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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-15 filed in a preliminary amendment on 3/17/2025 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2024 and 2/14/2025 was filed before the first Office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1,9 and dependent claims 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 phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 9 recites “alga” without antecedent basis, rendering the claim indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3-7 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huggins (US2019/0373935A1) in view of Zhou et al. (CN114258978A) and further in view of Smith (WO2021124164A1).
Regarding claims 1,3-7, Huggins teaches culturing a fungus to produce a fibrous mycelium mass, harvesting/dewatering the mycelium by filtration or pressing, adding food ingredients and forming the recovered fibrous mycelium into meat substitutes. Zhou teaches adding transglutaminase (TG) to fungal mycelium in making an artificial meat product , followed by molding and crosslinking to improve fibrous, chewy meat-like characteristics. Smith further teaches treating masses of branching fungal hyphae with bonding/crosslinking agents, including transglutaminase [0007] and discloses crosslinking masses of branching hyphae.
A person of ordinary skill in the art looking to make whole-cut food substitutes from fungi would have been motivated to apply the TG crosslinking treatment of Zhou and Huggins to improve meat-like fibrous structure, with a reasonable expectation of success. The combination uses a known crosslinking treatment for its known structural function and would have provided a reasonable expectation of producing a cohesive, shaped whole cut structure.
Although Smith is not specifically directed to food products it is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed invention because it is directed to bonding and crosslinking the same material that is masses of branching fungal hyphae to obtain a cohesive whole cut structure. A person seeking to improve the structural integrity of the harvested fibrous mycelium food substitute of Huggins therefore would reasonably have considered Smith’s teaching of crosslinking fungal hyphae including its identification of transglutaminase as a suitable bonding agent particularly in view of Zhou’s separate teaching of transglutaminase crosslinking in a fungal meat substitute product.
Regarding claim 5, one of ordinary skill in the art would add sufficient TG to obtain a desired crosslinking in the product.
Regarding claim 6, both Huggins and Zhou disclose adding food ingredients/additives as claimed.
Regarding claims 10-15 a product in modified Huggins is expected to meet the claimed limitations, having been made by a method as claimed.
Claims 2, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Huggins in view of Zhou and Smith as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yuan et al. (US2012028265A1).
Higgins, Zhou and Smith do not specifically disclose coculture with algae, bacteria. Yuan however teaches coculturing fungus and algae in a common growth medium whereby the algae become associated with the fungus.
It would have been obvious to employ this known co-cultivation process to obtain a combined fungal /algal fungal/bacterial or combinations to make biomass for use as or in a food substitute product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1-15 are therefore prima facie obvious in view of the art.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Subbalakshmi Prakash whose telephone number is (571)270-3685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/SUBBALAKSHMI PRAKASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights