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
The following species were elected:
Regarding claim 12, the claim has been amended. The species “construction waste material” is elected.
Regarding claim 17, the species “lignin-containing material” is elected.
Regarding claim 18, the species “Pleurotus ostreatus” is elected.
Drawings
The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in light of the replacement drawing.
Specification
Regarding paragraph [0050] of the instant specification, the disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 10, in line 7, the phrase “produce the bio- based material” should be “produce the bio-based material”.
Regarding claim 10, in line 14, the term “mycellium” should be spelled “mycelium”.
Regarding claim 25, in line 1, the term “receptable” should be “receptacle”.
Regarding claim 25, in line 3, the term “receptable” should be “receptacle”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-11, 16-17, 19-22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McNamara (US 20160073589).
Regarding claim 10, McNamara discloses a method for producing a bio-based material, (paragraph [0008] “high-yield fungi production”), the method comprising:
providing at least one receptacle (paragraph [0012] “modular container”); wherein the at least one receptacle, comprises
a plurality of holders (paragraph [0012] “plurality of vertical racks”) configured to store scrap material (paragraph [0012] “configured to hold the at least one growing container” which holds “pasteurized and cooled substrate into the at least one growing container”);
a scrap material station configured to process the scrap material (paragraphs [0012] and [0120] “substrate preparation system” processes substrate by preparing it for pasteurization);
a treatment station configured to treat the processed scrap material (paragraphs [0012] and [0016] pasteurization system) and produce the bio-based material (paragraph [0012] “growing” and paragraph [0008] “high-yield fungi production”); and,
a collection station (paragraph [0012] “the at least one growing container”), wherein the bio-based material is collected and/or stored (paragraph [0012] “the at least one growing container”);
obtaining the scrap material (paragraph [0120] “raw substrate materials (e.g., straw)”);
processing the scrap material (paragraphs [0120] and [0124] “chopper/blower combination”);
treating the scrap material with a bioremediating composition (paragraphs [0012] and [0130] “inoculation system”) to bioremediate the scrap material (paragraphs [0097], [0133], and [0156]); and
producing the bio-based material comprising the treated scrap material (paragraph [0012] “growing container” holds a fungal growth) and mycelium (paragraph [0116]).
Regarding claim 11, McNamara discloses wherein processing the scrap material comprises breaking down (paragraphs [0120] and [0124] “chopper/blower combination”) and/or sterilizing the scrap material (paragraphs [0012] and [0016] pasteurization system).
Regarding claim 16, McNamara discloses wherein the bioremediating composition comprises a growth medium (paragraph [0097]) and a fungal culture (paragraph [0042] “with at least one of: grain spawn and a liquid culture”).
Regarding claim 17, McNamara discloses wherein the growth medium comprises a lignin-containing material (paragraph [0097] “wood chips”).
Regarding the phrase “a lignin-containing material, sawdust, paper, cardboard, straw, wheat bran, gypsum, straw, soy, hemp, calcium carbonate, magnesium hydroxide, aluminum trihydrate, bulking agents, fillers, and/or fibers”, these limitations are claimed in the alternative, and the elected species is a lignin-containing material. No further rejections are needed at this time.
Regarding claim 19, McNamara discloses wherein the bioremediating composition further comprises a sterilizing agent (paragraph [0134] “a solution of peroxide”) and/or water (paragraph [0012] “humidity and water to the at least one growing container”).
Regarding the limitation “a sterilizing agent and/or water”, this limitation is claimed in the alternative. No further rejections are required at this time.
Regarding claim 20, McNamara discloses wherein treating the scrap material further comprises inoculating the scrap material (paragraph [0012] “inoculate”); hydrating the scrap material (paragraph [0012] “provide humidity and water”); exposing the scrap material to air (paragraph [0012] “provide the at last one growing container with airflow”); incubating the scrap material (paragraph [0139]-[0140] adjustment of “temperature” or “another environmental condition”); storing the scrap material (paragraph [0012] “vertical racks…configured to hold the at least one growing container”, where the growing container contains the scrap material); and drying the scrap material (paragraph [0134] “dry heat”).
Regarding claim 21, McNamara discloses wherein production of the bio-based material takes at least about 3 weeks (paragraphs [0117]-[0118]).
Regarding the limitation “at least about 3 days, alternatively at least about 5 days, alternatively at least about 1 week, alternatively at least about 2 weeks, alternatively at least about 3 weeks, alternatively at least about 4 weeks, alternatively at least about 5 weeks, alternatively at least about 6 weeks, alternatively at least about 7 weeks”, these limitations are claimed in the alternative. No further rejections are needed at this time.
Regarding claim 22, McNamara discloses wherein the method is automated (paragraph [0010]) and the produced bio-based material is collected (paragraph [0118] “the fungi may sprout and may be harvested”).
Regarding claim 25, McNamara discloses wherein the at least one receptacle is a mobile (paragraph [0181] “may rest on rolling base 714 for transport”), isolated, contained environment (paragraph [0027]) and the processing of the scrap material in the at least one receptacle (paragraph [0097]).
McNamara does not disclose reduces and/or prevents greenhouse gas emissions.
However, McNamara’s invention inherently discloses the processing of the scrap material in the receptacle reduces and/or prevents greenhouse gas emissions. This is because the mobile receptacle of McNamara is transportable, as well as economically and environmentally friendly in comparison to traditional farming and shipping methods (McNamara, paragraphs [0005]-[0007] and [0011] “environmental footprint of food”). For instance, less shipping would require less transportation fuel, which would correlate to less greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 | 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over McNamara (US 20160073589).
Regarding claim 12, McNamara discloses wherein the scrap material comprises wood chips, sawdust, or cardboard (paragraph [0133] “wood chips, sawdust, cardboard, … and other cellulose-based substrates”). If it is deemed that these materials do not anticipate construction waste material, it would have been obvious for these materials to be considered construction waste material, as construction often includes cutting lumber, such as for the construction of a house. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use construction waste material such as wood chips, sawdust, or cardboard in order to grow fungi such as mushrooms for fresh food and to reduce the economic and environmental footprint of food (McNamara, paragraphs [0005] and [0011]).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNamara (US 20160073589).
Regarding claim 15, McNamara does not disclose wherein the bioremediating composition and/or the scrap material do not comprise soil.
However, soil is not listed as the scrap material (see paragraph [0097] for “e.g., straw, wood chips, sawdust, cardboard, coffee grounds, and other cellulose-based substrates”). It would have been obvious not to include soil in the scrap material in an embodiment, so as to encourage more scrap material to be processed in order to fuel the further growth of fungi.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNamara (US 20160073589) as applied to claim 16, in view of Kozubal (US 20190059431).
Regarding claim 18, McNamara discloses a fungal culture (paragraph [0042] “with at least one of: grain spawn and a liquid culture”).
McNamara does not disclose wherein the fungal culture comprises: Pleurotus ostreatus.
Kozubal discloses Pleurotus ostreatus (paragraph [0011]).
In the analogous art of edible foodstuffs and bioreactors, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the receptacle of McNamara with the Pleurotus ostreatus of Kozubal in order to grow an edible filamentous fungus for a non-animal protein source (Kozubal, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding the limitation “Pleurotus ostreatus, Pleurotus pulmonarius, Ganoderma lucidum, Trametes versicolor, Pleurotus columbinus, Pleurotus eryngii, Agrocybe spp., Amanita spp., Armillaria spp., Auricularia spp., Cerrena spp., Coprinus spp., Cyathus spp., Daedalea spp., Daedaleopsis spp., Daldinia spp., Echinodontium spp., Exidia spp., Fistulina spp., Flammulina spp., Fames spp., Grifola spp., Hericium spp., Heterobasidion spp., Hypsizygus spp., Inonotus spp., Lenzites spp., Marasmius spp., Phanerochaete spp., Pisolithus spp., Sparassis spp., Strobilomyces spp., Xylaria spp., Pleurotus spp., Ganoderma spp., Trametes spp. Schizophyllum spp., Irpex spp. and/or Lentinula spp.”, these limitations are claimed in the alternative, and the elected species is Pleurotus ostreatus. No further rejections are needed at this time.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNamara (US 20160073589) as applied to claim 10, in view of Kozubal (US 20190059431).
Regarding claim 24, McNamara does not disclose post-processing the produced bio-based material to alter its structural properties.
Kozubal discloses post-processing the produced bio-based material to alter its structural properties (paragraph [0151]).
In the analogous art of obtaining biomass extracts, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the processing of McNamara with the post-processing of Kozubal in order to heat treat and filter the biomass to obtain a paste extract with nutritional value similar to that of biomass flour (Kozubal, paragraph [0151]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 10, 12, 16-18, 22, and 25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 80 of copending Application No. 17274425, in view of McNamara (US 20160073589). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 10, Rodriguez discloses a method for producing a bio-based material (claim 80 “bioremediated biomass product”), the method comprising:
obtaining the scrap material (claim 80);
processing the scrap material (claim 80);
treating the scrap material with a bioremediating composition to bioremediate the scrap material (claim 80); and
producing the bio-based material comprising the treated scrap material (claim 80).
Rodriguez does not disclose:
providing at least one receptacle;
wherein the at least one receptacle, comprises
a plurality of holders configured to store scrap material;
a scrap material station configured to process the scrap material;
a treatment station configured to treat the processed scrap material and produce the bio- based material; and,
a collection station, wherein the bio-based material is collected and/or stored;
and mycelium.
McNamara discloses:
providing at least one receptacle (paragraph [0012] “modular container”);
wherein the at least one receptacle, comprises
a plurality of holders (paragraph [0012] “plurality of vertical racks”) configured to store scrap material (paragraph [0012] “configured to hold the at least one growing container” which holds “pasteurized and cooled substrate into the at least one growing container”);
a scrap material station configured to process the scrap material (paragraphs [0012] and [0120] “substrate preparation system” processes substrate by preparing it for pasteurization);
a treatment station configured to treat the processed scrap material (paragraphs [0012] and [0016] pasteurization system) and produce the bio-based material (paragraph [0012] “growing” and paragraph [0008] “high-yield fungi production”); and,
a collection station (paragraph [0012] “the at least one growing container”), wherein the bio-based material is collected and/or stored (paragraph [0012] “the at least one growing container”)
and mycelium (paragraph [0116]).
In the analogous art of shipping containers for fungi production, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Rodriguez to have the receptacle of McNamara in order to produce fungi in an environmentally controlled container that reduces the economic and environmental footprint of food (McNamara, paragraphs [0011]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 12, Rodriguez discloses wherein the scrap material comprises construction waste material (claim 80).
Regarding claim 16, Rodriguez discloses wherein the bioremediating composition (claim 80) comprises a growth medium (claim 80) and a fungal culture (claim 80).
Regarding claim 17, Rodriguez discloses wherein the growth medium comprises a lignin-containing material (claim 80).
Regarding the phrase “a lignin-containing material, sawdust, paper, cardboard, straw, wheat bran, gypsum, straw, soy, hemp, calcium carbonate, magnesium hydroxide, aluminum trihydrate, bulking agents, fillers, and/or fibers”, these limitations are claimed in the alternative, and the elected species is a lignin-containing material. No further rejections are needed at this time.
Regarding claim 18, Rodriguez discloses wherein the fungal culture comprises Pleurotus ostreatus (claim 80).
Regarding the limitation “Pleurotus ostreatus, Pleurotus pulmonarius, Ganoderma lucidum, Trametes versicolor, Pleurotus columbinus, Pleurotus eryngii, Agrocybe spp., Amanita spp., Armillaria spp., Auricularia spp., Cerrena spp., Coprinus spp., Cyathus spp., Daedalea spp., Daedaleopsis spp., Daldinia spp., Echinodontium spp., Exidia spp., Fistulina spp., Flammulina spp., Fames spp., Grifola spp., Hericium spp., Heterobasidion spp., Hypsizygus spp., Inonotus spp., Lenzites spp., Marasmius spp., Phanerochaete spp., Pisolithus spp., Sparassis spp., Strobilomyces spp., Xylaria spp., Pleurotus spp., Ganoderma spp., Trametes spp. Schizophyllum spp., Irpex spp. and/or Lentinula spp.”, these limitations are claimed in the alternative, and the elected species is Pleurotus ostreatus. No further rejections are needed at this time.
Regarding claim 22, Rodriguez does not disclose in its claims: wherein the method is automated and the produced bio-based material is collected.
McNamara discloses wherein the method is automated (paragraph [0010]) and the produced bio-based material is collected (paragraph [0118] “the fungi may sprout and may be harvested”).
In the analogous art of shipping containers for fungi production, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Rodriguez to be automated and to collect the bio-based material in order to harvest the bio-based material producing fungi in an environmentally controlled container which then reduces the economic and environmental footprint of food (McNamara, paragraphs [0011]-[0012]).
Notably, MPEP § 2144.04(III) shows that automating an activity to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 25, Rodriguez does not disclose wherein the at least one receptacle is a mobile, isolated, contained environment and the processing of the scrap material in the at least one receptacle.
McNamara discloses wherein the at least one receptacle is a mobile (paragraph [0181] “may rest on rolling base 714 for transport”), isolated, contained environment (paragraph [0027]) and the processing of the scrap material in the at least one receptacle (paragraph [0097]).
In the analogous art of shipping containers for fungi production, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of modified Rodriguez with the receptacle of McNamara in order to have a shipping container for reducing the economic and environmental footprint of food (paragraph [0011]), so that the infrastructure to grow fungi is minimal and only requires minimal training (paragraphs [0008]-[0009]).
Modified Rodriguez does not disclose reduces and/or prevents greenhouse gas emissions.
However, it would have been expected that modified Rodriguez would process the scrap material in the receptacle and reduce and/or prevent greenhouse gas emissions. This is because the mobile receptacle of modified Rodriguez is transportable, as well as economically and environmentally friendly in comparison to traditional farming and shipping methods (McNamara, paragraphs [0005]-[0007] and [0011] “environmental footprint of food”). For instance, less shipping would require less transportation fuel, which would correlate to less greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.
Claim 20 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 80, 82-83, 92, and 94 of copending Application No. 17274425, as applied to claim 20, in view of McNamara (US 20160073589). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 20, Rodriguez discloses wherein treating the scrap material further comprises inoculating the scrap material (claim 80); hydrating the scrap material (claim 80); incubating the scrap material (claims 82-83); storing the scrap material (claim 94 “cultivating … in a sealed container”); and drying the scrap material (claim 92 “heating the substrate to 250°F”).
If it is deemed that Rodriguez does not disclose “exposing the scrap material to air” (Rodriguez, claim 82, “aerobic conditions”), McNamara discloses this limitation (McNamara, paragraph [0012] “provide the at last one growing container with airflow”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiments of claims 80, 82-83, 92, and 94 of Rodriguez with each other in order to create a method of cultivating fungus from scrap material for nutritional food.
In the analogous art of shipping containers for fungi production, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Rodriguez to have the airflow of McNamara in order to produce fungi in an environmentally controlled container with a ventilation system which then reduces the economic and environmental footprint of food (McNamara, paragraphs [0011]-[0012]).
Claims 11 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 80-81 of copending Application No. 17274425, as applied to claim 10, in view of McNamara (US 20160073589). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 11, Rodriguez discloses wherein processing the scrap material comprises breaking down and/or sterilizing the scrap material (claim 81).
Regarding claim 15, Rodriguez does not disclose wherein the bioremediating composition and/or the scrap material do not comprise soil.
However, soil is not listed as the scrap material (see claim 81). It would have been obvious not to include soil in the scrap material in an embodiment, so as to encourage more scrap material to be processed in order to fuel the further growth of fungi.
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 80-81, 88-89, and 92 of copending Application No. 17274425, as applied to claim 10, in view of McNamara (US 20160073589). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 19, Rodriguez discloses wherein the bioremediating composition further comprises a sterilizing agent (claims 88-89) and/or water (claim 92).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiments of claims 80-81, 88-89, and 92 of Rodriguez with each other in order to create a method of cultivating fungus from scrap material for nutritional food.
Claim 21 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 80, 82, 93, and 96 of copending Application No. 17274425, as applied to claim 10, in view of McNamara (US 20160073589). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 21, Rodriguez discloses wherein production of the bio-based material takes alternatively at least about 2 weeks, alternatively at least about 3 weeks, alternatively at least about 4 weeks, alternatively at least about 5 weeks, alternatively at least about 6 weeks, alternatively at least about 7 weeks (claim 96 “about 2 to 8 weeks”).
Regarding the limitation “takes at least about 3 days, alternatively at least about 5 days, alternatively at least about 1 week” these limitations are claimed in the alternative. No further rejections are needed at this time.
Claim 24 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 80 of copending Application No. 17274425, as applied to claim 10, in view of McNamara (US 20160073589), further in view of Kozubal (US 20190059431). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 24, Rodriguez does not disclose wherein the method comprises post-processing the produced bio-based material to alter its structural properties.
Kozubal discloses post-processing the produced bio-based material to alter its structural properties (paragraph [0151]).
In the analogous art of obtaining biomass extracts, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the processing of McNamara with the post-processing of Kozubal in order to heat treat and filter the biomass to obtain a paste extract with nutritional value similar to that of biomass flour (Kozubal, paragraph [0151]).
Claims 10, 15, 18, and 22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of copending Application No. 18524456 in view of McNamara (US 20160073589). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 10, Rodriguez discloses a method for producing a bio-based material (claim 1), the method comprising:
obtaining the scrap material (claim 1 “one material”);
processing the scrap material (claim 9);
treating the scrap material with a bioremediating composition to bioremediate the scrap material (claim 1); and
producing the bio-based material comprising the treated scrap material and mycelium (claim 1, the material grows a filamentous fungus).
Rodriguez does not disclose:
providing at least one receptacle;
wherein the at least one receptacle, comprises
a plurality of holders configured to store scrap material;
a scrap material station configured to process the scrap material;
a treatment station configured to treat the processed scrap material and produce the bio- based material; and,
a collection station, wherein the bio-based material is collected and/or stored.
McNamara discloses:
providing at least one receptacle (paragraph [0012] “modular container”);
wherein the at least one receptacle, comprises
a plurality of holders (paragraph [0012] “plurality of vertical racks”) configured to store scrap material (paragraph [0012] “configured to hold the at least one growing container” which holds “pasteurized and cooled substrate into the at least one growing container”);
a scrap material station configured to process the scrap material (paragraphs [0012] and [0120] “substrate preparation system” processes substrate by preparing it for pasteurization);
a treatment station configured to treat the processed scrap material (paragraphs [0012] and [0016] pasteurization system) and produce the bio-based material (paragraph [0012] “growing” and paragraph [0008] “high-yield fungi production”); and,
a collection station (paragraph [0012] “the at least one growing container”), wherein the bio-based material is collected and/or stored (paragraph [0012] “the at least one growing container”)
and mycelium (paragraph [0116]).
In the analogous art of shipping containers for fungi production, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Rodriguez to have the receptacle of McNamara in order to produce fungi in an environmentally controlled container that reduces the economic and environmental footprint of food (McNamara, paragraphs [0011]-[0012]). Similarly to food, however, aromatic organic pollutants can be remediated as well.
Regarding claim 15, Rodriguez does not disclose wherein the bioremediating composition and/or the scrap material do not comprise soil.
However, soil is not listed as the scrap material (see claim 15). It would have been obvious not to include soil in the scrap material in an embodiment, so as to encourage more scrap material to be processed in order to fuel the further growth of fungi.
Regarding claim 18, Rodriguez discloses wherein the fungal culture comprises Pleurotus ostreatus (claim 1).
Regarding the limitation “Pleurotus ostreatus, Pleurotus pulmonarius, Ganoderma lucidum, Trametes versicolor, Pleurotus columbinus, Pleurotus eryngii, Agrocybe spp., Amanita spp., Armillaria spp., Auricularia spp., Cerrena spp., Coprinus spp., Cyathus spp., Daedalea spp., Daedaleopsis spp., Daldinia spp., Echinodontium spp., Exidia spp., Fistulina spp., Flammulina spp., Fames spp., Grifola spp., Hericium spp., Heterobasidion spp., Hypsizygus spp., Inonotus spp., Lenzites spp., Marasmius spp., Phanerochaete spp., Pisolithus spp., Sparassis spp., Strobilomyces spp., Xylaria spp., Pleurotus spp., Ganoderma spp., Trametes spp. Schizophyllum spp., Irpex spp. and/or Lentinula spp.”, these limitations are claimed in the alternative, and the elected species is Pleurotus ostreatus. No further rejections are needed at this time.
Regarding claim 22, Rodriguez does not disclose in its claims wherein the method is automated and the produced bio-based material is collected.
McNamara discloses wherein the method is automated (paragraph [0010]) and the produced bio-based material is collected (paragraph [0118] “the fungi may sprout and may be harvested”).
In the analogous art of shipping containers for fungi production, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Rodriguez to be automated and to collect the bio-based material in order to harvest the bio-based material producing fungi in an environmentally controlled container which then reduces the economic and environmental footprint of food (McNamara, paragraphs [0011]-[0012]).
Notably, MPEP § 2144.04(III) shows that automating an activity to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
Claim 11 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9-10 of copending Application No. 18524456 in view of McNamara (US 20160073589) as applied to claim 10. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 11, Rodriguez discloses wherein processing the scrap material comprises breaking down (claim 1) and/or sterilizing the scrap material (claim 10).
Claims 12 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, and 14-15 of copending Application No. 18524456 in view of McNamara (US 20160073589) as applied to claim 10. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 12, Rodriguez discloses wherein the scrap material comprises construction waste material (claims 14-15).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiments of claims 1, 9, and 14-15 of Rodriguez with each other in order to create a method of cultivating fungus from scrap material for nutritional food.
Regarding claim 17, Rodriguez discloses a lignin-containing material (claim 15 “wood”).
Regarding the phrase “a lignin-containing material, sawdust, paper, cardboard, straw, wheat bran, gypsum, straw, soy, hemp, calcium carbonate, magnesium hydroxide, aluminum trihydrate, bulking agents, fillers, and/or fibers”, these limitations are claimed in the alternative, and the elected species is a lignin-containing material. No further rejections are needed at this time.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiments of claims 1, 9, and 14-15 of Rodriguez with each other in order to create a method of cultivating fungus from scrap material for nutritional food.
Claim 16 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7-9 of copending Application No. 18524456 in view of McNamara (US 20160073589) as applied to claim 10. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 16, Rodriguez discloses wherein the bioremediating composition comprises a growth medium (claims 7 and 8) and a fungal culture (claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiments of claims 1 and 7-9 of Rodriguez with each other in order to create a method of cultivating fungus from scrap material for nutritional food.
Claim 19 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 9, and 12 of copending Application No. 18524456 in view of McNamara (US 20160073589) as applied to claim 10. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 19, Rodriguez discloses wherein the bioremediating composition further comprises water (claim 12).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiments of claims 1, 7, 9, and 12 of Rodriguez with each other in order to create a method of cultivating fungus from scrap material for nutritional food.
Regarding the limitation “a sterilizing agent and/or water” these limitations are claimed in the alternative. No further rejections are needed at this time.
Claim 20 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-7, 9, 12 of copending Application No. 18524456 in view of McNamara (US 20160073589) as applied to claim 10. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 20, Rodriguez discloses wherein treating the scrap material further comprises inoculating the scrap material (claim 1); hydrating the scrap material (claim 12); exposing the scrap material to air (claim 6); incubating the scrap material (claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiments of claims 1, 6-7, 9, and 12 of Rodriguez with each other in order to create a method of cultivating fungus from scrap material for nutritional food.
Rodriguez does not disclose in its claims: storing the scrap material; and drying the scrap material.
McNamara discloses wherein treating the scrap material further comprises storing the scrap material (paragraph [0012] “vertical racks…configured to hold the at least one growing container”, where the growing container contains the scrap material); and drying the scrap material (paragraph [0134] “dry heat”).
In the analogous art of shipping containers for fungi production, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Rodriguez to have the steps of storing the scrap material and drying the scrap material of McNamara in order to produce a pasteurized substrate that reduces harmful bacteria and improves fungi production to reduce the economic and environmental footprint of food (McNamara, paragraphs [0011]-[0012] and [0134]).
Claim 21 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 9 of copending Application No. 18524456 in view of McNamara (US 20160073589) as applied to claim 10. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 21, Rodriguez discloses wherein production of the bio-based material takes at least about 24 hours (claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiments of claims 1, 5, and 9 of Rodriguez with each other in order to create a method of cultivating fungus from scrap material for nutritional food.
Rodriguez does not disclose wherein production of the bio-based material takes at least about 3 days, alternatively at least about 5 days, alternatively at least about 1 week, alternatively at least about 2 weeks, alternatively at least about 3 weeks, alternatively at least about 4 weeks, alternatively at least about 5 weeks, alternatively at least about 6 weeks, alternatively at least about 7 weeks.
McNamara discloses wherein production of the bio-based material takes at least about 3 weeks (paragraphs [0117]-[0118]).
In the analogous art of shipping containers for fungi production, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Rodriguez with the at least about 3 week cultivation period of McNamara in order to allow the fungi spawn to propagate (e.g. into mycelium) and take over the substrate, and then to sprout and be harvested (McNamara, paragraphs [0116]-[0118]).
Regarding the limitation “at least about 3 days, alternatively at least about 5 days, alternatively at least about 1 week, alternatively at least about 2 weeks, alternatively at least about 3 weeks, alternatively at least about 4 weeks, alternatively at least about 5 weeks, alternatively at least about 6 weeks, alternatively at least about 7 weeks”, these limitations are claimed in the alternative. No further rejections are needed at this time.
Claim 24 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of copending Application No. 18524456 in view of McNamara (US 20160073589) as applied to claim 10, further in view of Kozubal (US 20190059431). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 24, Rodriguez does not disclose wherein the method comprises post-processing the produced bio-based material to alter its structural properties.
Kozubal discloses post-processing the produced bio-based material to alter its structural properties (paragraph [0151]).
In the analogous art of obtaining biomass extracts, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the processing of modified Rodriguez with the post-processing of Kozubal in order to heat treat and filter the biomass to obtain a paste extract with nutritional value similar to that of biomass flour (Kozubal, paragraph [0151]).
Claim 25 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of copending Application No. 18524456 in view of McNamara (US 20160073589) as applied to claim 10, further in view of Kozubal (US 20190059431). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 25, Rodriguez discloses wherein the processing of the scrap material reduces and/or prevents greenhouse gas emissions (claim 18).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the receptacle is a mobile, isolated, contained environment and the processing of the scrap material [occurs] in the receptacle”.
McNamara discloses wherein the at least one receptacle is a mobile (paragraph [0181] “may rest on rolling base 714 for transport”), isolated, contained environment (paragraph [0027]) and the processing of the scrap material in the at least one receptacle (paragraph [0097]).
In the analogous art of shipping containers for fungi production, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of modified Rodriguez with the receptacle of McNamara in order to have a shipping container for reducing the economic and environmental footprint of food (paragraph [0011]), so that the infrastructure to grow fungi is minimal and only requires minimal training (paragraphs [0008]-[0009]).
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18628384 in view of McNamara (US 20160073589). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 10, Rodriguez discloses a method for producing a bio-based material (claim 1), the method comprising:
obtaining the scrap material (claim 1);
treating the scrap material with a bioremediating composition to bioremediate the scrap material (claim 1); and
producing the bio-based material comprising the treated scrap material (claim 1).
Rodriguez does not disclose:
providing at least one receptacle;
wherein the receptacle, comprises
a plurality of holders configured to store scrap material;
a scrap material station configured to process scrap material;
a treatment station configured to treat the processed scrap material and produce a bio- based material; and,
a collection station, wherein bio-based material is collected and/or stored; and,
processing the scrap material.
McNamara discloses:
providing at least one receptacle (paragraph [0012] “modular container”);
wherein the at least one receptacle, comprises
a plurality of holders (paragraph [0012] “plurality of vertical racks”) configured to store scrap material (paragraph [0012] “configured to hold the at least one growing container” which holds “pasteurized and cooled substrate into the at least one growing container”);
a scrap material station configured to process the scrap material (paragraphs [0012] and [0120] “substrate preparation system” processes substrate by preparing it for pasteurization);
a treatment station configured to treat the processed scrap material (paragraphs [0012] and [0016] pasteurization system) and produce the bio-based material (paragraph [0012] “growing” and paragraph [0008] “high-yield fungi production”); and,
a collection station (paragraph [0012] “the at least one growing container”), wherein the bio-based material is collected and/or stored (paragraph [0012] “the at least one growing container”); and,
processing the scrap material (paragraphs [0120] and [0124] “chopper/blower combination”);
and mycelium (paragraph [0116]).
In the analogous art of shipping containers for fungi production, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Rodriguez to have the receptacle of McNamara in order to produce fungi in an environmentally controlled container that reduces the economic and environmental footprint of food (McNamara, paragraphs [0011]-[0012]).
Regarding claim 11, Rodriguez does not disclose wherein processing the scrap material comprises breaking down and/or sterilizing the scrap material.
McNamara discloses wherein processing the scrap material comprises breaking down (paragraphs [0120] and [0124] “chopper/blower combination”) and/or sterilizing the scrap material (paragraphs [0012] and [0016] pasteurization system).
In the analogous art of shipping containers for fungi production, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Rodriguez with the breaking down and/or sterilization of the scrap material in order to reduce an amount of harmful bacteria in a substrate and improve fungi production (McNamara, paragraph [0134]).
Regarding claim 16, Rodriguez discloses wherein the bioremediating composition (claim 1) comprises a growth medium (claim 1) and a fungal culture (claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Rodriguez does not disclose wherein the growth medium comprises a lignin-containing material.
McNamara discloses wherein the growth medium comprises a lignin-containing material (paragraph [0097] “wood chips”).
In the analogous art of shipping containers for fungi production, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Rodriguez with the lignin-containing material of McNamara in order to support the fungi spores and to help the growth of the fungi (McNamara, paragraph [0097]).
Regarding the phrase “a lignin-containing material, sawdust, paper, cardboard, straw, wheat bran, gypsum, straw, soy, hemp, calcium carbonate, magnesium hydroxide, aluminum trihydrate, bulking agents, fillers, and/or fibers”, these limitations are claimed in the alternative, and the elected species is a lignin-containing material. No further rejections are needed at this time.
Regarding claim 21, Rodriguez does not disclose in its claims wherein the production of bio-based material takes at least about 3 days, alternatively at least about 5 days, alternatively at least about 1 week, alternatively at least about 2 weeks, alternatively at least about 3 weeks, alternatively at least about 4 weeks, alternatively at least about 5 weeks, alternatively at least about 6 weeks, alternatively at least about 7 weeks.
McNamara discloses wherein production of the bio-based material takes at least