. (Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2009, Vol. 48, No. 8, p. 3713-3729).
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1 the phrase “for fungal cultivation” (in the optional step b), is not given patentable weight because it recites the intended result(s) of the method step positively recited.
The teachings of Qin et al. with respect to the limitations of 1, 2, 11, 13 and 36-38 above in details.
Regarding claim 6, Qin et al. teach the method further comprising steps of processing the aqueous extract(s) obtained in (a) before the step (b) as follows: (i) separating proteins from the aqueous extract(s) by flocculation or by precipitation with CO2; hydrolyzing proteins using proteolytic enzymes at a concentration of between 0.01% and 5% (w/w) and/or at a temperature of between 15 and 100 °C and/or for a time of between 0.5 and 96 hours; and (iii) hydrolyzing C5-polysaccharides present in the product of step (i) to monosaccharides (raw BSG was mixed with ammonium carbonate solution, and enzymatic pretreatment of BSG with protease Alcalase® at 60°C for 24 hours, and ) (See for example, p. 444 paragraphs 2.2.6.).
Qin et al. do not teach (iv) wherein product(s) of step (ii) and/or step (iii) are further used in step (b) (claim 6), wherein during step (a) lignocellulosic materials are contacted with steam at a temperature of between 130 °C and 180 °C, for a time of up to 20 minutes (claim 3), wherein the lignocellulosic material subject to prehydrolysis with steam followed by washing is washed with liquid water at the temperature of 50 °C to 100 °C (claim 4), wherein (a) is performed with water at a pressure of between 1.25 and 220 bar and at a temperature of between 90 and 374 °C for a time of between 10 and 200 minutes (claim 5), the method further comprising a step (a') comprising enzymatically hydrolyzing a solid lignocellulosic residue obtained in step (a) with cellulase, and separating a liquid product of hydrolysis from a solid residue (claim 8).
However, regarding claim 6, Aggelopoulos et al. (cited in 102 rejection above) teach method for the production of a fungal fermentation medium from at least one lignocellulosic material, wherein product(s) of step (ii) and/or step (iii) are further used in step (b) (mixed AISS can be used for low cost SCP production, autolyzed SCPs can also be used as low cost extracts to replace the expensive commercial ones that are used in synthetic growth media) (See for example, p. 2 1st and 2nd paragraphs). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to apply the teachings of prior and, further use the product(s) of step (ii) and/or step (iii) are further used in step (b). Because, Aggelopoulos et al. teach method for the production of a fungal fermentation medium from at least one lignocellulosic material, wherein product(s) of step (ii) and/or step (iii) are further used in step (b).
Moreover, regarding claim 6, Thiering et al. teach separating proteins from the aqueous extract(s) by flocculation or by precipitation with CO2 (CO2 precipitating of soy protein fractions) (See for example, p. 515 right-hand column “Procedure” and p. 518 figure 7 and its legend). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the rt before the effective filing date of the invention would have been capable of applying this known technique of protein separation taught by the prior art to separate proteins from the aqueous extract(s) taught in the method of Qin et al. by applying flocculation or by precipitation with CO2. Because, Thiering et al. teach separating proteins by flocculation or by precipitation with CO2 with high purity.
Regarding claim 3, Brodeur et al. teach pretreating lignocellulosic materials by contacting it with steam at a temperature of between 130 °C and 180 °C (steam explosion pretreatment of lignocellulosic material in order to solubilize cellulose for involve temperatures of 180°C) (See for example, p. 8 paragraph 4.2. right-hand column 1st and 2nd paragraphs below figure 2 legend). Therefore, contacting a lignocellulosic material with steam at a temperature of between 130 °C and 180 °C, would have been obvious because Brodeur et al. teach pretreating lignocellulosic materials by contacting it with steam at a temperature of between 130 °C and 180 °C in order to solubilize cellulose and the duration would have been optimized, depending on the type of lignocellulosic material being treated, by a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention.
Regarding claim 4, Brodeur et al. teach wherein the lignocellulosic material subject to prehydrolysis with steam (pretreating lignocellulosic materials by contacting it with steam) (See for example, p. 8 paragraph 4.2 ). Therefore, subjecting the lignocellulosic material to prehydrolysis with steam would have been obvious, because Brodeur et al. teach the lignocellulosic material subject to prehydrolysis with steam.
Regarding claim 5, Kumar et al. teach extracting an aqueous extract(s) from the at least one industrial and/or agricultural side stream is performed with water at a pressure of between 1.25 and 220 bar and at a temperature of between 90 and 374 °C for a time of between 10 and 200 minutes (pretreating wheat straw with liquid hot water at temperature between 170 and 200 C residence time 0 to 40 min and pressure 30 bar) (See for example, p.3717 right-hand column 1st paragraph below Figure 4.). Therefore, extracting an aqueous extract(s) from the at least one industrial and/or agricultural side stream is performed with water at a pressure of between 1.25 and 220 bar and at a temperature of between 90 and 374 °C for a time of between 10 and 200 minutes, would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Kumar et al. teach enzymatically hydrolyzing a solid lignocellulosic residue obtained in step (a) with cellulase, and separating a liquid product of hydrolysis from a solid residue (lignocellulosic material enzymatically hydrolyzed, recovery of products, distillation, etc., enzyme treatment using cellulase enzyme system, and saccharification by cellulase to yield glucose) (See for example, p. 3715 right-hand column 1st and 3rd paragraphs, p. 3726, part 5. 1st paragraph, and p. 3722 “4.3.4.”). Therefore, enzymatically hydrolyzing the lignocellulosic residue with cellulase and separating a product would have been obvious. Because Kumar et al. teach enzymatically hydrolyzing a solid lignocellulosic residue with cellulase, and separating a liquid product of hydrolysis.
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