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 Plenurotus ostreatus, PFAS, lignin containing material, and drywall in the reply filed on 7/25/26 is acknowledged.
Priority
Application claims priority to 63/429,375 provisional application with an effective filing date of 12/1/22. The species of PFAS and drywall of the instant application are supported by the provisional application and thus have a priority date of 12/1/22.
The species of Plenurotus ostreatus and lignin containing material have a priority date of 11/30/23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, the claim requires reducing and/or removing inhibitory components. Instant specification only has support for the inhibitory compound of hydrogen sulfide. One of ordinary skill in the arts understands that there are a wide variety of components that can inhibit the growth of fungi including bleach, antifungals, ethanol, pathogenic bacteria, and specific plant extracts among others. Applicant has not provided any sort of structural function relationship as to how one of ordinary skill in the arts would be able to identify the presence of these compounds and remove them. No information in the specification is provided as to how the specific compounds would be removed. Therefore, applicants are not in possession of the broad genus of reducing and/or removing any inhibitory compound.
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 1-10, 12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez (WO2020055706A1) and Golovko ("Uptake of perfluoroalkyl substances, pharmaceuticals, and parabens by oyster mushrooms (Pleurotus ostreatus) and exposure risk in human consumption." Chemosphere 291 (2022): 132898) and Solo ("Waste type, incineration, and aeration are associated with per-and polyfluoroalkyl levels in landfill leachates." Waste Management 107 (2020): 191-200). While Rodriguez shares a common inventor and assignee, it was published more than 1 year before the effective filing date of instant invention and therefore is valid prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 9, 12, 17 Rodriguez teaches methods for reducing PAH contaminants in a substrate (material) using a fungal culture (p2 second full paragraph). Rodriguez teaches that the substrate is ground (processed), hydrated (adding water), growth media added, fungal culture is added, and incubated to produce a bioremediated product (reduced contaminant level material) (p2 3rd full paragraph). Rodriguez teaches that Pleurotus ostreatus can be used as the fungi (p6 4th full paragraph). Rodriguez teaches that the incubation produces the bioremediated product (incubation degrading a contaminant) (claim 24). Rodriguez teaches millions of tons of asphalt containing products are sent to construction and demolition landfills (p1 background).
Rodriguez does not explicitly teach the use of the culture for the reduction of PFAS or PFAS in landfills.
Golovko studies the uptake of environmental toxins including PFAS by Pleurotus ostreatus (oyster mushroom) (title and abstract). Golovko teaches that PFAS cause a wide variety of health issues including cancer (p2 left column first full paragraph). Golovko teaches that PFAS are uptake by the fungi (sequestered, reduced contaminant level material) (p6 conclusions and outlook).
Solo teaches PFAS levels in construction and demolition landfills (abstract). Solo teaches C&D landfills exhibit high levels of PFAS leachates (whole document and conclusion). Solo teaches that on-site remediation systems should be explored to reduce PFAS leachates (conclusion). Further, as Solo teaches construction and demolition landfills, one of ordinary skill understands that as drywall, asphalt shingles and the like are in present in many homes and businesses, drywall would be present in the landfills along with asphalt.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure PFAS are uptake by the fungi in a C&D landfill as taught by Golovko and Solo in the method of Rodreguez. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because Golovko teaches that Pleurotus ostreatus are capable of uptaking PFAS and that PFAS are an environmental hazard and Solo teaches remediation of PFAS landfill sites should be explored. There would be a reasonable expectation of success as both Rodreguez, Solo, and Golovko are in the same field of endeavor of reducing environmental toxins.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Golovko teaches that PFBA can decline from 500 ng/g at day 0 (untreated) to 350 ng/g at day 10 (~70% decline)(fig 1B).
Regarding claim 3, Rodriguez teaches that the incubation can occur at 70oC (claim 25). This falls within the claimed range and therefore the claimed range is prima facia obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Golovko teaches that the oyster mushroom was added to the substrate at 10% by weight (section 2.3 mushroom production).
Regarding claim 6, Rodriguez teaches the substrate and fungal culture can be contacted with air (aerobic incubation) (claim 11).
Regarding claim 8, Rodriguez teaches that the growth media can comprise lignin-based material, paper, cigarette waste, sawdust, paper, cardboard, straw, wheat bran, and gypsum (claim 15).
Regarding claim 10, Rodriguez teaches that the substrates can be homogenized (p2 lines 20-25). Rodriguez teaches the substrates can be sterilized (p17 lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 14-16, Rodriguez teaches the growth media can further comprise gypsum (drywall) (p14 lines 20-26).
Further, as Solo teaches construction and demolition landfills, one of ordinary skill understands that as drywall and asphalt shingles are in present in many homes and businesses, drywall would be present in the landfills along with asphalt shingles.
Regarding claim 18, Rodriguez teaches that the method removes a pollutant from a substrate (reducing toxicity of a material) (p11 line 21-22).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez (WO2020055706A1) and Golovko ("Uptake of perfluoroalkyl substances, pharmaceuticals, and parabens by oyster mushrooms (Pleurotus ostreatus) and exposure risk in human consumption." Chemosphere 291 (2022): 132898) as applied to claims 1-10, 12, and 14-18 above, and further in view of Randel (US1901051A).
Regarding claim 11, Rodreigez and Golovko do not explicitly teach screening the homogenous material.
Randel teaches a process of making gypsum (title). Randel teaches the product is homogenous (p5 lines 94-95). Randel teaches the fines of the gypsum can be separated from the lumps of gypsum using screens (p2 lines 76-90).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use screens as taught by Randel in the method of Rodriguez. one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because on site bioremediation solutions have been successfully used to remove toxins onsite 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 Rodriguez and Azbuike are in the same field of endeavor of bioremediation.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez (WO2020055706A1) and Golovko ("Uptake of perfluoroalkyl substances, pharmaceuticals, and parabens by oyster mushrooms (Pleurotus ostreatus) and exposure risk in human consumption." Chemosphere 291 (2022): 132898) as applied to claim 1-10, 12, and 14-18 above, and further in view of Fu ("An antifungal role of hydrogen sulfide on the postharvest pathogens Aspergillus niger and Penicillium italicum." PLoS One 9.8 (2014): e104206) and Yang ("Hydrogen sulfide generation in simulated construction and demolition debris landfills: Impact of waste composition." Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 56.8 (2006): 1130-1138).
Regarding claim 13, Rodriguez and Golovko do not explicitly teach removing an inhibitor from the mixture.
Fu studies the antifungal role of hydrogen sulfide (title and abstract). Fu teaches that hydrogen sulfide inhibits a wide range of organisms using a variety of different molecular mechanisms (abstract).
Rodriguez, Golocko and Fu do not explicitly teach dyrwall producing H2S.
Yang teaches that drywall is a well known source of H2S (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure hydrogen sulfide is not present in the method of Rodriguez and Golovko above as taught by Fu and Yang. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because Rodriguez and Golovko both use the growth of fungi for bioremediation and Fu teaches that hydrogen sulfide inhibits a wide range of organisms using a variety of different molecular mechanisms and Yang teaches drywall emits H2S. There would be a reasonable expectation of success as Rodriguez, Golovko and Fu are in the same field of endeavor of fungi.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez (WO2020055706A1) and Golovko ("Uptake of perfluoroalkyl substances, pharmaceuticals, and parabens by oyster mushrooms (Pleurotus ostreatus) and exposure risk in human consumption." Chemosphere 291 (2022): 132898) as applied to claims 1-10, 12, and 14-18 above, and further in view of Azubuike ("Bioremediation techniques–classification based on site of application: principles, advantages, limitations and prospects." World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 32.11 (2016): 180) as evidenced by Chem trust retrieved from https://chemtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/FAQ-Green-Transition-2024_January_2025.pdf on 9/17/26.
Regarding claim 19, Rodriguez teaches that constructions sites can be a large source of waste (p1 background).
Rodriguez and Golovko are not specific as to the location of the method.
Azbuike teaches that in-situ (on site) bioremediation is often cheaper than ex situ bioremediation and that in-situ bioremediation has been used successfully towards a wide variety of toxins and pollutants ( In situ bioremediation techniques section). As evidenced by Chem trust, PFAS can be a greenhouse (p2). Therefore, this combination would result in reduction of greenhouse gases.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use onsite bioremediation as taught by Azbuike in the method of Rodriguez. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because Azbuike teaches it is often cheaper and capable of degrading a wide range of pollutants. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because on site bioremediation solutions have been successfully used to remove toxins onsite 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 Rodriguez and Azbuike are in the same field of endeavor of bioremediation.
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
