DETAILED ACTION
The Office acknowledges receipt of the Applicant’s response filed 12 February 2026. No claim amendments were submitted with the response of 12 February 2026. As such, the previous claims of 18 September 2025 are deemed to be pending.
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 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-11, 16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (US 9,856,608 B1) hereinafter referred to as Chung in view of Yang et al. (CN 110453519 A) hereinafter referred to as Yang.
*Note* see Office provided translation of Yang with regards to citations used in the Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Chung discloses a method for manufacturing a container (300, 400, or 500) for the storage, transport and/or sale of mushrooms (col. 6 lines 9-19), said method comprising the steps of:
e) transferring (fig. 1; col. 4 lines 49-59) the pulp (104, 210; col. 5 lines 36-38) into a die (col. 4 lines 49-59 – “a first stage 101 in which mold (not shown for clarity) in the form of a mirror image of the product to be manufactured is envelop”);
f) pressing the pulp in the die, resulting in a transfer mold (col. 4 line 49 – col. 5 line 4 – “a heated press (not shown) and the layer 130 is compressed and dried to a desired thickness”); and,
g) cooling and drying the transfer mold (col. 4 line 49 – col. 5 line 4 – “the layer 130 is compressed and dried to a desired thickness”; col. 5 lines 30-35 – The cooling step is deemed to be inherently disclosed as the typical ranges of temperature for the slurry/pulp is 100+ Celsius. The containers are eventually returned to a room temperature to effectuate the storing of product cited in the reference and thus the cooling step is inherently disclosed), resulting in a container for the storage, transport and/or sale of mushrooms.
Wherein the Applicant may argue that cooling the transfer mold is not inherently disclosed, the Office previously alternatively took official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to cool the transfer mold. The method as it was disclosed by Chung involves heating the pulp and the mold. It would have been necessary to cool the mold and pulp at a later point to at least a room temperature so as to facilitate the storage and transport of the container. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice (MPEP 2144.03 C).
Chung discloses using a pulp in the for manufacturing a container, but fails to disclose a) collecting a residual substrate derived from the growing of mushrooms on a substrate; b) optionally adding water to the residual substrate; c) mixing the residual substrate obtained from step a) or step b) to form a pulp; d) cooking the pulp; e) transferring the pulp into a die.
However, Yang teaches a) collecting a residual substrate derived from the growing of mushrooms on a substrate (paragraph 0007 – “The most commonly used recycling model for mushroom residue is ‘plant substrate – edible fungi - mushroom residue - mushroom residue organic fertilizer - planting industry’”; paragraphs 0043-0044; Claim 1, step 1); b) optionally adding water to the residual substrate (paragraphs 0070-0071; paragraph 0020; Claim 1, step 2); c) mixing the residual substrate obtained from step a) or step b) to form a pulp (paragraph 0073; alternatively, also paragraph 0090); d) cooking the pulp (paragraph 0073; paragraph 0020; Claim 1, step 2); e) transferring the pulp into a die (paragraphs 0106-0107).
Given the teachings of Yang (paragraphs 0004-0006), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the method of making a container with pulp of Chung with the teachings of Yang which teach using pulp formed from the growing of mushrooms on a substrate. Doing so would help to reduce waste of grown mushrooms thus cutting costs and minimizing environmental impact.
Regarding claim 2, Chung as modified by Yang above discloses further comprising, before step a), the steps of: a1) inoculating a substrate (Yang - paragraph 0045), usable for growing mushrooms, with mycelium; a2) growing the mycelium in the substrate, with formation of the mushroom fruiting bodies on top of the substrate and a residual substrate comprising a fermented substrate (Yang - paragraphs 0007-0008) and the grown mycelium; and, a3) separating the mushroom fruiting bodies and the residual substrate (Yang - paragraphs 0020-0021 – “mushroom sticks” requires the removing of the fruit).
Regarding claim 3, Chung as modified by Yang above discloses the mushrooms are selected from white mushroom, chestnut mushroom, shiitake (Yang - paragraphs 0005-0006, 0033, 0044-0045, 0066), wood blewit, nameko, parasol mushroom, horse mushroom, beech mushroom, chanterelle mushroom, enoli, morel, oyster mushroom (Yang - paragraph 0005), pied de mouton, pom pom blanc, portabella, and trompette de la mort.
Regarding claim 7, Chung as modified by Yang above discloses wherein in step c) the residual substrate is mixed with an additional pulp (Yang - paragraph 0090, 0095).
Regarding claim 8, Chung as modified by Yang above discloses wherein the substrate comprises cellulose, lignin and/or hemicellulose (Yang – paragraphs 0006, 0012, 0023, 0044, 0045).
Regarding claim 9, Chung as modified by Yang above discloses wherein the transfer mold comprises a round, oval, square, rectangular, polygonal, multiplex, hexagonal, octagonal shape, or combination thereof (Chung – figs. 3-6, 10-11 and 13-15; col. 1 lines 55-56; col. 9 line 67 – col. 10 line 1).
Regarding claim 10, Chung as modified by Yang above discloses the transfer mold comprises a perimeter of about 10-200 cm and a height of about 1-20 cm (Chung - col. 6 lines 27-36; col. 1 lines 55-56).
Regarding claim 11, Chung as modified by Yang above discloses a container (Chung - 300, 400, or 500; Yang – paragraphs 0106-0107) manufactured by the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, Chung as modified by Yang above discloses wherein the mushrooms are from the Agaricus bisporus group (Yang – paragraph 0005 – “button mushrooms” are a known mushroom from the Agaricus bisporus group).
Regarding claim 18, Chung as modified by Yang above discloses wherein the additional pulp is a pulp based on paper (Yang - paragraph 0090, 0095).
Regarding claim 19, Chung as modified by Yang above discloses wherein the container contains mushrooms (Chung - col. 6 lines 9-19).
The Office deems Chung to disclose the container contains mushrooms. Wherein the Applicant may argue that this isn’t disclosed the Office previously alternatively took official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to filing the container with mushrooms. Chung already discloses using the container for storing mushrooms. Mushrooms were a notoriously well-known commodity and filling the container with mushrooms would provide end customers with a desired product. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice (MPEP 2144.03 C).
Claim(s) 4-6, 15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (US 9,856,608 B1) in view of Yang (CN 110453519 A) alternatively in further view of Lapierre et al. (US 2016/013582 A1) hereinafter referred to as Lapierre.
Regarding claim 4, Chung as modified by Yang discloses the mushrooms, from which the residual substrate is collected (Yang - paragraph 0066), are of the same Class, Order, Family, Genus, and/or Species as the mushrooms that are stored, transported and/or sold in the container (Yang – paragraph 0005).
Chung discloses that mushrooms are stored for sale, but does not elaborate on what type of mushrooms they are, however, Yang teaches that the same mushrooms that are used for the creation of the pulp for a container (paragraph 0066 – “shiitake”), are also widely grown for consumption (paragraph 0005). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the same mushrooms (e.g. shiitake mushrooms), stored, transported and/or sold in the same container that is made from them so as to help reduce waste.
Wherein the Applicant may argue that Yang does not explicitly teach that the same mushrooms (e.g. shitake mushrooms) are stored, transported and/or sold in the container, the Office further points to Lapierre.
Lapierre teaches wherein shitake mushrooms are stored, transported and/or sold in the container (Abstract; paragraphs 0024, 0040, 0091; claim 18).
Given the teachings of Lapierre, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the method of Chung as modified by Yang store, transport and/or sell shiitake mushrooms (i.e. the same mushrooms used by Yang for the creation of the pulp). Shiitake mushrooms were a notoriously well-known type of edible mushroom and thus would be a desirable commodity to store, transport and sell. Yang already is concerned about reducing waste, so having the container made out of the same mushrooms it was containing would further that goal of reducing waste by not introducing new types of mushrooms into the production process.
Regarding claim 5, Chung as modified by Yang above discloses the substrate comprises a compost layer (Yang – paragraphs 0007, 0013, 0045) and optionally a mushroom growing layer on top of the compost layer.
The Office deems Chung as modified by Yang to disclose the limitations of the claim. Wherein the Applicant may argue that Chung as modified by Yang does not disclose the substrate comprises a compost layer, Lapierre alternatively teaches a compost layer (paragraphs 0023, 0025, 0028-0031).
Given the teachings of Lapierre, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the method of Chung as modified by Yang incorporate a compost layer. The Yang already teaches using a substrate to grow the mushrooms used in the manufacture of a pulp. Lapierre further teaches that it was well-known to make use of a compost layer in the growth of said mushrooms. Doing so would provide the mushrooms with the conditions they need to properly grow.
Regarding claim 6, Chung as modified by Yang (and alternatively Lapierre) discloses the compost layer comprises slurry (Yang – paragraph 0101; Lapierre – paragraph 0074), solid manure (Yang – paragraph 0007; Lapierre – paragraph 0074), straw (Yang – paragraph 0005; Lapierre – paragraph 0074), hay, and/or wood (paragraph 0044-0045; Lapierre – paragraph 0073).
Regarding claim 15, Chung as modified by Yang above discloses a method for the storage, transport and/or sale of mushrooms (Chung - col. 6 lines 9-19), said method comprising the steps of:
i) manufacturing a container by the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above);
ii) filling the container obtained from step i) with harvested mushroom fruiting bodies (Chung - col. 6 lines 9-19 – Filling the container is an inherent step in the mushrooms being located within the container);
iii) optionally closing the container with a transparent upper portion;
iv) optionally transporting the container with the mushroom fruiting bodies to the place of sale; and,
v) optionally selling the container with the mushroom fruiting bodies to an intermediary and/or consumer.
The Office deems Chung to disclose filling the container obtained from step i) with harvested mushroom fruiting bodies. Wherein the Applicant may argue that this isn’t disclosed the Office previously alternatively took official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to include the step of filing the container with harvested mushroom fruiting bodies. Chung already discloses using the container for storing mushrooms. Mushroom fruiting bodies are the part of the mushroom that is typically eaten by a consumer and therefore it would have been obvious to include that portion of the mushroom in the container as it would be the part that was desired to be eaten. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice (MPEP 2144.03 C).
The Office deems the “optionally” steps to not be a requirement of the claim. Wherein the Applicant may argue that the “optionally” steps are required to be present, the Office alternatively points to Lapierre.
Lapierre teaches iii) optionally closing the container with a transparent upper portion (claim 14); iv) optionally transporting the container with the mushroom fruiting bodies to the place of sale (claim 14); and, v) optionally selling the container with the mushroom fruiting bodies to an intermediary and/or consumer (claim 14).
Regarding claim 17, Chung as modified by Yang above discloses mushrooms, but fails to disclose wherein the mushrooms are white mushrooms or chestnut mushrooms.
However, Lapierre teaches wherein the mushrooms are white mushrooms or chestnut mushrooms (paragraphs 0024, 0069, 0091).
Given the teachings of Lapierre, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the mushrooms be white or chestnut mushrooms. Such types of mushrooms were common in the art and were mass produced and edible. Thus, reducing waste, which is the purpose of the Yang reference, would be applicable to those mushrooms as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the invention of Chung with the teachings of Yang. The Applicant argues that Yang there would not be motivation to us “a pulp as disclosed in Yang et al. for manufacturing a container for storing mushrooms”.
The Office is not persuaded by the Applicant’s reasoning. Chung discloses a method of making a container for the storage, transport and/or sale of mushrooms using a pulp made from a slurry (Chung – Abstract; col. 4 line 49 – col. 5 line 38; col. 6 lines 9-19). Yang further teaches creating a “packaging corrugating medium” (Yang - Abstract) via a pulp made from residual substrate derived from the growing of mushrooms on a substrate (Yang – paragraphs 0007, 0043-0044, 0070-0071, 0090, 0106-0107).
Both prior art references are concerned with the same basic problem of manufacturing a container from a pulp material. The Applicant’s argument that Yang is not used for storing mushrooms is both irrelevant and tries to draw an overly narrow scope around the field of the invention. It is irrelevant because the claim does not specifically recite that the container positively holds the mushrooms. The claim only recites that the container be “for the storage, transport and/or sale of mushrooms”. This is a limitation of Intended Use, which means that the prior art only needs to show the capability of being used in such a fashion. Furthermore, the base reference of Chung already establishes a container is intended to be used in such a fashion. That Yang is silent as to specifically what products it might be used with does not negate it as a valid reference to combine with Chung. As previously noted, both are concerned with the same fundamental problem of constructing a container from a pulp material. Yang’s teachings are obvious because they provide an alternative pulp material to fashion a container from. This alternative material has the added benefit asserted by Yang (paragraphs 0004-0006) of helping to reduce waste. Nearly all manufacturing is interested in the reducing of material waste. Finding a use for excess mushroom material and substrate after growing would help to reduce cost, cut down on waste and minimize environmental impact.
The Applicant argues that the combination would not have had a reasonable expectation of success. This argument is unpersuasive as there would be a very clear expectation of success given that both references are concerned with the same type of problem. That problem being making a packaging medium from a pulp material. The Applicant argues that combining Yang with Chung would result in too much moisture absorption which would degrade hoop strength of the container. The Office, having reviewed the cited passages, is not convinced that this would render an ineffective final product. Chung does note that moisture can be a concern, but still notes that mushrooms are still carried on such surfaces. Yang has a porous structure, but it is not cited as being unsuitable for any particular application. Furthermore, the base reference of Chung already provides for a remedy to this potential problem in applying a moisture repellant surface coating (Chung – col. 6 line 24). As such, the combination (with the moisture repellant surface) would still have the properties necessary to adequately transport mushrooms even if the Office granted the Applicant’s conclusions that the material was not suitable due to moisture absorption properties. As it stands, the Office does not grant these conclusions as there is no explicit teaching that it would render the combination unsuitable for being a container capable of transporting mushrooms. The motivation of cost, waste and environmental savings would not be effected by this argument because even if the substitute pulp was not quite as robust as the base reference pulp (which the Office does not concede), it would still serve a benefit in terms of cost and waste savings while providing a medium that would still serve as an effective packaging medium.
The Applicant argues that there are unexpected benefits to their present invention. This line of argument is not persuasive because the Office has a different reason for combining the references which are supported by the disclosure of the prior art and the understanding of the field of art as a whole. The Office’s motivation (i.e. reducing waste), is reason enough to combine the two references. This combination results in the Applicant’s claimed invention as written. That the Applicant may have arrived at their invention for a different reason or different benefit does not obliviate the cited prior art combination and its teachings.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11a-7p.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/ANDREW M TECCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731