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 I in the reply filed on 10/28/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 24 and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 10/28/2025.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Currently, the title is “PROCESS AND PRODUCT THEREOF” which is not descriptive of the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-18 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colosimo “Protein bioaccessbility from mycoprotein hyphal structure: In vitro investigation of underlying mechanisms”, Food Chemistry, Vol. 330, June 7, 2020 (cited on IDS filed 07/20/2023) in view of Weibe “Myco-protein from Fusarium venenatum: a well-established product for human consumption”, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, Vol. 58, Feb. 8, 2002 (cited on IDS filed 07/20/23).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Colosimo discloses treatment of mycoprotein that has been treated as disclosed by Wiebe. Weibe discloses a raw material of Fusarium venenatum is provided to a fermenter (fermentation vessel) and fermented with other raw materials. The fermented materials were subjected to centrifuging to provide a mycoprotein phase and the remaining material would include at least partially spent fermentation media due to the process of fermentation having occurred (see Figure 1 and accompanying disclosure of Wiebe).
Colosimo does not expressly state that the mycoprotein is prepared by all of the steps carried out by Wiebe, however, one of ordinary skill would have reasonably looked to Wiebe, as suggested by Colosimo, to prepare the mycoprotein for further processing as Wiebe discloses a known method for preparing mycoprotein.
Colosimo further treats the mycoprotein to disrupt the cells wall (2.2.1.1.). Specifically, Colosimo discloses homogenization, glass-bead grinding or ultrasonication as mechanical means for disrupting the cell walls. Disruption of the cell walls inherently results in release of at least some of the mycoprotein cell contents and Colosimo specifically addresses release of proteins (2.2.3.1.).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, as noted above, cell wall disruption is performed by homogenization, glass-bead grinding or ultrasonication. Colosimo does not disclose heating during the disruption of the cell walls in step 2.2.1.1.
Regarding claim 5, the mycoprotein phase would inherently comprise cell walls, the contents of the cells and a hypha which inherently has a length. Colosimo addresses the hypha (Introduction, 2.2.1., and Section 3).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Colosimo discloses diluting the mycoprotein with water before disruption of cell walls (2.1.2.) which would affect the viscosity of the mycoprotein phase.
Regarding claim 9, Colosimo discloses that solutions are added to the mycoprotein suspensions to release protein from mycoprotein hyphae which would inherently reduce the hyphal length. These solutions are urea, triton X-100 and driselase (2.2.1.). Colosimo discloses that the hyphal matrix is digested thus reducing the length of the hyphal structure (Section 3.5). The mixing of the mycoprotein suspension (water and mycoprotein phase) with a further solution is seen to obviate the step of reducing viscosity comprising reducing the hyphal length since the step of adding materials to the mycoprotein phase could be characterized as a single step (mixing mycoprotein with water and other solutions) where the water and solutions are added sequentially. Alternatively, addition of the water and solutions at the same time would have been obvious absent some showing that the order of steps provides a patentably distinct process. Further, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C) which states in part “In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.)”.
Regarding claim 11, Colosimo discloses release of protein (throughout article, and abstract and Figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Colosimo discloses that proteases in the driselase product hydrolyze protein and enzymes in solution into small peptides and amino acids as evidenced by smear bands in DRI25 and DRI10 (section 3.5).
Regarding claim 14, Colosimo discloses centrifuging after incubation to separate the supernatant (protein) from the insoluble (2.2.1.1.).
Regarding claim 15, Colosimo discloses that proteases hydrolyze protein and enzymes into small peptides and amino acids (section 3.5) thus the step of proteolysis of the protein into constituent amino acids occurs.
Regarding claims 16-18, absent a showing otherwise, the release of RNA would be inherent due to Colisimo teaching the same mycoproteins (Fusarium venenatum) as applicant and disrupting the cell walls thereof by mechanical means other than heating. Since the same material is treated in a similar manner, there is a reasonable expectation that the same results will occur. As noted by applicant, without any heat treatment, cell disruption caused release of cytoplasmic RNA which degrades by action of the ribonuclease enzymes that were also released from the mycoprotein cells.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Colosimo discloses extracting mycoprotein from the fermenter and washing with ultra-pure water and freeze drying, thus disclosing washing to form a mycoprotein phase with water, and removing the water (freeze drying). The wash step is carried out before cell disruption and before formation of the mycoprotein phase (see reference to Wiebe, above).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colosimo “Protein bioaccessbility from mycoprotein hyphal structure: In vitro investigation of underlying mechanisms”, Food Chemistry, Vol. 330, June 7, 2020 (cited on IDS filed 07/20/2023) in view of Weibe “Myco-protein from Fusarium venenatum: a well-established product for human consumption”, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, Vol. 58, Feb. 8, 2002 (cited on IDS filed 07/20/23) and further in view of WO 2004/006643 (Hiromoto).
Colosimo and Weibe do not disclose denaturing the enzymes of the other cellular materials. Hiromoto discloses a cultured fungal material that is treated to grow a mycelial (mycoprotein) mat, separation of liquid therefrom and denatures enzymes in order to utilize the plant material [0025, 0034]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to denature the enzymes of the cell contents of Colosimo as modified by Wiebe in order to better utilize the desired materials (protein) and inactivate any undesired enzymatic activity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C MCNEIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
JENNIFER C. MCNEIL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1793
/Jennifer McNeil/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793