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 Group 1, claims 1-6,8-16,19, and 21, and Species 1 (Claims 14 and 15): Pleurotus eryngii.
Claims 24-30, and 33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Claim 14 recites conditional language “wherein when” but does not recite what the outcome is, when the condition is met. Therefore it is unclear if the claim is limited to the recited fungus or incomplete in what the intended outcome is.
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 1-2,6, 8-15, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozubal et al., (US 2021/0059287 A1; 2021-03-04) in view of Owaid, et al., Using of date palm fiber mixed with other lignocelluloses toward Pleurotus ostreatus (Higher Basidiomycetes) cultivation. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture. 2015. (27:7); pp. 556-561..
Regarding Claims 1 and 13-15, Kozubal et al., teaches a method to produce edible filamentous fungal biomass, the fungal culture in some embodiments are Pleurotus spp., including Pleurotus eryngii (pages 1-2, paragraph 0011), as a submerged culture in a hermetic bioreactor (page 4, paragraph 0052), with a nitrogen source, a carbon source that is derived from fruits, sugars and/or sugar syrups in a liquid media that is aqueous (page 4, paragraph 0060).
Kozubal et al., does teach sugars that are in the date extract, which is equivalent to the claimed date extract as a source of carbon, although Kozuabel et al., does not specify date extract (claim 1).
However, regarding claim 1, Owaid et al., teaches the use of date palm by-products to cultivate low-cost substrates, to produce Pleurotus species fungi as a food source for agricultural industry (pages 556-557, paragraph 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to combine the culturing methods of Kozubal et al., given the long-standing historical use of date palm by-products to cultivate Pleurotus species fungi as demonstrated by Owaid et al. Kozubal et al., describes multiple fruits, sugars and/or syrups (including glucose, fructose, and sucrose) along with urea and/or yeast extract as a nitrogen source, which are used in the fermentative process to produce edible fungal biomass from Pleurotus sp., including Pleurotus eryngii. Owaid et al., teaches the industrial use of date palm by-products with microbial fermentation methods.
Therefore, the motivation to combine the methods of Kozubal et al., with Owaid et al., would be to increase fungal biomass production, through the use of a date extract, due to its inexpensive production and composition of sugars and the cultivation advantages for Pleurotus species as taught by Owaid et al. Since Kozubal et al., teaches the growth of edible biomass using Pleurotus sp., including Pleurotus eryngii, in a submerged culture, with nitrogen and carbon sources including the fundamental sugars of date extracts for fermentative methods, the simple combination of the prior art will result in the same outcome, and longstanding benefits of extracts of dates for Pleurotus species growth, for the agricultural industry.
Regarding claim 2, Kozubal et al., teaches from a preferred embodiment a dry weight of fungal biomass at least 25 g/L and recites a dry weight of 660 g/L (page 16, paragraph 0142).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Kozubal et al., teaches a nitrogen source in a preferred media comprised of urea at 2.5 g/L, and yeast extract (pages 16-17, Table 3).
Regarding claim 9, Kozubal et al., teaches a culturing period of 4-16 days in a preferred embodiment for a fungal biomass ( page 15, paragraph 0151).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the culturing step comprises a fed-batch culturing process (page 11, paragraph 0119 and page 6, paragraph 0072) in which the preferred media(s) include glucose at 5g/L as an ingredient (page 5, paragraph 0064 and page 6, 0072).
Regarding claim 12, Kozubal et al., teaches the inoculum of fungi for initial fungal biomass production as dependent on specific food products, media(s), growth conditions (i.e., liquid cultures, plated cultures, and/or use of bioreactors) – regarding an initial biomass production of at least 5 g/L, dry weight, Kozubal et al., describes the average biomass for a preferred fungal strain at 124.6 g/ 0.25 m2 (dry weight) as a measure of area density and mean density of 660g/L (0.66 g/cm3) (page 14, paragraph 0142).
Regarding claim 13, Kozubal et al., does teach the use of a bioreactor for fungal biomass growth, but does not teach an impeller tip speed between 2-3 m/s in a bioreactor, during culturing.
Since Kozubal et al., teaches a bioreactor and growth of fungal biomass in a bioreactor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to determine the speed and/or use of an impeller tip, relative to optimal growth conditions. The speed of a tip in a given bioreactor would be a result effective variable for optimization of parameters for fungal growth relative to multiple conditions regarding the bioreactor and the culture (i.e. technical and/or automated/analog instrument settings relative to fungal growth conditions and instrumentation).
Therefore, the motivation to optimize bioreactor conditions, including an impeller tip speed (if the component was required) would be to maximize fungal biomass growth. As such, these conditions would be optimized by the prior art for the bioreactor, as a necessary variable, to provide the same outcome as described in the instant application.
Regarding claim 19, Kozubal et al., teaches dewatering of harvested edible filamentous fungus (page 12, paragraph 0132).
Regarding claim 21, Kozubal et al., teaches dewatering, pressing the harvested filamentous fungal biomass, and drying at 60̊C (page 15, paragraph 0151) and/or 85̊C (page 7, paragraph 0084).
Claims 3-5, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozubal et al., (US 2021/0059287 A1; 2021-03-04) in view of Owaid, et al., Using of date palm fiber mixed with other lignocelluloses toward Pleurotus ostreatus (Higher Basidiomycetes) cultivation. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture. 2015. (27:7); pp. 556-561, as applied to claims 1-2,6, 8-12, 14,15, 19, and 21 above and further in view of Mostafa, Y.S. et al., Bioplastic (poly-3-hydroxybutyrate) production by the marine bacterium Pseudodonghicola xiamenensis through date syrup valorization and structural assessment of the biopolymer. Scientific Reports. 2020; (10:8815); pp 1-13.
The teachings of Kozubal et al., and Owaid et al., are discussed previously.
Regarding claims 3-5, and 16, Kozubal et al., teaches an aqueous media for culturing filamentous fungal biomass in which the media contains glucose, urea between 1-10g/L, potassium phosphate between 0.2g- 5g/L and magnesium sulfate between 0.1 g/L- 2g/L, in preferred medias ( page 5, paragraph 0066, pages 16-17 Table 3).
Kozubal et al., and Owaid et al., do not teach date syrup at 88 g/L (claim 3), an initial concentration in media at 25-35 g/L (claim 4), an initial concentration between 50 g/L-110g/L (claim 5), or in an aqueous media between 5-15 g/L (claim 16).
However, regarding claims 3-5 and 16, Mostafa et al., teaches optimal date syrup at 4% (w/v) concentration as a carbons source, with nitrogen sources (including urea, peptone, and yeast extract), along with culture specific salts in a buffered aqueous medium for maximized microbial biomass yield (page 11, paragraph 3). Mostafa, et al., further teaches date syrup as a carbon source used with microbial growth and fermentation, with the concentration of fermentable sugars that compose date syrup: “high concentration of fermentable sugars (79.5% total sugars, with 42% glucose, 35% fructose, and 7.4% sucrose), indicating its utility as a medium in the fermentation” (page 4, paragraph 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to combine and optimize the components of aqueous media for fungal biomass growth, taught by Kozubal et al., with the concentrations of date syrup taught by Mostafa et al., to grow Pleurotus species in a media for maximal biomass production for agricultural industry as taught by Owaid et al.
The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Mostafa et al, with Owaid et al., and Kozubal et al., would be to provide a result effective outcome of optimized date syrup concentrations in an aqueous media, to culture Pleurotus eryngii with the carbon source(s) available in date syrup, which are a cost-effective source of fermentative sugars that contribute to increased microbial biomass production. Since the combined art teaches the effectiveness of date syrup for Pleurotus species biomass growth, the combined art can produce the same outcome, as prescribed in the instant application. One would expect reasonable success with the combined prior art, as the components of date syrup , as a carbon source, are available in the growth medias described by Kozubal et al., and Mostafa et al., and further Owaid et al., teaches the historical and continued advantages of date extracts in cultivating Pleurotus species .
Conclusion
No claims are deemed allowable.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ENUSHA KARUNASENA whose telephone number is (571)272-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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, Sharmila Landau can be reached at 571-272-0614. 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.
/ENUSHA KARUNASENA/Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights