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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 45-47 have been considered but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
The claim amendments dated 04/21/2026 have overcome the previously presented claim objections and claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 45 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It is recommended to amend claim 45 so as to read “The sterilization unit of claim 1, wherein the one or more screens comprise a first screen and a second screen disposed inward of the first screen in a direction of gas flow, wherein the first screen has a larger mesh size than the second screen.”, as explicit antecedent basis is not present for the limitation “the direction of gas flow”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 18, and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koppelman (US Patent 5,071,447) in view of Sinha et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0173203) (already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Koppelman discloses a sterilization unit for sterilizing a product (the disclosed apparatus is capable of steam treating the product under temperature and pressure conditions sufficient for sterilization, see col. 3 lines 40-48; furthermore volatile components are removed to obtain an “upgraded product”, see Abstract, and thus the apparatus reads on a sterilization unit for sterilizing a product), comprising:
a body (101) having an internal volume for receiving the product to be sterilized (col. 2 lines 50-65) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 2), and comprising at least one opening through which the product can be introduced into the inner volume (col. 3 lines 7-12);
a gas inlet (103) in fluid communication with the internal volume for introducing a sterilizing gas (steam) into the internal volume during sterilization (col. 3 lines 7-12), wherein the at least one opening is adapted to be sealed for pressurization of the internal volume (col. 3 lines 7-55, claim 2); and
a pressure release valve (104) (col. 3 lines 26-29),
wherein the body is capable of being pressurized to a pressure of 1800 psig (falls within the claim range) (col. 3 lines 40-66), the gas inlet (103) is disposed at a first end of the body (col. 3 lines 7-12) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 2), and the pressure release valve (104) is disposed at an oppositely disposed second end of the body such that the sterilizing gas flows through an entirety of the internal volume (note: the same function would necessarily also apply to an inert gas; the recitation of the inert gas represents an intended use of the unit) (col. 3 lines 7-39) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 2).
Koppelman is silent as to one or more screens disposed in the gas inlet through which the one or more of the inert gas and the sterilizing gas must pass before entering into the internal volume.
However, Koppelman discloses that the product contacts the atmosphere of the gas for treatment thereof based on the temperature and pressure of the gas (col. 3 lines 7-66).
Furthermore, Sinha et al. discloses a cylindrical container having an internal volume for receiving products to be treated (para. 20) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 13), comprising a plurality of gas inlets in fluid communication with the internal volume to deliver a gas thereto (para. 20), wherein the container is configured to maintain a desired temperature and high pressure therein to impart a treatment to the products (para. 3, 21). Sinha et al. further discloses one or more screens disposed in the plurality of gas inlets (para. 33) (Fig. 7, sheet 7 of 13), through which the gas must pass before entering the internal volume (para. 33). Sinha et al. discloses that providing the one or more screens in this manner produces a high turbulence intensity pattern in gas flow delivered to the internal volume which advantageously maximizes the number of products in the internal volume that receive a desired gas flow property for treatment (Abstract, para. 33-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the unit disclosed by Koppelman such that one or more screens are disposed in the gas inlet through which the sterilizing gas must pass before entering into the internal volume, as Sinha et al. discloses providing such a configuration for a treatment vessel in order to provide a turbulent airflow that enhances uniformity of treatment within the vessel, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to enhance uniformity of temperature and pressure conditions within the internal volume to ensure that materials therein are subjected to treatment conditions uniformly.
Regarding claim 9, Koppelman discloses a heater disposed at the gas inlet to heat the sterilizing gas (steam) before it enters the internal volume (col. 3 lines 7-12) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 2).
Regarding claim 11, Koppelman in view of Sinha et al. teaches the one or more screens, as set forth above.
Koppelman is silent as to a plurality of gas inlets radially spaced around the body, wherein the screen is disposed radially around the body, covering the gas inlets.
However, Sinha et al. discloses a plurality of gas inlets, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above. Specifically, Sinha et al. discloses a plurality of gas inlets radially spaced around the body (para. 20) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 13), each having a screen covering the inlet (Fig. 7, sheet 7 of 13) (thus each screen is disposed radially around the body), wherein this particular configuration advantageously enhances turbulence patterns as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above (see also para. 20, 33-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the unit disclosed by Koppelman to comprise a plurality of gas inlets radially spaced around the body, wherein the screen is disposed radially around the body, covering the gas inlets, based on the teachings of Sinha et al., in order to provide turbulence patterns known to enhance uniformity of temperature and pressure conditions within the internal volume to ensure that materials therein are subjected to treatment conditions uniformly.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation of wherein the product is cannabis or hemp is a recitation of intended use of the claimed unit and has therefore been given appropriate patentable weight. Koppelman discloses wherein the product is carbonaceous material such as wood or peat (col. 1 lines 5-19) and therefore the unit would be fully capable of treating a product wherein the product is cannabis or hemp.
As to the limitation of the unit being adapted to sterilize about 10 lbs to about 25 lbs of cannabis or hemp in a single batch, the unit disclosed by Koppelman is configured to treat the product in a single batch (col. 3 lines 1-12), and the further limitations as to the weight of the product amount to a recitation of the size of the unit. It is well-established that changes in size of a prior art device constitute a prima facie obvious modification to those skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.04), and it would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan to adjust the size of the body disclosed by Koppelman to accommodate about 10-25 lbs of cannabis or hemp in order to scale-up treatment of products to enhance the efficiency of the device.
Regarding claim 43, Koppelman discloses wherein the unit further comprises a vaporizer unit comprising a heater, a sterilizing fluid injector, and a sterilizing gas outlet (called boiler; necessarily comprises the aforementioned elements) (col. 3 lines 1-12) in fluid communication with the gas inlet to thereby feed sterilizing gas into the body of the sterilization unit (col. 3 lines 1-25) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 2).
Regarding claim 44, Koppelman in view of Sinha et al. teaches the one or more screens, as set forth above.
The prior art combination does not expressly teach wherein the one or more screens have a mesh size of about 0.2 µm to about 1000 µm.
Nonetheless, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, when the particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable (MPEP §2144.05). Sinha et al. discloses general conditions for the mesh size and further that this parameter impacts turbulence of flow (para. 33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover an optimum or workable range for the mesh size of the one or more screens through routine experimentation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koppelman (US Patent 5,071,447) in view of Sinha et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2012/0173203) (already of record), as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Bruce et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0374868).
Regarding claim 8, Koppelman discloses wherein the unit comprises a sensor disposed to be adapted to measure a quality such as pressure or temperature of sterilizing gas (steam) (reads on gas from the release valve, as the gas ultimately travels to the release valve as set forth above) (col. 3 lines 26-66).
Koppelman is silent as to wherein the sensor is adapted to measure concentration.
Bruce et al. discloses a sterilization container defining an inner volume wherein steam is introduced to serve as a sterilizing gas (Abstract, para. 9), the container further comprising a sensor disposed to be adapted to measure a concentration of the sterilizing gas (para. 50). Bruce et al. further discloses that a minimum concentration is required for effective treatment (para. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor disclosed by Koppelman to comprise a sensor adapted to measure a concentration of the sterilizing gas, based on the teachings of Bruce et al., in order to enhance the functionality of the unit by ensuring that a minimum effective concentration is reached.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 45 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Please note the claim objection relating to minor informalities for claim 45, above.
Claims 46-47 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY KIPOUROS whose telephone number is (571)272-0658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30-5PM.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 5712721374. 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.
/HOLLY KIPOUROS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights