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 .
Claims 1-19 are currently pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they appear to be copies of photographs or CAD files, as they contain excessive grayscale shading. Details of the claimed invention are difficult to discern, and the drawings are not of sufficient quality so that all details are reproducible in the printed patent. See MPEP 608.02; 37 CFR 1.84.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-8 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoller (US 2723493 A), hereafter referred to as “Stoller” in view of Greetham et al. (US 20150033620 A1), hereafter referred to as “Greetham”.
Regarding claim 1, Stoller teaches a method of growing an aerial mycelium material (abstract; figs. 1-4) comprising:
pasteurizing a substrate (claim 8, col. 5, lines 40-59) in an at least one tool located at a select physical location to form a pasteurized substrate (col. 5, lines 40-59); and
inoculating the pasteurized substrate with a fungal inoculum in a targeted fashion in the at least one tool at the select physical location to form a pasteurized and inoculated substrate (claim 18; col. 6, lines 22-68 and col. 8, lines 45-50), such that the targeted fashion of inoculating results in mycelium growing from the pasteurized and inoculated substrate in a regular geometric distribution upon a surface of the pasteurized and inoculated substrate (col. 6, lines 22-68). Stoller further teaches incubating the pasteurized and inoculated substrate to promote mycelial growth and form the mycelium (col. 6, lines 69-75, col. 7, line 74-col. 8, line 4), but does not explicitly teach the step of incubating to form the aerial mycelium. Stoller further does not explicitly teach harvesting the aerial mycelium from the substrate.
Greetham teaches a method (abstract) including incubating the pasteurized and inoculated substrate to form the aerial mycelium (claim 7 and paragraph [0012]), and harvesting the aerial mycelium from the substrate (paragraph [0012], [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stoller, such that the step of incubating results in forming aerial mycelium, and harvesting the aerial mycelium from the substrate, as taught by Greetham, in order to accommodate the user’s choice of desired end product (i.e., type of mushroom), and since it would have been obvious to try varying a known technique to achieve a predictable result.
Regarding claim 2, Stoller in view of Greetham teaches the method of claim 1, and Stoller further teaches wherein the select physical location comprises a growth or incubation chamber (10; fig. 1), wherein the fungal inoculum is selected from a solid fungal inoculum (claim 18; col. 6, lines 22-68 and col. 8, lines 45-50), and wherein the inoculating comprises at least one of depositing the solid fungal inoculum onto a substrate contained in the at least one tool (claim 18; col. 6, lines 22-68 and col. 8, lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 3, Stoller in view of Greetham teaches the method of claim 1, and Stoller further teaches agitating the substrate to facilitate a more uniform distribution of the inoculum within the substrate in the at least one tool (col. 6, lines 22-46), wherein the agitating comprises at least one of a mixing method that traverses at least one dimension of the at least one tool to mix the substrate (col. 6, lines 22-46).
Regarding claim 4, Stoller in view of Greetham teaches the method of claim 1, and Stoller further teaches wherein the inoculating comprises a first and second inoculation step (claim 18; col. 6, lines 22-68 and col. 8, lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 5, Stoller in view of Greetham teaches the method of claim 4, and Stoller further teaches wherein the second inoculation step is accomplished by a punching action of a fungal inoculum to a different vertical level of the substrate as compared to a vertical level of the fungal inoculum from the first inoculation step (claim 18; col. 6, lines 22-68 and col. 8, lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 6, Stoller teaches a method of growing an aerial mycelium material (abstract; figs. 1-4) comprising:
providing a substrate in an at least one growth rack or bed within a growth or incubation chamber (fig. 2);
pasteurizing the substrate in the at least one growth rack or bed within the growth or incubation chamber to form a pasteurized substrate (claim 8, col. 5, lines 40-59);
inoculating the pasteurized substrate, wherein inoculating comprises depositing a fungal inoculum in a targeted fashion in the rack or bed to form a pasteurized and inoculated substrate (claim 18; col. 6, lines 22-68 and col. 8, lines 45-50), such that the targeted fashion of depositing results in mycelium growing from the pasteurized and inoculated substrate in a regular geometric distribution upon a surface of the pasteurized and inoculated substrate (col. 6, lines 22-68). Stoller further teaches incubating the pasteurized and inoculated substrate to promote mycelial growth and form the mycelium (col. 6, lines 69-75, col. 7, line 74-col. 8, line 4), but does not explicitly teach the step of incubating to form the aerial mycelium. Stoller further does not explicitly teach harvesting the aerial mycelium from the substrate.
Greetham teaches a method (abstract) including incubating the pasteurized and inoculated substrate to form the aerial mycelium (claim 7 and paragraph [0012]), and harvesting the aerial mycelium from the substrate (paragraph [0012], [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stoller, such that the step of incubating results in forming aerial mycelium, and harvesting the aerial mycelium from the substrate, as taught by Greetham, in order to accommodate the user’s choice of desired end product (i.e., type of mushroom), and since it would have been obvious to try varying a known technique to achieve a predictable result.
Regarding claim 7, Stoller in view of Greetham teaches the method of claim 6, and Stoller further teaches wherein the depositing of the fungal inoculum is in a pattern or geometric configuration within or upon the substrate (col. 6, lines 22-68).
Regarding claim 8, Stoller in view of Greetham Stoller teaches the method of claim 6, and Stoller further teaches wherein the depositing of the fungal inoculum comprises a first and second depositing step for depositing the fungal inoculum within or upon the substrate (claim 18; col. 6, lines 22-68 and col. 8, lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 11, Stoller teaches a method of growing an aerial mycelium material (abstract; figs. 1-4) comprising:
providing a substrate in a tool within a growth or incubation chamber (fig. 2);
pasteurizing the substrate in the tool within the growth or incubation chamber to form a pasteurized substrate (claim 8, col. 5, lines 40-59);
inoculating the pasteurized substrate, wherein inoculating comprises depositing a fungal inoculum in a targeted fashion in the tool to form a pasteurized and inoculated substrate (claim 18; col. 6, lines 22-68 and col. 8, lines 45-50), such that the targeted fashion of depositing results in aerial mycelium growing from the pasteurized and inoculated substrate in a regular geometric distribution upon a surface of the pasteurized and inoculated substrate (col. 6, lines 22-68). Stoller further teaches incubating the pasteurized and inoculated substrate to promote mycelial growth and form the mycelium (col. 6, lines 69-75, col. 7, line 74-col. 8, line 4), but does not explicitly teach the step of incubating to form the aerial mycelium. Stoller further does not explicitly teach harvesting the aerial mycelium from the substrate.
Greetham teaches a method (abstract) including incubating the pasteurized and inoculated substrate to form the aerial mycelium (claim 7 and paragraph [0012]), and harvesting the aerial mycelium from the substrate (paragraph [0012], [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stoller, such that the step of incubating results in forming aerial mycelium, and harvesting the aerial mycelium from the substrate, as taught by Greetham, in order to accommodate the user’s choice of desired end product (i.e., type of mushroom), and since it would have been obvious to try varying a known technique to achieve a predictable result.
Regarding claim 12, Stoller in view of Greetham teaches the method of claim 11, and Stoller further teaches wherein the tool is selected from the group consisting of a sheet, a rack, a bed, a tray, a container, a cage, a belt, and a carrier sheet (10; fig. 2 teaching a tank).
Regarding claim 13, Stoller in view of Greetham teaches the method of claim 11, and Stoller further teaches wherein the depositing comprises depositing the fungal inoculum in a regular geometric pattern along X-Y length and width planar directions of the substrate (col. 6, lines 22-68).
Regarding claim 14, Stoller in view of Greetham teaches the method of claim 11, and Stoller further teaches wherein the depositing comprises depositing the fungal inoculum in a regular geometric pattern along the Z depth direction of the substrate (col. 6, lines 22-68).
Regarding claim 15, Stoller teaches a method of growing an aerial mycelium material (abstract; figs. 1-4) comprising:
pasteurizing a substrate in an at least one tool located at a select physical location to form a pasteurized substrate (claim 8, col. 5, lines 40-59);
inoculating the pasteurized substrate with a fungal inoculum in a targeted fashion in the at least one tool at the select physical location to form a pasteurized and inoculated substrate (claim 18; col. 6, lines 22-68 and col. 8, lines 45-50), such that the targeted fashion of inoculating results in mycelium growing from the pasteurized and inoculated substrate in a defined pattern or distribution upon a surface of the pasteurized and inoculated substrate (col. 6, lines 22-68). Stoller further teaches incubating the pasteurized and inoculated substrate to promote mycelial growth and form the mycelium (col. 6, lines 69-75, col. 7, line 74-col. 8, line 4), but does not explicitly teach the step of incubating to form the aerial mycelium. Stoller further does not explicitly teach harvesting the aerial mycelium from the substrate.
Greetham teaches a method (abstract) including incubating the pasteurized and inoculated substrate to form the aerial mycelium (claim 7 and paragraph [0012]), and harvesting the aerial mycelium from the substrate (paragraph [0012], [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stoller, such that the step of incubating results in forming aerial mycelium, and harvesting the aerial mycelium from the substrate, as taught by Greetham, in order to accommodate the user’s choice of desired end product (i.e., type of mushroom), and since it would have been obvious to try varying a known technique to achieve a predictable result.
Claims 9-10, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoller in view of Greetham as applied to claims 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Liao (CN 113597973 A), hereafter referred to as “Liao”.
Regarding claim 9, Stoller in view of Greetham teaches the method of claim 8, and Stoller further teaches wherein the first and second depositing steps are accomplished by two different depositing methods (claim 18; col. 6, lines 22-68 and col. 8, lines 45-50), wherein the two different depositing methods are accomplished by at least one of a selective head filler (col. 2, line 71-col. 3, line 3) whereby the fungal inoculum is deposited in a distinct pattern or geometric configuration within the substrate (col. 6, lines 22-68), but does not explicitly teach that the substrate comprises two layers of substrate.
Liao teaches a method (see attached machine translation, paragraphs [n0003]-[0015]) including two layers of substrate (machine translation, paragraph [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stoller in view of Greetham to include two layers of substrate, as taught by Liao, in order to improve moisture retention.
Regarding claim 10, Stoller in view of Greetham teaches the method of claim 8, and Stoller further teaches comprising agitating one layer of substrate (col. 6, lines 22-46), but does not explicitly teach that the substrate comprises two layers of substrate.
Liao teaches a method (see attached machine translation, paragraphs [n0003]-[0015]) including two layers of substrate (machine translation, paragraph [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stoller in view of Greetham to include two layers of substrate, as taught by Liao, in order to improve moisture retention.
Regarding claim 18, Stoller in view of Greetham teaches the method of claim 15, but does not explicitly teach wherein the substrate comprises two or more layered substrates.
Liao teaches a method (see attached machine translation, paragraphs [n0003]-[0015]) including two layers of substrate (machine translation, paragraph [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stoller in view of Greetham, such that the substrate includes two layers of substrate, as taught by Liao, in order to improve moisture retention.
Regarding claim 19, Stoller in view of Greetham and Liao teaches the method of claim 18, but does not explicitly teach wherein the defined pattern or distribution varies between the two or more layered substrates. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stoller in view of Greetham and Liao, such that the defined pattern or distribution varies between the two or more layered substrates, in order to maximize growth, and because it would have been obvious to try varying distribution of fungal inoculum between various layers to improve colonization efficiency.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoller as applied above to claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Stoller in view of Greetham teaches the method of claim 15, but does not explicitly teach wherein the defined pattern or distribution comprises a symmetrical pattern or distribution.
It is well settled, however, that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence. MPEP 2143. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stoller in view of Greetham, such that the defined pattern or distribution comprises a symmetrical pattern or distribution, in order to achieve a faster and more uniform colonization, and because it would have been obvious to try a defined pattern or distribution comprises a symmetrical pattern or distribution with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, Stoller in view of Greetham teaches the method of claim 15, but does not explicitly teach wherein the defined pattern or distribution comprises an asymmetrical distribution.
It is well settled, however, that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence. MPEP 2143. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Stoller in view of Greetham, such that the defined pattern or distribution comprises an asymmetrical distribution, in order to promote growth propagating naturally across the substrate, and because it would have been obvious to try a defined pattern or distribution comprises an asymmetrical distribution with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. As shown above, Stoller in view of Greetham teaches each and every limitation of independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 15.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Byun whose telephone number is (571) 272-3212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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. Agendas may be sent to HaeRie.Byun@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached on (571) 272-6891. 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.
/H.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/MARISA V CONLON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights