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 with traverse of group III, claims 4-8, 11, 14-16, and 19 and the species of a nutrient in the reply filed on 1/12/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search and examination burden. This is not found persuasive because a serious burden exists, see the restriction requirement mailed on 11/13/25 pages 3-4.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-3, 9-10, 12-13, 17-18, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/12/26.
Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected specie there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/12/26.
Claims 4-8, 11, 14-16 are under examination herein.
Priority
The application claims priority to 63/371,683 filed on 8/17/22. Claims of the instant application are not supported by the priority document. Specifically, there is no support for growing the fungi to form a mature mycelium, drying the mature mycelium, or blending the mature mycelium with water and gelling agents to form a mycelial hydrogel.
Therefore, the claims have an effective filing date of 10/17/23.
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 4-8, 11, 14-16, and 19 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.
Regarding claim 4, the claim requires “growing the fungi to form a mature mycelium”. This phrase is not defined by the specification and could have different interpretations. It is unclear whether the mycelium would be considered mature when it encompasses the whole substrate, when a specific period of time has elapsed, when mushrooms emerge from the substrate or some other standard. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claims are unclear. For examination purposes, any growth of mycelium will be interpreted as meeting “mature mycelium”.
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.
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.
Claims 4, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayer (US20220142907A1) and 178 KR20180065178A.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Bayer teaches mycelium biopolymers (product) (title). Bayer teaches that mycological biopolymer is the same as mycelium ([004]). Bayer teaches the biopolymer can be grown using a fungal inoculum and a substrate ([0019]). Bayer teaches the fungi are grown to prevent the formation of fruiting bodies (mature mycelium) ([0005]-[0006]; [0019]). Bayer teaches that the substrate can comprise carbon ([0210]). Bayer teaches the biopolymer can be dried ([0220]). Bayer teaches the substrate can be removed from the biopolymer ([0222]). Bayer teaches the substrate can be removed and then the biopolymer is dried (embodiment D). Bayer teaches the biopolymer can be made into a hydrogel ([0124]).
Bayer does not explicitly teach how to create a hydrogel.
178 teaches a hydrogel mushroom mycelium mask (product) (abstract). 178 teaches the mycelium is lipolyzed (dried) and the powder is resuspended in water and thickening agents to form the hydrogel ( Manufacturing example 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of 178 to make a hydrogel as taught by Bayer. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because Bayer does not explicitly teach how to make the hydrogel. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because the method of 178 have been successfully used to create hydrogels of mycelium, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. There would be a reasonable expectation of success as both Bayer and 178 are in the same field of endeavor of mycelium hydrogels.
Regarding claim 11, Bayer teaches nutrients can be added ([0224]).
Claims 5, 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayer (US20220142907A1) and 178 KR20180065178A.as applied to claims 4, 11, and 14 above, and further in view of Hazmi ("Microbial chitosan for the fabrication of piezoelectric thin film." IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. Vol. 1173. No. 1. IOP Publishing, 2021)
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Bayer teaches that the biopolymer can be a film ([0418]).
Bayer and 178 does not explicitly teach the claimed preparation steps.
Hazmi teaches the production of thin films from microbes (title). Hazmi teaches that mycelium can be used (table 1). Hazmi teaches spin coating can be used to create the films (3.2. Spin-coating). Hazmi teaches a disk (plate) is rotated to the desired speed (3.2. Spin-coating) Hazmi teaches the film is dried (3.2. Spin-coating). Hazmi teaches this leads to uniform and thin films (3.2. Spin-coating)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the use the spin coating method of Hazmi to create the film of Bayer. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because Bayer does not explicitly teach how to create the films, and Hazmi teaches this method leads to uniform and thin films. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because this method has been successfully used to generate films, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. There would be a reasonable expectation of success as both Bayer and Hazmi are in the same field of endeavor of mycelium films.
Claim 6, 8 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayer (US20220142907A1) and 178 KR20180065178A. as applied to claims 4, 11, and 14 above, and further in view of Qin (The production of fibres from chitosan. Diss. University of Leeds, 1990) and Svensson ("Fungal textiles: Wet spinning of fungal microfibers to produce monofilament yarns." Sustainable Materials and Technologies 28 (2021): e00256. (Year: 2021)).
Regarding claim 6, Bayer and 178 do not explicitly teach using the hydrogel to create monofilaments.
Qin teaches the production of fibers from chitosan (title). Qin teaches fungal mycelium comprise chitosan and is a promising candidate for a source of chitosan (Occurrence of chitosan section). Qin teaches the dope (hydrogel) is degassed (de-aerated) (Deaeration of the dope section). Qin teaches this step is necessary before spinning (Deaeration of the dope). Qin teaches the Deaeration dope is then filtered to remove impurities before being passed through a spinneret (extrusion section). Qin teaches that these fabrics or fibers can have a wide range of useful applications (p43-45).
While Qin does not explicitly teach that the spinneret forms a monofilament, Qin teaches that yarns (threads) comprising 20 fibers (monofilaments) can be made (Measurement of yarn linear density section).
Svensson teaches wet spinning of fungal cell walls to create monofilaments (abstract). Svensson teaches this method creates high strength and/or flexibility for use in textiles (conclusion section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the hydrogel of Bayer to create monofilaments as taught by Qin and Svensson. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because Qin teaches that the fibers/fabrics have a wide range of useful applications and Svensson teaches that the monofilament produced is strong. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. There would be a reasonable expectation of success as Bayer, Qin and Svensson are in the same field of endeavor of uses for fungal products.
Regarding claim 8 and 16, Qin teaches that yarns (threads) comprising 20 fibers (monofilaments) can be made (Measurement of yarn linear density section). Qin teaches that knitted fabrics can be created (using threads to create textiles) (example 5).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayer (US20220142907A1) 178 (KR20180065178A), Qin (The production of fibres from chitosan. Diss. University of Leeds, 1990) and Svensson ("Fungal textiles: Wet spinning of fungal microfibers to produce monofilament yarns." Sustainable Materials and Technologies 28 (2021): e00256. (Year: 2021)). as applied to claims 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, and 16 above, and further in view of Hirano ("Novel fibers of N-acylchitosan and its cellulose composite prepared by spinning their aqueous xanthate solutions." Carbohydrate polymers 33.1 (1997): 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, Bayer teaches the addition of rayon, but not the addition of cellulose xanthate ([0100]).
Hirano teaches novel chitosan fibers (title and abstract). As discussed above, Qin teaches fungi are a good source of chitosan. Hirano teaches that the chitosan solution is added to cellulose xanthate (blended hydrogel) (materials section). Hirano teaches the composite solution is extruded via spinnerets to from fibers (monofilaments) (spinning section). Hirano teaches the fibers can be used to create textiles (p4 left column).
Svensson teaches wet spinning of fungal cell walls to create monofilaments (abstract). Svensson teaches this method creates high strength and/or flexibility for use in textiles (conclusion section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate cellulose xanthate as taught by Hirano the hydrogel of Bayer to create monofilaments as taught by Qin and Svensson. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because Hirano teaches the threads can be used to make fabrics, Qin teaches that the fibers/fabrics have a wide range of useful applications and Svensson teaches that the monofilament produced is strong. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. There would be a reasonable expectation of success as Bayer, Hirano, Qin and Svensson are in the same field of endeavor of uses for fungal products.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TREVOR L KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-0265. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am-4:00pm.
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, Louise Humphrey can be reached at 571-272-5543. 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.
/TREVOR KANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/ROBERT J YAMASAKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1657