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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6, filed 1/21/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4, 6 & 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The prior art of Lim does not adequately teach the instant claim 1 elements of depositing a particle layer, and then applying the fungus-containing bonding agent to the particle layer. Lim instead teaches the depositing of the particle layer and the bonding agent are deposited together, then any negative space not filled by particles and bonding agent is filled by a secondary material.
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Bayer (US20120237996A1).
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 & 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Bayer (US20120237996A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. A method for producing a three-dimensional body layer by layer, the method comprising at least the following steps: providing a fungus-containing bonding agent; laying out particles in at least one particle layer over a print bed; applying the fungus-containing bonding agent in a defined area of the particle layer; inducing a growth of a fungal mycelium from the fungus-containing bonding agent to structurally connect particles of the particle layer to form a green body; and exposing the green body.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Bayer teaches a method for producing a three-dimensional body layer by layer [0051], the method comprising at least the following steps: providing a fungus-containing bonding agent (Fig. 3, item 3); laying out particles in at least one particle layer over a print bed (Fig. 3, items 1 & 2); applying the fungus-containing bonding agent in a defined area of the particle layer [0108]; inducing a growth of a fungal mycelium from the fungus-containing bonding agent to structurally connect particles of the particle layer to form a green body [0109-0112]; and exposing the green body to stop further growth [0290].
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein: providing the fungus-containing bonding agent comprises providing a fungus-containing bonding agent comprising a nutrient for the fungus and/or an adhesive.
With respect to claim 2, the prior art of Bayer teaches providing the fungus-containing bonding agent comprises providing a fungus-containing bonding agent comprises a nutrient for the fungus [0018].
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein: providing the fungus-containing bonding agent comprises providing a fungus-containing bonding agent with a wood-decomposing fungus.
With respect to claim 3, Bayer teaches providing the fungus-containing bonding agent comprises providing a fungus-containing bonding agent with a wood-decomposing fungus. Bayer teaches “any fungi that utilizes filamentous body structure… to extend through its environment creating cellular tissue that can be used to add structural strength to a loose conglomeration of particles, fibers, or elements” can be used [0021].
Bayer teaches the use of basidiomycetes [0021], which are a known wood-degrading fungi, and also teaches recycled sawdust as the nutrient particles [0284].
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein: laying out the particles comprises laying out particles of organic material.
With respect to claim 4, Bayer teaches the particle bed can comprise organic materials such as hay, cotton, recycled sawdust, for example. [0282-0284].
6. The method according to claim 1, wherein: inducing a growth comprises at least one of the following steps: adjusting the temperature, adjusting the humidity, and adjusting the oxygen content.
With respect to claim 6, Bayer teaches an example wherein inducing a growth of a fungi established on grain particles can comprise adjusting the temperature slightly lower, adjusting the relative humidity to 90-100%, and adjusting the oxygen content by lowering the CO2 concentration in an ambient atmosphere [0277-0278].
7. The method according to claim 1, wherein: the method comprises ventilating the green body with sterile air, wherein the ventilating of the green body comprises ventilating through a device in the printing bed.
With respect to claim 7, Bayer teaches the method comprises ventilating the green body with sterile air by regulating gas exchange [0190] to allow releasing CO2 and taking in O2 without the exchange of other particles in the room [0191], wherein the ventilating of the green body comprises ventilating through a filter disk (Fig. 9, item 16) in the printing bed [0191].
8. The method according to claim 1, wherein: the method comprises transferring the at least one particle layer and the applied bonding agent from a production device to a growth device.
With respect to claim 8, Bayer teaches the method comprises transferring the at least one particle layer and the applied bonding agent from a production device to a growth device. Bayer teaches that “once pinning has begun, a suitable enclosure, in this case a rectangular box 3 inches tall and 2 inches on either side, is placed over the pinning substrate [0277].”
9. The method according to claim 1, wherein: the method comprises arresting the growth of the fungal mycelium by heating, irradiating and/or chemically treating the green body.
With respect to claim 9, Bayer teaches the method comprises arresting the growth of the fungal mycelium by heating, irradiating and/or chemically treating the green body [0290].
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, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayer (US20120237996A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
5. The method according to claim 1, wherein: the method comprises sterilizing the particles before laying out the particles by a temperature greater than 30°C and/or a pressure greater than 1.05 bar.
With respect to claim 5, Bayer teaches the method comprises sterilizing particles before laying out the particles at a pressure of 15psi, or 1.034 bar, for 45 minutes in an autoclave [0276].
This does not teach the claimed sterilizing range of ‘greater than 1.05 bar’.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close and expected to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Bayer teaches a rye grain is sterilized at pressure that is less than 2% below the claimed range lower endpoint of 1.05 bar. If the autoclave pressure setting was increased by 2% to place the sterilizing pressure for the rye grain within the claimed range, the sterilized rye grain would be expected to have substantially the same properties at completion.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bayer (US20120237996A1), in view of Bredt (US20050059757A1; of record). Claim elements are presented in italics.
10. The method according to claim 1, wherein: the method comprises applying an adhesive comprising alginate in a defined area of the particle layer, wherein the application of the bonding agent is carried out via a first nozzle and the application of the adhesive is carried out via a second nozzle.
With respect to claim 10, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Bayer teaches applying the fungus-containing bonding agent in a defined area of the particle layer [0108]; inducing a growth of a fungal mycelium from the fungus-containing bonding agent to structurally connect particles of the particle layer to form a green body [0109-0112].
Bayer is silent on applying an adhesive comprising alginate in the defined area of the particle layer, wherein the application of the bonding agent is carried out via a first nozzle and the application of the adhesive is carried out via a second nozzle.
However, in a related field of art, the prior art of Bredt teaches a fungal growth-inducing 3D printing method which can deposit an adhesive [0157] via a print head comprising a plurality of spray nozzles [0008].
Bredt teaches the adhesive can comprise carbohydrates from a group including xanthan gum, sodium alginate, propylene glycol alginate, and combinations thereof [0157].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use an alginate-containing adhesive in the binding agent taught by Bredt, to improve the known binding agent for similar fungal growth-inducing process taught by Bayer. This modification would predictably improve binding results when the bonding agent is applied to the particle layer in the fabrication process taught by Bayer, because Bredt teaches alginates can be used to improve the adhesion of the blend.
Bayer, in view of Bredt, is silent on applying the bonding agent & adhesive in different nozzles.
However, it would have been considered prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the technique of applying the bonding agent & adhesive in different nozzles, to avoid cross-contamination from the fungus in the bonding agent until the time they are deposited on the print bed. Further, Bredt teaches a plurality of nozzles increases the speed of liquid binder printing over a single means of deposition [0008].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights