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 the Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 4/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-31 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on4/24/2026.
Claims 1-8 as filed on 4/24/2026 are under examination in the instant office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0146224 (Kaplan-Bie et al) in view of US 2015/0033620 (Greetham et al) and in view of Mo et al (Mycopathologia, 2005, 159, pages 381-387).
The cited US 2020/0146224 (Kaplan-Bie et al) discloses a method of culturing an aerial mycelium (entire document including par. 0015), wherein the method comprises steps of preparing a mycelium growth medium with a nutrition profile as intended for growing the mycelium; hydrating the mycelium growth medium; sterilizing the mycelium growth medium; inoculating the mycelium growth medium with a fungal inoculum, thereby producing an inoculated mycelium growth medium (see par 0048 or 0068 of US 2020/0146224 (Kaplan-Bie et al) in view of US 20150033620 par. 0034-0037); and placing the inoculated mycelium growth medium into a growth environment configured to control a plurality of environmental conditions (par. 0069 of US 2020/0146224 (Kaplan-Bie et al).
The plurality of environmental conditions in the method of US 2020/0146224 (Kaplan-Bie et al) comprises a temperature, a CO2 content (0045), an airflow velocity (0015, 0055, 0056, 0074), a mist deposition rate, and a mist composition (0079, 0082-0085) as encompassed by claim 2. In the method of US 2020/0146224 (Kaplan-Bie et al) the CO2 content is 5% (0045) or at least 3.5% by volume of the growth environment as encompassed by claim 3.
Thus, the method of US 2020/0146224 (Kaplan-Bie et al) comprises same active step as pending claims 1-3.
However, although the cited document teaches the use of a specific culture media (par. 0044), the ingredients are complex compounds (poppy seed and corn stover) for which protein and carbohydrate contents are unknown as disclosed therein. The cited US 2020/0146224 (Kaplan-Bie et al) does not explicitly recognize beneficial values of carbon to nitrogen ratio as intended for growing mycelium.
However, it is known in the prior art that relatively low C:N ratio provides for fungal sporulation and high C:N ratio of 40:1 provides for maximum fungal biomass; for example: see abstract of Mo et al. The C:N ratio of 40:1 taught by the prior art falls within the claimed ratio range in the method for growing mycelium as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to modify amounts of specific carbohydrate and protein sources (C and N sources respectively) in the mycelium growth medium in the method of US 2020/0146224 (Kaplan-Bie et al) in order to provide for the C:N ratio as claimed with a reasonable expectation of success in producing maximum biomass in the method of growing fungal mycelium because the prior art teaches that relatively high C:N ratio of 40:1 provides for maximum fungal biomass (abstract of Mo et al).
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole was clearly prima facie obvious, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
The claimed subject matter fails to patentably distinguish over the state art as represented be the cited references. Therefore, the claims are properly rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Further, as applied to claim 7: in a particular embodiment the cited US 2020/0146224 (Kaplan-Bie et al) discloses the use of airflow velocity as estimated in cubic feet per min (par. 0055-0056) not as claimed “ft/min”. Nevertheless, it clearly teaches that different airflow velocity rates provide for different effects with regard to final dry density and tensile strength of mycelia. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify airflow velocity as intended for the final characteristics of the grown mycelium. Thus, the claimed invention as a whole was clearly prima facie obvious, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Further, as applied to claim 8: although the cited US 2020/0146224 (Kaplan-Bie et al) is silent about incorporation of simple sugars into the mycelium growth medium. But it is well knonw that simple sugars are easy digestible carbon sources for heterotrophic fungal microorganisms (see table 1 of the cite Mo).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to add simple sugars to the complex carbon sources in the mycelium growth medium in the method of US 2020/0146224 (Kaplan-Bie et al) to increase C:N ratio for the expected benefits in maximizing production of mycelial biomass because the prior art teaches that relatively high C:N ratio of 40:1 provides for maximum fungal biomass (abstract of Mo et al).
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole was clearly prima facie obvious, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
The claimed subject matter fails to patentably distinguish over the state art as represented be the cited references. Therefore, the claims are properly rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0146224 (Kaplan-Bie et al) in view of US 2015/0033620 (Greetham et al) and in view of Mo et al (Mycopathologia, 2005, 159, pages 381-387) as applied to claims 1-3, 7 and 8 above, and further in view of Zadrazil et al (European J Appl MIcrobiol., 1975, 1, pages 327-335).
The cited documents US 2020/0146224 (Kaplan-Bie et al) in view of US 2015/0033620 (Greetham et al) and in view of Mo et al (Mycopathologia, 2005, 159, pages 381-387) are relied upon as above.
The cited US 2020/0146224 (Kaplan-Bie et al) teaches the use of CO2 content such as 5% (0045); but it appears to be silent about fluctuations of CO2 over incubation time periods.
However, Zadrazil teaches a correlation of CO2 concentration and mycelium growth (title) and also teaches that optimum CO2 concentration varies for each type of microorganism (last line of page 327).
Further, as applied to claim 4, Zadrazil acknowledges fluctuations of CO2 contents during mycelium growth, which varies 0.5% over incubation periods (page 329, par. 2, last line), thus, comparable with or similar to the claimed value.
Further, as applied to claim 5, Zadrazil discloses that an increase of CO2 content to 20-25% after 3 days incubation (see page 327, “summary” section par. 4). Thus, CO2 content increased at the rate about 0.35% per hour, which is similar or comparable rate to the claimed rate.
With respect to claim 6: it is noted above that optimum CO2 concentration varies for each type of microorganism (see Zadrazil at last line of page 327). Thus, target value and time periods to reach the target value would be obviously optimized by one of skill in the art depending on specifics of particular experimental designs.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole was clearly prima facie obvious, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
The claimed subject matter fails to patentably distinguish over the state art as represented be the cited references. Therefore, the claims are properly rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERA AFREMOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-0914. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8.30am-5pm EST.
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.
Vera Afremova
July 7, 2026
/VERA AFREMOVA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights