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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection. This action is made final in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winiski et al. (US 2022/0354152).
In re. claim 1, Winiski teaches a method for providing supplemental growth conditions to at least one of an inoculated substrates for the support of growing aerial mycelium materials, a growth matrix for the support of growing aerial mycelium materials, or a growing aerial mycelium material, situated on inoculated substrates or growth matrices, the method comprising: a) providing a growth environment comprising at least one of an inoculated substrate (110) for supporting the growth of aerial mycelium material (para [0172]), a growth matrix (110) for supporting the growth of aerial mycelium material (para [0167]), growing aerial mycelium material (400) (fig. 2), which growth environment supports base-line growth conditions for the growth of aerial mycelium material (para [0080]); b) conducting at least one of the following steps upon at least one of the inoculated substrate, growth matrix, or growing aerial mycelium material in situ within the growth environment (additive applied during or between mycelium growth) (para [0284]),
1) performing a physical manipulation (fragmented prior to incubating (para [0160]), displaced to storage environment prior to incubating (para [0161])) on at least one of the inoculated substrate, growth matrix, or growing aerial mycelium, such that the physical manipulation imparts a physical change in at least one of the inoculated substrate, growth matrix, or growing aerial mycelium (para [0260]), which physical change enhances at least one aerial mycelium material physical attribute when compared with aerial mycelium grown under the base-line growth conditions without the physical manipulation (para [0062]-[0064]), with the physical change being selected from the group consisting of: selectively displacing substrate, growth matrix, or growing aerial mycelium (displaced to storage environment prior to incubating (para [0161])), selectively separating, texturing, or patterning portions of growing aerial mycelium (fragmented prior to incubating) (para [0160]), selectively aligning fibers of growing aerial mycelium via either direct contact or indirect contact techniques (growth grain aligned) (para [0108]), and selectively creating spatial voids in the growing aerial mycelium (via perforating) (para [0262]);
adding chemical, biologic, or other substance to at least one of the inoculated substrate, growth matrix, or growing aerial mycelium (para [0269] and [0271]), such that the addition enhances at least one growing aerial mycelium attribute selected from the group consisting of desired color change as a result of chemical, biologic, or substance incorporation or uptake from the addition into the structure of the growing aerial mycelium (colorant) (para [0277]), or deposition on the growing aerial mycelium surface, desired improvement in nutritional content for human or animal consumption as a result of chemical, biologic, or substance incorporation or uptake from the addition into the structure of the growing aerial mycelium, or deposition on the growing aerial mycelium surface(fat, protein, amino acid, mineral, etc.) (para [0271]), desired improvement in shelf-life of final aerial-mycelium based product as a result of chemical, biologic, or substance incorporation or uptake from the addition into the structure of the growing aerial mycelium or deposition on the growing aerial mycelium surface (preservative) (para [0271]);
c) allowing growing aerial mycelium to continue growing in the growth environment for a duration sufficient to integrate the physical change or added chemical, biologic, or other substance into the growing aerial mycelium (incubation is time period producing extra-particle aerial mycelial growth) (para [0157]) in order to develop an enhanced product performance attribute selected from improved taste, shelf-life, texture, mouth-feel, and nutritional content (para [0271]).
In re. claim 2, Winiski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said grown aerial mycelium that has experienced either in situ physical manipulation or chemical, biologic, or substance addition to either a substrate, growth matrix, or growing aerial mycelium itself, is terminated and/or separated from the substrate or growth matrix (extraction from the growth matrix) (para [0289]).
In re. claim 3, Winiski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one physical manipulation is performed on the growing aerial mycelium in situ (fragmented prior to incubating (para [0160]), displaced to storage environment prior to incubating (para [0161])).
In re. claim 4, Winiski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least two physical manipulations are performed on the growing aerial mycelium in situ (fragmented prior to incubating (para [0160]), displaced to storage environment prior to incubating (para [0161])).
In re. claim 5, Winiski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one chemical, biologic, or substance addition is performed on either the inoculated substrate, growth matrix, or growing aerial mycelium in situ (para [0271]).
In re. claim 6, Winiski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least two chemical, biologic, or substance additions are performed on either the inoculated substrate, growth matrix, or growing aerial mycelium in situ (para [0271]).
In re. claim 7, Winiski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one physical manipulation (fragmented prior to incubating (para [0160]), displaced to storage environment prior to incubating (para [0161])) and one chemical, biologic, or substance addition (additive) (para [0271]) is performed on at least one of the inoculated substrate, growth matrix, or growing aerial mycelium in situ (para [0062]).
In re. claim 8, Winiski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one physical manipulation and one chemical, biologic, or substance addition is performed on at least one of the inoculated substrate, growth matrix, or growing aerial mycelium in situ concurrently in time, such that there is at least some overlap in time that such physical manipulation and chemical, biologic, or substance addition occurs (additive can be added during any one or more post-processing steps) (para [0269]).
In re. claim 9, Winiski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein there is no overlap in time that at least one physical manipulation and one chemical, biologic, or substance addition is performed on at least one of the inoculated substrate, growth matrix, or growing aerial mycelium in situ (added during incubation period, after incubation period, and during post-processing) (para [0289]-[0290]).
In re. claim 10, Winiski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one physical manipulation and one chemical, biologic, or substance addition is performed sequentially on at least one of the inoculated substrate, growth matrix, or growing aerial mycelium in situ (supplemental nutrition and/or moisture can be added during or after the fragmentation) (para [0160]).
In re. claim 11, Winiski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least two physical manipulations are performed on at least one of the inoculated substrate, growth matrix, or growing aerial mycelium in situ, wherein the at least two physical manipulations are separated temporally by a period in time in which temporal gap there are either no physical manipulations occurring, or there are different physical manipulations occurring from those of the at least two physical manipulations (displaced to storage after fragmenting) (para [0161]).
In re. claim 12, Winiski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein two of the same physical manipulations are performed on at least one of the inoculated substrate, growth matrix, or growing aerial mycelium in situ, but such physical manipulations are separated temporally by a time period of no physical manipulation (inherent time period between fragmenting into smaller portions) (para [0152]).
In re. claim 13, Winiski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least two chemical, biologic, or substance additions (additives, such as fat, protein, flavorant, colorant, preservative, etc.) (para [0271]) are performed on at least one of the inoculated substrate, growth matrix, or growing aerial mycelium in situ, wherein the at least two chemical, biologic, or substance additions are separated temporally by a period of time in which there are either no chemical, biologic, or substance additions occurring in the temporal gap, or there are different chemical, biologic, or substance additions occurring from those of the at least two chemical, biologic, or substance additions (One or more additives can be incorporated into a mycelium of the present disclosure at virtually any step(s) during or between the mycelium growth or post-processing steps described herein) (para [0284]).
In re. claim 14, Winiski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein two of the same chemical, biologic, or substance additions are performed on at least one of the inoculated substrate, growth matrix, or growing aerial mycelium in situ, but such chemical, biologic, or substance additions are separated temporally by a time period in which there is no chemical, biologic, or substance addition (when added to the mycelium (para [0284]) and to the substrate ([0285]) would have an inherent period of no addition during mycelium growth).
In re. claim 15, Winiski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a temporal period occurs between a multiplicity of either physical manipulation or chemical, biologic, or substance additions, in which either physical manipulation or chemical, biologic, or substance addition occurrences are separated by at least one temporal period in which either physical manipulation or chemical, biologic, or substance addition does not occur, and the growing aerial mycelium is left undisturbed to grow without supplemental physical manipulation or chemical, biologic, or substance addition (when added to the substrate ([0285]) would have an inherent period of no addition during mycelium growth prior to the post-processing of the mycelium (para [0260]-[0262]).
In re. claim 16, Winiski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the chemical, biologic, or substance addition in situ includes a material which imparts animal meat-like taste to the aerial mycelium (meat flavorant) (para [0273]).
In re. claim 17, Winiski teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the chemical, biologic, or substance addition in situ which imparts animal meat-like taste to the aerial mycelium reacts in the presence of a sugar and heat to form such taste (thiamine added) (para [0281]).
In re. claim 18, Winiski teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the chemical, biologic, or substance addition in situ which imparts animal meat-like taste to the aerial mycelium is thiamine (thiamine added) (para [0281]).
In re. claim 19, Winiski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the physical manipulation in situ creates either a homogeneous or heterogeneous surface topology of the growing aerial mycelium (fragmenting would inherently be either homogeneous or heterogeneous) (para [0152]).
In re. claim 20, Winiski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the physical manipulation in situ is exposure to sound waves (fragmenting and displacing inherently produce sound waves).
In re. claim 21, Winiski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the physical manipulation is a direct contact with an apparatus in situ that either compresses, slices, cuts, scores, abrades, scratches, creates voids, repositions portions of the aerial mycelium, or a combination thereof (physically fragmented, e.g., by hand, machine, or other means of applying force) (para [0152]).
In re. claim 22, Winiski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one physical manipulation of the aerial mycelium in situ is accompanied by at least one chemical, biologic, or other substance addition in situ (nutrition and/or moisture can be added during or after the fragmentation, and prior to incubating the fragmented colonized substrate in the growth environment) (para [0160]).
In re. claim 23, Winiski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one physical manipulation is performed on the growing aerial mycelium in situ (para [0160]).
In re. claim 24, Winiski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one chemical, biologic, or other substance addition is added to the growing aerial mycelium in situ (para [0271]).
In re. claim 25, Winiski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one physical manipulation and/or at least one chemical, biologic, or other substance addition is performed in situ on the growing aerial mycelium, resulting in at least one enhanced aerial mycelium attribute selected from the group consisting of targeted taste (flavorant) (para [0271]), targeted texture (meat texture) (para [0054]), increased surface heterogeneity (via perforating) (fig. 15A), enhanced color (colorant) (para [0271]), enhanced mouth feel (meat texture) (para [0054]), enhanced tensile strength (para [0124]), and enhanced void space in the aerial mycelium (via perforating) (fig. 15A) when compared with that achieved under base-line growth conditions without such supplemental condition change of either physical manipulation and/or at least one chemical, biologic, or other substance addition (as recited in the specified paragraphs above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Winiski does not teach or suggest the present invention's requirement of a supplemental physical or chemical intervention performed specifically during the active growth phase to alter the organism's growth trajectory.
As stated in Winiski, fragmenting and displacing to the storage environment can occur before incubation (para [0160]-[0161]) and the additive can be added during incubation (para [0289]). As stated in paragraph [0157], incubation is a time period producing extra-particle aerial mycelial growth. As the recited interventions occur before or during the incubation period in which growth of extra-particle aerial mycelial occurs, the argument is considered non-persuasive.
Applicant argues the physical manipulations (e.g., cutting, compressing) and substance additions cited by the Office Action in Winiski are expressly characterized by that reference as "Post-Processing Steps" typically performed after the mycelium has already been extracted from the growth matrix. For example, Winiski describes adding flavorants or cutting material into strips as steps to modify a finished product that has completed its growth cycle.
As the physical modifications of cutting and compressing have been remapped to the fragmenting and displacing as recited above, the argument is considered moot.
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 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 Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/C.D.H./
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights