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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/17/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-13 and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 1/13/2025.
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 1-7, 9 and 14-16 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.
In claims 1 and 14, use of the following claim language or elements is considered to be indefinite:
“a deacetylation bath”;
“a crosslinking reactor”;
“an impregnation bath”; and
“a rinsing bath”.
The above claim language is considered to be indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be clearly determined. That is, it is not clear if the baths and reactors are merely tanks that are intended to be filled with the processing liquids discussed or do the baths and reactors actually include the processing liquids. Additionally, do the baths or reactor include additional structurally elements that art required to perform the intended functions, such as, heaters, mixers, controllers, etc.? Review of the specification fails to facilitate in determining the metes and bounds of this claim language. In the absence of further positively recited structure in the claims, these claim elements can be broadly interpreted to be merely tanks for holding the processing liquids.
Clarification and/or correction is requested.
Note: Claims 2-7, 9, 15 and 16 are also included in this rejection because they depend from an indefinite claim and do not cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
In claim 1, “the composite material” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deeg et al. (“Greener Solutions:”) (Attached PTO-892).
With respect to claims 1 and 14, the reference of Deeg et al. discloses a method for crosslinking a fungal material (mycelium) including the following steps:
Deacetylation, wherein a fungal material (MycoWorks MVP) is partially deacetylated using a sodium hydroxide solution (page 51, “Appendix D:);
Crosslinking, wherein the partially deacetylated fungal material is crosslinked using a genipin solution (page 13)(Fig. 9 and related text) (Note: The reference of Deeg et al. disclose a genipin solution as a crosslinking agent but also discloses other agents such as glutaraldehyde and tannins can also be used (page 11));
Impregnation, wherein the fungal material is soaked with nanowiskers (page 22 and related text); and
Rinsing, wherein the material with water (page 13)(Fig. 9 and related text).
While the reference of Deeg et al. does not specifically mention the structures used to perform these steps, in the absence of further positively recited structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the use of baths, tanks or reactors would be required to contact the material with the solutions used in the method disclosed by the reference of Deeg et al.
With respect to the additional limitations of claims 2-7, 9, 15 and 16, in view of the disclosure of the reference of Deeg et al. and in the absence of a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the reagents and reaction conditions through routine experimentation while maintaining the efficiency of the treatment process. Note: Page 13 of Deeg et al. discusses optimization.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) in view of the claim elements being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) have been withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims and corresponding remarks on pages 1-3 of the response dated 2/17/2025.
Note: New grounds of rejection have been made under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H BEISNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1269. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-1374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/William H. Beisner/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1799
WHB
Prosecution Insights