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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 4/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 anticipated by Oancea et al. and unpatentable over Oancea et al. in view of Winiski et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Scully et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0320288, as cited by Applicant).
Claim Rejections - 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Scully et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0320288, as cited by Applicant).
For claim 1, Scully et al. discloses a method of growing an aerial mycelium material comprising: providing a depleted growth matrix (as discussed in [0067]: “allow the depleted growth matrix to be separated and recycled”); applying a mechanical force to the depleted growth matrix (as discussed in the last two sentences of [0106]: the growth matrix is contacted by a diverter); disrupting the depleted growth matrix with the mechanical force (as discussed in [0106]: the diverter forces the depleted growth matrix in a specific direction away from the aerial mycelium, further breaking apart the depleted growth matrix), and growing extra-particle aerial mycelial growth from the depleted growth matrix (as discussed in [0067]: “allow the depleted growth matrix to be separated and recycled” and [0096]: “The depleted growth matrix can be recycled, for use in refilling the shelves 16 for future mycological growth”).
For claim 2, Scully et al. discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein disrupting comprises at least one of grinding, breaking (as discussed in [0106]: “a diverter can divert the growth matrix 920 away from the net pulling system 20, as the growth matrix 920 breaks apart and falls away from the aerial mycelium panels 950”), fracturing, cutting, perforating, fragmenting, and physically manipulating (as discussed in [0067]: “allow the depleted growth matrix to be separated and recycled”) the depleted growth matrix.
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.
Claims 4, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scully et al. in view of Winiski et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0333055 A1, as cited by Applicant).
For claim 4, Scully et al. discloses the method substantially as claimed, including providing a growth matrix and recycling a depleted growth matrix for subsequent mycological growth (Scully et al. [0096]), but fails to show the step further comprising: rejuvenating at least a portion of the depleted growth matrix to form a rejuvenated growth matrix; and growing extra-particle aerial mycelial growth from the depleted growth matrix. Winiski et al. teaches a method comprising: rejuvenating at least a portion of the depleted growth matrix to form a rejuvenated growth matrix (as discussed in [0216]: “Any suitable substrate can be used alone, or optionally combined with a further source of nutrition (e.g., a nutritional supplement), as media to support mycelial growth.”); and growing extra-particle aerial mycelial growth from the depleted growth matrix (as discussed in [0009]: “thereby producing extra-particle aerial mycelial growth from the growth matrix”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Scully et al. to include rejuvenating at least a portion of the depleted growth matrix to form a rejuvenated growth matrix; and growing extra-particle aerial mycelial growth from the depleted growth matrix as taught by Winiski et al. for the advantage of producing a nutrient-rich growth matrix for an environment beneficial to mycelium growth.
For claim 6, Scully et al. as modified by Winiski et al. discloses the method of Claim 4, further comprising detaching the extra-particle aerial mycelial growth from the rejuvenated growth matrix to form a separated aerial mycelium from the extra-particle aerial mycelial growth (Winiski et al. as discussed in [0268]), wherein the extra-particle aerial mycelial growth and the separated aerial mycelium do not comprise a fruiting body (Winiski et al. as discussed in [0017]).
For claim 7, Scully et al. as modified by Winiski et al. discloses the method of Claim 4, wherein rejuvenating comprises at least one of: sterilizing the depleted growth matrix; rehydrating the depleted growth matrix; and supplementing the depleted growth matrix with an additive(s) (Winiski et al. as discussed in [0122] and [0259]).
For claim 8, Scully et al. as modified by Winiski et al. discloses the method of Claim 7, wherein rejuvenating comprises supplementing the depleted growth matrix with the additive(s), and wherein the additive(s) comprises at least one of: fresh fungal inoculum, fresh substrate, precolonized substrate, precolonized substrate which has been inoculated with fungal spawn and grown for up to 4 days before use, charcoal, and a nutrient source(s) (Winiski et al. as discussed in [0257]).
For claim 10, Oancea et al. as modified by Winiski et al. discloses the method of Claim 7, wherein rejuvenating comprises supplementing the depleted growth matrix with the additive(s) (Winiski et al. as discussed in [0122] and [0259]), and wherein the additive(s) comprises the fresh substrate (Winiski et al. as discussed in [0092]: “a matrix containing a fungal-inoculated substrate and an optional nutrition source that is the same or different than the substrate”); and growing extra-particle aerial mycelial growth from the rejuvenated growth matrix (Winiski et al. as discussed in [0009]: “thereby producing extra-particle aerial mycelial growth from the growth matrix” and [0216]: “Any suitable substrate can be used alone, or optionally combined with a further source of nutrition (e.g., a nutritional supplement), as media to support mycelial growth.”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scully et al. in view of Economou et al. (Valorization of spent oyster mushroom substrate and laccase recovery through successive solid state cultivation of Pleurotius, Ganoderma, and Lentinula strains, as cited by Applicant).
For claim 5, Scully et al. discloses the method substantially as claimed, but fails to show the step further comprising: rejuvenating at least a portion of the depleted growth matrix to form a rejuvenated growth matrix; and growing one or more mushroom fruiting bodies from the rejuvenated growth matrix. Economou et al. teaches a method comprising: providing a spent mushroom substrate (SMS) defining a depleted growth matrix (as discussed on page 5214, col. 2), rejuvenating at least a portion of the depleted growth matrix to form a rejuvenated growth matrix (as discussed on page 5214, col. 2, 2nd paragraph: SMS “was supplemented” and “soaked in water”); and growing one or more mushroom fruiting bodies from the rejuvenated growth matrix (as discussed on page 5214, col. 2, end of 3rd paragraph: “During fruiting…”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Scully et al. to include rejuvenating at least a portion of the depleted growth matrix to form a rejuvenated growth matrix; and growing one or more mushroom fruiting bodies from the rejuvenated growth matrix as taught by Economou et al. for the advantage of producing mushroom fruiting bodies.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scully et al. in view of Winiski et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0333055 A1, as cited by Applicant), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Economou et al. (Valorization of spent oyster mushroom substrate and laccase recovery through successive solid state cultivation of Pleurotius, Ganoderma, and Lentinula strains, as cited by Applicant).
For claim 9, Scully et al. as modified by Winiski et al. disclose the method substantially as claimed, but fails to show the step further comprising: wherein rejuvenating comprises supplementing the depleted growth matrix with the additive(s) comprising fresh substrate at a mass ratio of between 1:3 and 3:1 depleted growth matrix to fresh substrate. Economou et al. teaches a method comprising: providing a spent mushroom substrate (SMS) defining a depleted growth matrix (as discussed on page 5214, col. 2), rejuvenating at least a portion of the depleted growth matrix to form a rejuvenated growth matrix (as discussed on page 5214, col. 2, 2nd paragraph: SMS “was supplemented” and “soaked in water”); wherein rejuvenating comprises supplementing the depleted growth matrix with the additive(s) comprising fresh substrate at a mass ratio of between 1:3 and 3:1 depleted growth matrix to fresh substrate (as discussed on page 5214, col. 2, 2nd paragraph: SMS “was supplemented…in various proportions to achieve various C/N ratios” in Table 1 on page 5215: with 80% SMS). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Scully et al. and Winiski et al. to include rejuvenating comprises supplementing the depleted growth matrix with the additive(s) comprising fresh substrate at a mass ratio of between 1:3 and 3:1 depleted growth matrix to fresh substrate as taught by Economou et al. for the advantage of producing mushroom fruiting bodies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schneider et al. (US 2021/0403857) shows growing mycelium for mycelium textile fabrics comprising harvesting the mycelium, reusing the substrate, and mixing new feedstock material with the substrate in later cycles of growing mycelium.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE A CLERKLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7611. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/DANIELLE A CLERKLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights