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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Note: The amendment of June 25th 2019 has been considered.
Claims 1-13 are pending and examined in the current application.
Any rejections not recited below have been withdrawn.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver et al (US 2019/0060227 A1) in view of Kataoka et al., (JP-10276672-A Machine Translated).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4-13: Silver discloses a mixture of cannabinoid oil and a base oil mixture (i.e., a foaming substance and flavoring substance) wherein the cannabinoid oil is slowly added to a heated base oil mixture (i.e., a foaming substance and flavoring substance), wherein the mixture is blended in a high speed mixer and the mixture is cooled down until solidified (i.e., until frozen) (see Silver Abstract; Paragraphs [0061]-[0065]). Moreover, Silver discloses a method of making THC infused oils comprising 1-2% THC, up to 98% oils, such as coconut oil and/or olive oil and mixing the THC and base oil with a high speed mixer until a homogeneous mixture is attained (see Silver abstract; paragraphs [0023]-[0031] and [0037]-[0045]-). Given the fact the contents of the cannabinoid oil, foaming and flavoring substances recited in claims 2 and 8-13 overlap the contents of the cannabinoid oil, foaming and flavoring substances in Silver, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to the cooling and thawing steps recited in the claims: Silver discloses of setting/cooling the THC infused mixture to room temperature; However, Kataoka discloses that freezing and thawing a fat mixture, allows for a product with improved shelf life and spread ability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the application was filed to have modified Silver and to have frozen and thawed the mixture of cannabinoid oil in order to attain a product with an improved shelf life and/or spread ability, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 3: Silver discloses of setting/cooling the THC infused mixture to room temperature, but fails to disclose setting/cooling the THC infused oils in an insulted container as recited in claim 3; However, given the fact cooling heated mixture in insulted molds is well known in the art, the disclosure in Silver meets the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSAF ZILBERING whose telephone number is (571)270-3029. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASSAF ZILBERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1792