DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/17/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are pending. Claims 10-11 and 13-15 are withdrawn. Claims 1 and 20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7, filed 8/17/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9 and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of a new mapping of Hu in view of Cohen, as evidenced by Schmekel.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (CN 109832655 A, a translation of which was previously provided for reference) in view of Cohen et al. (US 2021/0283527 A1), as evidenced by Schmekel et al. (US 2012/0006341 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses an apparatus (“multi-stage extraction device”, Figs. 1-2, ¶ 0064) for the extraction of ingredients from plant material (“tobacco raw materials”, ¶ 0046), comprising
a first screw conveyor (first of the “plurality of extraction devices 100”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0064) with at least one rotatably driven first screw (first “screw shaft 120” that is “driven to rotate”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0049), which is adapted to convey the plant material (“screw shaft 120” includes “spiral groove 121” that conveys the “tobacco raw material”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0050) from a first screw conveyor inlet (first “feed inlet 111”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0050) to a first screw conveyor outlet (first “pulp outlet 113”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0050), and
a second screw conveyor (second of the “plurality of extraction devices 100”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0064) with at least one rotatably driven second screw (second “screw shaft 120” that is “driven to rotate”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0049), which is adapted to convey the plant material (“screw shaft 120” includes “spiral groove 121” that conveys the “tobacco raw material”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0050) from a second screw conveyor inlet (second “feed inlet 111”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0050) to a second screw conveyor outlet (second “pulp outlet 113”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0050),
wherein a fluid connection is provided in between the first screw conveyor outlet and the second screw conveyor inlet, the fluid connection being adapted to enable flow of plant material from the first screw conveyor outlet to the second screw conveyor inlet (second “feed inlet 111” receives extracted tobacco material from first “pulp outlet 113”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0064),
wherein the first screw conveyor has a first fluid outlet at its downstream side (first “liquid outlet 112”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0050), and
wherein the second screw conveyor has a second fluid outlet (second “liquid outlet 112”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0050) at its downstream side, wherein the first screw conveyor forms a first stage and the second screw conveyor forms a second stage (Fig. 2).
Hu does not explicitly disclose that processing conditions with respect to heat to which the plant material is subjected in the first stage are different from processing conditions with respect to heat to which the plant material is subjected in the second stage.
However, Hu discloses that the plant material is subjected to different amounts of mechanical compression within a single stage due to the narrowing of the spacing between spiral grooves (“As the tobacco raw material moves forward, the lead of the spiral groove 121 changes, causing the accommodating space of the spiral groove 121 to gradually narrow . . . . The tobacco raw material is squeezed”, ¶ 0052). As evidenced by Schmekel, the mechanical compression within a screw conveyor generates heat within plant material (“the increased extrusion pressure and an increased extrusion temperature are thus generated by mechanically compressing the tobacco material in the extruder”, ¶ 0008). As such, the mechanical compression is a processing condition with respect to heat to which the plant material is subjected. Because the mechanical compression varies within each single stage of the apparatus of Hu, processing conditions with respect to heat to which the plant material is subjected in the first stage (the mechanical compressions at the first few revolutions of the spiral groove 121 in the first stage) are different from processing conditions with respect to heat to which the plant material is subjected in the second stage (the mechanical compressions at the last few revolutions of the spiral groove 121 in the second stage stage).
Hu further discloses that the apparatus comprises drives of the apparatus (each stage has a “rotary motor 141”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0049). However, Hu does not disclose an electronic controller having input/output electronics configured to communicate with the drives.
However, Hu does not disclose an electronic controller configured to control the apparatus.
Cohen, in the same field of endeavor, discloses an electronic controller (“controller 80”, Fig. 2A, ¶ 0035) configured to control an apparatus (apparatus with “screw 22”, ¶ 0035). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit to using such a configuration in that it allows for automated monitoring and control of the apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the electronic controller taught by Cohen in the apparatus taught by Hu, in order to obtain this benefit. In the resulting configuration, the electronic controller controls the rotation of the screws (“controller 80 may increase the speed of rotation of the screw”, ¶ 0035 of Cohen), which, as discussed above, governs the processing conditions with respect to heat to which the plant material is subjected, such that processing conditions with respect to heat in the first stage are different from processing conditions with respect to heat in the second stage.
Regarding claim 2, Hu in view of Cohen, as evidenced by Schmekel, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, as stated above. Hu further discloses wherein at least one of the screw conveyors has two rotatably driven screws (“plurality of spiral shafts 120 can maintain the same rotation direction, or can rotate in opposite directions to form a counter-rotation relationship”, ¶ 0056) arranged therein.
Regarding claim 4, Hu in view of Cohen, as evidenced by Schmekel, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, as stated above. Hu further discloses the apparatus comprising a third screw conveyor (third of the “three-stage extraction devices connected in series in sequence”, ¶ 0068) with at least one rotatably driven screw (third “screw shaft 120” that is “driven to rotate”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0049), which is adapted to convey the plant material (“screw shaft 120” includes “spiral groove 121” that conveys the “tobacco raw material”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0050) from a third screw conveyor inlet (third “feed inlet 111”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0050) to a third screw conveyor outlet (third “pulp outlet 113”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0050).
Regarding claim 5, Hu in view of Cohen, as evidenced by Schmekel, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, as stated above. Hu further discloses wherein in at least one of the screw conveyors, a pitch of threads of the at least one rotatably driven screw is varied (“the thread pitch of the spiral groove 121 at the end close to the feed inlet 111 is greater than the thread pitch of the spiral groove 121 at the end close to the liquid outlet 112”, ¶ 0052).
Regarding claim 6, Hu in view of Cohen, as evidenced by Schmekel, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, as stated above. Hu further discloses wherein in at least one of the screw conveyors a diameter of a shaft of the at least one rotatably driven screw is varied along an axial direction of the screw (“the inner diameter of the spiral groove 121 . . . increases from the feed inlet 111 to the liquid outlet 112”, ¶ 0054).
Regarding claim 7, Hu in view of Cohen, as evidenced by Schmekel, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, as stated above. Hu further discloses wherein at least one of the screw conveyors comprises a sieve (“filter screen”, ¶ 0048) being arranged at least partially in an axial and circumferential direction adjacent to the screw, to allow a separation of fluid from the plant material (¶ 0048).
Regarding claim 8, Hu in view of Cohen, as evidenced by Schmekel, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, as stated above. Hu further discloses wherein at least one of the screw conveyors comprises a fluid inlet at its upstream side (“feed port 111 is provided with a spray end, and the spray end is used to spray the solvent onto the tobacco raw material”, ¶ 0047).
Regarding claim 9, Hu in view of Cohen, as evidenced by Schmekel, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, as stated above. Hu further discloses wherein at least one of the screw conveyors is adapted to alter a pressure in a tobacco material while conveying the tobacco material (“The space between the spiral groove 121 and the inner circumference of the extraction chamber 110 is reduced from the feed port 111 to the liquid outlet 112, so that the tobacco raw material is gradually squeezed during the forward movement to achieve the extraction purpose.”, ¶ 0051).
Regarding claim 16, Hu in view of Cohen, as evidenced by Schmekel, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, as stated above. With regards to the specific temperatures of the ends of the first and second stages, this limitation refers to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be operated and does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art, as one having ordinary skill in the art would be able to operate the apparatus such that the temperature at the end of the second stage is higher than the temperature at the end of the first stage (see MPEP § 2114(II)).
Regarding claim 17, Hu in view of Cohen, as evidenced by Schmekel, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, as stated above. Hu does not explicitly disclose wherein the first screw conveyor is configured to apply higher shear forces to the plant material than the second screw conveyor. However, Hu discloses optimizing the amount of time that the plant material is within the screw conveyors to provide “sufficient ultrasonic destruction time and extrusion extraction time, thereby ensuring that the cell wall is fully destroyed and the extraction rate is ideal” (¶ 0057). The efficacy of the apparatus for this result depends on the shear forces applied to the plant material by the first and second screw conveyors as the shear forces are proportional to the rotational speed of the screws, and the amount of time that the plant material is within the screw conveyors “depends on the rotation speed” of the screw (¶ 0057). If the rotational speed, and the corresponding shear force, of any particular screw of the first and second screw conveyor is too high, the plant matter will not be within the apparatus long enough to for a sufficient ultrasonic destruction time to fully destroy the cell wall. If the rotational speed, and the corresponding shear force, of any particular screw of the first and second screw conveyor is too low, then the plant material will not quickly move through the apparatus, and the extraction time will be high. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the differences in shear forces applied by the first screw conveyor and the second screw conveyor by routine experimentation such that the first screw conveyor is configured to apply higher shear forces to the plant material than the second screw conveyor. "[W]here 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." (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 18, Hu in view of Cohen, as evidenced by Schmekel, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, as stated above. Hu does not explicitly disclose wherein the first screw conveyor is configured to apply different shear forces to the plant material than the second screw conveyor. However, Hu discloses optimizing the amount of time that the plant material is within the screw conveyors to provide “sufficient ultrasonic destruction time and extrusion extraction time, thereby ensuring that the cell wall is fully destroyed and the extraction rate is ideal” (¶ 0057). The efficacy of the apparatus for this result depends on the shear forces applied to the plant material by the first and second screw conveyors as the shear forces are proportional to the rotational speed of the screws, and the amount of time that the plant material is within the screw conveyors “depends on the rotation speed” of the screw (¶ 0057). If the rotational speed, and the corresponding shear force, of any particular screw of the first and second screw conveyor is too high, the plant matter will not be within the apparatus long enough to for a sufficient ultrasonic destruction time to fully destroy the cell wall. If the rotational speed, and the corresponding shear force, of any particular screw of the first and second screw conveyor is too low, then the plant material will not quickly move through the apparatus, and the extraction time will be high. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the differences in shear forces applied by the first screw conveyor and the second screw conveyor by routine experimentation such that the first screw conveyor is configured to apply different shear forces to the plant material than the second screw conveyor. "[W]here 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." (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 19, Hu in view of Cohen, as evidenced by Schmekel, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, as stated above. Hu further discloses wherein the first screw conveyor has a first fluid inlet at its upstream side (“the feed port 111 is provided with a spray end, and the spray end is used to spray the solvent onto the tobacco raw material”, ¶ 0047) and the second screw conveyor has a second fluid inlet at its upstream side (“the feed port 111 is provided with a spray end, and the spray end is used to spray the solvent onto the tobacco raw material”, ¶ 0047), wherein the first fluid inlet and the second fluid inlet are connected to different fluid reservoirs (“liquid receiving container 150” in Fig. 1, ¶ 0063, each stage having its own reservoir as seen in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Hu in view of Cohen, as evidenced by Schmekel, discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, as stated above. Hu further discloses that the apparatus comprises drives of the apparatus (each stage has a “rotary motor 141”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0049). Cohen further discloses that the electronic controller has input/output electronics (“sensors 42 and 44” are connected as input to the controller, Fig. 2A, ¶ 0035, and the controller is connected to the drive via an output “connection”, ¶ 0035) configured to communicate with a drive (“motor 40”, Fig. 2A, ¶ 0035) to control operation of the apparatus (¶ 0035). As such, in the combination of Hu and Cohen, the input/output electronics of Cohen will be configured to communicate with the drives of Hu and control the drives to control operation of the apparatus.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. (CN 109832655 A) in view of Cohen et al. (US 2021/0283527 A1), as evidenced by Schmekel et al. (US 2012/0006341 A1), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (CN 2636626 Y, a translation of which was previously provided for reference).
Regarding claim 3, Hu in view of Cohen, as evidenced by Schmekel, discloses the apparatus according to claim 2, as stated above. Hu discloses that the screws are arranged axially parallel (¶ 0056) but does not explicitly disclose that the crests of the threads on the proximal sides of the screws are adjacent to each other.
Yang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an apparatus for the extraction of ingredients from plant material (“extraction device for leaching and extracting tobacco fragrance raw materials”, see abstract) with two rotatably driven screws (“propeller press roll 9” and “propeller press roll 10”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0015) wherein crests of threads on proximal sides of the screws are adjacent to each other (“the wave crests of the spiral blades of the propeller press roll 9 are located at the wave troughs of the spiral blades of the propeller press roll 10”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0015). Yang also teaches a benefit of this alignment of the crests of the screws in that it achieves a higher extraction efficiency (¶ 0015). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arranged the screws taught by Hu with the crests of the threads on the proximal sides of the screws are adjacent to each other as taught by Yang, in order to achieve this benefit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY G CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0874. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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 H Wilson can be reached at (571)270-3882. 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.
/COURTNEY G CULBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
