DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on December 17, 2025 is acknowledged.
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Currently claims 1, 5-6, and 10 are amended and claims 11-27 are cancelled, resulting in claims 1-10 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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) 1-5, 7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocco (US 2011/0268955)1 in view of Subashini (“Nanoparticles from Fungi (Myconanoparticles)”).
With respect to claims 1-2, 7, and 9-10, Rocco teaches a nanoparticle filed aggregate substantially evenly distributed through a molded mycelium structure (mycotextile) (paragraph [0005]). Mycelium is made up of masses of hyphae (paragraph [0057]). Rocco further teaches one method of making the molded part includes form a liquid aggregate from a mixture of finely ground aggregate (support scaffold) and a liquid and then mixing a fungal inoculum and the liquid aggregate to form a slurry from which live mycelium is grown and cured (paragraph [0067]). The aggregate forms the nutrient source needed by the fungal inoculum (paragraphs [0063], [0068]). A nutrient source containing lignin makes for an excellent source of nutrients and the lignin becomes part of the mycelium structure and, on a molecular level, is able to bring its crosslinking abilities and strength to the mycelium network (support scaffold layer is embedded in and cross-linked to the mycelium matrix) (paragraph [0064]). The nanoparticles are incorporated into the liquid aggregate prior to or during mixing of the liquid aggregate with the fungal inoculum (paragraph [0071]). As the hyphae grow they will grow through and around the aggregate (nanoparticles are distributed over the hyphae) (paragraph [0073]). The use of metallic nanoparticles are contemplated to increase the conductivity of electricity through the formed part (paragraph [0071]).
Rocco is silent as to the metallic nanoparticles being formed in vivo in within the mycelium and the color of the mycotextile being determined by the metallic nanoparticles.
Subashini teaches myconanoparticles formed by adding fungal hypha straight into an ion solution (39.5.1 General Methodology for Production of Myconanoparticles). The nanoparticles created can include silver and gold for antifungal and antibacterial purposes (Table 39.1). The myconanoparticles can be synthesized both intra- and extracellularly (nanoparticles are distributed within the hyphae) (39.5.2 Mechanism of Intra- and Extracellular Synthesis of Myconanoparticles). In intracellular synthesis of silver nanoparticles the hyphae darken to brown due to the surface plasmon resonance of the metal nanoparticles (39.10.1 Visual Colour Change).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the formed mycelium part of Rocco to be added into an ion solution in order to form silver or gold nanoparticles intracellularly in order to provide the part with antifungal and antibacterial properties. As explained by Subashini, the inclusion of the metal nanoparticles extracellularly, particularly silver, colors the hyphae due to surface plasmon resonance of the nanoparticles.
With respect to claim 3, Rocco in view of Subashini teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Rocco further teaches the nanoparticles may include nanoclay and that it is contemplated that the additive could be a variety of different additives or a combination of several additives (paragraph [0071]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the different nanoparticle additives, including a combination of nanoclay and metallic nanoparticles, in order to achieve the desired physical, chemical, and electrical characteristics (see e.g.; paragraph [0071]). See MPEP 2143.
With respect to claims 4-5, Rocco in view of Subashini teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above. As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, the hyphae of Rocco grows through and around the aggregate comprising the nanoparticles (paragraph [0073]), which include metallic nanoparticles and nanoclay. Rocco in view of Subashini further teaches nanoparticles of silver or gold being incorporated intracellularly in the hyphae. Since the nanoclay is only located on the hyphae not in the hyphae, the nanoclay has a different distribution than the metallic nanoparticles.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocco (US 2011/0268955)2 in view of Subashini ("Nanoparticles from Fungi (Myconanoparticles)") as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bradley (US 2002/0006650).
With respect to claims 3 and 6, Rocco in view of Subashini teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Rocco further teaches the nanoparticles may include nanoclay and that it is contemplated that the additive could be a variety of different additives or a combination of several additives (paragraph [0071]).
Rocco in view of Subashini is silent as to the mycelium including ceramic nanoparticles functionalized by the absorption of prolamin on the surface.
Bradley teaches a solid culture substrate for growing fungi where the substrate includes barley (includes the prolamin hordein) in a form suitable for growing a fungus (paragraph [0010]). Barley has nutritional characteristics that support equal or superior conidia production compared to other grains (paragraph [0007]). High conidia yield is essential to economical production of fungus (paragraph [0006]). Suitable forms of barley include water extracts of barley sorbed onto solid supports such as diatomaceous earth (includes the ceramic silica) (paragraphs [0013], [0025]-[0026]). The language “sorbed onto an inert solid support” includes absorption, adsorption, or a combination of the two processes (paragraph [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the nanoparticles of Rocco in view of Subashini to include barley nanoparticles, such as barley adsorbed onto diatomaceous earth, in order to provide high conidia yield for the economical growth of the fungus.
With respect to claims 4-5, Rocco in view of Subashini and Bradley teaches all the limitations of claim 3 above. As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, the hyphae of Rocco in view of Bradley grows through and around the aggregate comprising the nanoparticles (paragraph [0073]), which include metallic nanoparticles and barley modified diatomaceous earth. Rocco in view of Subashini further teaches nanoparticles of silver or gold being incorporated intracellularly in the hyphae. Since the barley modified diatomaceous earth is only located on the hyphae not in the hyphae, the barley modified diatomaceous earth has a different distribution than the metallic nanoparticles.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocco (US 2011/0268955)3 in view of Subashini ("Nanoparticles from Fungi (Myconanoparticles)") as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deeg ("Greener Solutions: Improving Performance of mycelium-based leather")--1.
With respect to claim 8, Rocco in view of Subashini teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Rocco in view of Subashini is silent as to the mycelium part being coated with a prolamin.
Deeg teaches strategies to improve the strength, flexibility, and durability of mycelium-based leather-like material (Abstract). Deeg further teaches that corn zein (prolamin) forms films that are moisture-resistant, grease-resistant, and antimicrobial (Moisture barrier strategy: corn zein coating).
Since both Rocco in view of Subashini and Deeg teach mycelium based materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mycelium part of Rocco in view of Subashimi to include a corn zein (prolamin) coating in order to provide the mycelium part with increased moisture-resistance, grease-resistance, and antimicrobial properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Cited in IDS
2 Cited in IDS
3 Cited in IDS