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 .
Reopening of Prosecution After Appeal Brief
In view of the appeal brief filed on 8/4/25, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
This office action is written in response to the Applicants Remarks filed 8/4/25. Claims 1, 2, 5-14, 16-19, 22-25 have been examined. Claims 3, 4, 15, 20, and 21 were previously cancelled.
Withdrawn Rejections
The 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 2, 9-14, 16-19, and 23 over Goldstein et al. (US 2017/0280740) in further view of Deckelbaum et al. (US 2010/0093856), GB 1,051,167, and Amselem et al. (US 5576016) are withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 2, 7, 9-14, 16-19, and 23 over Silver (WO 2017/180948) as evidenced by Lucas Montero de Espinosa “Plant Oils: The perfect Renewable Resource for polymer Science” vol. 47 Issue 5 May 2011 pages 837-852 as evidenced by Lucas Montero de Espinosa “Plant Oils: The perfect Renewable Resource for polymer Science” vol. 47 Issue 5 May 2011 pages 837-852, Deckelbaum et al. (US 2010/0093856) and GB 1,051,167 and Amselem et al. (US 5576016) have been withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 5 over Goldstein et al. (US 2017/0280740), Deckelbaum et al. (US 2010/0093856), GB 1,051,167, and Amselem et al. (US 5576016) and Gelin et al. TW I321038 Machine Translation has been withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 5 over Silver (WO 2017/180948) as evidenced by Lucas Montero de Espinosa “Plant Oils: The perfect Renewable Resource for polymer Science” vol. 47 Issue 5 May 2011 pages 837-852, Deckelbaum et al. (US 2010/0093856), GB 1,051,167, and Amselem et al. (US 5576016) and Gelin et al. TW I321038 has been withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 6 and 8 over Goldstein et al. (US 2017/0280740), Deckelbaum et al. (US 2010/0093856), GB 1,051,167, Amselem et al. (US 5576016) Lucas Montero de Espinosa “Plant Oils: The perfect Renewable Resource for polymer Science” vol. 47 Issue 5 May 2011 pages 837-852 and Daniels et al. WO 2006021334 have been withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 6 and 8 over Silver (WO 2017/180948) as evidenced by Lucas Montero de Espinosa “Plant Oils: The perfect Renewable Resource for polymer Science” vol. 47 Issue 5 May 2011 pages 837-852, Deckelbaum et al. (US 2010/0093856), GB 1,051,167, and Amselem et al. (US 5576016) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Lucas Montero de Espinosa “Plant Oils: The perfect Renewable Resource for polymer Science” vol. 47 Issue 5 May 2011 pages 837-852 and Daniels et al. WO 2006021334 have been withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 22 over Goldstein et al. (US 2017/0280740) in further view of Deckelbaum et al. (US 2010/0093856), GB 1,051,167, and Amselem et al. (US 5576016) and Horikoshi et al. (CA 2010894) has been withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 22 over Silver (WO 2017/180948) as evidenced by Lucas Montero de Espinosa “Plant Oils: The perfect Renewable Resource for polymer Science” vol. 47 Issue 5 May 2011 pages 837-852 as evidenced by Lucas Montero de Espinosa “Plant Oils: The perfect Renewable Resource for polymer Science” vol. 47 Issue 5 May 2011 pages 837-852, Deckelbaum et al. (US 2010/0093856) and GB 1,051,167 and Amselem et al. (US 5576016) and Horikoshi et al. (CA 2010894) has been withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 24 and 25 over Goldstein et al. (US 2017/0280740), Deckelbaum et al. (US 2010/0093856), GB 1,051,167, and Amselem et al. (US 5576016) have been withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 24 and 25 over Silver (WO 2017/180948) as evidenced by Lucas Montero de Espinosa “Plant Oils: The perfect Renewable Resource for polymer Science” vol. 47 Issue 5 May 2011 pages 837-852 in further view of Deckelbaum et al. (US 2010/0093856), GB 1,051,167, and Amselem et al. (US 5576016) have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 contains the word “a” before plant derived. The word “a” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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. Blank et al. Structure of Milk Fat Triglycerides
Claims 1, 2, 5, 17, 18, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danielle Guercio “Cannabis Infused whipped cream is worth the extra effort” The Seattle Times March 7, 2017 as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. 2005 “Cream ingredients” and in view of Brookshire “Scientists Say Colloid” Science News Explores https://www.snexplores.org/article/scientists-say-colloid Feb 9, 2015 and McManaman Clinical Lipidology vol. 3, No. 3 2009 “Formation of milk lipids: a molecular perspective”.
Regarding Claim 1: Guercio discloses a mixture of 1 pint of heavy cream (about 16 oz), 1 ounce of cannabis glycerin tincture, with a CO2 cartridge in a cannister [pages 3 and 7]. Dairy management teaches that heavy cream contains about 36.8% milk fat and about 57% water [pg. 1]. Guercio discloses cannabis at about 6.25% (1 oz cannabis/16 oz heavy cream). McManaman teaches that the main fats in milk are triglycerides at 98% [pg. 2 “Milk lipid production”] and therefore the cream of Guercio inherently contains triglycerides.
Brookshire discloses that whipped cream and milk are emulsions, which are a type of colloid [pg. 2].
McManaman discloses the molecular structure of milk lipids [abstract]. McManaman discloses that milk lipids/triglycerides are surrounded by a phospholipid monolayer [pg.3 “Milk lipid biogenesis”, pg. 15].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the lipids contained in Guercio would have been surrounded by a phospholipid since McManaman discloses this as a characteristic of milkfat structure.
Further it would have been obvious that the whipped cream of Guercio was an emulsion and colloid since Brookshire discloses whipped cream as having this categorization.
Regarding Claim 2: Guercio discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Guercio as evidenced by Dairy management discloses that heavy cream contains about 36.8% milk fat (lipid component) and about 57% water (aqueous component). Guercio discloses cannabis at about 6.25% (1 oz cannabis/16 oz heavy cream).
Regarding Claim 5: Guercio discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Guercio discloses heavy cream which is derived from dairy milk which is sourced from cows and is therefore animal derived.
Regarding Claim 17: Guercio discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Guercio discloses including maple syrup which is a sweetener [pg. 4].
Regarding Claim 18: Guercio discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Guercio discloses an aqueous emulsion that is in the form of a colloid (milk) (an emulsion) and that the composition contains a gas which is carbon dioxide. [pg. 4]. Guercio discloses the composition in a pressurized can [pg. 4].
Regarding Claim 25: Guercio discloses a mixture of 1 pint of heavy cream (about 16 oz), 1 ounce of cannabis glycerin tincture, and a CO2 cartridge and cannister [pages 3 and 7]. Dairy management teaches that heavy cream contains about 36.8% milk fat and about 57% water [pg. 1]. Guercio discloses cannabis at about 6.25% (1 oz cannabis/16 oz heavy cream). McManaman teaches that the main fats in milk are triglycerides at 98% [pg. 2 “Milk lipid production”] and therefore it would have been anticipated that the composition would have contained triglycerides.
Brookshire discloses that whipped cream and milk are emulsions, which are a type of colloid [pg. 2].
McManaman discloses that the lipids/triglycerides are surrounded by a phospholipid monolayer [pg.3 “Milk lipid biogenesis”, pg. 15].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the lipids contained in Guercio would have been surrounded by a phospholipid since McManaman discloses this as a characteristic of milkfat structure.
Further it would have been obvious that the whipped cream of Guercio was an emulsion and colloid since Brookshire discloses whipped cream as having this categorization.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. and in view of Brookshire and McManaman as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Jensen et al. “Symposium: Milk Fat- Composition, Function, and Potential for Change” Journal of Dairy Science 1991 vol. 74.
Regarding Claims 6 and 8: Guercio discloses as discussed above in claim 1.
Guercio does not explicitly disclose myristic, palmitic acid, stearic acid, palmitoleic acid, oleic acid, linoleic acid, alpha-linolenic acid, vaccenic acid, and combinations thereof (claim 6); wherein the lipid wherein the triglyceride includes glycerol esterified with a fatty acid selected from a group consisting of: caprylic acid, decanoic acid, lauric acid, myristic acid, palmitic acid, oleic acid, stearic acid, linoleic acid, arachidic acid, behenic acid, lignoceric acid, alpha-linolenic acid, and combinations thereof (claim 8).
Jensen discloses that milk contains the triglycerides myristic acid (C14:0), palmitic acid (C16:0), stearic acid (C18:0), palmitoleic acid (C16:1), oleic acid (C18:1), linoleic acid, (C18:2), alpha-linolenic acid (C18:3), vaccenic acid, caprylic acid(C8:0), decanoic acid (C10:0), lauric acid (C12:0), arachidic acid (C20:0) [Table 14; Table 16].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the cream of Guercio would have contained at least myristic acid (C14:0), palmitic acid (C16:0), stearic acid (C18:0), palmitoleic acid (C16:1), oleic acid (C18:1), linoleic acid, (C18:2), alpha-linolenic acid (C18:3), vaccenic acid, caprylic acid(C8:0), decanoic acid (C10:0), lauric acid (C12:0), arachidic acid (C20:0) as disclosed in Jensen since Guercio contains milk fat due to the presence of heavy cream and since Jensen discloses that these triglycerides are found in milk.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. and in view of Brookshire and McManaman as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Rachel Nall “What are the best substitutes for heavy cream?” Medical News Today Nov 28 2018 as evidenced by Bezard et al. “Triglyceride Composition of Coconut Oil” Journal of the American Oil Society March 1971
Regarding Claim 7: Guercio discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Guercio does not disclose that the triglycerides are plant based.
Nall discloses the best substitutes for heavy cream [pg. 1]. Nall discloses coconut cream as a substitute for dairy milk [pg. 3]. Nall discloses that coconut cream whips in a similar way to heavy cream [pg. 3]. Bezard teaches triglycerides in coconut oil (coconut fat) [abstract].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heavy cream of Guercio for the coconut cream of Nall since Nall discloses similarity in the ability to whip the cream and since it would provide for an alternative to the dairy based topping for vegans or for those that are lactose intolerant.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. and in view of Brookshire and McManaman as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Thomas (US 2019/0151771).
Regarding Claims 9-10: Guercio discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Guercio discloses including cannabis and therefore discloses cannabinoids.
Thomas discloses that when cannabis is selected as the plant material to be processed, the preferred oils to be extracted may include the various chemical forms of cannabidiol (CBD), cannabidivarin (CBDV), delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol, tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV), cannabinol (CBN), cannabigerol, cannabichromene, chemically converted cannabinoids or any other cannabinoid [0003; 0039]. Thomas discloses an oil containing at least 70% CBD [0157-0159].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the cannabis of Guercio would have contained at least one of cannabidiol (CBD), cannabidivarin (CBDV), delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol, tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV), cannabinol (CBN), cannabigerol, cannabichromene, chemically converted cannabinoids or any other cannabinoid as in Thomas since it discloses cannabis in the composition.
Regarding Claims 11 and 12: Guercio discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Guercio does not disclose wherein CBD is the largest fraction (claim 11); from about 70% to about 90% CBD (claim 12).
Thomas discloses that when cannabis is selected as the plant material to be processed, the preferred oils to be extracted may include the various chemical forms of cannabidiol (CBD), cannabidivarin (CBDV), delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol, tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV), cannabinol (CBN), cannabigerol, cannabichromene, chemically converted cannabinoids or any other cannabinoid [0003; 0039]. Thomas discloses an oil containing at least 70% CBD [0157-0159].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cannabis of Guercio for the cannabis oil containing a high amount of CBD as in Thomas in order to selectively attain and utilize cannabis oil high in CBD for its therapeutic effect.
Although Thomas does not explicitly disclose 70 to 90% one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Thomas overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. and in view of Brookshire and McManaman as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Kolsky (US 2016/0158298).
Regarding Claim 13: Guercio discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Guercio does not disclose wherein the THC is less than about 0.3% (claim 13); about 0% (claim 14).
Kolsky discloses cannabis as containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) [0007-0010] Kolsky discloses a composition containing high levels of CBD and low levels of THC [0013; 0037; 0038; claim 6]. Kolsky discloses a minimum of 25 mg of CBD/2000mg-15,000mg component and a maximum of 40 mg THC/2,000mg -15,000 mg component (a maximum of .26% to 2% [claims 1 -3]. Kolsky discloses optimizing the therapeutic effects of CBD and the psychoactive effects of THC [abstract].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify cannabis of Guercio for the modified cannabis oil of Kolsky containing low levels of THC in order to avoid the psychoactive effects of THC.
Although Kolsky does not explicitly disclose THC at less than about 0.3%; about 0% THC, one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Kolsky at a maximum THC of .26 to 2% and therefore less than 0.26% overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. and in view of Brookshire and McManaman as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Thomas (US 2019/0151771) and Kolsky (US 2016/0158298).
Regarding Claim 23: Guercio discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Guercio does not disclose that the cannabis derived oil is 70 to 90% cannabidiol and includes THC at less than 0.3%.
Thomas discloses that when cannabis is selected as the plant material to be processed, the preferred oils to be extracted may include the various chemical forms of cannabidiol (CBD), cannabidivarin (CBDV), delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol, tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV), cannabinol (CBN), cannabigerol, cannabichromene, chemically converted cannabinoids or any other cannabinoid [0003; 0039]. Thomas discloses an oil containing at least 70% CBD [0157-0159].
Kolsky discloses cannabis as containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) [0007-0010] Kolsky discloses a composition containing high levels of CBD and low levels of THC [0013; 0037; 0038; claim 6]. Kolsky discloses a minimum of 25 mg of CBD/2000mg-15,000mg component and a maximum of 40 mg THC/2,000mg -15,000 mg component (a maximum of .26% to 2% [claims 1 -3]. Kolsky discloses optimizing the therapeutic effects of CBD and the psychoactive effects of THC [abstract].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cannabis of Guercio for the cannabis oil containing a high amount of CBD as in Thomas in order to selectively attain and utilize cannabis oil high in CBD for its therapeutic effect.
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify cannabis of Guercio for the modified cannabis oil of Kolsky containing low levels of THC in order to minimize or avoid the psychoactive effects of THC.
Although Thomas does not explicitly disclose 70 to 90% one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Thomas overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Although Kolsky does not explicitly disclose THC at less than about 0.3%; about 0% THC, one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Kolsky at a maximum THC of .26 to 2% and therefore less than 0.26% overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. and in view of Brookshire and McManaman as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of GB 1,051,167.
Regarding Claim 19: Guercio discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Guercio does not disclose that the composition is in a pressurized container with nitrous oxide.
GB ‘167 discloses an aqueous emulsion that is in the form of a colloid (an emulsion) and the composition contains a gas which is nitrous oxide. [abstract; claims 1 and 2]. GB’167 discloses the composition in a pressurized can [pg.4, lines 44-52].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the composition of Guercio to include nitrous oxide in the place of carbon dioxide in order to provide an alternative propellant for the composition in a pressurized can.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guercio as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. and in view of Brookshire and McManaman as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Horikoshi et al. (CA 2010894).
Regarding Claim 22: Guercio discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Guercio does not disclose wherein the lipid component includes a milk fat globule membrane composed of lipids and proteins that surrounds a milk fat globule, the milk fat globule surrounded by a phospholipid trilayer containing proteins, carbohydrates, and lipids, and the milk fat globule membrane making up about 2% to 6% of the total milk fat globule.
Horikoshi discloses that the fat in milk globules are present at about 94% [pg. 9, lines 10-26]. Horikoshi also discloses that per gram of fat globules the membrane is present at 0.5 to 1.5% [pg. 10, lines 14-16]. Horikoshi discloses that milk fat membranes are preferably added at 2 to 10% of the neutral fat [pg. 13, lines 1-29]. Horikoshi discloses that the membranes are composed of fat and protein [pg. 10, lines 1-10]. Horikoshi discloses stabilization of suspensions using membranes pg. 9, lines 10-17, 28-31] and increasing foam stability [pg. 11, lines 22-27].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Guercio to include the milk fat globule as disclosed in Horikoshi to aid in stabilization and that the milk fat membrane would make up about 2 to 6% of the total milk fat globule since the fat in milk fat globules are present at about 94%.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danielle Guercio “Cannabis Infused whipped cream is worth the extra effort” The Seattle Times March 7, 2017 as evidenced by Dairy Management Inc. 2005 “Cream ingredients” and in view of Brookshire “Scientists Say Colloid” Science News Explores https://www.snexplores.org/article/scientists-say-colloid Feb 9, 2015 and McManaman Clinical Lipidology vol. 3, No. 3 2009 “Formation of milk lipids: a molecular perspective” and GB 1,051,167.
Regarding Claim 24: Guercio discloses a mixture of 1 pint of heavy cream (about 16 oz), 1 ounce of cannabis glycerin tincture, with a CO2 cartridge in a cannister [pages 3 and 7]. Dairy management teaches that heavy cream contains about 36.8% milk fat and about 57% water [pg. 1]. Guercio discloses cannabis at about 6.25% (1 oz cannabis/16 oz heavy cream). McManaman teaches that the main fats in milk are triglycerides at 98% [pg. 2 “Milk lipid production”] and therefore the cream of Guercio inherently contains triglycerides. Guercio as evidenced by Dairy management discloses that heavy cream contains about 36.8% milk fat (lipid component) and about 57% water (aqueous component). Guercio discloses cannabis at about 6.25% (1 oz cannabis/16 oz heavy cream).
Guercio does not disclose that the composition is in a pressurized container with nitrous oxide.
Brookshire discloses that whipped cream and milk are emulsions, which are a type of colloid [pg. 2].
McManaman discloses the molecular structure of milk lipids [abstract]. McManaman discloses that milk lipids/triglycerides are surrounded by a phospholipid monolayer [pg.3 “Milk lipid biogenesis”, pg. 15].
GB ‘167 discloses an aqueous emulsion that is in the form of a colloid (an emulsion) and the composition contains a gas which is nitrous oxide. [abstract; claims 1 and 2]. GB’167 discloses the composition in a pressurized can [pg.4, lines 44-52].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the lipids contained in Guercio would have been surrounded by a phospholipid since McManaman discloses this as a characteristic of milkfat structure.
Further it would have been obvious that the whipped cream of Guercio was an emulsion and colloid since Brookshire discloses whipped cream as having this categorization.
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the composition of Guercio to include nitrous oxide as in GB’167 in the place of carbon dioxide in order to provide an alternative propellant for the composition in a pressurized can.
Response to Arguments
The 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 2, 9-14, 16-19, and 23 over Goldstein et al. (US 2017/0280740) in further view of Deckelbaum et al. (US 2010/0093856), GB 1,051,167, and Amselem et al. (US 5576016) are withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 2, 7, 9-14, 16-19, and 23 over Silver (WO 2017/180948) as evidenced by Lucas Montero de Espinosa “Plant Oils: The perfect Renewable Resource for polymer Science” vol. 47 Issue 5 May 2011 pages 837-852 as evidenced by Lucas Montero de Espinosa “Plant Oils: The perfect Renewable Resource for polymer Science” vol. 47 Issue 5 May 2011 pages 837-852, Deckelbaum et al. (US 2010/0093856) and GB 1,051,167 and Amselem et al. (US 5576016) have been withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 5 over Goldstein et al. (US 2017/0280740), Deckelbaum et al. (US 2010/0093856), GB 1,051,167, and Amselem et al. (US 5576016) and Gelin et al. TW I321038 Machine Translation has been withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 5 over Silver (WO 2017/180948) as evidenced by Lucas Montero de Espinosa “Plant Oils: The perfect Renewable Resource for polymer Science” vol. 47 Issue 5 May 2011 pages 837-852, Deckelbaum et al. (US 2010/0093856), GB 1,051,167, and Amselem et al. (US 5576016) and Gelin et al. TW I321038 has been withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 6 and 8 over Goldstein et al. (US 2017/0280740), Deckelbaum et al. (US 2010/0093856), GB 1,051,167, Amselem et al. (US 5576016) Lucas Montero de Espinosa “Plant Oils: The perfect Renewable Resource for polymer Science” vol. 47 Issue 5 May 2011 pages 837-852 and Daniels et al. WO 2006021334 have been withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 6 and 8 over Silver (WO 2017/180948) as evidenced by Lucas Montero de Espinosa “Plant Oils: The perfect Renewable Resource for polymer Science” vol. 47 Issue 5 May 2011 pages 837-852, Deckelbaum et al. (US 2010/0093856), GB 1,051,167, and Amselem et al. (US 5576016) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Lucas Montero de Espinosa “Plant Oils: The perfect Renewable Resource for polymer Science” vol. 47 Issue 5 May 2011 pages 837-852 and Daniels et al. WO 2006021334 have been withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 22 over Goldstein et al. (US 2017/0280740) in further view of Deckelbaum et al. (US 2010/0093856), GB 1,051,167, and Amselem et al. (US 5576016) and Horikoshi et al. (CA 2010894) has been withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 22 over Silver (WO 2017/180948) as evidenced by Lucas Montero de Espinosa “Plant Oils: The perfect Renewable Resource for polymer Science” vol. 47 Issue 5 May 2011 pages 837-852 as evidenced by Lucas Montero de Espinosa “Plant Oils: The perfect Renewable Resource for polymer Science” vol. 47 Issue 5 May 2011 pages 837-852, Deckelbaum et al. (US 2010/0093856) and GB 1,051,167 and Amselem et al. (US 5576016) and Horikoshi et al. (CA 2010894) has been withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 24 and 25 over Goldstein et al. (US 2017/0280740), Deckelbaum et al. (US 2010/0093856), GB 1,051,167, and Amselem et al. (US 5576016) have been withdrawn.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 24 and 25 over Silver (WO 2017/180948) as evidenced by Lucas Montero de Espinosa “Plant Oils: The perfect Renewable Resource for polymer Science” vol. 47 Issue 5 May 2011 pages 837-852 in further view of Deckelbaum et al. (US 2010/0093856), GB 1,051,167, and Amselem et al. (US 5576016) have been withdrawn.
The Applicants assert that GB ‘167 discloses a high fat confectionary.
The Examiner notes that the Applicants have mischaracterized GB’167. Gb’167 discloses an oil in water emulsions where oil is around 25% of the composition, stabilizers with water as the balance, and adding nitrous oxide and water to cause foaming [Ex. I-III]. It is not a leap to modify a beverages to form a whipped composition. As shown in GB;167 it merely requires the addition of a stabilizer and an aeration method. The invention of GB’167 does not contain 30% to 0% fat as asserted by Applicants.
Pertinent Prior Art
35. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Davies https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/the-impact-of-colloid-science/3003954.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/the-impact-of-colloid-science/3003954.article January 2003 discloses emulsions as forms of colloids and that milk and creams are colloids.
Murty (US 2014/0357708) discloses oral dosage of THC and CBD [abstract; claim 20].
Sinai et al. (US 2018/0042845) discloses cannabis emulsions [abstract].
St-Jean et al. (US 2009/0123604) discloses oil in water emulsions containing medicines and drugs that can be mechanically stable in whipped for, or in aerated products [0060-0070].
Speier (US 9,183,386) discloses a concentrate enriched in at least 50% CBD and less than 5% THC [abstract; col. 5, lines 16col. 70].
Woolfe et al. (WO 03/006010) discloses aerosol formulations containing cannabis [abstract]. Woolfe discloses oil in water emulsions [abstract].
Conclusion
36. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICIA C TURNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3733. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-4:00 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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/Felicia C Turner/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793