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
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Applicant’s Amendment filed October 6, 2025 has been received and entered into the present application.
Claims 1-20 remain pending and under examination. Claim 1 is amended.
Applicant’s arguments, filed October 6, 2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application.
Status of Objections/Rejections in the April 17, 2025 Non-Final Action
In reply to the objection to claim 1 as set forth at p.3 of the previous Office Action dated April 17, 2025, Applicant amends claim 1 to define the acronym “CBD” at its first occurrence in the claims. Accordingly, the objection is now hereby withdrawn.
Objection to the Claims
Claim 1 remains objected to for failing to recite any relevant punctuation between the “extracting CBD” step and “adding the extracted CBD” step, which remains grammatically awkward, as set forth at p.4 of the previous Office Action dated April 17, 2025.
Appropriate correction remains required.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant fails to comment on, or proffer any rebuttal, to the objection to claim 1 repeated above.
For these reasons, the objection to claim 1 remains proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) (Pre-AIA Second Paragraph)
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.
(1) Claims 1-19 remain 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, for the reasons of record set forth at p.4-10 of the previous Office Action dated April 17, 2025, of which said reasons are herein incorporated by reference.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are editorial in nature, seeking only to define the acronym “CBD” at its first occurrence in the claims and to clarify that the plants are “cannabidiol (“CBD”) containing”.
The amendments to claim 1, however, do not address any of the problematic limitations noted in the grounds for rejection previously set forth at p.4-10 of the April 17, 2025 non-final Office Action.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
In reply, Applicant traverses the rejection, stating that “[c]laims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being allegedly indefinite” and “each instance of ‘CBD-derived product’ in claim 1 and any claims dependent therefrom is replaced by ‘CBD-containing product’ to more clearly indicate the product contains CBD” (Remarks, p.6-7). Applicant additionally states that “claim 1 is amended to replace ‘participant or the CBD production’ with ‘person participating in the method’ to more clearly define the cleansing step of claim 1” (Remarks, p.7).
The arguments have been fully and carefully considered, but are not found persuasive.
Firstly, Applicant’s statement that claims 1-12 are rejected is incorrect. Instant claims 1-19 are subject to rejection herein – not just claims 1-12.
Secondly, Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 pertaining to a “CBD-containing product” are noted, but fail to address any of the grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) (pre-AIA second paragraph) previously set forth regarding claim 1 in the April 17, 2025 non-final Office Action.
Thirdly, and finally, Applicant states that claim 1 has been amended to now recite a limitation directed to a “person participating in the method”, but no such amendment has been made. As such, it is unclear to what amendment(s) Applicant intends to refer and/or the ground for rejection he intends to address in the remarks.
For these reasons supra, rejection of claims 1-19 is proper.
(2) Claim 20 remains 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, for the reasons of record set forth at p.10-12 of the previous Office Action dated April 17, 2025, of which said reasons are herein incorporated by reference.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant fails to address the grounds for rejection by proffering any amendments to the claim and/or remarks rebutting the grounds for rejection.
For these reasons supra, rejection of claim 20 remains proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 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.
(3) Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creatress (“Growing Cannabis With the Moon and Zodiac for Naturally Improved Results”, Published Online August 22, 2008; hereinafter “Creatress”, cited by Applicant on the 01/20/22 IDS) in view of Church (“Planting By the Moon”, Las Flores Community Garden, Online, 2018) and Robinson (“These Two ‘Nuns’ Are Making a Living Selling Pot Products on Etsy”, Business Insider, Published Online March 25, 2016),
citing to (i) Oxford English Dictionary (“Supermoon”, Online), (ii) Buckle et al. (“What is a Supermoon and When is the Next One?”, Online), and (iii) vocabulary.com (“Tincture”, Online, cited by Applicant on the 01/20/22 IDS) as factual evidence,
each already of record, for the reasons of record set forth at p.12-21 of the previous Office Action dated April 17, 2025, of which said reasons are herein incorporated by reference.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are editorial in nature, seeking only to define the acronym “CBD” at its first occurrence in the claims and to clarify that the plants are “cannabidiol (“CBD”) containing”.
Such amendments, however, do not alter the scope of subject matter previously rejected and, as such, claim 1 remains properly included in the present rejection for the reasons already set forth in the record, which apply equally herein.
(4) Claims 17 and 19 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creatress (“Growing Cannabis With the Moon and Zodiac for Naturally Improved Results”, Published Online August 22, 2008; hereinafter “Creatress”, cited by Applicant on the 01/20/22 IDS) in view of Church (“Planting By the Moon”, Las Flores Community Garden, Online, 2018) and Robinson (“These Two ‘Nuns’ Are Making a Living Selling Pot Products on Etsy”, Business Insider, Published Online March 25, 2016),
citing to (i) Oxford English Dictionary (“Supermoon”, Online), (ii) Buckle et al. (“What is a Supermoon and When is the Next One?”, Online), and (iii) vocabulary.com (“Tincture”, Online, cited by Applicant on the 01/20/22 IDS) as factual evidence,
as applied above to claims 1-16,
further in view of Kushka (“How to Do Cannabis Olive Oil Rich in CBD”, Published Online October 18, 2016, cited by Applicant on the 01/20/22 IDS),
each already of record, for the reasons of record set forth at p.21-22 of the previous Office Action dated April 17, 2025, of which said reasons are herein incorporated by reference.
(5) Claim 18 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creatress (“Growing Cannabis With the Moon and Zodiac for Naturally Improved Results”, Published Online August 22, 2008; hereinafter “Creatress”, cited by Applicant on the 01/20/22 IDS) in view of Church (“Planting By the Moon”, Las Flores Community Garden, Online, 2018) and Robinson (“These Two ‘Nuns’ Are Making a Living Selling Pot Products on Etsy”, Business Insider, Published Online March 25, 2016),
citing to (i) Oxford English Dictionary (“Supermoon”, Online), (ii) Buckle et al. (“What is a Supermoon and When is the Next One?”, Online), and (iii) vocabulary.com (“Tincture”, Online, cited by Applicant on the 01/20/22 IDS) as factual evidence,
as applied above to claims 1-16,
further in view of Whittle et al. (WO 2004/016277 A2; 2004, cited by Applicant on the 01/20/22 IDS),
each already of record, for the reasons of record set forth at p.23-24 of the previous Office Action dated April 17, 2025, of which said reasons are herein incorporated by reference.
(6) Claim 20 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Creatress (“Growing Cannabis With the Moon and Zodiac for Naturally Improved Results”, Published Online August 22, 2008; hereinafter “Creatress”, cited by Applicant on the 01/20/22 IDS) in view of Church (“Planting By the Moon”, Las Flores Community Garden, Online, 2018) and Robinson (“These Two ‘Nuns” Are Making a Living Selling Pot Products on Etsy”, Business Insider, Published Online March 25, 2016),
citing to vocabulary.com (“Tincture”, Online, cited by Applicant on the 01/20/22 IDS) as factual evidence,
each already of record, for the reasons of record set forth at p.24-30 of the previous Office Action dated April 17, 2025, of which said reasons are herein incorporated by reference.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
In reply, Applicant addresses the rejections collectively, stating only that “[i]n view of the foregoing remarks, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 has been overcome and should be withdrawn for each claim of claims 1-16” and that “[n]otice to that effect is requested” (Remarks, p.8).
The arguments have been fully and carefully considered, but are not found persuasive.
Applicant fails to present any remarks and/or rebuttal specifically directed to the pending rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103. As such, the rejections remain proper and are maintained absent any amendments and/or remarks directed to the propriety of the rejections.
Finally, Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection pertaining to claims 1-16, but should note that all of claims 1-20 are subject to rejection – not just claims 1-16. In any case, the rejections set forth against claims 1-20 are not withdrawn at this time because Applicant fails to address such rejections by proffering any claim amendments and/or specific rebuttal thereto.
For these reasons supra, rejection of claims 1-20 is proper.
Conclusion
Rejection of claims 1-20 is proper.
No claims of the present application are allowed.
Applicant is requested to specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure in response to this Office action, including the claims (M.P.E.P. §§ 714.02 and 2163.06). In doing so, applicant is requested to refer to pages and line (or paragraph) numbers (if available) in the as-filed specification, not the published application. Due to the procedure outlined in M.P.E.P. § 2163.06 for interpreting claims, other art may be applicable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) once the aforementioned issue(s) is/are addressed.
Applicant is reminded that MPEP §2001.06(b) clearly states that “[t]he individuals covered by 37 C.F.R. 1.56 have a duty to bring to the attention of the examiner, or other Office official involved with the examination of a particular application, information within their knowledge as to other copending United States applications which are "material to patentability" of the application in question." See Armour & Co. v. Swift & Co., 466 F.2d 767, 779, 175 USPQ 70, 79 (7th Cir. 1972). MPEP §2001.06(b) clearly indicates that “if a particular inventor has different applications pending in which similar subject matter but patentably indistinct claims are present that fact must be disclosed to the examiner of each of the involved applications.” See Dayco Prod. Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1365-69, 66 USPQ2d 1801, 1806-08 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Leslie A. Royds Draper whose telephone number is (571)272-6096. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday to Thursday (08:30 AM to 05:00 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, Jeffrey S. Lundgren can be reached at (571)-272-5541. 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.
/Leslie A. Royds Draper/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1629
October 22, 2025