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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: essential active heating and dehumidifying steps that perform drying because the preamble of independent claims 1 and 15 calls for drying cannabis plant Without these essential active steps, it is not unclear how the cannabis plant is dried by just loading and setting steps. The current claims merely call for drying for setting the humidity levels and chamber temperatures. This is insufficient to perform the drying step. According to the specification, the drying step requires heat source or any source to regulate heat and the chamber humidity is controlled by dehumidifier to reduce humidity and a device such as spray mist device to add humidity. The heat source or any source to regulate heat are essential for controlling the chamber temperature and the dehumidifier and a device such as spray or targeting the humidity levels and setting chamber temperature will not dry anything.
In Reference to Claim 3
Claim 3 omitted steps of obtaining the “oxygen deficient environment” There is no disclosure in the specification to explain the process of obtaining the oxygen deficient.
Regarding Claims 2, 4-8, 10-12, 14, 16, 18-20, 22 and 29
Claims 2, 4-8, 10-12, 14 are rejected by their virtual dependency to Claim 1.
Claims 16, 18-20, 22 and 29 are rejected by their virtual dependency to Claim 15.
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.
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, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2015/0096189 to Hawes in view of CN106676013 to Liu (The art rejection is made by English translation by PE2E).
In Reference to Claim 1
Hawes discloses A method for drying and sterilizing of cannabis plant material,(as disclosed in the Abstract) the method comprising: (i) providing feed cannabis plant material (loading cannabis plant into a chamber, abstract) having a water content of MO, (ii) partially drying (setting the humidity of the chamber to a first temperature, abstract) said feed cannabis plant material to form a partially dried cannabis plant material having a water content of M1, (iv) (optionally, the temperature to a second level until the water content reach desired percentage, abstract) when said M3 adjusting said M3.
Hawes teaches multiple drying stages in order to dry the cannabis to desired humidity percentage.
Hawes does not teach the sterilizing process.
Liu teaches a sterilizing stage among production stages
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Liu into the design of Hawes. Doing so, would result in a sterilizing process being added into the drying process of the cannabis. Both inventions of Liu and Hawes are for cannabis (the tobacco is also a cannabis). Liu teaches a sterilization is good to keep the color and good for production and re-drying processing.
The combination of Hawes and Liu as applied to Claim 1 does not teach the water content level. One having an ordinary skill in the cannabis processing art, would have found target water content level as a matter of design choice depending on the conditions of the raw material and the final product requirement. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes that water content level, presents a novel of unexpected result.
In Reference to Claim 2
Hawes discloses steps (ii) and (iii), and optionally step (iv), when required, are carried out at a single processing site. (Fig. the process is performed in the single unit 100)
In Reference to Claim 4
Hawes discloses a multiple stage drying process of the cannabis, each stage has a desired humidity range.
Hawes does not teach the water content level. One having an ordinary skill in the cannabis processing art, would have found target water content level as a matter of design choice depending on the conditions of the raw material and the final product requirement. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes that water content level, presents a novel of unexpected result.
In Reference to Claims 5 and 7
Hawes discloses a multiple stage drying process of the cannabis, each stage has a desired humidity range.
Hawes does not teach the water content level. One having an ordinary skill in the cannabis processing art, would have found target water content level as a matter of design choice depending on the conditions of the raw material and the final product requirement. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes that water content level, presents a novel of unexpected result.
Liu teaches a sterilizing stage among production stages
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Liu into the design of Hawes. Doing so, would result in a sterilizing process being added into the drying process of the cannabis. Both inventions of Liu and Hawes are for cannabis (the tobacco is also a cannabis). Liu teaches sterilization process to keep the color which is good for the production re-drying process.
The combination of Hawes and Liu as applied to Claim 5 does not teach the water content level. One having an ordinary skill in the cannabis processing art, would have found target water content level as a matter of design choice depending on the conditions of the raw material and the final product requirement. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes that water content level, presents a novel of unexpected result.
In Reference to Claim 8
Hawes discloses wherein said feed cannabis plant material comprises cannabis flowers. (Paragraph 30)
In Reference to Claims 10 and 14
Hawes discloses said partially drying said feed cannabis plant material is carried out for a duration (Paragraph 14)
Hawes. Does not teach the duration is between 0.5 and 5 days.
One having an ordinary skill in the cannabis processing art, would have found duration of the drying as a matter of design choice depending on the conditions of the raw material (Paragraph 14 teaches several alternative drying period). Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the duration of the drying, presents a novel of unexpected result.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hawes and Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN101632490 to Chen.
In Reference to Claims 11 and 12
Hawes discloses the cannabis drying process.
The combination of Hawes and Li as applied to Claim 1 teaches the drying process with sterilizing process.
The combination of Hawes and Li as applied to Claim 1 does not teach the detail of the sterilizing.
Chen teaches the sterilizing is performed with gamma irradiation.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Chen into the combination of Hawes and Li as applied to Claim 1. Doing so, would result in the gamma irradiation method being used to perform sterilization during the drying process. Both inventions of Hawes and Chen are for cannabis drying process. Chen teaches an environment-friendly method for preventing cannabis product thereof from mildewing.
The combination of Hawes, Li, and Chen as applied to Claim 12 does not teach the sterilizing temperature is 60-90 degree C. One having an ordinary skill in the cannabis drying process art, would have found sterilizing temperature as a matter of design choice depending on raw material to be process. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the sterilizing temperature, presents a novel of unexpected result.
Claims 15, 16, 18, 29 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawes in view of CN 201610560998 to Zhang (The art rejection is made based on the respective English translation).
In Reference to Claims 15, 16, 18
Hawes discloses a method for drying of cannabis plant material, the method comprising:(i) providing a system comprising at least one primary drying chamber (Fig. 1, 100), which at least one primary drying chamber has a volume Vi, and in operation provides a relative humidity RH1 and a temperature T1 (Fig. 2, 202); which at least one secondary drying stage, and in operation provides a relative humidity RH2 and a temperature T2 (Fig. 2, 203);(ii) providing a feed cannabis plant (Fig. 2, 201) material
Hawes discloses a single drying chamber.
Zhang teaches the drying process comprising two chamber (Fig. 1, 10 and 20) with a transferring (Fig. 1, 2) in between.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Zhang into the design of Hawes. Doing so, the two stage drying process would be performed in two drying chambers. Both inventions of Hawes and Zhang are for drying process of the plant material. Zhang teaches a method of preventing over drying during the process to improve the process quality.
The combination of Hawes and Zhang as applied to Claim 15 teaches a multiple stage drying process with two different drying chambers. The combination of Hawes and Zhang as applied to Claim 15 does not teach the detail size of chamber, the duration of the drying process, and the humidity at each drying stage. One having an ordinary skill in the cannabis processing art, would have found that the size of the drying chamber, the duration of the each drying process, the target water content level as a matter of design choice depending on the conditions of the raw material and the final product requirement. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes that size of the drying chamber, the process duration and humidity level, presents a novel of unexpected result.
In Reference to Claim 29
Hawes discloses wherein said feed cannabis plant material comprises cannabis flowers. (Paragraph 30)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hawes and Zhang as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Liu.
In Reference to Claim 19
Hawes disclose the multiple stage drying process for cannabis.
The combination of Hawes and Zhang as applied to Claim 19 does not teach a sterilizing process.
Liu teaches a sterilizing stage among production stages
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Liu into the combination of Hawes and Zhang as applied to Claim 15. Doing so, would result in a sterilizing process being added into the drying process of the cannabis. Both inventions of Liu and Hawes are for cannabis (the tobacco is also a cannabis). Liu teaches a sterilization is good to keep the color and good for production and re-drying processing.
The combination of Hawes, Zhang and Liu as applied to Claim 19 does not teach the during of the sterilizing process. One having an ordinary skill in the cannabis processing art, would have found that the duration of the each drying stage a matter of design choice depending on the conditions of the raw material and the final product requirement. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes, the process duration, presents a novel of unexpected result.
Claim 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hawes, Zhang and Liu as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Chen.
In Reference to Claims 20 and 22
The combination of Hawes, Zhang and Liu as applied to Claim 19 teaches the drying process with sterilizing process.
The combination of Hawes, Zhang, and Liu as applied to Claim 19 does not teach the detail of the sterilizing.
Chen teaches the sterilizing is performed with gamma irradiation.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Chen into the combination of Hawes, Zhang, and Liu as applied to Claim 19. Doing so, would result in the gamma irradiation method being used to perform sterilization during the drying process. Both inventions of Hawes and Chen are for cannabis drying process. Chen teaches an environment-friendly method for preventing cannabis product thereof from mildewing.
The combination of Hawes, Zhang, Liu and Chen as applied to Claim 19 does not teach the during of the sterilizing process. One having an ordinary skill in the cannabis processing art, would have found that the duration of the each drying stage a matter of design choice depending on the conditions of the raw material and the final product requirement. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes, the process duration, presents a novel of unexpected result.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hawes and Zhang as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Liu.
In Reference to Claim 38
Hawes disclose the multiple stage drying process for cannabis.
The combination of Hawes and Zhang as applied to Claim 37 does not teach a sterilizing process.
Liu teaches a sterilizing stage among production stages
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Liu into the combination of Hawes and Zhang as applied to Claim 37. Doing so, would result in a sterilizing process being added into the drying process of the cannabis. Both inventions of Liu and Hawes are for cannabis (the tobacco is also a cannabis). Liu teaches a sterilization is good to keep the color and good for production and re-drying processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 5712705614. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3748
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 12/4/25