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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1, 4-5, and 7-15 in the reply filed on 06/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 24-59 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 5, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 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.
Regarding claim 7, the range of the water content of about 1% (w/w) to about 25% (w/w) includes values outside the range provided in claim 1 of about 5% (w/w) to about 30% (w/w). Consequently, the range of the water content is unclear and claim 7 is rejected as indefinite.
Also, claim 7 is rejected as indefinite because the recitation of “oil immersion frying” rather than “the oil immersion frying” makes it unclear whether “oil immersion frying” is intending to refer to the same oil immersion frying as recited in claim 1 or some other oil immersion frying.
Claim 15 is rejected as indefinite because the recitation of “de-oiling” rather than “the de-oiling” makes it unclear whether “de-oiling” is intending to refer to the same de-oiling as recited in claim 1 or some other de-oiling.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-8, 10, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarzi et al. (Process Optimization in Vacuum Frying of Mushroom Using Response Surface Methodology) in view of Zhang (CN 103005397 A).
Regarding claim 1, Tarzi et al. teaches (Page 961, Materials and Methods; Page 962, Experimental Conditions) fresh button mushrooms with 92.5% moisture content (which falls within the claimed range of at least 50% (w/w) water content) are fried in oil at a pressure range from 4.11 to 9.88 kPa (which falls within the claimed range of 1.5 kPa to 103 kPa) at a temperature range from 70 to 140°C (which overlaps with the claimed range of 80°C to 200°C) for a duration of 1 to 15 minutes (60 to 900 seconds, which falls with the claimed range of 10 to 900 seconds) and then centrifuged to remove oil (de-oiling). Tarzi et al. further teaches (Page 962, Results and Discussion; Page 963, Table 1) quality values for the vacuum fried mushroom chips are given in Table 1, wherein for example a frying temperature of 90°C, frying time of 4 minutes (240 seconds) and a frying pressure of 4.2 kPa (all of which fall within the claimed ranges) results in a mushroom with 10.87% moisture (which falls within the claimed range of 5% (w/w) to about 30% (w/w) for water content) and 62.27% oil (which falls within the claimed oil content of at least 1%). Also, Tarzi does not indicate the use of an emulsions or binding agents in the process. Ingredients not stated to be present are not assumed to be present.
Tarzi is silent on the dehydrated mushroom ingredient being rehydrated to produce a texturised mushroom product with a water content of at least 40% (w/w) in use. However, it is noted that the claimed method is directed to producing a dehydrated mushroom ingredient, rather than a texturised mushroom product resulting from rehydration, and, therefore, rehydrating to produce a texturised mushroom product with a water content of at least 40% (w/w) appears to simply be an intended use of the product produced by the claimed method. Additionally, since the claimed method is known from Tarzi et al., a product produced by the method of Tarzi would be expected to have the same properties as a product produced by the claimed method, including the capacity to be rehydrated to produce a texturised mushroom product with a water content of at least 40% (w/w).
Furthermore, rehydrating a dehydrated mushroom ingredient to produce a mushroom product with a water content of at least 40% (w/w) is known in the art.
Zhang teaches (Paragraph 0017, Abstract) a method for protecting the color and crispness of ready-to-eat edible fungi with dried mushrooms in a process including rehydrating dried mushrooms, wherein the final water content in the mushroom is 70 to 80 percent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tarzi et al. to rehydrating a dehydrated mushroom ingredient to produce a mushroom product with a water content of at least 40% (w/w) as taught by Zhang, since both are directed to processes for producing mushroom products, since rehydrating a dehydrated mushroom ingredient to produce a mushroom product with a water content of at least 40% (w/w) is known in the art as shown by Zhang, since fresh edible fungi have a high water content, but are not easy to store, so there is a broad market for developing ready-to-eat products using dried edible fungi as raw materials (Zhang, Paragraph 0006), since the mushroom product with a final moisture content of 70%-80% can maintain the good color and crispness of edible fungi and remains good even after 6 months of storage at room temperature (Zhang, Paragraph 0025), and since producing a ready-to-eat edible fungi product (rehydrated mushroom product) from dried edible fungi as the raw material breaks the limitation that it must be made from fresh edible fungi, and thus has broad development prospects (Zhang, Paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 5, Tarzi et al. teaches (Page 961, Materials and Methods) using fresh button mushrooms with 92.5% moisture content (which falls within the claimed range of at least about 80% (w/w) water content) in the frying process.
Regarding claim 7, Tarzi et al. teaches (Page 962, Results and Discussion; Page 963, Table 1) quality values for the vacuum fried mushroom chips are given in Table 1, wherein for example a mushroom subjected to the frying process has a 10.87% moisture content (which falls within the claimed range of 1% (w/w) to about 25% (w/w) for water content).
Regarding claim 8, Tarzi et al. teaches (Page 961, Materials and Methods; Page 962, Experimental Conditions) fresh button mushrooms are fried in oil at a pressure range from 4.11 to 9.88 kPa (which falls within the claimed range of 1.5 kPa to 10 kPa) at a temperature range from 70 to 140°C (which overlaps with the claimed range of 110°C to 160°C) for a duration of 1 to 15 minutes (60 to 900 seconds, which falls with the claimed range of 10 to 900 seconds).
Regarding claim 10, Tarzi et al. teaches (Page 961, Materials and Methods; Page 962, Experimental Conditions) fresh button mushrooms with 92.5% moisture are fried in oil.
Regarding claim 13, Tarzi et al. teaches (Page 961, Materials and Methods; Page 962, Experimental Conditions) fresh button mushrooms (raw mushroom material consisting essentially of mushroom material) are fried in oil.
Regarding claim 14, Tarzi et al. teaches (Materials and Methods, Page 961) washed and drained button mushrooms were vertically cut into 2 mm thick slices prior to frying (preparing the raw mushroom material).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarzi et al. (Process Optimization in Vacuum Frying of Mushroom Using Response Surface Methodology) in view of Zhang (CN 103005397 A), and further in view of Donnard (FR 2717989 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Tarzi et al., as modified above, is silent on the dehydrated mushroom ingredient being packaged and stored prior to rehydration.
Donnard teaches (Paragraph 0008) a method comprising cooking mushrooms in a cooking fluid prior to packaging, wherein the cooking fluid may be oil and the mushrooms may be fried. Donnard further teaches (Paragraph 0008) mushrooms in the packaging can be kept (stored) for a much longer period than fresh mushrooms.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tarzi et al., as modified above, to package and store the mushrooms prior to rehydration in view of Donnard since both are directed to methods of oil frying mushrooms, since packaging and storing mushrooms after oil frying is known in the art as shown by Donnard, since packaging and storing the mushrooms prior to rehydration allows a consumer to prepare the mushrooms at their convenience, since packing can protect the mushrooms from contamination and damage, and since mushrooms in a form of packaging can be kept for a much longer period than fresh mushrooms (Donnard, Paragraph 0008).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarzi et al. (Process Optimization in Vacuum Frying of Mushroom Using Response Surface Methodology) in view of Zhang (CN 103005397 A), and further in view of Wang (CN 107865392 A) and Harshavardhini et al. (Drying Characteristics of Button Mushroom).
Regarding claim 11, Tarzi et al., as modified above, is silent on the raw mushroom material comprising dried and rehydrated mushroom material.
Wang teaches (Paragraph 0011, 0012) a rehydration and deep-frying process of shiitake mushrooms, wherein dried shiitake mushrooms are soaked them in a water bath to rehydrate and then fried in oil.
It is also known in the art from Harshavardhini et al. (Page 508, Table 3) that mushrooms such as button mushrooms can be rehydrated to 86% moisture content (i.e., at least 50% (w/w) water content).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tarzi et al., as modified above, to substitute and/or add dried and rehydrated mushroom material as the raw mushroom material in view of Wang and Harshavardhini et al. since both Tarzi et al. and Wang are directed to methods of frying raw mushroom material in oil, since using dried and rehydrated mushroom material as raw mushroom material to be fried in oil is known in the art as shown by Wang, since raw mushroom material with at least 50% (w/w) water content comprising dried and rehydrated mushroom material is known in the art as shown by Harshavardhini et al. since rehydrating dried mushroom material allows the mushroom material to be stored for a longer period prior to use compared to undried mushroom material, providing convenience to the user, since rehydrating the mushroom material to at least 50% water content ensures that the mushroom material has a similar composition to undried mushroom material and prevents the mushroom material from becoming excessively dried during the frying process, since drying is the easiest method to increase the shelf life of high moisture products (Harshavardhini et al., Introduction, Page 504), and since rehydrating dried mushroom material allows the mushroom material to be lighter and take up less space prior to use, providing benefits in transportation and storage.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarzi et al. (Process Optimization in Vacuum Frying of Mushroom Using Response Surface Methodology) in view of Zhang (CN 103005397 A), and further in view of Gao (CN 107874231 A).
Regarding claim 12, Tarzi et al., as modified above, is silent on the raw mushroom material comprising mushroom material that has been frozen, thawed and dewatered.
Gao teaches (Paragraph 0017, 0018) a method comprising freezing shiitake mushroom stems, then thawing them in water, draining them, and stir-frying them in oil.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Tarzi et al., as modified above to substitute and/or add mushroom material that has been frozen, thawed and dewatered as the raw mushroom material as taught by Gao since both are directed to methods of cooking mushrooms in oil, since using mushroom material that has been frozen, thawed and dewatered as mushroom raw material to be cooked in oil is known in the art as shown by Gao, since frozen mushroom material can be stored for a longer period prior to use compared to non-frozen mushroom material, providing convenience to the user, and since the freezing method softens the texture of the mushrooms (Gao, Paragraph 0060).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarzi et al. (Process Optimization in Vacuum Frying of Mushroom Using Response Surface Methodology) in view of Zhang (CN 103005397 A), and further in view of You (CN 107751982 A).
Regarding claim 15, Tarzi et al. teaches (Page 961, Materials and Methods; Page 962, Experimental Conditions) centrifuging to remove oil (de-oiling).
Tarzi et al. is silent on de-oiling producing a dehydrated mushroom ingredient with an oil content of less than 5% (w/w).
However, the claimed oil content of less than 5% (w/w) would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Tarzi et al., as modified above, based upon factors such as the desired flavor of the dehydrated mushroom ingredient, the intended nutritional value of the dehydrated mushroom ingredient, the type of oil used for frying, the type and length of the de-oiling process, the type of additional processing done on the dehydrated mushroom ingredient, the use of other ingredients, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant has neither demonstrated the criticality nor identified any unique or unexpected benefit of the claimed oil content of at least 1% (w/w) that would render it non-obvious.
Furthermore, since Tarzi et al. is silent with regards to the oil content one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for suitable composition values.
You teaches (Paragraph 0023, 0025, 0028), a method wherein shiitake mushroom slices are fried and then centrifuged and pressed to remove oil, resulting in an oil content of 2-5% (which falls within the claimed range of less than 5%).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 20180271132 A1) in view of You (CN 107751982 A) Tarzi et al. (Process Optimization in Vacuum Frying of Mushroom Using Response Surface Methodology), and Zhang (CN 103005397 A) as evidenced by Yang et al. (Physicochemical properties, microstructures, nutritional components, and free amino acids of Pleurotus eryngii as affected by different drying methods) and Merriam-Webster (normal pressure).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson teaches (Paragraph 0011, 0045) a method comprising slicing a pleurotus eryngii mushroom to form a plurality of slices and frying the slices in oil between 145° C and 190° C (which falls withing the claimed range of 80-200 °C) at normal pressure until the water activity (aw ) of the plurality of slices is less than 0.85, wherein fresher mushrooms are believed to work best. Anderson further teaches (Paragraph 0015) the slices are fried for between 2 and 6 minutes (120-360 seconds, which falls withing the claimed range of 10 to 900 seconds). Also, Anderson does not indicate the use of an emulsions or binding agents in the process. Ingredients not stated to be present are not assumed to be present. Additionally, Anderson teaches (Paragraph 0063) the chips may be de-oiled following frying.
While not explicitly stated, it is known in the art, for example from Yang et al. (Page 6, Materials Preparation), that the moisture content of fresh Pleurotus eryngii is 89.8 ± 1.7%.
Also, while not explicitly stated, it is known, for example, form Merriam-Webster that normal pressure is 760 mm Hg or one atmosphere (101.325 kPa, which falls within the claimed range of 1.5 kPa to 103 kPa), therefore, Anderson teaches frying at a pressure within the range of 1.5 kPa to 103 kPa.
Furthermore, while Anderson does not explicitly state that the fried mushroom material has a water content of from about 5% (w/w) to about 30% (w/w), as shown above, Anderson teaches (Paragraph 0011, 0012) a low water activity of less than 0.85 and a crisp, fried product, therefore suggesting a low water content. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that subjecting the claimed material to the claimed process would result in the same product parameters as the claimed invention.
Also, the claimed water content of from about 5% (w/w) to about 30% (w/w) would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Anderson based upon factors such as the exact frying time and temperature, the size of the mushroom material (where smaller pieces will be heated/lose moisture faster), the type and amount oil used, the initial temperature of the mushroom material, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant has neither demonstrated the criticality nor identified any unique or unexpected benefit of the claimed water content of from about 5% (w/w) to about 30% (w/w) that would render it non-obvious.
Furthermore, since Anderson is silent with regards to the water content one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for suitable values.
Tarzi et al. teaches (Page 962, Results and Discussion; Page 963, Table 1) quality values for the vacuum fried mushroom chips are given in Table 1, wherein for example a frying results in a mushroom with 10.87% moisture (which falls within the claimed range of 5% (w/w) to about 30% (w/w) for water content).
Selection of a known product property (water content) based on its suitability for its intended use (producing dehydrated mushrooms) supports a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP 2144.07).
Anderson is silent on the de-oiling producing an ingredient with an oil content of at least 1% (w/w). Anderson is further silent on the dehydrated mushroom ingredient being rehydrated to produce texturised mushroom product with a water content of at least 40% (w/w) in use.
However, the claimed oil content of at least 1% (w/w) would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Anderson based upon factors such as the desired flavor of the dehydrated mushroom ingredient, the intended nutritional value of the dehydrated mushroom ingredient, the type of oil used for frying, the type and length of the de-oiling process, the type of additional processing done on the dehydrated mushroom ingredient, the use of other ingredients, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant has neither demonstrated the criticality nor identified any unique or unexpected benefit of the claimed oil content of at least 1% (w/w) that would render it non-obvious.
Furthermore, since Anderson is silent with regards to the oil content one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for suitable composition values.
You teaches (Paragraph 0023, 0025, 0028), a method wherein shiitake mushroom slices are fried and then centrifuged and pressed to remove oil, resulting in an oil content of 2-5% (which falls within the claimed range of at least 1%).
Selection of a known composition value (oil content of a fried and de-oiled mushroom) based on its suitability for its intended use (preparation of fried mushroom product) supports a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP 2144.07).
It is noted that the claimed method is directed to producing a dehydrated mushroom ingredient, rather than a texturised mushroom product resulting from rehydration, and, therefore, rehydrating to produce a texturised mushroom product with a water content of at least 40% (w/w) appears to simply be an intended use of the product produced by the claimed method. Additionally, since the claimed method is known from Anderson, as modified above, a product produced by the method of Anderson would be expected to have the same properties as a product produced by the claimed method, including the capacity to be rehydrated to produce a texturised mushroom product with a water content of at least 40% (w/w).
Furthermore, rehydrating a dehydrated mushroom ingredient to produce a mushroom product with a water content of at least 40% (w/w) is known in the art.
Zhang teaches (Paragraph 0017, Abstract) a method for protecting the color and crispness of ready-to-eat edible fungi with dried mushrooms in a process including rehydrating dried mushrooms, wherein the final water content in the mushroom is 70 to 80 percent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Anderson to rehydrating a dehydrated mushroom ingredient to produce a mushroom product with a water content of at least 40% (w/w) as taught by Zhang, since both are directed to processes for producing mushroom products, since rehydrating a dehydrated mushroom ingredient to produce a mushroom product with a water content of at least 40% (w/w) is known in the art as shown by Zhang, since fresh edible fungi have a high water content, but are not easy to store, so there is a broad market for developing ready-to-eat products using dried edible fungi as raw materials (Zhang, Paragraph 0006), since the mushroom product with a final moisture content of 70%-80% can maintain the good color and crispness of edible fungi and remains good even after 6 months of storage at room temperature (Zhang, Paragraph 0025), and since producing a ready-to-eat edible fungi product (rehydrated mushroom product) from dried edible fungi as the raw material breaks the limitation that it must be made from fresh edible fungi, and thus has broad development prospects (Zhang, Paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson teaches (Paragraph 0080) the chips may be packaged in airtight container.
As stated above with regard to claim 1, it is noted that the claimed method is directed to producing a dehydrated mushroom ingredient, rather than a texturised mushroom product resulting from rehydration, and, therefore, rehydrating to produce a texturised mushroom product appears to simply be an intended use of the product produced by the claimed method. Additionally, since the claimed method is known from Anderson, as modified above, a product produced by the method of Anderson would be expected to have the same properties as a product produced by the claimed method, including the capacity to be rehydrated.
Furthermore, rehydrating a dehydrated mushroom ingredient is known in the art, and would be obvious in view of Zhang for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Anderson teaches (Paragraph 0011) a method comprising slicing a pleurotus eryngii mushroom to form a plurality of slices and frying the slices in oil.
While not explicitly stated, it is known in the art, for example from Yang et al. (Page 6, Materials Preparation), that the moisture content of fresh Pleurotus eryngii is 89.8 ± 1.7%.
Regarding claim 9, Anderson teaches (Paragraph 0011) a method comprising slicing a pleurotus eryngii mushroom to form a plurality of slices and frying the slices in oil between 145° C and 190° C (which overlaps with the claimed range of 160-190 °C) at normal pressure. Anderson further teaches (Paragraph 0006) the slices are fried for between 2 and 6 minutes (120-360 seconds, which falls withing the claimed range of 10 to 900 seconds).
Also, while not explicitly stated, it is known, for example, form Merriam-Webster that normal pressure is 760 mm Hg or one atmosphere (101.325 kPa, which falls within the claimed range of 100 kPa to 103 kPa).
Regarding claim 7, while Anderson does not explicitly state that the dehydrated mushroom ingredient has a water content of from about 1% (w/w) to about 25% (w/w), as shown above, Anderson teaches (Paragraph 0011, 0012) a low water activity of less than 0.85 and a crisp, fried product, therefore suggesting a low water content. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that subjecting the claimed material to the claimed process would result in the same product parameters as the claimed invention.
Also, the claimed water content of from about 1% (w/w) to about 25% (w/w) would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Anderson based upon factors such as the exact frying time and temperature, the size of the mushroom material (where smaller pieces will be heated/lose moisture faster), the type and amount oil used, the initial temperature of the mushroom material, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant has neither demonstrated the criticality nor identified any unique or unexpected benefit of the claimed water content of from about 1% (w/w) to about 25% (w/w) that would render it non-obvious.
Furthermore, since Anderson is silent with regards to the water content one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for suitable values.
Tarzi et al. teaches (Page 962, Results and Discussion; Page 963, Table 1) quality values for the vacuum fried mushroom chips are given in Table 1, wherein for example a frying results in a mushroom with 10.87% moisture (which falls within the claimed range of 1% (w/w) to about 25% (w/w) for water content).
Selection of a known product property (water content) based on its suitability for its intended use (producing dehydrated mushrooms) supports a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson teaches (0045) fresher mushrooms are believed to work best.
Regarding claim 13, Anderson teaches (Paragraph 0011, 0045) a method comprising slicing a pleurotus eryngii mushroom (raw mushroom material consisting essentially of mushroom material) to form a plurality of slices and frying the slices in oil.
Regarding claim 14, Anderson teaches (Paragraph 0011, 0045) a method comprising slicing a pleurotus eryngii mushroom to form a plurality of slices (preparing the raw mushroom material) and frying the slices in oil.
Regarding claim 15, Anderson teaches (Paragraph 0063) the chips may be de-oiled following frying.
Anderson is silent on de-oiling producing a dehydrated mushroom ingredient with an oil content of less than 5% (w/w).
However, the claimed oil content of less than 5% (w/w) would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Anderson based upon factors such as the desired flavor of the dehydrated mushroom ingredient, the intended nutritional value of the dehydrated mushroom ingredient, the type of oil used for frying, the type and length of the de-oiling process, the type of additional processing done on the dehydrated mushroom ingredient, the use of other ingredients, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant has neither demonstrated the criticality nor identified any unique or unexpected benefit of the claimed oil content of at least 1% (w/w) that would render it non-obvious.
Furthermore, since Anderson is silent with regards to the oil content one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for suitable composition values.
You teaches (Paragraph 0023, 0025, 0028), a method wherein shiitake mushroom slices are fried and then centrifuged and pressed to remove oil, resulting in an oil content of 2-5% (which falls within the claimed range of less than 5%).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bengtsson (US 4525368 A) teaches a process for blanching mushrooms in which mushrooms are treated with an edible frying oil.
Anderson (US 20180332880 A1) teaches meat-flavored snack chips formed pleurotus eryngii mushrooms and methods of making them.
Clinton (US 3342610 A) teaches a process of treating mushrooms to eliminate loss of flavor and to prevent discoloration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN P TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2652. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/AUSTIN PARKER TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights