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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/28/2026 is being considered by the examiner. The signed IDS form is attached with the instant office action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment and argument filed 09/11/2026, in response to the non-final rejection, are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Any previous rejection or objection not mentioned herein is withdrawn.
Claims 1-2, 9-13, 21-23, 30-33, 35, 38-45 are pending and are being examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 9-13, 21-23, 30-33, 35, 38-45 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. The new amendment in claim 1, recites “wherein, during step (b), no externally supplied steam is introduced into the compartment, and the directly volatilizing is performed without rotary evaporation and without applying microwave radiation or ultrasonic waves to the cannabis” and these limitations were not originally disclosed in the original filed application. In fact, the applicant recites “A rotary evaporator can also be utilized to accomplish evaporation” (see page 10). The applicant also recites “The compartment can be a drying oven, freeze dryer, rotary evaporator, sealed chamber or the like” (See page 12) and “the vapor source can be generated from the vacuum chamber (any vacuum chamber, rotary evaporator, freeze dryer or sealed vessel with, optionally, microwave or ultrasonic assistance)” (see page 12). The applicant also recites “The vacuum drying apparatus is a device capable of creating a vacuum (e.g., to create positive or negative pressure) and comprises a compartment that may be, optionally, heated via microwaves, ultrasonic waves, conduction heat, convection heat, or some combination thereof” (see page 7). “The drying ovens can be fitted with the capability to apply microwaves, ultrasonic waves, conduction heat, convection heat, or a combination thereof” (see pages 12-13). The response filed 9/11/2026 has introduced NEW MATTER into the claims. Although the PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP 714.02 and 2163.06 (“Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Instant claim 1 now recites limitations, which were not clearly disclosed in the specification as filed, and now change the scope of the instant disclosure as filed. Such limitations recited in newly added claim 1, which did not appear in the specification, as filed, introduce new concepts and violate the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C 112. Applicant is required to provide sufficient written support for the limitations recited in present claim 1 in the specification or claims, as-filed, or remove these limitations from the claims in response to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. This rejection is new based on the arguments and amendments filed on 09/11/2026.
Claims 1-2, 9-13, 21-23, 30-33, 35, 38-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marijuana Ventures (https://marijuanaventure.com/perfect-purge-science-behind-vacuum-ovens/), Kaneko (JP5661092B2), Humphreys (US2017/0360861) and Max Planck Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der Wissenschaften eV (DE8625127U1), hereinafter Max. This is a new rejection based on the amendments filed on 09/11/2026.
Marijuana Venture teaches “Vacuum processing cannabis extracts has become a common practice in the industry. Both solvent-extracted and CO2-derived oils can benefit from vacuum baking in order to complete the extraction process. Extraction professionals who have written the book on the proper purging techniques are still fascinated by the science that drives the process” (see first para.).
“It is a common misconception that vacuum ovens were created to facilitate solvent removal from cannabis oil. Actually, vacuum ovens are a very common piece of equipment used in a wide range of industrial/laboratory applications” (see 2nd para.).
“By reducing the pressure, these chemicals can transition to the gas phase and escape — or “off-gas” — at lower temperatures” (see 2nd para.).
Marijuana Venture teaches “All of the same principles of physics are at play when off-gassing residual solvents or water from extracted cannabis oil. By reducing the pressure in the vacuum oven, trapped water and solvents will transition from a liquid to a gas and be pulled out of the chamber, leaving behind purified, stabilized oil” (See Cannabis extract processing).
Marijuana Venture does not teach transporting the volatilized components in a cold trap and collecting the extract in a cold trap.
Kaneko teaches an extraction apparatus for liquefying and extracting components vaporized from the object heated under reduced pressure in the container. Kaneko teaches that negative pressure is supplied to the extraction path and then transporting the taken in air to the bottom side of the housing portion (see claim 1).
Kaneko teaches an extraction apparatus which vaporizes extracting components under reduced pressure and transporting the volatilized compounds or terpenes via a conduit under reduced pressure and transporting the volatilized compounds or terpenes via a conduit and shows the extract being condensed in a container (see Fi. 1, 6, 13a/13b).
Kaneko teaches methods in which essential oils are extracted only with water originally contained in raw materials such as the leaves (see page 3, 4th para).
Kaneko teaches the extracting temperature can be 40 ° C (see page 3, 3rd para. from end) which with the broadest reasonable interpretation is “about” 35° C.
Max teaches “the invention relates to a cold trap, in particular for switching on in the suction line of a vacuum pump, consisting of a closed vessel which can be inserted into a refrigeration condenser, with a lateral pipe connection at the upper edge of the vessel and a central connection formed on the vessel lid which is connected to a central pipe which opens into the vessel at a distance above the vessel bottom. Cold traps are used to freeze out volatile and corrosive solvents, particularly in the suction lines of vacuum pumps, in order to prevent sensitive pump parts from corroding due to extracted solvent components or solvent residues from entering the pump oil. The latter would otherwise lead to an increase in pressure” (see first para. page 2).
Max teaches due to the inventive design of the cold trap, the solvent vapor is passed over large cooled surfaces in the chambers between the partition walls (see last para page 2).
Max teaches that the cold trap is divided into multiple chambers (see page 8, under expectations and throughout claims).
Humphreys is relied upon to show that cannabis indeed contains volatile extractable components such as cannabinoids, terpenes, flavonoids etc., as instantly claimed.
Humphreys teaches wherein extracting cannabis means that it can include any physical part of the plant material including, e.g., the leaf, bud, flower, trichome, seed, or combination thereof (see 0050).
Humphreys teaches using vacuums under reduced pressure and heat and the use of rotary evaporators (see 0125).
Regarding claims 30-31, Humphreys teaches the cannabinoids CBN and CBC (see 0003).
Regarding claims 38-39, Humphreys teaches volatile compounds being the terpenes α-Pinene, Myrcene, Linalool, Limonene, Trans-β-ocimene, α-Terpinolene, Trans-caryophyllene, α-Humulene (see 0108). Humphreys is relied upon to show these components are indeed terpenes and flavonoids extractable form cannabis and that cannabis can be used in the invention taught by Kaneko which teaches of extracting volatile components from plant material. Also, regarding the claimed components, these would be expected to be extracted out in the process taught by Kaneko as the processes indeed appears to be the same, unless shown evidence from the applicant that this would not be the case.
Humphreys also teaches “because of the high pressures required to achieve a supercritical state CO2, more of the undesirable plant waxes and chlorophyll will be extracted in the final product. Thus, use of supercritical CO2 is highly undesirable for selectively extracting constituents in a botanical material.” This teaching would also give reason to utilize negative pressure during evaporation as to avoid undesirable plant waxes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the method taught by Marijuana Ventrure for extracting terpenes and volatile compounds from cannabis. Marijuana Ventrure teaches using vacuum ovens with negative pressure to get rid of water and/or solvents from cannabis and collect volatile components. Also, Kaneko teaches using negative pressure during extraction and teaches low temperatures (40 ° C) during extraction to vaporize volatile components. It would have been obvious to optimize the temperature to that being lower than about 35 ° C, because 40 ° C is directly outside the claimed amount and optimizing the temperature is well within the purview of any skilled artisan especially given that different plants contain different extractable volatile terpenes having different thermolabile degradable temperatures. Although Kaneko teaches embodiments wherein reduced-pressure steam-distillation is used for extraction, Kaneko teaches it is known that essential oils are extracted only with water originally contained in raw materials such as the leaves and so it would have been obvious from Marijuana Ventures teachings to use negative pressure vacuum ovens for extracting cannabis and without the use of any solvents.
Kaneko teaches transporting the extract via conduits and it would have been obvious to collect the extract in a cold trap taught by Max because Max teaches cold traps are specifically useful for freezing out volatile compounds and teaches the cold trap to comprise of different partitioning walls and so keeping temperatures between each partitioned wall to be at the instantly claimed would be a matter of mere judicious selection and an optimization well within the purview of the an artisan having ordinary skill in the art.
Humphreys teaches cannabis indeed contains volatile compounds and terpenes being claimed which can be extracted via Kaneko’s teachings. It would have also been obvious to collect the cannabis hydrosols because hydrosols are the water-based byproducts from essential oil extraction and so using one of the partitioned chambers taught in Max’s cold trap system to collect the cannabis hydrosol would have been prima facie obvious.
Determining the pressure to be at 600 millitorr is an optimization well within the purview of any skilled artisan given that it is taught that negative pressure is needed for chemical components to off-gas at low temperatures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Kaneko teaches embodiments of extraction that require steam-distillation and microwaves to heat the plant material in order to extract out volatile components. The Office brings in new art by Marijuana Venture which teaches using vacuum ovens and reducing pressure in order to “off-gas” certain chemical components at lower temperatures. The remaining relied upon art is sill retained to reject the remaining limitations, specifically transferring and collecting the volatile components in cold traps and for showing the specific cannabis plant parts and components.
Conclusion
Currently no claims are allowed.
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 JACOB ANDREW BOECKELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Anand Desai can be reached at 571-272-0947. 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.
JACOB A BOECKELMANExaminer, Art Unit 1655
/ANAND U DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1655
