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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 8 and 15 is/are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a continuous adjustment device” in claims 1, 8 and 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the limitation "a comparison processor coupled to a bioreactor cloud platform and configured to compare video data and image data of mycelium spores captured from within a bioreactor cartridge during cultivation of the mycelium spores to historical mycelium spore cultivation video and image data representing prior growth patterns, and to determine one or more growth rates based on the comparison, wherein the comparison
processor is further configured to predict a harvest result of the mycelium cultivation based on the determined one or more growth rates," however, said limitation fails to comply with written description requirement. The instant specification, as originally filed, discloses processors perform analytics to determine mushroom culture status. Artificial intelligence and machine learning analyze photographic videos and images throughout the culturing to establish predictable growth patterns and rates of growth to compare current conditions with database-stored growth patterns and rates of growth (see paragraph [149]). The remote server may generate reports of the production of the bioreactor cultivation and extraction results (paragraph 150). However, the claims and instant specification are silent regarding comprising video images with previously stored video images. The instant specification is silent regarding the algorithms for performing such analysis. In fact, paragraph 149 is the only instance where video image analysis is discussed. Paragraph 149 merely discusses that photographic videos and images are analyzed but does not discuss the process for performing such analysis. As such, said limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claim(s) 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected by virtue of their dependency upon a rejected base claim. Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the limitation "a continuous adjustment device coupled to the bioreactor cloud platform configured to use the empirical data and the harvest results to determine and make adjustments in real-time of cultivation settings to produce predetermined optimized harvest results," however, said limitation fails to comply with written description requirement. While the instant specification, as originally filed, discloses a cloud control system configured to analyze empirical data (see Abstract), the specification is silent regarding a continuous adjustment device. Further, it is unclear as to the structure that comprise the claimed continuous adjustment device. As such, said limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 12 recites the limitation " remote server is configured to analyze the empirical data to identify past configurations that produced desired outcome," however, said limitation fails to comply with written description requirement. The instant specification, as originally filed, discloses a remote server coupled to a computer processors, databases and other appropriate devices (see paragraph 150). The remote server may generate reports of the production of the bioreactor cultivation and extraction results (paragraph 150). However, the claims and instant specification are silent regarding a remote sever that stores empirical data related to cultivation of mycelium spores. As such, said limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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(s) 1-20 is/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.
In claims 1, 8 and 15, the removal bioreactor cartridge is not positively recited in the claims. However, the claims require elements of the portable and compact bioreactor to be coupled to the bioreactor cartridge. Thus, it is unclear if the bioreactor cartridge is a required element of the claimed portable and compact bioreactor. Further clarification is requested and appropriate correction is required. Claim(s) 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected by virtue of their dependency upon a rejected base claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a bioreactor cartridge" in line 13-14. However, it is unclear if the bioreactor cartridge is referring to the bioreactor cartridge recited earlier in the claim or is an additional bioreactor cartridge.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the limitation "the monitored data." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the limitation "the bioreactor" in line 28. However, it is unclear if the bioreactor is referring to the bioreactor chamber or the removable bioreactor cartridge.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the limitation "heating elements." However, it is unclear if the heating elements are referring to the heating element coil recited earlier in the claim or are additional elements. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted to be referring to the previously recited heating element coil.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the remote server" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the empirical data" in line 4. However, it is unclear if the empirical data is referring to the empirical data recited earlier in the claim 1 or the empirical data remote recited in claim 5.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a bioreactor cartridge" in line 13-14. However, it is unclear if the bioreactor cartridge is referring to the bioreactor cartridge recited earlier in the claim or is an additional bioreactor cartridge.
Claim(s) 5-6, 12-13 and 19 recite the limitation "the remote server." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, claim limitation “continuous adjustment device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the instant specification, as originally filed, discloses a cloud control system configured to analyze empirical data (see Abstract), the specification is silent regarding a continuous adjustment device. Further, it is unclear as to the structure that comprise the claimed continuous adjustment device. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "a bioreactor cartridge" in line 13-14. However, it is unclear if the bioreactor cartridge is referring to the bioreactor cartridge recited earlier in the claim or is an additional bioreactor cartridge.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the remote server" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick et al. (US 2022/0002652; hereinafter “Patrick”) in view of Herring et al. (US 2012/0028325; hereinafter “Herring”), Alessandro et al. (BR 10-2012-020335-B1 – with English machine translation; hereinafter “Alessandro”) and Du et al. (CN 107632563; hereinafter “Du”).
It is noted that while the invention contains a bioreactor cartridge, the bioreactor cartridge is not positively recited in the instant claims.
Regarding claim 1, Patrick discloses a portable and compact bioreactor for controlled cultivation of mycelium spores ([0080]), comprising: a bioreactor configured to receive a removable bioreactor cartridge (see FIG. 7: bioreactor cartridge 710 is coupled to the a base of the automated fermentation system 700 (corresponds to the instant bioreactor); wherein the bioreactor cartridge incudes an injection port (head-plate 101 of a bioreactor comprises inputs for substrate and nutrients into the bioreactor; FIG. 1; [0032]), and contains a sterile substrate comprising organic materials as a nutrient (interior of the bioreactor contains a substrate and is maintained in a sterile condition; [0026], [00039], [0057], [0081]), and wherein the injection port is a sealed (FIG. 2: feeds 207; [0041]) configured to introduce the mycelium spores and predetermined nutrients into the sterile growing medium substrate while preventing contamination (head-plate comprises coupling features that provide a sterile interface to a plurality of components; [0006], [0032],[0039], [0081]; head-plate 101 of the bioreactor comprises feeds inlets for substrate, inoculum and nutrients into the bioreactor; FIG. 1; [0032]); a comparison processor coupled to a bioreactor cloud platform (control board comprising one or more processors coupled to a cloud computing network that is coupled to the server; [0091]) and configured to compare video data and image data of mycelium spores captured from within a bioreactor cartridge during cultivation of the mycelium spores to historical mycelium spore cultivation video and image data representing prior growth patterns, and to determine one or more growth rates based on the comparison, wherein the comparison processor is further configured to predict a harvest result of the mycelium cultivation based on the determined one or more growth rates (control board comprising one or more processors coupled to the bioreactor and configured to operations of the bioreactor; [0091]-[0092], [0097], [0103]; further, it should be noted that the instant specification is silent to any specific programming language required to be executed by the processor; and therefore, the processor is treated as a general purpose processor); a bioreactor microcontroller coupled to the bioreactor cartridge configured to monitor agitation speed, heated temperature, oxygen levels, nutrient levels, growth rates and harvest results from a plurality of sensors and user growth observations and harvest results input, wherein the monitored data is empirical data stored and automatically transmitted to the bioreactor cloud platform and a user mobile device (control board comprising one or more processors coupled to the bioreactor and configured to control flow of gas, fluids and feed inputs (nutrients) into the bioreactor, and heat; [0091]-[0092], [0097], [0103]; further, it should be noted that the instant specification is silent to any specific programming language required to be executed by the processor; and therefore, the processor is treated as a general purpose processor); a continuous adjustment device coupled to the bioreactor cloud platform configured to use the empirical data and the harvest results to determine and make adjustments in real-time of cultivation settings to produce predetermined optimized harvest results (control board comprising one or more processors coupled to the bioreactor and configured to operations of the bioreactor; [0091]-[0092], [0097], [0103]; further, it should be noted that the instant specification is silent to any specific programming language required to be executed by the processor; and therefore, the processor is treated as a general purpose processor); a heating element coupled to the bioreactor microcontroller configured to heat the sterile substrate within the bioreactor cartridge to a range of predetermined temperature ([0092], [0103]); an air pump coupled to the bioreactor cartridge and to the bioreactor microcontroller configured to supply oxygenation of the mycelium spores ([0041], [0098]); an agitator located within the bioreactor cartridge and coupled to a motor driver coupled to the bioreactor microcontroller and configured to rotate at a predetermined speed to distribute heat, oxygen, and nutrients among the mycelium spores with predetermined parameters (FIG. 3: impeller 105 coupled to the control board; [0027], [0054]; [0090]). Patrick discloses the injection port is sealed sterile port ([0006],[0039]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the injection port one-way sterile inlet. Herring discloses a bioreactor (FIG. 1: reactor vessel 210; [0073]) comprising an injection port that is one-way sterile inlet (FIG. 2: inlet port 212 having one-way check valve 218; [0073], [0083]). In view of Herring, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the injection port of Patrick with the one-way injection port of Herring to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of preventing backflow of fluid as disclosed by Herring ([0073]). Patrick discloses wherein various types of heating elements can be coupled to the bioreactor cartridge ([0092],[0103]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the heating element is a coil integrated into the base of the bioreactor coupled to the
bioreactor microcontroller and power conductors to energize heating elements
configured to heat the sterile substrate within the bioreactor cartridge to a range of
predetermined temperature. Alessandro discloses a bioreactor device comprising heating coil integrated into the base of the bioreactor (see page 9 of the machine translation document). The heating coils of Alessandro intrinsically include power conductors to energize heating element coil. In view of Alessandro, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the heating element of Patrick with the heating element embedded in the base of the bioreactor as disclosed by Alessandro to arrive at the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have resulted in a device having the added advantage of being compact and ease of transport. Patrick discloses wherein the server is in communication with a user interface(cloud computing network is coupled to a user interface; [0076]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the user interface is a bioreactor cloud data app coupled to a mobile device of the user configured to remotely monitor settings of the bioreactor, to allow the user to adjust the settings and to receive recommended settings based on the analysis of the bioreactor cloud platform. Du discloses a system and method for monitoring and controlling environment of a plant cultivation facility (Abstract). The system includes a main control unit (FIG. 1: 101; [0070]), a cloud server (FIG. 1: 111) and a cloud data app coupled to a mobile device (FIG. 1: 112; [0070]). In view of Du, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the mobile device of Du with the bioreactor of Patrick for the purpose of obtaining data related to the bioreactor in real time and to provide means for inputting control parameters to the bioreactor, as disclosed by Du ([0070]). The mobile device of modified Patrick is structurally the same as the instant mobile device and thus considered to be fully capable “to remotely monitor settings of the bioreactor, to allow the user to adjust the settings and to receive recommended settings based on the analysis of the cloud control system (the cloud computing network is coupled to a user interface.” Furthermore, it is noted that the functional limitations required by the claim do not require certain programming to perform the recited function(s).
Furthermore, it is noted that the recitations of functional language "e.g., for controlled cultivation of mycelium spores; to introduce the mycelium spores and predetermined nutrients into the sterile substrate while preventing contamination" are drawn to intended use of the claimed invention. It is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. Apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). The prior art discloses all of the structural features of the claimed device and thus since the structure is the same, the claimed functions are apparent.
Regarding claim 2, the cloud computing network of modified Patrick is structurally the same as the instant bioreactor cloud platform and thus considered to be fully capable “to evaluate settings of the bioreactor cartridge by comparing the settings to known data and corresponding harvest results to identify recommended settings associated with predetermined harvest outcomes and further configured to transmit the recommended settings to the user.” Furthermore, it is noted that the functional limitations required by the claim do not require certain programming to perform the recited function(s).
Regarding claim 3, modified Patrick discloses the claimed cloud control system and thus considered to be fully capable “to collect and analyze settings and harvest results from other users as aggregated data to identify successful and unsuccessful patterns associated with outcomes and to automatically adjust settings of the bioreactor based on the aggregated data.” Furthermore, it is noted that the functional limitations required by the claim do not require certain programming to perform the recited functions.
Regarding claim 4, modified Patrick discloses the claimed bioreactor microcontroller and thus considered to be fully capable “to automatically receive settings of the bioreactor cartridge and automatically adjust the settings to optimize cultivation results, using harvest data collected from another user identified by the user.” Furthermore, it is noted that the functional limitations required by the claim do not require certain programming to perform the recited functions.
Regarding claim 5, modified Patrick discloses the claimed cloud platform and thus considered to be fully capable to analyze known empirical data including an empirical data remote consists of historical bioreactor settings and corresponding harvest results and wherein the remote server is configured to analyze the empirical data to identify past configurations that produced desired outcomes. Furthermore, it is noted that the functional limitations required by the claim do not require certain programming to perform the recited functions.
Regarding claim 6, modified Patrick discloses wherein the remote server is coupled to one or more external devices such a computing device (FIG. 5: 531-1 to 531-3; [0078]). The computing device of modified Patrick is structurally the same as the instant processor and thus considered to be fully capable “to remotely and continuously monitor in real-time operational parameters of the bioreactor cartridge and compare the operational parameters against optimal historical settings and to dynamically adjust the operational parameters to maintain optimal harvest conditions.” Furthermore, it is noted that the functional limitations required by the claim do not require certain programming to perform the recited function(s).
Regarding claim 8, Patrick discloses a portable and compact bioreactor for controlled cultivation of mycelium spores ([0080]), comprising: a bioreactor chamber configured to receive a removable bioreactor cartridge (see FIG. 7: bioreactor cartridge 710 is coupled to the a base of the automated fermentation system 700 (corresponds to the instant bioreactor); wherein the bioreactor cartridge incudes an injection port (head-plate 101 of a bioreactor comprises inputs for substrate and nutrients into the bioreactor; FIG. 1; [0032]), and contains a sterile growing medium substrate comprising organic materials as a nutrient (interior of the bioreactor contains a substrate and is maintained in a sterile condition; [0026], [00039], [0057], [0081]), and wherein the injection port is a sealed (FIG. 2: feeds 207; [0041]) configured to introduce the mycelium spores and predetermined nutrients into the sterile growing medium substrate while preventing contamination (head-plate comprises coupling features that provide a sterile interface to a plurality of components; [0006], [0032],[0039], [0081]; head-plate 101 of the bioreactor comprises feeds inlets for substrate, inoculum and nutrients into the bioreactor; FIG. 1; [0032]); a comparison processor coupled to a bioreactor cloud platform (control board comprising one or more processors coupled to a cloud computing network that is coupled to the server; [0091]) and configured to compare video data and image data of mycelium spores captured from within a bioreactor cartridge during cultivation of the mycelium spores to historical mycelium spore cultivation video and image data representing prior growth patterns, and to determine one or more growth rates based on the comparison, wherein the comparison processor is further configured to predict a harvest result of the mycelium cultivation based on the determined one or more growth rates (control board comprising one or more processors coupled to the bioreactor and configured to operations of the bioreactor; [0091]-[0092], [0097], [0103]; further, it should be noted that the instant specification is silent to any specific programming language required to be executed by the processor; and therefore, the processor is treated as a general purpose processor); a bioreactor microcontroller coupled to the bioreactor cartridge configured to monitor agitation speed, heated temperature, oxygen levels, nutrient levels, growth rates and harvest results from a plurality of sensors and user growth observations and harvest results input, wherein the monitored data is empirical data stored and automatically transmitted to the bioreactor cloud platform and a user mobile device (control board comprising one or more processors coupled to the bioreactor and configured to control flow of gas, fluids and feed inputs (nutrients) into the bioreactor, and heat; [0091]-[0092], [0097], [0103]; further, it should be noted that the instant specification is silent to any specific programming language required to be executed by the processor; and therefore, the processor is treated as a general purpose processor); a continuous adjustment device coupled to the bioreactor cloud platform configured to use the empirical data and the harvest results to determine and make adjustments in real-time of cultivation settings to produce predetermined optimized harvest results (control board comprising one or more processors coupled to the bioreactor and configured to operations of the bioreactor; [0091]-[0092], [0097], [0103]; further, it should be noted that the instant specification is silent to any specific programming language required to be executed by the processor; and therefore, the processor is treated as a general purpose processor); a heating element coupled to the bioreactor microcontroller configured to heat the sterile substrate within the bioreactor cartridge to a range of predetermined temperature ([0092], [0103]); an air pump coupled to the bioreactor cartridge and to the bioreactor microcontroller configured to supply oxygenation of the mycelium spores ([0041], [0098]); an agitator located within the bioreactor cartridge and coupled to a motor driver coupled to the bioreactor microcontroller and configured to rotate at a predetermined speed to distribute heat, oxygen, and nutrients among the mycelium spores with predetermined parameters (FIG. 3: impeller 105 coupled to the control board; [0027], [0054]; [0090]); and Patrick discloses the injection port is sealed sterile port ([0006],[0039]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the injection port one-way sterile inlet. Herring discloses a bioreactor (FIG. 1: reactor vessel 210; [0073]) comprising an injection port that is one-way sterile inlet (FIG. 2: inlet port 212 having one-way check valve 218; [0073], [0083]). In view of Herring, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the injection port of Patrick with the one-way injection port of Herring to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of preventing backflow of fluid as disclosed by Herring ([0073]). Patrick discloses wherein various types of heating elements can be coupled to the bioreactor cartridge ([0092],[0103]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the heating element is a coil integrated into the base of the bioreactor coupled to the
bioreactor microcontroller and power conductors to energize heating elements
configured to heat the sterile substrate within the bioreactor cartridge to a range of
predetermined temperature. Alessandro discloses a bioreactor device comprising heating coil integrated into the base of the bioreactor (see page 9 of the machine translation document). The heating coils of Alessandro intrinsically include power conductors to energize heating element coil. In view of Alessandro, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the heating element of Patrick with the heating element embedded in the base of the bioreactor as disclosed by Alessandro to arrive at the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have resulted in a device having the added advantage of being compact and ease of transport. Patrick discloses wherein the server is in communication with a user interface(cloud computing network is coupled to a user interface; [0076]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the user interface is a bioreactor cloud data app coupled to a mobile device of the user configured to remotely monitor settings of the bioreactor, to allow the user to adjust the settings and to receive recommended settings based on the analysis of the bioreactor cloud platform. Du discloses a system and method for monitoring and controlling environment of a plant cultivation facility (Abstract). The system includes a main control unit (FIG. 1: 101; [0070]), a cloud server (FIG. 1: 111) and a cloud data app coupled to a mobile device (FIG. 1: 112; [0070]). In view of Du, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the mobile device of Du with the bioreactor of Patrick for the purpose of obtaining data related to the bioreactor in real time and to provide means for inputting control parameters to the bioreactor, as disclosed by Du ([0070]). The mobile device of modified Patrick is structurally the same as the instant mobile device and thus considered to be fully capable “to remotely monitor settings of the bioreactor, to allow the user to adjust the settings and to receive recommended settings based on the analysis of the cloud control system (the cloud computing network is coupled to a user interface.” Furthermore, it is noted that the functional limitations required by the claim do not require certain programming to perform the recited function(s).
Furthermore, it is noted that the recitations of functional language "e.g., for controlled cultivation of mycelium spores; to introduce the mycelium spores and predetermined nutrients into the sterile substrate while preventing contamination" are drawn to intended use of the claimed invention. It is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. Apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). The prior art discloses all of the structural features of the claimed device and thus since the structure is the same, the claimed functions are apparent.
Regarding claim 9, modified Patrick discloses wherein the portable and compact bioreactor further comprises a culture medium (abstract), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the culture medium is mycelium liquid culture. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the culture medium with the claimed culture medium to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. One ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of culturing desired cell culture including the claimed cell culture. Further, one ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have been the simple substitution of one known culture medium for another for the predictable result of culturing desired cell culture.
Regarding claim 10, modified Patrick discloses the claimed cloud control system and thus considered to be fully capable “to collect and analyze settings and harvest results from other users as aggregated data to identify successful and unsuccessful patterns associated with outcomes and to automatically adjust settings of the bioreactor based on the aggregated data.” Furthermore, it is noted that the functional limitations required by the claim do not require certain programming to perform the recited functions.
Regarding claim 11, modified Patrick discloses the claimed bioreactor microcontroller and thus considered to be fully capable “to automatically receive from the bioreactor cloud platform recommendations for bioreactor cartridge settings and automatically adjust the settings to optimize cultivation results, using harvest data collected from another user identified by the user.” Furthermore, it is noted that the functional limitations required by the claim do not require certain programming to perform the recited functions.
Regarding claim 12, modified Patrick discloses the claimed cloud platform and thus considered to be fully capable to analyze known empirical data including an empirical data remote consists of historical bioreactor settings and corresponding harvest results and wherein the remote server is configured to analyze the empirical data to identify past configurations that produced desired outcomes. Furthermore, it is noted that the functional limitations required by the claim do not require certain programming to perform the recited functions.
Regarding claim 13, modified Patrick discloses wherein the remote server is coupled to one or more external devices such a computing device (FIG. 5: 531-1 to 531-3; [0078]). The computing device of modified Patrick is structurally the same as the instant processor and thus considered to be fully capable “to remotely and continuously monitor in real-time operational parameters of the bioreactor cartridge and compare the operational parameters against optimal historical settings and to dynamically adjust the operational parameters to maintain optimal harvest conditions.” Furthermore, it is noted that the functional limitations required by the claim do not require certain programming to perform the recited function(s).
Regarding claim 15, Patrick discloses a portable and compact bioreactor for controlled cultivation of mycelium spores ([0080]), comprising: a bioreactor chamber configured to receive a removable bioreactor cartridge (see FIG. 7: bioreactor cartridge 710 is coupled to the a base of the automated fermentation system 700 (corresponds to the instant bioreactor); wherein the bioreactor cartridge incudes an injection port (head-plate 101 of a bioreactor comprises inputs for substrate and nutrients into the bioreactor; FIG. 1; [0032]), and contains a sterile growing medium substrate comprising organic materials as a nutrient (interior of the bioreactor contains a substrate and is maintained in a sterile condition; [0026], [00039], [0057], [0081]), and wherein the injection port is a sealed (FIG. 2: feeds 207; [0041]) configured to introduce the mycelium spores and predetermined nutrients into the sterile growing medium substrate while preventing contamination (head-plate comprises coupling features that provide a sterile interface to a plurality of components; [0006], [0032],[0039], [0081]; head-plate 101 of the bioreactor comprises feeds inlets for substrate, inoculum and nutrients into the bioreactor; FIG. 1; [0032]); a comparison processor coupled to a bioreactor cloud platform (control board comprising one or more processors coupled to a cloud computing network that is coupled to the server; [0091]) and configured to compare video data and image data of mycelium spores captured from within a bioreactor cartridge during cultivation of the mycelium spores to historical mycelium spore cultivation video and image data representing prior growth patterns, and to determine one or more growth rates based on the comparison, wherein the comparison processor is further configured to predict a harvest result of the mycelium cultivation based on the determined one or more growth rates (control board comprising one or more processors coupled to the bioreactor and configured to operations of the bioreactor; [0091]-[0092], [0097], [0103]; further, it should be noted that the instant specification is silent to any specific programming language required to be executed by the processor; and therefore, the processor is treated as a general purpose processor); a bioreactor microcontroller coupled to the bioreactor cartridge configured to monitor agitation speed, heated temperature, oxygen levels, nutrient levels, growth rates and harvest results from a plurality of sensors and user growth observations and harvest results input, wherein the monitored data is empirical data stored and automatically transmitted to the bioreactor cloud platform and a user mobile device (control board comprising one or more processors coupled to the bioreactor and configured to control flow of gas, fluids and feed inputs (nutrients) into the bioreactor, and heat; [0091]-[0092], [0097], [0103]; further, it should be noted that the instant specification is silent to any specific programming language required to be executed by the processor; and therefore, the processor is treated as a general purpose processor); a continuous adjustment device coupled to the bioreactor cloud platform configured to use the empirical data and the harvest results to determine and make adjustments in real-time of cultivation settings to produce predetermined optimized harvest results (control board comprising one or more processors coupled to the bioreactor and configured to operations of the bioreactor; [0091]-[0092], [0097], [0103]; further, it should be noted that the instant specification is silent to any specific programming language required to be executed by the processor; and therefore, the processor is treated as a general purpose processor); a heating element coupled to the bioreactor microcontroller configured to heat the sterile substrate within the bioreactor cartridge to a range of predetermined temperature ([0092], [0103]); an air pump coupled to the bioreactor cartridge and to the bioreactor microcontroller configured to supply oxygenation of the mycelium spores ([0041], [0098]); an agitator located within the bioreactor cartridge and coupled to a motor driver coupled to the bioreactor microcontroller and configured to rotate at a predetermined speed to distribute heat, oxygen, and nutrients among the mycelium spores with predetermined parameters (FIG. 3: impeller 105 coupled to the control board; [0027], [0054]; [0090]); and Patrick discloses the injection port is sealed sterile port ([0006],[0039]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the injection port one-way sterile inlet. Herring discloses a bioreactor (FIG. 1: reactor vessel 210; [0073]) comprising an injection port that is one-way sterile inlet (FIG. 2: inlet port 212 having one-way check valve 218; [0073], [0083]). In view of Herring, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the injection port of Patrick with the one-way injection port of Herring to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of preventing backflow of fluid as disclosed by Herring ([0073]). Patrick discloses wherein various types of heating elements can be coupled to the bioreactor cartridge ([0092],[0103]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the heating element is a coil integrated into the base of the bioreactor coupled to the
bioreactor microcontroller and power conductors to energize heating elements
configured to heat the sterile substrate within the bioreactor cartridge to a range of
predetermined temperature. Alessandro discloses a bioreactor device comprising heating coil integrated into the base of the bioreactor (see page 9 of the machine translation document). The heating coils of Alessandro intrinsically include power conductors to energize heating element coil. In view of Alessandro, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the heating element of Patrick with the heating element embedded in the base of the bioreactor as disclosed by Alessandro to arrive at the claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have resulted in a device having the added advantage of being compact and ease of transport. Patrick discloses wherein the server is in communication with a user interface(cloud computing network is coupled to a user interface; [0076]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the user interface is a bioreactor cloud data app coupled to a mobile device of the user configured to remotely monitor settings of the bioreactor, to allow the user to adjust the settings and to receive recommended settings based on the analysis of the bioreactor cloud platform. Du discloses a system and method for monitoring and controlling environment of a plant cultivation facility (Abstract). The system includes a main control unit (FIG. 1: 101; [0070]), a cloud server (FIG. 1: 111) and a cloud data app coupled to a mobile device (FIG. 1: 112; [0070]). In view of Du, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the mobile device of Du with the bioreactor of Patrick for the purpose of obtaining data related to the bioreactor in real time and to provide means for inputting control parameters to the bioreactor, as disclosed by Du ([0070]). The mobile device of modified Patrick is structurally the same as the instant mobile device and thus considered to be fully capable “to remotely monitor settings of the bioreactor, to allow the user to adjust the settings and to receive recommended settings based on the analysis of the cloud control system (the cloud computing network is coupled to a user interface.” Furthermore, it is noted that the functional limitations required by the claim do not require certain programming to perform the recited function(s).
Furthermore, it is noted that the recitations of functional language "e.g., for controlled cultivation of mycelium spores; to introduce the mycelium spores and predetermined nutrients into the sterile substrate while preventing contamination" are drawn to intended use of the claimed invention. It is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. Apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). The prior art discloses all of the structural features of the claimed device and thus since the structure is the same, the claimed functions are apparent.
Regarding claim 16, modified Patrick discloses wherein the portable and compact bioreactor further comprises a culture medium (abstract), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the culture medium is mycelium liquid culture. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the culture medium with the claimed culture medium to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. One ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of culturing desired cell culture including the claimed cell culture. Further, one ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have been the simple substitution of one known culture medium for another for the predictable result of culturing desired cell culture.
Regarding claim 17, modified Patrick discloses the claimed cloud control system and thus considered to be fully capable “to collect and analyze settings and harvest results from other users as aggregated data to identify successful and unsuccessful patterns associated with outcomes and to automatically adjust settings of the bioreactor based on the aggregated data.” Furthermore, it is noted that the functional limitations required by the claim do not require certain programming to perform the recited functions.
Regarding claim 18, modified Patrick discloses the claimed bioreactor microcontroller and thus considered to be fully capable “to automatically receive settings of the bioreactor cartridge and automatically adjust the settings to optimize cultivation results, using harvest data collected from another user identified by the user.” Furthermore, it is noted that the functional limitations required by the claim do not require certain programming to perform the recited functions.
Regarding claim 19, modified Patrick discloses wherein the remote server is coupled to one or more external devices such a computing device (FIG. 5: 531-1 to 531-3; [0078]). The computing device of modified Patrick is structurally the same as the instant processor and thus considered to be fully capable “to remotely and continuously monitor in real-time operational parameters of the bioreactor cartridge and compare the operational parameters against optimal historical settings and to dynamically adjust the operational parameters to maintain optimal harvest conditions.” Furthermore, it is noted that the functional limitations required by the claim do not require certain programming to perform the recited function(s).
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of Herring, Alessandro and Du as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Stapel et al. (DE 10-2019-110061; with English machine translation; hereinafter “Stapel”).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20, modified Patrick discloses the portable and compact bioreactor for controlled cultivation of Mycelium spores according to claims 1, 8 and 15. Modified Patrick discloses wherein the bioreactor cartridge is removably coupled to the bioreactor (see FIG. 7: bioreactor cartridge 710 is coupled to a base of the automated fermentation system 700), and the coupling couples the bioreactor cartridge to the agitator and to electronically couple the bioreactor cartridge to the bioreactor microcontroller (see FIG. 7). Modified Patrick does not explicitly disclose a quick connect component with magnetic collars configured to mechanically lock the bioreactor cartridge in place within the bioreactor. Stapel discloses a system comprising a bioreactor cartridge (FIGS. 1-2: bioreactor cartridge 3; [0039]), a bioreactor (FIGS. 1-2: bag housing 4; [0039]), a quick connect component with magnetic collars configured to mechanically lock the bioreactor cartridge in place within the bioreactor (FIG. 2: collars comprising a plurality of magnets (23,24); [0039]-[0040]). In view of Stapel, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the magnetic collars of Stapel with the bioreactor of modified Patrick to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of securing the bioreactor cartridge to the bioreactor as disclosed by Stapel ([0039]-[0040]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have been the simple substitution of one known securing means for another for the predictable result of securing the bioreactor cartridge to the bioreactor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) November 25, 2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that modifying Patrick with the Applicant’s claimed features would render Patrick inoperable for its intended purpose (Remarks at page 14), Applicant’s argument is noted but it is noted persuasive. First, as discussed in the rejection, Patrick discloses most of the claimed features. Second, there is nothing in Patrick that teaches away from modifying the bioreactor of Patrick to comprise features of the claimed invention. Third, Applicant has not pointed out which feature of the claimed invention that would render the bioreactor of Patrick inoperable for its intended purpose.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shoham et al. (US 10,039,244) disclose a bioreactor comprising microcontroller adapted to control the bioreactor.
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 LIBAN M HASSAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7636. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached on 5712721374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIBAN M HASSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799