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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment and argument filed 03/04/2026, in response to the 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 Any previous rejection or objection not mentioned herein is withdrawn.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 § 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. These rejections are new based on the arguments and amendments filed on 03/24/2026.
Claims 1-2, 9-13, 21-23, 30-33, 35, 38-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko (JP5661092B2), Humphreys (US2017/0360861) and Max Planck Gesellschaft zur Foerderung der Wissenschaften eV (DE8625127U1), hereinafter Max.
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 “it is preferable to employ a method (hereinafter referred to as “microwave vacuum steam distillation method”) 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.
Kaneko does not specifically teach employing the extraction method on cannabis; however this limitation would have been obvious given that Kaneko teaches the method is for extracting terpenes and volatile components from plants and cannabis is known for containing terpenes and volatile components. Kaneko does not teach collecting the extract in a cold trap.
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 Kaneko for extracting terpenes and volatile compounds from cannabis. Kaneko teaches using negative pressure during extraction and also 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.
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. Kaneko also teaches wherein the extraction can be solventless because Kaneko teaches using only the water already contained within the plant’s tissues to extract out volatile oils. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the art does not specifically teach using negative pressure to “volatilize” cannabinoids, terpenes and flavonoids. Kaneko indeed teaches using negative pressure to vaporize volatile components such as terpenes from plant material. The applicant argues that since Kaneko describes microwave irradiation at a pressure of at least 10 kilopascals (i.e. at least at 0.01 MPa) and that “when pressure is 10 kilopascals or less, the yield of essential oil is remarkably reduced”, that this would teach away from using negative pressure. Kaneko teaches of multiple extractions techniques as can be appreciated from Kaneko’s disclosure. Kaneko teaches of distillation under reduced pressure and microwave extraction under reduced pressure. Kaneko also teaches that extending the distillation time for 8 hours or more increases the yield (see same paragraph, page 3, 3rd from bottom). Although, Kaneko describes reduced yield at lower pressures, Kaneko discusses ways to increase the yield by extending the extraction time to 8 hours or greater. Additionally, it does not matter that the yield is lower as this is not a limitation being claimed. A person having ordinary skill in the art would decrease temperatures and pressure in order to bring about thermolabile volatile components from the plant tissues in a way that would not degrade them.
Conclusion
Currently no claims are allowed.
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
Prosecution Insights