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 after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.114 has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/04/2026 has been entered.
Claim status.
The examiner acknowledges the amendment made to claims on 05/04/2026.
Claims 39-54 are pending in the application. Claims 1-35 were previously cancelled. Claims 36-38 are currently cancelled. Claims 39-54 are newly presented. Claims 39-54 are hereby examined on the merits.
Examiner Note
Any objections and/or rejections that are made in the previous actions and are not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim 47 be found allowable, claim 53 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 49-52 are 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.
Claim 49 recites “cultivating a fungus of the species Laetiporus sulphureus, Laetiporus persicinus, Laetiporus portentosus, and/or Laetiporus montanus with the culture medium”. However, while page 9, line 24-30 and page 13, line 4-7 of the instant specification recite each of the fungus species above, the disclosure as originally filed does not support for a combination of the species.
Claims 50-52 ultimately depend from claim 49 therefore necessarily incorporate the written description deficiency therein.
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 39-54 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.
Claims 39 and 49 recites a flavoring having a “meat-like” note. The phrase “meat-like” renders the claims indefinite because absent a standard, one would not know which flavoring is considered meat-like and which is not, thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 40-48 and 53-54 ultimately depend from claim 39, and claims 50-52 depend from claim 49, thus necessarily incorporate the indefinite subject matter present in claim 39 or 49. Appropriate correction is required.
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 39-47 and 49-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigling US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0329298 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Rigling), Furukawa US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0036492 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Furukawa), Upchurch US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0287251 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Upchurch), Adebayo-Tayo, “Optimization of growth conditions for mycelial yield and exopolysaccharride production by Pleurotus ostreatus cultivated in Nigeria”, Advanced Journal of Microbiology Research, 2019, 13(3), pages 001-009 (hereinafter referred to as Adebayo-Tayo), Lee, “Effects of Ascorbic Acid and Uracil on Exo-polysaccharide Production with Hericium erinaceus in Liquid Culture”, Biotechnology and Bioprocess Engineering, 2010, 15: pages 453-459 (hereinafter referred to as Lee), and Okamura, “Cultural characteristics of Laetiporus sulphureus, producing an anti-thrombin substance”, Bull. Mukogawa Women’s Univ. Nat. Sci. 2000, 48, pages 65-68 (hereinafter referred to as Okamura), and evidenced by Stoppelmann, “Molecular decoding a meat-like aroma generated from Laetiporus sulphureus-mediated fermentation of onion (Allium cepa L.)”, Food Research International, 2024, 192, 114757, pages 1-11 (hereinafter referred to as Stoppelmann).
Regarding claims 39-47 and 49-53, Rigling teaches a process for producing one or more natural flavoring compounds selected from unsaturated aldehydes, unsaturated lactones, or organosulphuric compounds (e.g., methyl-2-propenyl sulphide and γ-crotonolactone, para. 0051; 0023), the process comprising: providing a culture medium comprising one or more components (e.g., an aqueous culture liquid that comprises at least a part of a plant of the genus Allium L., for example, a clove of garlic plant or a bulb of onion, para. 0017 and 0028-0030) that supports growth of a fungus of phylum Basidiomycota and convertible to the one or more flavorings (e.g., a mycelium of a basidiomycetes including Laetiporus sulphureus, Lentinula edodes, Pleurotus ostreatus, Trametes versicolor, etc., para. 0016; 0018); cultivating the fungus of the phylum Basidiomycota with the culture medium under conditions that support growth of the fungus including stirring the culture to improve the introduction of oxygen into the culture liquid and forming the one or more flavorings (0017; 0081); and, recovering the one or more flavorings (para.0018; 0085-0089). Rigling teaches that the flavoring exhibits a meat-like note (e.g., meaty flavor, para. 0021; 0045; 0051).
Further, Rigling teaches that the culture liquid medium could comprise other substances such as vitamins for promoting the growth of the mycelium, thus increase the formation of the certain flavoring compounds (0061). Rigling does not teach that the vitamin includes thiamine (e.g., vitamin B1) and L-ascorbic acid.
Furukawa teaches that thiamine is a mycelium growth promoter (0861).
Upchurch teaches a liquid culture medium for cultivating an ectomycorrhizal fungus comprises 0.02-0.5 g/L thiamine in salt form (0003; 0084).
Adebayo-Tayo teaches including 0.1% L-ascorbic acid (e.g., ascorbic acid) in the liquid culture medium for cultivating Pleurotus ostreatus so as to increase the mycelia yield (abstract; page 2, under “Effect of Vitamins”; page 4, right hand column, 2nd para.).
Lee teaches that 2 g/L of ascorbic acid is optimal for the mycelial growth of a mushroom such as Hericium erinaceus (Abstract; Conclusion).
Rigling, Furukawa, Upchurch, Adebayo-Tayo and Lee are all directed to cultivating a mycelium of fungus in a culture medium. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Rigling by including thiamine salt and ascorbic acid in the culture medium of Rigling for promoting the growth of the mycelium which in turn will increase the formation of certain flavoring compounds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have manipulated the amounts of thiamine salt and ascorbic acid in the culture medium through routine optimization so as to ensure the effective growth of the mycelium, and sufficient amounts of flavoring compounds are produced. As such, the concentrations of thiamine salt and ascorbic acid as recited in claims 39, 43 and 49 are merely obvious variants of the prior art.
Rigling teaches cultivating a mycelium of a basidiomycetes including Laetiporus sulphureus at temperature of 21-27 °C (0057; 0064), and a cultivation duration of 5-103 hours (para. 0064-0065). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Rigling does not teach the pH of the cultivating Laetiporus sulphureus.
Okamura teaches that most favorable pH for the mycelia growth of Laetiporus sulphureus is 4-5 (Abstract; page 68, Table 5 and the text below it).
Both Rigling and Okamura are directed to cultivating the mycelium of Laetiporus sulphureus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Rigling by cultivating Laetiporus sulphureus mycelium at a pH 4-5 with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that such a pH is favorable for the growth of Laetiporus sulphureus mycelium.
Regarding the flavoring compounds (e.g., 2,4-decadienal, the unsaturated lactones and the organosulfur compounds) as recited in claims 39, 44-46, 49 and 51-52, Stoppelmann which is from the same lab as Rigling, has evidenced that cultivating a mycelium of a basidiomycetes such as Laetiporus sulphureus with onion (Allium L.,) will produce 2,4-decadienal (e.g., both (E,Z)-2,4-decadienal and (E,E)-2,4-decadienal (page 2, 2.3 and Table 1-2). Further, given that Rigling in view of Furukawa, Upchurch, Adebayo-Tayo, Lee and Okamura arrives at the method steps of claim 39 or 49, and that Rigling teaches the same Basidiomycota especially Laetiporus sulphureus as in the claimed invention and as applicant has particularly pointed in the Remarks filed 10/27/2025 (see page 9, under “Introduction to the Invention” of the Remarks, which recites: “The invention provides a biotechnological process for producing natural flavoring compositions with an authentic meat-like aroma. The process employs fungi from the phylum Basidiomycota-particularly Laetiporus sulphureus ("chicken of the woods”)…..”), it logically follows that those flavoring compounds including 2,4-decadienal, the unsaturated lactones and the organosulfur compounds as recited in claims 39, 44-46, 49 and 51-52 are produced by the process as disclosed by Rigling in view of Furukawa, Upchurch, Adebayo-Tayo, Lee and Okamura. Note that the instant claims are silent regarding the amounts of the flavoring compounds. See MPEP 2112.01 I, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 48 and 54 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rigling in view of Furukawa, Upchurch, Adebayo-Tayo, Lee and Okamura as applied to claims 39-40, and 53 above, and further in view of Bosse “Formation of complex natural flavours by biotransformation of apple pomace with basidiomycetes”, Food Chemistry, 2013, 141, pages 2952-2959 (cited in the IDS submitted 08/21/2023, hereinafter referred to as Bosse).
Regarding claims 48 and 54, Rigling teaches that the culture medium comprises the part of onion, for example, a bulb of onion in pressed, chopped, ground, or pureed from (0058). Rigling is silent regarding onion pomace.
In the same field of endeavor, Bosse teaches that a side-stream of a plant (e.g., apple pomace) can be used as the culture medium for cultivating a Basidiomycota (e.g., a basidiomycete such as Tyromyces chioneus) in order to form natural flavours (Abstract; page 2953, left hand column, under “2.4 Submerged cultures”; Table 1; page 2958, “Conclusions”).
As such, prior art (e.g., Rigling) contains a method which differs from the claimed invention in that where prior art teaches that the culture medium for the cultivation of a Basidiomycota such as Laetiporus sulphureus (or the substrate for fermentation by a Basidiomycota) is a bulb of onion in pressed, chopped, ground, or pureed from, the claimed invention is about using onion pomace as the culture medium for the cultivation of the Basidiomycota such as Laetiporus sulphureus (or the substrate for fermentation by the Basidiomycota), however, the substituted components (e.g., plant pomace) and their functions (e.g., they provide carbon and nitrogen sources for the Basidiomycota) were known in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, further, the skilled artisan would have known that onion pomace contains almost the same ingredients as the bulb of onion although the amounts of which vary, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted onion in pomace form for the bulb of onion in pressed, chopped, ground, or pureed from, and the result of the substitution would have been predictable, e.g., the onion pomace could function as the culture medium for cultivating a Basidiomycota in order to form natural flavors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered and the examiner’s response is shown below:
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection over Rigling in view of other secondary references, applicant argues on pages 8-9 of the Remarks that adding a vitamin such as thiamine in the culture medium as mycelium growth promoter is not equivalent to producing the flavoring compounds as recited in the instant claims, thus the combination of the arts does not provide a reasonable expectation of success that those compounds as recited in claims 39 are produced.
The argument is considered but found unpersuasive. Modifying Rigling with Furukawa and Bloom (Upchurch in the instant office action) to include thiamine in the culture medium at least has a reasonable expectation that thiamine will promote the growth of the fungus since that is what the prior art teaches. As for the limitation about the flavoring compounds as recited in the claim, as set forth in the instant office action, given that Rigling in view of Furukawa, Upchurch, Adebayo-Tayo, Lee and Okamura arrives at the method steps of claim 39 or 49, and that Rigling teaches the same Basidiomycota especially Laetiporus sulphureus as in the claimed invention and as applicant has particularly pointed in the Remarks filed 10/27/2025 (see page 9, under “Introduction to the Invention” of the Remarks, which recites: “The invention provides a biotechnological process for producing natural flavoring compositions with an authentic meat-like aroma. The process employs fungi from the phylum Basidiomycota-particularly Laetiporus sulphureus ("chicken of the woods”)…..”), it logically follows that those flavoring compounds including 2,4-decadienal, the unsaturated lactones and the organosulfur compounds as recited in claims 39, 44-46, 49 and 51-52 are produced by the process as disclosed by Rigling in view of Furukawa, Upchurch, Adebayo-Tayo, Lee and Okamura. Note that the instant claims are silent regarding the amounts of the flavoring compounds. See MPEP 2112.01 I, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
On the other hand, the examiner notes that applicant has not shown any counterexamples or reasoning that the flavoring compounds as recited in the instant claims will not be produced by Rigling in view of Furukawa, Bloom, Adebayo-Tayo, and Okamura.
On pages 9-10 of the Remarks, applicant asserts criticality and unexpected result associated with the sulfur source. In particular, applicant argues that Table 6.1 has shown that compared with methionine, cysteine and glutathione, only thiamine produces a meat-like note. Applicant goes on to assert that these data demonstrate the criticality and role of sulfur source.
The argument is considered but found unpersuasive because Rigling in view of Furukawa and Bloom as in the office action issued 12/03/2025 or Rigling in view of Furukawa and Upchurch as set forth in the instant office action is not torn with choosing suitable sulfur source between thiamine, methionine, cysteine and glutathione, rather, the modification of Rigling with Furukawa and Bloom (or Upchurch) proposes adding thiamine to the culture medium, which will necessarily produce a compound with meat note. The argument would have been more convincing if prior art listed several sulfur sources that are suitable to include in the culture medium.
Further, the examiner notes that Table 6.1 is about cultivating Laetiporus sulphureus in MEPM medium, which is not commensurate in scope with claim 39 which recites a variety of fungus genus, and food raw material or food side-stream as the culture medium.
Further, as set forth in the instant office action, the “meat-like” note per se is not sufficiently defined and has been subjected to an indefinite rejection.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the Remarks that Table 10 of the instant specification shows that 2-methyl-3-(methylthio)-furan is absent in the un-inoculated control, and Doe modeling has shown the correlation between thiamine concentration and formation of the 2-methyl-3-(methylthio)-furan. Applicant goes on to assert that that demonstrates that flavor compound formation is influenced by defined media components. Applicant goes on to assert that isotope-labeling experiment has shown that thiamine directly contributes to formation of organosulfur compound. Applicant goes on to argue that Yalman demonstrates that formation of 2-methyl-3-(methylthio)-furan is not inherent in the art.
The argument is considered. However, since Rigling in view of Furukawa and Bloom (Upchurch in the instant office action) teaches supplementing the inoculation medium with thiamine, then whatever benefits or effects the process as claimed has as a result of incorporating thiamine, such benefits or effects are within the teaching of the prior art. See MPEP 2145 II, Prima Facie Obviousness Is Not Rebutted by Merely Recognizing Additional Advantages or Latent Properties Present But Not Recognized in the Prior Art. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. Further, the examiner notes that the instant claim 39 does not recite how much organosulfur compound such as 2-methyl-3-(methylthio)-furan is produced.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANGQING LI whose telephone number is (571)272-2334. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, NIKKI H DEES can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/CHANGQING LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights