DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first office action non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-6 as originally filed are currently pending and are considered below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/27/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document. Here, a legible copy of the foreign patent AU 2021105979 A4 was not included.
The information disclosure statement filed 10/27/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office. Here, a copy of the foreign reference WO 2024/222083 A1 was submitted, but the reference was not listed in the IDS.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶23 states that Figure 4 shows a fruiting effect; however, Figure 4 contains 2 images. Examiner recommends amending the Specification to clarify what each of the two images is meant to show.
¶33 should be deleted since it’s just a period.
In ¶70, it seems that the word “adaopting” should read either “adapting” or “adopting”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For better clarity, Examiner recommends amending Lines 15-20 as follows:
“wherein during the cultivation, an air humidity is less than 75%;
wherein the cultivation further comprises the step of stimulating fruiting of the S. rugosoannulata;
wherein the step of stimulating fruiting of the S. rugosoannulata comprises applying atomization spray irrigation or micro-mist humidification;
when the atomization spray irrigation is applied, a spray irrigation system comprising an atomizing nozzle is adopted;”:.
In Claim 3 Lines 1-2, the phrase “wherein the cultivation substrate comprises a cultivation medium and a water-retention layer sequentially from bottom to top” should read “wherein the cultivation substrate comprises a cultivation medium and a water-retention layer arranged sequentially from bottom to top”.
In Claim 4 Lines 2-3, the phrase “the cultivation medium has a lignin content of higher than or equal to 10%” should read “the cultivation medium has a lignin content higher than or equal to 10%”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4 and 6 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 3, Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations of Claim 3 are related only to the in-ground cultivation method (stated in Lines 4-8 of the parent claim 1), whether the limitations of Claim 3 apply to any of the in-ground cultivation, shelf-based cultivation, or pot-based cultivation, or whether the limitations of Claim 3 apply to all of the cultivation methods in the parent claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations of Claim 4 are related only to the in-ground cultivation method (stated in Lines 4-8 of the parent claim 1), whether the limitations of Claim 4 apply to any of the in-ground cultivation, shelf-based cultivation, or pot-based cultivation, or whether the limitations of Claim 4 apply to all of the cultivation methods in the parent claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations of Claim 6 are related only to the in-ground cultivation method (stated in Lines 4-8 of the parent claim 1), whether the limitations of Claim 6 apply to any of the in-ground cultivation, shelf-based cultivation, or pot-based cultivation, or whether the limitations of Claim 6 apply to all of the cultivation methods in the parent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pei (CN 112806210 A) in view of Baron et al. (US 5081791 A), Li et al. (CN 109997606 A), Feng et al. (CN 109156275 A), and Li et al. (CN 114190235 A), hereinafter referred to as Li (1).
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 5, Pei teaches a method for moisture control during cultivation of Stropharia rugosoannulata (S. rugosoannulata) [stated in Abstract], wherein the cultivation comprises in-ground cultivation, shelf-based cultivation, or pot-based cultivation (see Pg. 2; The method includes the steps of ridging the ground for in-ground cultivation of the mushroom.),
Wherein when the cultivation is the in-ground cultivation, the method comprises the steps of:
Ridging (see Pg. 4; Step two of the method is ridging.),
Arranging a walkway between adjacent ridges (See Pg. 4; The middle of two ridges is provided with a walkway.), and
Laying a cultivation substrate on each of the ridges (See Pg. 4; Step 3 states that the mixed soil cultivation substrate is layered on each of the ridges.).
Wherein the cultivation further comprises stimulating fruiting of the S. rugosoannulata, the step of stimulating the fruiting of S. rugosoannulata comprises applying atomization spray irrigation or micro-mist humidification (see Pg. 3; The step seven of fruiting the S. rugosoannulata comprises applying atomization spray irrigation with an atomizing nozzle.), wherein when the atomization spray irrigation is applied, a spray irrigation system adopted accordingly comprises an atomizing nozzle (also stated in Pg. 3).
The method of Pei teaches the claimed invention except for the step of “setting a bottom surface of the cultivation substrate to be 1 cm or more higher than the lowest point of the walkway”. Baron et al. (US 5081791 A) shows the step of setting the bottom surface of a cultivation substrate (17) higher than the lowest point of the walkway (19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the bottom surface of the cultivation substrate be 1 cm or more higher than the lowest point of the walkway to provide a water barrier and prevent walkway runoff from soaking into the substrate, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The method of Pei as modified by Baron teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that during the cultivation, an air humidity is less than 75%. Li teaches that during the cultivation, an air humidity is less than 75% (stated in Pg. 3; Water content is kept at 70% during cultivation.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have an air humidity is less than 75% during cultivation to provide steady and sustainable development, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The method of Pei as modified by Baron and Li teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that a distance between the atomizing nozzle and a surface of the cultivation substrate is more than or equal to 5 cm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have a distance between the atomizing nozzle and a surface of the cultivation substrate be more than or equal to 5 cm to ensure uniform moisture distribution, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The method of Pei as modified by Baron and Li teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that a water outlet pressure of the atomizing nozzle is more than or equal to 0.06 MPa. Feng teaches that a water outlet pressure of the atomizing nozzle is more than or equal to 0.06 MPa (see Pg. 3; Water pressure is kept at 5-20 kg/cm2 [0.49-1.96 MPA].). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have a water outlet pressure of the atomizing nozzle be more than or equal to 0.06 MPa as taught by Feng with reasonable expectation of success to shorten spray time and save water (Feng, Abstract), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The method of Pei as modified by Baron, Li, and Feng teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the duration of stimulation by the atomization spray irrigation is sufficient to maintain the surface of the cultivation substrate at a humidity of more than or equal to 80% for 5 min or more. Li (1) teaches maintaining the surface of the cultivation substrate at a humidity of more than or equal to 80% (see Pg. 4; Soil relative humidity is kept at a humidity between 80% to 90%.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the duration of stimulation by the atomization spray irrigation be sufficient to maintain the surface of the cultivation substrate at a humidity of more than or equal to 80% for 5 min or more to effectively control the growing environment (Li (1), Pg. 2), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Examiner notes that the shelf-based or pot cultivation steps as well as the micro-mist humidification steps are not required by the claim language.
Regarding Claim 6, the method of Pei as modified by Baron, Li, Feng, and Li (1), as show above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
The method of Pei as modified by Baron, Li, Feng, and Li (1) teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that when the S. rugosoannulata is cultivated in a greenhouse and a maximum temperature across a planting region exceeds 30°C, one or more of the following measures 1) to 5) is additionally taken: 1) thickening a top layer of the greenhouse; 2) providing a water spray device at a top of the greenhouse; 3) providing a ventilation assembly and/or a cooling pad inside the greenhouse; 4) adopting a multi-tiered greenhouse, and providing a water spray device between greenhouse isolation layers; and 5) erecting a sunshade net at the top of the greenhouse with a gap. Pei teaches that the S. rugosoannulata is cultivated in a greenhouse (stated in Abstract). Li (1) teaches that the temperature of the greenhouse is controlled by providing a ventilation assembly (3; see Pg. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to, when the S. rugosoannulata is cultivated in a greenhouse and a maximum temperature across a planting region exceeds 30°C, provide a ventilation assembly in order to control the temperature of the greenhouse with efficient power utilization (Li, Abstract), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pei (CN 112806210 A) as modified by Baron et al. (US 5081791 A), Li et al. (CN 109997606 A), Feng et al. (CN 109156275 A), and Li et al. (CN 114190235 A), hereinafter referred to as Li (1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 113179908 A).
Regarding Claim 3, the method of Pei as modified by Baron, Li, Feng, and Li (1), as show above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
However, the method of Pei as modified by Baron, Li, Feng, and Li (1) fails to explicitly state that the cultivation substrate comprises a cultivation medium and a water-retention layer sequentially from bottom to top; and when a soil used for the in-ground cultivation is not a sandy soil, a soil layer is additionally laid beneath the cultivation substrate.
Liu teaches a cultivation substrate comprises a cultivation medium and a water-retention layer sequentially from bottom to top (stated in Pg. 2; A cultivation medium and nutrition substrate is located in the second layer, while the upper layer is a water-retention layer.); and when a soil used for the in-ground cultivation is not a sandy soil, a soil layer is additionally laid beneath the cultivation substrate (see Pg. 2; A sticky soil is provided beneath the second cultivation substrate.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Pei as modified by Baron, Li, Feng, and Li (1) to have the cultivation substrate comprise a cultivation medium and a water-retention layer sequentially from bottom to top and to have, when a soil used for the in-ground cultivation is not a sandy soil, a soil layer be additionally laid beneath the cultivation substrate as taught by Liu with reasonable expectation of success to preserve water (Liu, Claim 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pei (CN 112806210 A) as modified by Baron et al. (US 5081791 A), Li et al. (CN 109997606 A), Feng et al. (CN 109156275 A), Li et al. (CN 114190235 A), hereinafter referred to as Li (1), and Liu et al. (CN 113179908 A), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ross (US 20200120880 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the method of Pei as modified by Baron, Li, Feng, Li (1), and Liu, as show above, teaches the limitations of Claim 3.
The method of Pei as modified by Baron, Li, Feng, Li (1), and Liu teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the cultivation medium comprises lignin; and at least one raw material for the cultivation medium has a lignin content of higher than or equal to 10%. Ross teaches a cultivation medium (22) comprising lignin (stated in ¶43). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the cultivation medium comprise lignin and to have at least one raw material for the cultivation medium have a lignin content of higher than or equal to 10% based on the teachings of Ross in order to enhance medicinal properties and accelerate growth, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obviousness. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331 and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections set forth in this Office action.
Regarding Claim 1, Pei (CN 112806210 A) teaches a method for moisture control during cultivation of Stropharia rugosoannulata (S. rugosoannulata) [stated in Abstract], wherein the cultivation comprises in-ground cultivation, shelf-based cultivation, or pot-based cultivation (see Pg. 2; The method includes the steps of ridging the ground for in-ground cultivation of the mushroom.); wherein when the cultivation is the in-ground cultivation, the method comprises the steps of ridging, arranging a walkway between adjacent ridges, and laying a cultivation substrate on each of the ridges (stated in Pg. 4). Pei (CN 112806210 A) further teaches the step of stimulating fruiting of the S. rugosoannulata by applying atomization spray irrigation or micro-mist humidification (see Pg. 3), wherein when the atomization spray irrigation is applied, a spray irrigation system adopted accordingly comprises an atomizing nozzle (also stated in Pg. 3).
The method of Pei does not teach the step of “setting a bottom surface of the cultivation substrate to be 1 cm or more higher than the lowest point of the walkway”. Baron et al. (US 5081791 A) shows the step of setting the bottom surface of a cultivation substrate (17) higher than the lowest point of the walkway (19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the bottom surface of the cultivation substrate be 1 cm or more higher than the lowest point of the walkway to provide a water barrier and prevent walkway runoff from soaking into the substrate, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Lee (KR 200195645 Y1) teaches a system executing a method of mushroom cultivation (stated in Abstract) wherein when the cultivation is the shelf-based cultivation or the pot-based cultivation, the method comprises the steps of laying the cultivation substrate (4) on a shelf or in a pot (1); and forming holes at a bottom of the shelf or the pot (shown in Fig. 1 and stated in Pg. 2).
Li et al. (CN 109997606 A) teaches that during the cultivation, an air humidity is less than 75% (stated in Pg. 3).
Feng et al. (CN 109156275 A) teaches that a water outlet pressure of the atomizing nozzle is more than or equal to 0.06 MPa (see Pg. 3; Water pressure is kept at 5-20 kg/cm2 [0.49-1.96 MPA].).
Li et al. (CN 114190235 A) teaches maintaining the surface of the cultivation substrate at a humidity of more than or equal to 80% (see Pg. 4).
Wang et al. (CN 108770592 B) teaches an air humidity at a mist outlet for the micro-mist humidification is higher than or equal to 60% (see Pg. 6).
However, the prior art does not teach or render obvious that a number and a size of the holes are designed such that a duration of water dripping from the holes after single watering is less than or equal to 3 h.
These features are apparently critical to a person having ordinary skill in the art because they effectively prevent the water accumulation in the cultivation substrate (See Applicant’s Specification ¶18).
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance of all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP § 1302.14).
Claims 2-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections, the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Brown (US 5117580 A) teaches a heat transfer tube for seedbed cover.
Fraleigh (US 7607260 B1) teaches a method and raised bed for producing plant material in a container in the bed.
Shao (CN 105940953 A) teaches a cultivation method of large ball cover mushroom.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA A ALMEIDA BONNIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights