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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4-11 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claims. Claim 4 is also objected to because the claim improperly references a following claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 4-11 have not been further treated on the merits.
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 1-3 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the terms “leather-like” and “lattice-like” render the claim indefinite because these terms include elements not actually disclosed, those encompassed by “-like”, and render the claim unascertainable. (MPEP §2173.05(b)).
The first “the mycelium” lacks antecedent basis, which renders the claim indefinite.
The second “a leather-like biocomposite” creates an issue of antecedent basis, which renders the claim indefinite.
There is an issue of antecedent basis with regard to “the surface thereof”, which renders the claim indefinite.
There is an issue of antecedent basis with regard to “one direction”, which renders the claim indefinite.
There is an issue of antecedent basis for “the upper surface”, which renders the claim indefinite.
There is an issue of antecedent basis for “a thickness”, where renders the claim indefinite.
There is an issue of antecedent basis for “a height”, where renders the claim indefinite.
It is uncertain how, in step iii) the plate is closely attaching, the meaning of closely. Closely is a subjective term that renders the claim indefinite.
It also uncertain how the limitation of “without forming a mycelial membrane” is step iii does not happen when the mycelium membrane penetrates the lattice-like membrane, grows and distributes evenly and is already a mycelial membrane in step ii.
It also uncertain how the limitation of “flat pressing the unperforated plate against the upper surface of the mycelium” occurs in step iv, when the lattice-like membrane is applied to the upper face of the mycelium in step iii. It is also uncertain how a mycelial membrane structure is formed on the upper surface again, where a mycelial membrane structure is already formed on the upper surface in step ii.
It is also uncertain if “one direction” is the same or different, which also renders the claim unclear.
Claims 2-3 are also rejected, due to their dependency on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, the term “preferably” is recited. The term "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
There is an issue of antecedent basis with regard to “at least the second layer” that renders the claim indefinite.
There is an issue of antecedent basis with regard to “a complex” that renders the claim indefinite.
The terms “leather-like” and “lattice-like” render the claim indefinite because these terms include elements not actually disclosed, those encompassed by “-like”, and render the claim unascertainable. (MPEP §2173.05(b)).
There is an issue of antecedent basis with regard to “a culture device”, as Claim 1 already recites a culture device.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights