DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a response to a Request for Continued Examination (RCE).
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/23/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 12, and 18 have been amended, Claims 15-16 have been canceled, Claims 2-11, 13-14, 17, and 19-20 remain as previously presented. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings, the Specification, and the Claims have overcome each and every objection set forth in the Final Rejection mailed 09/23/2025.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al. (US 4674228 A) in view of Zhao et al. (CN 114667919 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Murata teaches a method for growing aerial mycelium (See Claim 1; The invention is drawn to a process for growing a uniform, concentrated layer of mature aerial mycelium.), comprising the steps of:
Providing a growth matrix (1) within a growth environment (shown in Fig. 2), the growth matrix comprising a growth medium and a fungus (See Claim 1; A bed block growth matrix is placed in a growth environment. This bed block growth matrix comprises a growth medium that is inoculated with a fungus and subsequently incubated to allow the mycelium to run.); and
Introducing airborne mist into the growth environment (See Claim 1, Fig. 2, Column 5 Lines 55-67, and Column 6 Lines 1-5; A spray nozzle or sprinkler 12 is used to introduce airborne mist of water into the growth environment.).
However, the method of Murata fails to explicitly state that the method further comprises the step of electronically detecting an airborne mist concentration value within a portion of the growth environment, wherein the airborne mist concentration value comprises an oxygen content, a carbon dioxide content, a nitrogen content, a water content, a temperature, a humidity, a misting condition, or a combination thereof.
Zhao teaches a method for growing plants comprising the step of electronically detecting an airborne mist concentration value within a portion of the growth environment (stated in Pg. 3; The system comprises an aerosol sensor 12 that detects an airborne mist concentration within portions of the growth environment shown in Fig. 1.), wherein the airborne mist concentration value comprises an oxygen content, a carbon dioxide content, a nitrogen content, a water content, a temperature, a humidity, a misting condition, or a combination thereof (stated in Pg. 4; The system comprises a sensor module 9 that comprises a temperature sensing module and a humidity sensing module.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Murata to include the step of electronically detecting an airborne mist concentration value within a portion of the growth environment, wherein the airborne mist concentration value comprises an oxygen content, a carbon dioxide content, a nitrogen content, a water content, a temperature, a humidity, a misting condition, or a combination thereof as taught by Zhao with reasonable expectation of success to maintain proper aerosol concentration and maintain the normal growth of the plant (Zhao, Pg. 3).
Regarding Claim 2, the method of Murata as modified by Zhao, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
The method of Murata as modified by Zhao teaches the invention except for the fact that the portion of the growth environment comprises between 0.01% to 100% of a total volume of the growth environment total volume. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the portion of the growth environment of the method of Murata as modified by Zhao comprise between 0.01% to 100% of a total volume of the growth environment total volume to maintain proper aerosol concentration at desired portions of the growth environment, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 3, the method of Murata as modified by Zhao, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Zhao further teaches the step of controlling an airborne mist concentration level within the portion of the growth environment in response to the airborne mist concentration value (stated in Pg. 3; A control device receives the airborne mist concentration value in a portion of the growth environment shown in Fig. 1 from aerosol sensor 12 and controls to atomizing nozzle 11 to increase the airborne mist concentration level and keep the aerosol concentration at a normal level.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Murata as modified by Zhao to include the step of controlling an airborne mist concentration level within the portion of the growth environment in response to the airborne mist concentration value as taught by Zhao with reasonable expectation of success to maintain proper aerosol concentration and maintain the normal growth of the plant (Zhao, Pg. 3).
Regarding Claim 4, the method of Murata as modified by Zhao, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 3.
Zhao further teaches the controlling step comprises at least one of: increasing an amount of airborne mist within the portion of the growth environment when the airborne mist concentration value is below a first value; and decreasing an amount of airborne mist within the portion of the growth environment when the airborne mist concentration value is above a second value (stated in Pg. 3; A control device activates the atomizing nozzle 11 to increase the airborne mist concentration level when the aerosol concentration is below a first desired normal level.).
Regarding Claim 5, the method of Murata as modified by Zhao, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 4.
Zhao further teaches:
A step of increasing the amount of airborne mist within the portion of the growth environment, wherein the step of increasing the amount of airborne mist within the portion of the growth environment comprises introducing mist into the portion of the growth environment through a growth environment inlet (stated in Pg. 3; A control device activates the atomizing inlet nozzle 11 which introduces aerosol mist into the portion of the growth environment shown in Fig. 1. This step increases the amount of airborne mist within the portion of the growth environment.); and
Decreasing the amount of airborne mist within the portion of the growth environment comprises at least one of: (1) stopping an introduction of airborne mist into the portion of the growth environment during the introducing step; (2) reducing a rate of mist being introduced into the portion of the growth environment during the introducing step; (3) pausing the introduction of airborne mist into the portion of the growth environment during the introducing step; and (4) removing mist from the portion of the growth environment through a growth environment outlet (stated in Pg. 3; Because the control device is designed to keep the airborne mist concentration at a normal level and the control device also controls the atomizing inlet nozzle 11, the control device would stop the atomizing inlet nozzle 11 from introducing more airborne mist into the portion of the growth environment during the introducing step once the desired level of airborne mist concentration is detected.).
Regarding Claim 8, the method of Murata as modified by Zhao, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Zhao further teaches that the electronically detecting step comprises detecting the airborne mist concentration value with at least one sensor (12) located within the portion of the growth environment (stated in Pg. 3 and shown in Fig. 1; Aerosol sensor 12 is located within the portion of the growth environment and detects the airborne mist concentration value.).
Regarding Claim 9, the method of Murata as modified by Zhao, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Zhao further teaches that the electronically detecting step comprises detecting the airborne mist concentration value from a plurality of sensors located in one or more portions of the growth environment (stated in Pg. 3 and shown in Fig. 1; A plurality of aerosol sensors 12 is located within the portions of the growth environment and detects the airborne mist concentration value.).
Regarding Claim 10, the method of Murata as modified by Zhao, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 8.
Zhao further teaches that the at least one sensor (12) comprises a fog sensor (Aerosol sensor 12 can be used as a fog sensor because fog is an aerosol.).
Regarding Claim 12, Murata teaches an apparatus (shown in Fig. 2) for growing aerial mycelium (See Fig. 2 and Claim 1; The invention is drawn to a system executing a process for growing a uniform, concentrated layer of mature aerial mycelium.), comprising:
A growth environment (11) comprising a total volume (See Fig. 11; Chamber 11 constitutes a growth environment that comprises a total volume.);
A portion of the growth environment configured to grow the aerial mycelium from a growth matrix comprising a growth medium and a fungus (See Fig. 2 and Claim 1; A portion of growth environment 11 comprises racks 2 where the mycelium growth matrix 1 is grown. According to claim 1, the mycelium bed block growth matrix 1 comprises a growth medium that is inoculated with a fungus and subsequently incubated to allow the mycelium to run. Therefore, a portion of growth environment 11 is capable of growing the aerial mycelium from a bed block growth matrix 1 which comprises a growth medium and a fungus.);
At least one inlet (12) comprising a mister configured to introduce aqueous mist into the portion of the growth environment (See Fig. 2, Column 5 Lines 55-67, and Column 6 Lines 1-5; At least one spray nozzle or sprinkler 12 is used to introduce aqueous mist into the portion of the growth environment 11.); and
At least one sensor (7) configured to generate a first signal indicative of an airborne mist concentration value within the portion of the growth environment (See Fig. 2 and Column 5 Lines 35-45; Humidity sensor 7 is capable of generate a first signal indicative of an airborne mist concentration value, here humidity, within the portion of the growth environment 11.), wherein the airborne mist concentration value comprises an oxygen content, a carbon dioxide content, a nitrogen content, a water content, a temperature, a humidity, a misting condition, or a combination thereof (See Fig. 2 and Column 5 Lines 35-45; Humidity sensor 7 would measure a humidity.).
Fig. 2 of Murata shows that the portion of the growth environment can comprise between 0.01% to 100% of a total volume of the growth environment total volume. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the portion of the growth environment of the method of Murata comprise between 0.01% to 100% of a total volume of the growth environment total volume to maintain proper aerosol concentration at desired portions of the growth environment, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
However, the system of Murata fails to explicitly state that the at least one sensor is configured to electronically communicate the first signal to a processor.
Zhao teaches a plant cultivating apparatus (shown in Fig. 1) comprising at least one sensor (12) configured to generate a first signal indicative of an airborne mist concentration value within the portion of the growth environment, and electronically communicate the first signal to a processor (stated in Pgs. 2-3; Aerosol sensor 12 detects an airborne mist concentration within a portion of a growth environment shown in Fig. 1 and is capable of electronically communicating with a computer by generating a first signal.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Murata to have the at least one sensor be configured to electronically communicate the first signal to a processor as taught by Zhao with reasonable expectation of success to maintain proper aerosol concentration and maintain the normal growth of the plant (Zhao, Pg. 3).
Regarding Claim 13, the system of Murata as modified by Zhao, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 12.
Zhao further teaches that the apparatus comprises the processor (stated in Pg. 2; The apparatus comprises a computer, which includes a processor.), wherein the processor is configured to receive the first signal and control an airborne mist concentration level within the portion of the growth environment in response to the first signal (stated in Pgs. 2-3; The computer is capable of receiving a first signal with the airborne mist concentration value in a portion of the growth environment shown in Fig. 1 from the aerosol sensor 12 and controlling atomizing nozzle 11 to increase the airborne mist concentration level and keep the aerosol concentration at a normal level.).
Regarding Claim 14, the system of Murata as modified by Zhao, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 13.
Zhao further teaches that the processor is further configured to at least one of: increase an amount of airborne mist within the portion of the growth environment when the airborne mist concentration value is below a first value; and decrease an amount of airborne mist within the portion of the growth environment when the airborne mist concentration value is above a second value (stated in Pgs. 2-3; The computer is capable of activating the atomizing nozzle 11 to increase the airborne mist concentration level within the portion of the growth environment when the aerosol concentration is below a first desired normal level.).
Regarding Claim 19, the system of Murata as modified by Zhao, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 12.
Murata further teaches that the at least one sensor comprises a plurality of sensors (See Fig. 2 and Column 5 Lines 35-45; The system comprises a plurality of sensors 7, 8.).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al. (US 4674228 A) as modified by Zhao et al. (CN 114667919 A) as applied to claims 1 and 3-4 above, and further in view of Zeldes et al. (US 20240407312 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the method of Murata as modified by Zhao, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 4.
However, the method of Murata as modified by Zhao fails to explicitly state that the first value and the second value are different values relative to each other.
Zeldes teaches a system executing a method (700) wherein a first value and a second value are different values relative to each other (stated in Claim 3, ¶31 and ¶68; Steps 735-740 of the method ensure that the desired pressure for releasing a nutrient solution mist is kept between a first desired value and a second desired value so that are different values relative to each other.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Murata as modified by Zhao to have the first value and the second value are different values relative to each other as taught by Zeldes with reasonable expectation of success to selectively produced a desired droplet size of the nutrient solution mist (Zeldes, ¶26).
Regarding Claim 7, the method of Murata as modified by Zhao and Zeldes, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 6.
Zeldes further teaches a system executing a method (700) wherein a controlling step comprises maintaining an amount of airborne mist within the portion of the growth environment when the airborne mist concentration value is at or between the first value and the second value (See ¶31 and ¶67-69; Steps 735-740 of the method ensure that the desired pressure for releasing a nutrient solution mist is kept between a first desired value and a second desired value so that are different values relative to each other. Therefore, when the airborne mist concentration value is at or between the first and second desired values, the amount of airborne mist within the portion of the growth environment [shown in Fig. 1A] is maintained.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Murata as modified by Zhao and Zeldes to have the controlling step comprise maintaining an amount of airborne mist within the portion of the growth environment when the airborne mist concentration value is at or between the first value and the second value as taught by Zeldes with reasonable expectation of success to keep the airborne mist at the desired range.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al. (US 4674228 A) as modified by Zhao et al. (CN 114667919 A) as applied to claims 1, 8-9, and 12 above, and further in view of Fursa (US 20220240591 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, the method of Murata as modified by Zhao, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 9.
However, the method of Murata as modified by Zhao fails to explicitly state that the fog sensor is configured to detect electromagnetic radiation comprising a wavelength greater than or equal to 380 nm and less than or equal to 2,800 nm.
Fursa teaches an aerosol sensor (70) that is configured to detect electromagnetic radiation comprising a wavelength greater than or equal to 380 nm and less than or equal to 2,800 nm (¶89 states that sensor 70 comprises a radiation sensor 72 and ¶14 and ¶16 state that the radiation sensor 72 may be capable of detecting electromagnetic radiation comprising wavelengths between 190 nm – 1100 nm, 400 nm – 1700 nm, and 800 nm – 2600 nm.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fog sensor of the method of Murata as modified by Zhao be configured to detect electromagnetic radiation comprising a wavelength greater than or equal to 380nm and less than or equal to 2,800nm based on the ranges taught by Fursa in order to detect infrared light, ultraviolet light, and near-infrared light (Fursa, ¶13), since in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 18, the system of Murata as modified by Zhao, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 12.
However, the system of Murata as modified by Zhao fails to explicitly state that the at least one sensor comprises a source of electromagnetic radiation and a phototransistor that is tuned to respond to an electromagnetic wavelength.
Fursa teaches an aerosol sensor (70) comprising a source of electromagnetic radiation (71; ¶12 and ¶89 state that radiation emitter is capable of emitting electromagnetic radiation.) and a photodiode that is tuned to respond to an electromagnetic wavelength (72; ¶14 and ¶16 state that the radiation sensor 72 may be a photodiode that is tuned to respond to specific, desired electromagnetic wavelengths.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Murata as modified by Zhao to have the at least one sensor comprise a source of electromagnetic radiation and a photodiode that is tuned to respond to an electromagnetic wavelength as taught by Fursa with reasonable expectation of success to better detect aerosols in low-visibility conditions.
The system of Murata as modified by Zhao and Fursa teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the at least one sensor comprises a phototransistor rather than photodiode. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the photodiode of the system of Murata as modified by Zhao and Fursa with a phototransistor to provide more sensitive wavelength detection, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al. (US 4674228 A) as modified by Zhao et al. (CN 114667919 A) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Zheng et al. (CN 201576100 U).
Regarding Claim 17, the system of Murata as modified by Zhao, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 12.
The system of Murata as modified by Zhao teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the at least one sensor comprises one of a near-infrared fog sensor, an infrared fog sensor, or a visible light fog sensor. Zheng teaches an infrared fog sensor (2; stated in Claim 1). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the sensor of the system of Murata as modified by Zhao with an infrared fog sensor as taught by Zheng with reasonable expectation of success to detect fog in darkness or low-light conditions, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata et al. (US 4674228 A) as modified by Zhao et al. (CN 114667919 A) as applied to claims 12 and 19 above, and further in view of Wei et al. (CN 108739052 A).
Regarding Claim 20, the system of Murata as modified by Zhao, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 19.
However, the system of Murata as modified by Zhao fails to explicitly state that the plurality of sensors form a multi-dimensional matrix of sensors.
Wei teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to an edible fungi production parameter optimization system and method.), the system of Wei teaches an edible mushroom growing apparatus (2) comprising a plurality of sensors that form a multi-dimensional matrix of sensors (shown in Fig. 10 and stated in Pgs. 6-7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Murata as modified by Zhao to have the plurality of sensors form a multi-dimensional matrix of sensors as taught by Wei with reasonable expectation of success to better analyze and optimize the desired parameters of the growing apparatus (Wei, Pg. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. However, Applicant’s argument surrounding the Zhao reference will be addressed below.
Regarding Claim 1, on Pg. 14, Applicant argues the following: “For instance, independent claim 1 is directed to growing aerial mycelium by introducing airborne mist into the growth environment. In general, such airborne mist may be deposited onto the substrate and/or any ensuing extra-particle growth for growth the aerial mycelium. However, nowhere does Zhao teach or suggest such features or purpose of the mist. For instance, the aerosol sensor and atomizing nozzle of Zhao are instead directed to providing mist for absorption by the roots of the plants.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the fact that the airborne mist may be deposited onto the substrate and/or any ensuing extra-particle growth for growth the aerial mycelium) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA A ALMEIDA BONNIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/A.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643