DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-16 have been canceled.
Claims 17-31 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, Claims 21-30, and of species Chlorella vulgaris and Pleurotus pulmonarius, in the reply filed on 1/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20, 27 and 30-31 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claims. Upon further consideration, species election of an edible fungal strain in Group II is withdrawn.
Claims 21-26 and 28-29 are being examined in this application, insofar as they read on the elected species of Chlorella vulgaris.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “Porphyridium” on line 22 is suggested to read “and Porphyridium”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-26 and 28-29 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 21, the recitation of “in particular” on line 2 & 13 is indefinite as it is unclear if the limitation that follows is required to meet the scope of the invention. In addition, the recitation of “completion of the growth of the mycelia” on line 12 is indefinite as it is unclear how the term is being claimed, for instance, is a specific morphology required, or a specific amount of mycelium required, or a specific culturing condition required?
Claim 24, line 4, the recitation of “preferably” is indefinite as it is unclear if the limitation that follows is required to meet the scope of the invention.
Claim 25, line 5, the recitation of “preferably” is indefinite as it is unclear if the limitation that follows is required to meet the scope of the invention.
Claim 26, line 22, the recitation of “preferably” is indefinite as it is unclear if the limitation that follows is required to meet the scope of the invention.
Claim 28, line 14, the recitation of “preferably” is indefinite as it is unclear if the limitation that follows is required to meet the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 21-26 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huggins et al (US 2019/0373935 A1; 12/12/2019.) in view of Yuan et al (US 10,160,989 B2; 12/25/2018.) and Hibino et al (JP2008208104A; 9/11/2008.).
The instant claims recite a method of producing a food or food supplement for human or animal consumption, in particular a non-animal fish and seafood replacement product or food supplement for human or animal consumption, comprising the steps of: a. incubating a composition of mycelia of at least one edible fungal strain and edible micro- or macroalgae or parts thereof in a liquid growth medium, b. culturing the composition under conditions that allow growth of the mycelia to produce a fibrous mycelium mass, c. separating the fibrous mycelium mass of the edible fungal strain from the edible micro- or macroalgae or parts thereof after completion of the growth of the mycelia to obtain the food or food supplement, in particular the non-animal fish and seafood replacement product or food supplement for human or animal consumption.
Huggins teaches a method for growing fungal mycelium and forming edible products therefrom, comprising growing fungal cells, separating the mycelium, and concentrating the mycelium to obtain a fibrous mycelium mass (para 0020, 0033), wherein fungal cells are grown in a media containing trace elements (incubating a composition of mycelia of at least one edible fungal strain in a liquid growth medium, and culturing the composition under conditions that allow growth of the mycelia to produce a fibrous mycelium mass) (para 0035), fresh growth media are added to the media (para 0027), concentrating the mycelium comprises dewatering the mycelium by using a press or a sieve to remove water from the mycelium, the mycelium is thermally dried to a moisture content of less than 70% (para 0032), following separation, additives can be mixed with the mycelium to form the edible product (para 0031). The method comprises adding food additives to produce a biomass and forming the biomass into an edible food product (para 0020), and the biomass is used as a protein ingredient into human or animal feed (para 0070-0071).
Huggins does not teach the method comprises incubating edible micro- or macroalgae, separating the fibrous mycelium mass of the edible fungal strain from the edible micro- or macroalgae after completion of the growth (claim 21), wherein the cell walls of the micro- or macroalgae are disrupted (claim 23), the culture is fermented in a closed system (claim 25), the algae is Chlorella vulgaris (claim 26), and the claimed edible fungal strain (claim 28).
However, Huggins does teach the method for growing fungal mycelium and forming edible products therefrom comprises culturing fungal cells. Yuan teaches a method of co-cultivating microalgae with fungus (Title) to provide an increase in production of biomass, lipid, nutriceuticals, and other bioproducts (col.14 line 24-26 & 33-34), comprising co-culturing fungi and algae in a bioreactor vessel (col.11 line 33-35), wherein the fungus is Agaricomycetes (col.2 line 52), the algae is Chlorella vulgaris, one of the most commonly used algae species for lipid and protein production due to its relatively high lipid content and strong resistance to contamination (col.8 line 30-35), algae co-cultivated with fungi improves production yields of biomass, nutriceuticals, and other bioproducts, while decreasing overall harvesting costs (col.8 line 10-13). The removal of the algae from liquid culture may reduce the allelopathy impact to allow for the maximized utilization of the provided nutrient (col.18 line 18-20). In addition, Hibino teaches a method comprising culturing mycelia of fungi in a medium containing algae (p.2 para 11) to provide a food and drink (p.1 line 1), wherein the algae is chlorella, the algae is subjected to physical treatment, chemical treatment and enzymatic decomposition (p.3 para 9), and the decomposed algae supports mycelial growth of the fungi (the cell walls of the algae are disrupted prior to their addition to the liquid growth medium) (p.3 para 10).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to co-culture fungus and microalgae, since Huggins discloses a method for growing fungal mycelium and forming edible products, Yuan discloses a method of co-cultivating microalgae with fungus to provide an increase in production of biomass, lipid, nutriceuticals, and other bioproducts, wherein the co-cultivation at least increases production of the desired product over that of any monoculture of the same algae or fungus (col.14 line 32-34), and Hibino discloses a method comprising culturing mycelia of fungi in a medium containing decomposed algae to provide a food and drink, wherein the decomposed algae supports mycelial growth of the fungi. In addition, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to separate a fibrous mycelium mass of an edible fungal strain from an edible micro- or macroalgae after completion of the growth, since Huggins discloses growing fungal mycelium to obtain a fibrous mycelium mass, and Yuan discloses that removing algae from the co-cultivation allows for the maximized utilization of nutrient and results in an increased biomass. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the cited references to co-culture fungus and microalgae, and to separate a fibrous mycelium mass of an edible fungal strain from an edible micro- or macroalgae after completion of the growth, with a reasonable expectation for successfully growing fungal mycelium and forming edible products therefrom.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNN Y FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3541. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on (571)272-1234. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Lynn Y Fan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights