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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/4/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2025 and 4/13/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-16 and 19-22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "one or more selected from the group consisting of a calcium compound, a magnesium compound, and a sodium compound" in lines 2-3. Further, in lines 5-10, claim 1 recites "the magnesium compound comprises one or more selected from magnesium carbonate, magnesium hydroxide, magnesium oxide and magnesium silicate, the sodium compound comprises one or more selected from sodium hydrogen carbonate and sodium alginate, and the calcium compound comprises one or more selected from calcium hydroxide, calcium carbonate and calcium silicate". Thus, it is unclear which and how many compounds are required since the claim initially only requires one of a calcium compound, a magnesium compound, and a sodium compound, but the remaining claim language requires a specific calcium compound, magnesium compound, and sodium compound.
Claims 2, 5-16 and 19-22 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,010,954, as cited by Applicant in IDS 2/10/2025).
For claim 23, Nakamura et al. discloses an additive comprising an extender (Col. 3, lines 60-64) and an antacid (Col. 4, lines 9-12), wherein the antacid comprises an aluminum compound and calcium hydroxide (Col. 4, lines 28-32), wherein the antacid comprises the calcium hydroxide in a content of 65 parts or more by weight of based on a total weight of the antacid (Col. 10, lines 19-25: calcium hydroxide at a content of 79%).
For claim 24, Nakamura et al. discloses the additive according to claim 23, wherein the antacid further comprises magnesium hydroxide (Col. 4, line 40 and Col. 10, line 30).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusakabe et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,018,301) in view of Tokubuchi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0213656).
For claim 1, Kusakabe et al. discloses an additive, the additive comprising an extender and an antacid (Col. 1, lines 37-43: aluminum compounds added to the sawdust medium); wherein the antacid comprises an aluminum compound (Col. 1, lines 37-39); and one or more selected from a calcium compound, a magnesium compound, and a sodium compound (Col. 2, lines 32-62: “the suitable mixing ratio of aluminum and/or an aluminum compound to sawdust” and “aluminum or any of the aluminum compounds may be used either alone or in combination”); and a dry weight ratio of the extender to the antacid is 99.5 : 0.5 to 10 : 90 (Col. 2, lines 34-57: “the suitable mixing ratio of aluminum and/or an aluminum compound to sawdust” such that Col. 2, lines 38-40 discloses “When magnesium aluminometasilicate is used, for example, the weight ratio is preferably 1~20:100, most preferably 7~13:100.” which is within the claimed dry weight ratio when 90 extender : 10 antacid = 100 sawdust : 11.1111 aluminum and magnesium aluminometasilicate). Kusakabe et al. fails to specifically show the magnesium compound comprises one or more selected from magnesium carbonate. magnesium hydroxide, magnesium oxide and magnesium silicate, the sodium compound comprises one or more selected from sodium hydrogen carbonate and sodium alginate, and the calcium compound comprises one or more selected from calcium hydroxide, calcium carbonate and calcium silicate.
Tokubuchi et al. teaches an additive, the additive comprising one or more selected from the group consisting of a calcium compound, a magnesium compound, and a sodium compound; the magnesium compound comprises one or more selected from magnesium carbonate. magnesium hydroxide, magnesium oxide (as discussed in [0021]) and magnesium silicate, the sodium compound comprises one or more selected from sodium hydrogen carbonate (as discussed in [0030]) and sodium alginate, and the calcium compound comprises one or more selected from calcium hydroxide, calcium carbonate (as discussed in [0012]) and calcium silicate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the additive of Kusakabe et al. to include each of a calcium compound, a magnesium compound, and a sodium compound as taught by Tokubuchi et al. for the advantage of producing “excellent plant growth regulating effects on the crops” (Tokubuchi et al. as discussed [0009]).
For claim 2, Kusakabe et al. as modified by Tokubuchi et al. disclose the additive according to claim 1, wherein the extender comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of sawdust powder, corn cob meal, bagasse, beet waste, okara, coffee grounds, soybean hull, rice bran, wheat bran, and cottonseed hull (Kusakabe et al. Col. 2, lines 16-39).
For claim 8, Kusakabe et al. as modified by Tokubuchi et al. disclose the additive according to claim 1, wherein a dry weight ratio of the extender to the antacid is 98.4 : 1.6 to 10 : 90 (Kusakabe et al. Col. 2, lines 34-57: “the suitable mixing ratio of aluminum and/or an aluminum compound to sawdust” such that Col. 2, lines 38-40 discloses “When magnesium aluminometasilicate is used, for example, the weight ratio is preferably 1~20:100, most preferably 7~13:100.” which is within the claimed dry weight ratio when 90 extender : 10 antacid = 100 sawdust : 11.1111 aluminum and magnesium aluminometasilicate).
For claim 9, Kusakabe et al. as modified by Tokubuchi et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein the additive has a repose angle of 50 degrees or less. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the additive of Kusakabe et al. and Tokubuchi et al. to include the additive having a repose angle of 50 degrees or less, for the advantage of improving flowability and ability to mix with a base material, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 10, Kusakabe et al. as modified by Tokubuchi et al. disclose a method for producing a mushroom culture medium, the method comprising: mixing an extender and an antacid to obtain an additive for a mushroom culture medium (Kusakabe et al. Col. 1, lines 37-43: aluminum compounds added to the sawdust medium); and mixing the additive of claim 1 and a base material (Kusakabe et al. Col 2, lines 16-21: sawdust and “rice bran” or “soybean meal”) for a culture medium to obtain a mushroom culture medium (Kusakabe et al. Col. 1, lines 17-28).
For claims 12-14, Kusakabe et al. as modified by Tokubuchi et al. disclose the additive according to claim 1, wherein the antacid comprises an aluminum compound and a calcium compound; an aluminum compound and a magnesium compound; an aluminum compound and a sodium compound (Kusakabe et al. Col. 2, lines 32-62: “the suitable mixing ratio of aluminum and/or an aluminum compound to sawdust” and “aluminum or any of the aluminum compounds may be used wither alone or in combination”).
For claim 15, Kusakabe et al. as modified by Tokubuchi et al. disclose the additive according to claim 1, wherein the antacid excludes at least one selected from the group consisting of calcium aluminosilicate and magnesium aluminometasilicate (Kusakabe et al. Col. 2, lines 32-62: such that sodium aluminosilicate could alternatively be selected).
Claims 5-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusakabe et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,018,301) in view of Tokubuchi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0213656), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Nakamura et al. (CN 114258264 A).
For claim 5, Kusakabe et al. as modified by Tokubuchi et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein the content of aluminum atoms in the antacid is 60% by weight or less in terms of oxides based on the total weight of the antacid. Nakamura et al. teaches an additive, the additive comprising an extender (paragraphs 7-8 on page 5) and an antacid (last paragraph on page 2), wherein the content of aluminum atoms in the antacid is 60% by weight or less in terms of oxides based on the total weight of the antacid (last paragraph on page 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the content of aluminum atoms in the antacid of Kusakabe et al. and Tokubuchi et al. to include 60% by weight or less in terms of oxides as taught by Nakamura et al. for the advantage of optimizing the pH for mushroom cultivation (Nakamura as discussed in the last paragraph on page 5).
For claim 6, Kusakabe et al. as modified by Tokubuchi et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein the content of calcium atoms in the antacid is 60% by weight or less in terms of oxides based on the total weight of the antacid. Nakamura et al. teaches an additive, the additive comprising an extender (paragraphs 7-8 on page 5) and an antacid (last paragraph on page 2), wherein the content of calcium atoms in the antacid is 60% by weight or less in terms of oxides based on the total weight of the antacid (last paragraph on page 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the content of calcium atoms in the antacid of Kusakabe et al. and Tokubuchi et al. to include 60% by weight or less in terms of oxides as taught by Nakamura et al. for the advantage of optimizing the pH for mushroom cultivation (Nakamura as discussed in the last paragraph on page 5).
For claim 7, Kusakabe et al. as modified by Tokubuchi et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein the content of magnesium atoms in the antacid is 30% by weight or less in terms of oxides based on the total weight of the antacid. Nakamura et al. teaches an additive, the additive comprising an extender (paragraphs 7-8 on page 5) and an antacid (last paragraph on page 2), wherein the content of magnesium atoms in the antacid is 30% by weight or less in terms of oxides based on the total weight of the antacid (last paragraph on page 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the content of magnesium atoms in the antacid of Kusakabe et al. and Tokubuchi et al. to include 30% by weight or less in terms of oxides as taught by Nakamura et al. for the advantage of optimizing the pH for mushroom cultivation (Nakamura as discussed in the last paragraph on page 5).
For claim 11, Kusakabe et al. as modified by Tokubuchi et al. disclose the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein a moisture content is from 0% to 30% by weight of a total amount of the additive. Nakamura et al. teaches an additive, the additive comprising an extender (paragraphs 7-8 on page 5) and an antacid (last paragraph on page 2), wherein a moisture content in the additive is from 0% to 30% by weight of a total amount of the additive (last paragraph of page 10 shows the additive content comprising aluminum hydroxide 18.3 wt %, calcium hydroxide 64.5 wt % and magnesium carbonate 17.2 wt %, thus 0% moisture content by weight). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the moisture content of the additive of Kusakabe et al. and Tokubuchi et al. to include from 0% to 30% by weight as taught by Nakamura et al. for the advantage of preventing fungal growth.
Claims 16 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (CN 114258264 A) in view of Kusakabe et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,018,301).
For claim 16, Nakamura et al. discloses an additive comprising an extender (paragraphs 7-8 on page 5) and an antacid (last paragraph on page 2), wherein the antacid comprises an aluminum compound (second and fifth paragraphs on page 3); and one or more selected from the group consisting of calcium hydroxide and magnesium hydroxide (last paragraph on page 3). Nakamura et al. fails to show a dry weight ratio of the extender to the antacid (extender: antacid) is 99.5 : 0.5 to 10: 90.
Kusakabe et al. teaches an additive, the additive comprising an extender and an antacid (Col. 1, lines 37-43: aluminum compounds added to the sawdust medium); wherein a dry weight ratio of the extender to the antacid (extender: antacid) is 99.5 : 0.5 to 10 : 90 (Col. 2, lines 34-57: “the suitable mixing ratio of aluminum and/or an aluminum an aluminum compound to sawdust” such that Col. 2, lines 38-40 discloses “When magnesium aluminometasilicate is used, for example, the weight ratio is preferably 1~20:100, most preferably 7~13:100.” which is within the claimed dry weight ratio when 90 extender : 10 antacid = 100 sawdust : 11.1111 aluminum and magnesium aluminometasilicate). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the additive of Nakamura et al. to include a dry weight ratio of 99.5 : 0.5 to 10: 90 as taught by Kusakabe et al. for the advantage of obtaining optimum cultivation conditions for different types of mushrooms.
Nakamura et al. fails to show wherein the additive has a repose angle of the additive for a mushroom culture medium is 46 degrees or less. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the additive of Nakamura et al. and Kusakabe et al. to include the additive having a repose angle of the additive for a mushroom culture medium is 46 degrees or less, for the advantage of improving flowability and ability to mix with a base material, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 19, Nakamura et al. as modified by Kusakabe et al. disclose the additive according to claim 16, wherein a moisture content in the additive is from 0% to 30% by weight of a total amount of the additive (Nakamura et al. last paragraph of page 10 shows the additive content comprising aluminum hydroxide 18.3 wt %, calcium hydroxide 64.5 wt % and magnesium carbonate 17.2 wt %, thus 0% moisture content by weight).
For claim 20, Nakamura et al. as modified by Kusakabe et al. disclose the additive according to claim 16, wherein the content of aluminum atoms in the antacid is 60% by weight or less in terms of oxides based on the total weight of the antacid (Nakamura et al. last paragraph on page 5).
For claim 21, Nakamura et al. as modified by Kusakabe et al. disclose the additive according to claim 16, wherein the content of calcium atoms in the antacid is 60% by weight or less in terms of oxides based on the total weight of the antacid (Nakamura et al. last paragraph on page 5).
For claim 22, Nakamura et al. as modified by Kusakabe et al. disclose the additive according to claim 16, wherein the content of magnesium atoms in the antacid is 30% by weight or less in terms of oxides based on the total weight of the antacid (Nakamura et al. last paragraph on page 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 5-16, 19-22 have been considered but 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE A CLERKLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7611. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-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, Peter Poon can be reached at 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.
/DANIELLE A CLERKLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights