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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE under 37 CFR 1.114), the Response, and Amendment filed 01/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following rejections by virtue of the amendment or cancellation of the claims: (1) the objections to claims 1, 8, and 25 have been withdrawn; (2) the 35 U.S.C. §112(a) rejections of claims 1-3, 7-13, and 17-26 have been withdrawn; (3) the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection of claim 22 has been withdrawn and (4) the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claim 17 over Somm, Reddit I, TJ, and Seasoned II has been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-3, 7-13, 18-27
Withdrawn claims: None
Previously cancelled claims: 4-6, 14-16
Newly cancelled claims: 17
Amended claims: 1, 3, 7-9, 13, 18-26
New claims: 27
Claims currently under consideration: 1-3, 7-13, 18-27
Currently rejected claims: 1-3, 7-13, 18-27
Allowed claims: None
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 7 of claim 1, “the non-cannabis food material” should be read as “the food material”.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somm (“Cannabis Cooking Essentials: Cannabis Infused Olive Oil”, 2017 The Herb Somm, https://www.theherbsomm.com/single-post/2017/04/27/cannabis-cooking-essentials-cannabis-infused-olive-oil; previously cited) in view of Reddit I (“TIL that you can rerun your oil infusion after freezing”, February 2021, Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/SousWeed/comments/lkhayu/til_that_you_can_rerun_your_oil_infusion_after/; previously cited) as evidenced by Hobbs (Hobbs, C. “Garlic, the Pungent Panacea”, 2026, https://christopherhobbs.com/library/articles-on-herbs-and-health/garlic-the-pungent-panacea/#:~:text=These%20special%20foods%20have%20been,garlic%20is%20a%20prime%20example.).
Regarding claim 1, Somm teaches a method of infusing a food grade oil with food compounds (corresponding to chile garlic CannaOil) comprising flavors, the method comprising: (A) providing a food material (corresponding to garlic and red chile pepper flakes); (B) providing a food grade oil; (C) adding at least a portion of the food material of (A) to the oil of (B) to form a food material and food grade oil mixture; and (D) heating the mixture of (C) to a temperature of 245°F or less for 4 hours (page 2, step 3 under “Directions”; page 2, paragraph under step 7 under “Directions”; page 2, steps 1-4 under “Chile Garlic CannaOil”). Garlic is an adaptogen as evidenced by Hobbs (page 1, 1st paragraph). Therefore, Somm discloses that the food material comprises an adaptogen as recited in step (A) of the presently claimed method. The temperature of 245°F or less encompasses the temperature recited in step (D) of the presently claimed method and the time of 4 hours falls within the time frame recited in step (D) of the presently claimed method. In regard to the encompassing range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portions of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art references, particularly in view of the fact that; "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages" In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.I. Although the prior art discloses the step of adding the food material to the oil prior to heating the oil to a temperature of 245°F or less, the “selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious”. MPEP 2144.04.IV(C). Therefore, steps (A)-(D) of the claimed method are rendered obvious.
Somm teaches that the method further comprises cooling the mixture after heating and then straining the mixture to separate the oil from the food material to yield food grade oil infused with food compounds comprising flavors (page 2, steps 4-6 under “Directions”; page 2, paragraph under step 7 under “Directions”), thereby rendering step (G) of the presently claimed method obvious.
Somm does not disclose steps (E) and (F) of the presently claimed method.
However, Reddit I teaches a method of infusing a food grade oil (corresponding to coconut oil) (first comment made by TastySenpai) with beneficial food compounds from cannabis (corresponding to weed) (comment made by Daddybearshare), wherein the method comprises: providing cannabis (comment under Daddybearshare); adding at least a portion of the cannabis to oil to form a food material and food grade oil mixture; and heating the mixture to a temperature of 185-200°F for four hours (second comment made by TastySenpai). It teaches that the method further comprises: freezing the mixture into a solid, frozen biomass (corresponding to freezing to cool) (original post by xxtzimiscexx; first comment by xxtzimiscexx); heating the solid, frozen biomass to a temperature of 185-200°F for four hours (corresponding to running the infusion multiple times) (first comment by xxtzimiscexx; second comment by TastySenpai); and straining the mixture to separate the oil from the food material to yield oil infused with food compounds (first comment by xxtzimiscexx). This heating temperature and time fall within the ranges recited in step (F) of the presently claimed method. Reddit I teaches that the freezing step increases potency of the infusion by increasing the bioavailability of the food compounds in the cannabis (comment by davo_nz).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Somm by freezing the mixture of step (D) into a solid, frozen biomass and then heating the solid, frozen biomass prior to straining the mixture as taught by Reddit I. Since Somm discloses that its mixture is cooled prior to straining and that its oil is infused with THC and CBD (page 1, 3rd-4th paragraphs), a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Reddit I in order to determine a suitable temperature to which to cool the mixture while maximizing the THC and CBD contents. Therefore, the claimed steps (E) and (F) of the presently claimed method are rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 2, modified Somm teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the method further comprising repeating steps (D) and (E) one or more times before step (F) (corresponding to running the process more times than in the disclosed “infuse:cool, infuse:cool and infuse:strain” process) (Reddit I, first comment by xxtzimiscexx; second comment by TastySenpai).
Regarding claim 27, Somm teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including step (D) further comprises heating the mixture of (C) to a temperature of 245°F or less (page 2, step 3 under “Directions”; page 2, steps 1-4 under “Chile Garlic CannaOil”). The temperature of 245°F or less encompasses the temperature recited in step (D) of the presently claimed method. The selection of a value within the encompassing range renders the claimed temperature obvious. MPEP 2144.05.I
Claims 1, 7-8, 10-12, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloat (WO 2021/257586; previously cited) in view of Reddit I (“TIL that you can rerun your oil infusion after freezing”, February 2021, Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/SousWeed/comments/lkhayu/til_that_you_can_rerun_your_oil_infusion_after/; previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Sloat teaches a method of infusing an orally ingestible consumable (corresponding to food products [0234] and beverages [0242]) with food compounds comprising one or more of vitamins and minerals (corresponding to nutrients) [0071], [0002]. Sloat teaches that the method comprises the steps of: providing a food material comprising cannabis and/or an adaptogen (corresponding to mushrooms, kava, and kratom); and providing an appropriate extraction solvent [0071], wherein the extraction solvent may be an oil (corresponding to a lipid component [0018] that is liquid at room temperature [0139]). Since the infused oil is being added to food and beverages [0234], [0242], Sloat teaches that the provided oil is a food grade oil as presently claimed. Therefore, Sloat discloses step (A) of the presently claimed method.
Sloat does not teach steps (B)-(G) of the presently claimed method.
However, Reddit I teaches a method of infusing a food grade oil (corresponding to coconut oil) (first comment made by TastySenpai) with food compounds (corresponding to beneficial compounds) (comment made by Daddybearshare), wherein the method comprises: providing weed as a food material (comment under Daddybearshare); adding at least a portion of the food material to oil to form a food material and food grade oil mixture; and heating the mixture to a temperature of 185-200°F for four hours (second comment made by TastySenpai), thereby also providing a food grade oil at a temperature of 185-200°F. These temperatures fall within the claimed ranges recited in steps (B) and (D) of the claimed method and the heating time falls within the range recited in step (D). Reddit I teaches that the method further comprises: freezing the mixture into a solid, frozen biomass (corresponding to freezing to cool) (original post by xxtzimiscexx; first comment by xxtzimiscexx); heating the solid, frozen biomass to a temperature of 185-200°F for four hours (corresponding to running the infusion multiple times) (first comment by xxtzimiscexx; second comment by TastySenpai); and straining the mixture to separate the oil from the food material to yield oil infused with food compounds (first comment by xxtzimiscexx). This heating temperature and time fall within the ranges recited in step (F) of the claimed method. Although the prior art discloses the step of adding cannabis to oil prior to heating the oil, the “selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious”. MPEP 2144.04.IV(C).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of making an extract of Sloat by using the steps taught by Reddit I. Since Sloat discloses using an extract produced by infusing an appropriate solvent such as oil with food compounds from adaptogens [0002], [0071] and that the composition comprises oil [0018], [0139] and may further comprise cannabis extract [0002], but does not disclose a method of making an oil infused with food compounds from adaptogens and/or cannabis, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Reddit I in order to determine a suitable method of preparing an oil infused with cannabis compounds.
Although Reddit I teaches its method in relation to infusing an oil with cannabis instead of infusing an oil with an adaptogen in the form of kava, kratom, and/or mushroom, a skilled practitioner would readily recognize that this method may be used to infuse an oil with an adaptogen, particularly in view of Sloat disclosing extracting kava, kratom, and mushroom compounds using oil infusion [0071]. Therefore, Reddit I renders steps (B)-(G) of the presently claimed method obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Sloat teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the adaptogen comprises kava and/or kratom [0002].
Regarding claim 8, Sloat teaches a method of infusing an orally ingestible consumable (corresponding to food products [0234] and beverages [0242]) with food compounds comprising one or more of vitamins and minerals (corresponding to nutrients) [0071], [0002]. Sloat teaches that the method comprises the steps of: providing a food material comprising cannabis and/or an adaptogen (corresponding to mushrooms, kava, and kratom); and providing an appropriate extraction solvent [0071], wherein the extraction solvent may be an oil (corresponding to a lipid component [0018] that is liquid at room temperature [0139]). Since the infused oil is being added to food and beverages [0234], [0242], Sloat teaches that the provided oil is a food grade oil as presently claimed. Therefore, Sloat discloses step (A) of the presently claimed method.
Sloat teaches that the method further comprises: infusing at least one orally ingestible consumable with the infused oil by soaking the consumable (corresponding to coating or adding the formulations/solutions to food products [0234] and beverages [0242]). Therefore, Sloat discloses step (H) of the presently claimed method and discloses a method of infusing an orally ingestible consumable with vitamins and minerals as presently claimed.
Sloat does not teach steps (B)-(G) and (I)-(L) of the presently claimed method.
However, Reddit I teaches a method of infusing a food grade oil (corresponding to coconut oil) (first comment made by TastySenpai) with food compounds (corresponding to beneficial compounds) (comment made by Daddybearshare), wherein the method comprises: providing weed as a food material (comment under Daddybearshare); adding at least a portion of the food material to oil to form a food material and food grade oil mixture; and heating the mixture to a temperature of 185-200°F for four hours (second comment made by TastySenpai), thereby also providing a food grade oil at a temperature of 185-200°F. These temperatures fall within the claimed ranges recited in steps (B) and (D) of the claimed method and the heating time falls within the range recited in step (D). Reddit I teaches that the method further comprises: freezing the mixture into a solid, frozen biomass (corresponding to freezing to cool) (original post by xxtzimiscexx; first comment by xxtzimiscexx); heating the solid, frozen biomass to a temperature of 185-200°F for four hours (corresponding to running the infusion multiple times) (first comment by xxtzimiscexx; second comment by TastySenpai); and straining the mixture to separate the oil from the food material to yield oil infused with food compounds (first comment by xxtzimiscexx). This heating temperature and time fall within the ranges recited in step (F) of the claimed method. Although the prior art discloses the step of adding cannabis to oil prior to heating the oil, the “selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious”. MPEP 2144.04.IV(C).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of making an extract of Sloat by using the steps taught by Reddit I. Since Sloat discloses using an extract produced by infusing an appropriate solvent such as oil with food compounds from adaptogens [0002], [0071] and that the composition comprises oil [0018], [0139] and may further comprise cannabis extract [0002], but does not disclose a method of making an oil infused with food compounds from adaptogens and/or cannabis, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Reddit I in order to determine a suitable method of preparing an oil infused with cannabis compounds.
Although Reddit I teaches its method in relation to infusing an oil with cannabis instead of infusing an oil with an adaptogen in the form of kava, kratom, and/or mushroom, a skilled practitioner would readily recognize that this method may be used to infuse an oil with an adaptogen, particularly in view of Sloat disclosing extracting kava, kratom, and mushroom compounds using oil infusion [0071]. Therefore, Reddit I renders steps (B)-(G) of the presently claimed method obvious.
In regards to steps (I)-(L) of the claimed method, since Sloat teaches that the orally ingestible consumable is infused with food compounds by soaking the consumable in the infused oil [0234], a skilled practitioner would have readily recognized that the method of infusion by soaking disclosed by Reddit I may also be applied to infusing the consumable by soaking since (1) Sloat discloses soaking the consumable in the infused oil to add the compounds to the consumable; and (2) infusion by soaking is well-known and practiced in the art. Furthermore, since Reddit I discloses freezing the mixture of step (I), Reddit I also at least suggests that the method comprises increasing a pressure on the consumable, thereby causing the food compounds to penetrate the consumable as presently claimed. Therefore, the claimed steps (I)-(L) are rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 10, modified Sloat teaches the invention as described above in claim 8, including the method further comprising repeating steps (D) and (E) one or more times before step (F) (corresponding to running the process more times than in the disclosed “infuse:cool, infuse:cool and infuse:strain” process) (Reddit I, first comment by xxtzimiscexx; second comment by TastySenpai).
Regarding claim 11, modified Sloat teaches the invention as described above in claim 8, including the method further comprising repeating steps (I) and (J) one or more times before step (K) (corresponding to running the process more times than in the disclosed “infuse:cool, infuse:cool and infuse:strain” process) (Reddit I, first comment by xxtzimiscexx; second comment by TastySenpai).
Regarding claim 12, modified Sloat teaches the invention as described above in claim 8, including the method further comprising repeating steps (D) and (E) one or more times before step (F); and repeating steps (I) and (J) one or more times before step (K) (corresponding to running the process more times than in the disclosed “infuse:cool, infuse:cool and infuse:strain” process) (Reddit I, first comment by xxtzimiscexx; second comment by TastySenpai).
Regarding claim 25, modified Sloat teaches the invention as described above in claim 8, including the method comprising freezing the mixture into a solid, frozen biomass (Reddit I; original post by xxtzimiscexx; first comment by xxtzimiscexx). Since the prior art discloses the claimed step of freezing the mixture of the consumable and the infused oil into a solid, frozen biomass, the freezing step of the combined prior art would necessarily have the claimed increase in pressure on the consumable causing the food compounds to penetrate the consumable to a center of the consumable at one or more of the claimed penetration percentages. “The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art' s function, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F .3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943. 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I).
Furthermore, the Office does not have laboratory facilities to test claim limitations drawn toward results of practicing the method as claimed. Accordingly, such increase in pressure and penetration percentage do not serve to distinguish the product as claimed from the prior art and are thus considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloat (WO 2021/257586; previously cited) in view of Reddit I (“TIL that you can rerun your oil infusion after freezing”, February 2021, Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/SousWeed/comments/lkhayu/til_that_you_can_rerun_your_oil_infusion_after/; previously cited) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, further in view of Ellementa (“Cooking: Making Cannabutter”, 2020, Ellementa, https://web.archive.org/web/20200617191914/https://ellementa.com/2017 /05/23/cooking-making-cannabutter-or-canna-oil/).
Regarding claim 3, Sloat teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including that vitamins and minerals are extracted from adaptogens and cannabis [0002]; and that the extraction solvent may be an oil (corresponding to a lipid component [0018] that is liquid at room temperature [0139]).
Sloat does not teach that the oil is at least one from the list recited in present claim 3.
However, Ellementa teaches that the oil used for extracting compounds from cannabis may be vegetable oil or grape seed oil (page 1, 1st bullet under heading beginning “Ingredient list”). Ellementa also discloses that vegetable shortening or margarine may also be used (page 1, 1st bullet under heading beginning “Ingredient list”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the method of Sloat to have included using vegetable oil, grape seed oil, margarine, or shortening as the extraction/infusion oil as taught by Ellementa. Since Sloat teaches that vitamins and minerals are extracted from adaptogens and cannabis [0002]; and that the extraction solvent may be an oil [0018], [0139]), a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Ellementa to determine a suitable oil in which to infuse compounds from adaptogens and/or cannabis, thereby rendering the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Sloat teaches the invention as described above in claim 8, including that vitamins and minerals are extracted from adaptogens and cannabis [0002]; and that the extraction solvent may be an oil (corresponding to a lipid component [0018] that is liquid at room temperature [0139]).
Sloat does not teach that the oil is at least one from the list recited in present claim .
However, Ellementa teaches that the oil used for extracting compounds from cannabis may be vegetable oil or grape seed oil (page 1, 1st bullet under heading beginning “Ingredient list”). Ellementa also discloses that vegetable shortening or margarine may also be used (page 1, 1st bullet under heading beginning “Ingredient list”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the method of Sloat to have included using vegetable oil, grape seed oil, margarine, or shortening as the extraction/infusion oil as taught by Ellementa. Since Sloat teaches that vitamins and minerals are extracted from adaptogens and cannabis [0002]; and that the extraction solvent may be an oil [0018], [0139]), a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Ellementa to determine a suitable oil in which to infuse compounds from adaptogens and/or cannabis, thereby rendering the claim obvious.
Claims 8 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloat (WO 2021/257586; previously cited) in view of CannaOil (“CannaOil”, 2015, https://imgur.com/a/cannaoil-lVrXq).
Regarding claim 8, Sloat teaches a method of infusing an orally ingestible consumable (corresponding to food products [0234] and beverages [0242]) with food compounds comprising one or more of vitamins and minerals (corresponding to nutrients) [0071], [0002]. Sloat teaches that the method comprises the steps of: providing a food material comprising cannabis and/or an adaptogen (corresponding to mushrooms, kava, and kratom); and providing an appropriate extraction solvent [0071], wherein the extraction solvent may be an oil (corresponding to a lipid component [0018] that is liquid at room temperature [0139]). Since the infused oil is being added to food and beverages [0234], [0242], Sloat teaches that the provided oil is a food grade oil as presently claimed. Therefore, Sloat discloses step (A) of the presently claimed method.
Sloat teaches that the method further comprises: infusing at least one orally ingestible consumable with the infused oil by soaking the consumable (corresponding to coating or adding the formulations/solutions to food products [0234] and beverages [0242]). Therefore, Sloat discloses step (H) of the presently claimed method and discloses a method of infusing an orally ingestible consumable with vitamins and minerals as presently claimed.
Sloat does not teach steps (B)-(G) and (I)-(L) of the presently claimed method.
However, CannaOil teaches a method of producing whole cannabis infused oil, wherein the method comprises: combining cannabis with oil to form a mixture (page 2, paragraph under second photograph); heating the mixture to a temperature of less than 240°F, such as 160-200°F, for at least 4 hours; freezing the mixture into a frozen biomass (page 2, third photograph and paragraph under third photograph); reheating the frozen biomass for about 3 hours into a liquid biomass (page 3, paragraphs under first through third photographs); and straining the liquid biomass to produce whole spectrum cannabis compounds infused food grade oil (page 4, second through third photographs).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Sloat to include preparing an oil infused with cannabis compounds as taught by CannaOil. Since Sloat teaches that the method comprises the step of infusing an oil with the cannabis, kava, kratom, and/or mushrooms to yield an oil infused with cannabis, kava, kratom, and/or mushroom compounds [0071], but does not disclose a method of infusing an oil with cannabis, kava, kratom, and/or mushrooms to yield an oil infused with cannabis, kava, kratom, and/or mushrooms compounds, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as CannaOil in order to determine a suitable method of infusing an oil with cannabis compounds to produce an oil infused with cannabis compounds.
CannaOil discloses that the mixture containing the cannabis and oil is heated to a temperature of less than 240°F for at least 4 hours (page 2, paragraph under second photograph), which encompasses the claimed temperature and time ranges during steps (B) and (D) of the presently claimed method. CannaOil discloses that the frozen biomass is reheated for about 3 hours after freezing, which falls within the time range recited in step (F) of the presently claimed method. CannaOil does not specify a temperature for heating the frozen biomass in step (F); however, since the frozen biomass is returned to the crock pot (page 3, paragraph under first photograph) and CannaOil discloses a temperature range for the crock pot of less than 240°F, such as 160-200°F, (page 2, paragraph under second photograph), it would have been obvious to have heated the solid biomass to a temperature 160-200°F, which falls within the claimed temperature range recited in step (F) of the presently claimed method. Although the prior art discloses the step of adding cannabis to oil prior to heating the oil, the “selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious”. MPEP 2144.04.IV(C).
Although CannaOil teaches its method in relation to infusing an oil with cannabis instead of infusing an oil with an adaptogen in the form of kava, kratom, and/or mushroom, a skilled practitioner would readily recognize that this method may be used to infuse an oil with an adaptogen, particularly in view of Sloat disclosing extracting cannabis, kava, kratom, and/or mushrooms compounds using oil infusion [0071]. As such, in combining the teachings of Sloat and CannaOil, the method of the prior art may comprise: (A) providing the adaptogen kava, kratom, and/or mushrooms; (B) providing a food grade oil at a temperature of less than 240°F, such as 160-200°F; (C) adding at least a portion of the kava, kratom, and/or mushrooms to the oil of step (B) to form a mixture; (D) heating the mixture to a temperature of less than 240°F, such as 160-200°F, for at least 4 hours; (E) freezing the mixture into a solid, frozen biomass; (F) heating the biomass to a temperature of less than 240°F, such as 160-200°F, for about 3 hours,; and (G) straining the mixture of step (F) to yield a food compounds infused oil. Therefore, the combination of Sloat and CannaOil renders steps (B)-(G) of the presently claimed method obvious.
Furthermore, the practitioner would also readily recognize that this method disclosed by CannaOil may be used to infuse the orally ingestible compound with the infused oil, particularly in view of Sloat disclosing soaking the consumable to add the formulations/solutions to food products [0234]. As such, the method of the combination of Sloat and CannaOil may further comprise: (H) adding a consumable to the infused oil produced in step (G) to form a mixture; (I) heating the mixture to a temperature of less than 240°F, such as 160-200°F, for at least 4 hours; (J) freezing the mixture; (K) heating the frozen mixture to a temperature of less than 240°F, such as 160-200°F, for about 3 hours to liquify the oil in the mixture; and (L) straining the mixture to remove the consumable from the mixture. The temperature of less than 240°F disclosed in CannaOil encompasses the claimed temperature of 170-240°F for infusing the orally ingestible consumable recited in step (I) of the presently claimed method; and encompasses the claimed temperature of 150-200°F for heating the frozen mixture recited in step (K) of the presently claimed method. The time period of at least 4 hours disclosed in CannaOil encompasses the claimed time period of 4-12 hours for infusing the orally ingestible consumable recited in step (I) of the presently claimed method. The time period of about 3 hours disclosed in CannaOil falls within the claimed time frame for heating the frozen mixture recited in step (K) of the presently claimed method. Therefore, the combination of prior art further renders steps (H)-(L) of the claimed method obvious.
Regarding claim 26, Sloat teaches the invention as described above in claim 8, including the method comprises: combining the mushroom compounds infused oil with extract from kratom to yield a combined oil (corresponding to combining therapeutic agents to provide a therapeutic ingredient in a composition) [0002], [0073]; and infusing at least one orally ingestible consumable with the combined oil by soaking the consumable [0234]. Therefore, the method of the combination of the prior art discloses that the method may further comprises: (H) adding a food extract (corresponding to kratom extract) to the infused oil of (G) to form a food extract, consumable, and infused oil mixture (Sloat [0002], [0073]); (I) heating the mixture of (H) to a temperature of less than 240°F, such as 160-200°F, for at least 4 hours (CannaOil, page 2, paragraph under second photograph); (J) freezing the mixture of (I) to form a solid, frozen mixture of an extract, consumable, and infused oil (CannaOil, page 2, third photograph and paragraph under third photograph); (K) heating the solid, frozen mixture of the extract, consumable, and infused oil to a temperature of less than 240°F, such as 160-200°F, for about 3 hours to liquify the infused oil (CannaOil, page 3, paragraphs under first through third photographs); and (L) straining the consumable from the infused oil of (K) to yield a consumable infused with the food compounds (CannaOil, page 4, second through third photographs).
The temperature of 160-200°F encompasses the temperature ranges recited in steps (I) and (K) of claim 26. The time of at least four hours encompasses the time of 4-9 hours recited in step (I) of claim 26. The time of about 3 hours falls within the range of 2-4 hours recited in step (K) of claim 26. The selection of a value within the encompassing ranges renders the claimed temperatures obvious. MPEP 2144.05. Since the prior art discloses freezing the mixture, it also at least suggests that the method comprises increasing a pressure on the consumable, thereby causing the food compounds to penetrate the consumable as presently claimed. Therefore, claim 26 is rendered obvious.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloat (WO 2021/257586; previously cited) in view of Reddit I (“TIL that you can rerun your oil infusion after freezing”, February 2021, Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/SousWeed/comments/lkhayu/til_that_you_can_rerun_your_oil_infusion_after/; previously cited) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Chef (“Our Five Favorite Methods to Preserve Food”, 2019, The Seasoned Chef, https://www.theseasonedchef.com/blog/2019/6/10/our-five-favorite-methods-to-preserve-food; previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Sloat teaches the invention as described above in claim 8, including infusing an orally ingestible consumable [0234].
Sloat does not disclose that the method further comprises step (M) of freezing the infused consumable of (L).
However, freezing is a method of preservation that is known and commonly used in the art due to its ability to slow microbial growth and enzyme activity, thereby providing the freshest flavor; and the level of availability of freezing equipment as taught by Chef (page 3, 1st paragraph under “2) Freezing”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Sloat to include freezing the infused consumable as taught by Chef. Since freezing is a well-known and commonly used method of food preservation which provides the freshest flavor in comparison to other preservation methods (Chef, page 3, 1st paragraph under “2) Freezing”), a skilled practitioner would have readily recognized that the infused consumable may be preserved by freezing. Therefore, step (M) of the claimed method is rendered obvious.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloat (WO2021/257586; previously cited) in view of Reddit I (“TIL that you can rerun your oil infusion after freezing”, February 2021, Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/SousWeed/comments/lkhayu/til_that_you_can_rerun_your_oil_infusion_after/; previously cited) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Seasoned II (“Is there a way to infuse roasted coffee beans with different flavors”, 2010, Seasoned Advice, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7440/is-there-a-way-to-infuse-roasted-coffee-beans-with-different-flavors; previously cited).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Sloat teaches the invention as described above in claim 8, including the orally ingestible consumable in (H) is a coffee [0242]; and that the consumable may be prepared by soaking the consumable in the infused oil [0234].
Sloat does not teach that the consumable of step (H) is coffee beans as recited in claim 19; or that the consumable of step (H) is one of the consumables recited in claim 18.
However, Seasoned II teaches a method of infusing coffee with flavors by infusing roasted coffee beans with a flavoring oil through soaking the beans in the flavoring oil for at least 30 minutes (page 1, 1st answer by Juju).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Sloat to use roasted coffee beans as the consumable as taught by Seasoned II. Since Sloat teaches that the consumable in (H) is coffee [0234], and that the consumable may be prepared by soaking the consumable in the infused oil [0234], but does not disclose a specific beverage for infusion by soaking, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Seasoned II in order to determine a suitable beverage to contain the food compounds. In modifying Sloat in view of Reddit I and Seasoned II, the infused oil prepared by the method of Reddit I is added to the coffee beans by soaking the coffee beans in the infused oil wherein the soaking of the coffee beans is by the infusion method of Reddit I (Sloat [0234]; Seasoned II, page 1, 1st answer by Juju), thereby rendering coffee beans and roasted seeds as the consumable in step (H) of the claimed method as recited in present claims 18 and 19 obvious.
This combination of prior art would provide a method further comprising: (H) adding the coffee beans to the food compounds infused oil of step (G) to form a coffee beans and infused oil mixture (Sloat [0234]; (I) heating this mixture to a temperature of 185-200°F for four hours (Reddit I, second comment made by TastySenpai); (J) freezing this mixture to form a solid, frozen mixture (Reddit I, original post by xxtzimiscexx; first comment by xxtzimiscexx); (K) heating the solid, frozen mixture to a temperature of 185-200°F for four hours to liquify the infused oil (Reddit I, first comment by xxtzimiscexx; second comment by TastySenpai); and (L) straining the coffee beans from the infused oil to yield coffee beans infused with the food compounds (Reddit I, first comment by xxtzimiscexx). The temperature of 185-200°F overlaps the temperature range recited in steps (I) and (K) while the time of 4 hours falls within the time frame recited in steps (I) and (K). The selection of a value within the overlapping range renders the claimed time frame obvious. MPEP 2144.05.I. Since the prior art discloses freezing the mixture, the prior art also at least suggests that the method comprises increasing a pressure on the coffee beans, thereby causing the food compounds to penetrate the coffee beans as presently claimed. Therefore, claim 19 is rendered obvious.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloat (WO2021/257586; previously cited) in view of Reddit I (“TIL that you can rerun your oil infusion after freezing”, February 2021, Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/SousWeed/comments/lkhayu/til_that_you_can_rerun_your_oil_infusion_after/; previously cited) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Reddit II (“Cacao Beans and Cannabis”, 2020, Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/Psychonaut/comments/fv1kio/cacao_beans_and_cannabis/?rdt=42882; previously cited).
Regarding claim 20, Sloat teaches the invention as described above in claim 8, including the orally ingestible consumable in (H) is a food such as candy and that the consumable may be prepared by adding the infused oil to the consumable or soaking the consumable in the infused oil [0234]. Sloat also discloses that the infused oil may comprises cannabis extracts in addition to the mushroom extracts [0002].
Sloat does not teach that the consumable of step (H) is cacao beans.
However, Reddit II discloses that the combination of cacao beans and cannabis relaxes the consumer (original post by “SkinDeep69”) and that the effect can also be felt in consuming dark chocolate edibles (page 1, first comment from mistertelevisioneyes). Reddit II also discloses that mushrooms may be combined with cacao beans in chocolates (page 1, comment by kalgrae).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Sloat to use cacao beans as the consumable as taught by Reddit II. Since Sloat teaches that the consumable in (H) is candy [0234], and that the consumable may be prepared by adding the infused oil containing cannabis extracts and mushroom extracts to the consumable or soaking the consumable in the infused oil [0234], but does not disclose a specific candy food product, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Reddit II in order to determine a suitable candy in which to add the infused oil. In modifying Sloat in view of Reddit II, the infused oil may be used to infuse the cacao beans of Reddit II (original post by “SkinDeep69”) by soaking (Sloat [0234]) in order to produce infused cacao beans and candy from the infused cacao beans (corresponding to dark chocolate edibles in Reddit II (page 1, first comment from mistertelevisioneyes) thereby rendering cacao beans as the consumable in step (H) of the claimed method obvious.
This combination of prior art would provide a method further comprising: (H) adding the cacao beans to the food compounds infused oil of step (G) to form a cacao beans and infused oil mixture (Sloat [0234]; (I) heating this mixture to a temperature of 185-200°F for four hours (Reddit I, second comment made by TastySenpai); (J) freezing this mixture to form a solid, frozen mixture (Reddit I, original post by xxtzimiscexx; first comment by xxtzimiscexx); (K) heating the solid, frozen mixture to a temperature of 185-200°F for four hours to liquify the infused oil (Reddit I, first comment by xxtzimiscexx; second comment by TastySenpai); and (L) straining the cacao beans from the infused oil to yield cacao beans infused with the food compounds (Reddit I, first comment by xxtzimiscexx). The temperature of 185-200°F overlaps the temperature range recited in steps (I) and (K) while the time of 4 hours falls within the time frame recited in steps (I) and (K). The selection of a value within the overlapping range renders the claimed time frame obvious. MPEP 2144.05.I. Since the prior art discloses freezing the mixture, it also at least suggests that the method comprises increasing a pressure on the cacao beans, thereby causing the food compounds to penetrate the cacao beans as presently claimed. Therefore, claim 20 is rendered obvious.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloat (WO2021/257586; previously cited) in view of CannaOil (“CannaOil”, 2015, https://imgur.com/a/cannaoil-lVrXq) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Sava (“THC Potcorn”, July 2021, /https://www.getsava.com/shop/popup-potcorn-thc-potcorn; previously cited).
Regarding claim 21, Sloat teaches the invention as described above in claim 8, including the orally ingestible consumable in (H) is a food and that the consumable may be prepared by soaking the consumable in the infused oil [0234]. Sloat also teaches that the infused oil may further contain THC and CBD [0075].
Sloat does not teach that the consumable of step (H) is popcorn kernels.
However, Sava teaches CBD and THC-infused popcorn kernels comprising cannabis oil (page 2, 1st paragraph under “Full Description; 1st paragraph under “Ingredients”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Sloat to use popcorn kernels as taught by Sava. Since Sloat teaches the orally ingestible consumable in (H) is a food and that the consumable may be prepared by soaking the consumable in the infused oil [0234] containing mushroom extracts, THC, and CBD [0007], [0075], but does not disclose a food in which to soak oil infused with CBD and THC, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Sava in order to determine a suitable food product, thereby rendering popcorn kernels as the consumable in step (H) of the claimed method obvious.
This combination of prior art would provide a method further comprising: (H) adding the popcorn kernels to the food compounds infused oil of step (G) to form a popcorn kernels and infused oil mixture (Sloat [0234]; (I) heating this mixture to a temperature of less than 240°F, such as 160-200°F, for at least 4 hours (CannaOil, page 2, paragraph under second photograph); (J) freezing the mixture of (I) to form a solid, frozen mixture (CannaOil, page 2, third photograph and paragraph under third photograph); (K) heating the solid, frozen mixture to a temperature of less than 240°F, such as 160-200°F, for about 3 hours to liquify the infused oil (CannaOil, page 3, paragraphs under first through third photographs); and (L) straining the popcorn kernels from the infused oil to yield popcorn kernels infused with the food compounds (CannaOil, page 4, second through third photographs).
The temperature of 160-200°F encompasses the temperature ranges recited in steps (I) and (K) of claim 21. The time of at least four hours encompasses the time of 4-9 hours recited in step (I) of claim 21. The time of about 3 hours falls within the range of 2-4 hours recited in step (K) of claim 21. The selection of a value within the overlapping range renders the claimed time frame obvious. MPEP 2144.05.I. Since the prior art discloses freezing the mixture, it also at least suggests that the method comprises increasing a pressure on the popcorn kernels, thereby causing the food compounds to penetrate the popcorn kernels as presently claimed. Therefore, claim 21 is rendered obvious.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sloat (WO2021/257586; previously cited) in view of CannaOil (“CannaOil”, 2015, https://imgur.com/a/cannaoil-lVrXq) and Sava (“THC Potcorn”, July 2021, /https://www.getsava.com/shop/popup-potcorn-thc-potcorn; previously cited) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Gorman (US 8,729,437; previously cited).
Regarding claim 22, modified Sloat teaches the invention as described above in claim 21, including the infused popcorn kernels are stored in a microwave bag with oil (Sava, page 2, paragraphs under “Full Description”).
Modified Sloat does not teach that method further comprises step (M) of storing the infused popcorn kernels at a weight ratio of kernels to oil of about 1:1.
However, Gorman teaches storing popcorn kernels in a microwave bag with oil wherein the amount of kernels in the bag is about 20-80 grams and the amount of oil in the bag is 10-40 grams (column 14, 16-19). Therefore, Gorman discloses a range of weight ratios of kernels to oil from about 4:0.5 to 1:2, which encompasses the claimed ratio. The selection of a value within the encompassing range renders the claimed weight ratio obvious. MPEP 2144.05.I.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Sloat to store infused popcorn kernels and oil in the weight ratio disclosed by Gorman. Since Sava discloses that the infused popcorn kernels are stored in a microwave bag with oil (page 2, paragraphs under “Full Description”), but does not disclose an amount of kernels and oil and oil in the bag, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Gorman in order to determine a suitable amount of popcorn kernels and oil for a microwave bag. Therefore, the claimed weight ratio is rendered obvious.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somm (“Cannabis Cooking Essentials: Cannabis Infused Olive Oil”, 2017 The Herb Somm, https://www.theherbsomm.com/single-post/2017/04/27/cannabis-cooking-essentials-cannabis-infused-olive-oil) in view of Reddit I (“TIL that you can rerun your oil infusion after freezing”, February 2021, Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/SousWeed/comments/lkhayu/til_that_you_can_rerun_your_oil_infusion_after/; previously cited) as evidenced by Hobbs (Hobbs, C. “Garlic, the Pungent Panacea”, 2026, https://christopherhobbs.com/library/articles-on-herbs-and-health/garlic-the-pungent-panacea/#:~:text=These%20special%20foods%20have%20been,garlic%20is%20a%20prime%20example.) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abo (Abo et al., “Making Garlic- and Herb-Infused Oils At Home”, 2014, Pacific Northwest Extension (PNW), issue 664; previously cited).
Regarding claim 23, modified Somm teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including step (C) comprising adding 2 teaspoons of pepper flakes and 1 garlic bulb to 6 cups of oil (page 1, 2nd line under “Ingredients”; page 2, step 2, under “Chile Garlic CannaOil”).
Modified Somm does not teach a specific ratio within one of the ranges recited in present claim 23.
However, Abo teaches that the ratio of flavoring material to oil when making an infused oil may be increased or decreased to suit personal tastes (page 3, 1st column, 3rd paragraph).
As the flavor of an infused oil is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the ratio of food material to oil to suit personal tastes, the ratio of food material to oil would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed ratio of food material of step (A) to oil of step (B) cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the ratio of food material to oil in the infused oil of Somm to obtain the desired taste as taught by Abo (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). MPEP § 2144.05.II.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Sloat (WO 2021/257586; previously cited) in view of Reddit I (“TIL that you can rerun your oil infusion after freezing”, February 2021, Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/SousWeed/comments/lkhayu/til_that_you_can_rerun_your_oil_infusion_after/; previously cited) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Abo (Abo et al., “Making Garlic- and Herb-Infused Oils At Home”, 2014, Pacific Northwest Extension (PNW), issue 664; previously cited).
Regarding claim 24, modified Sloat teaches the invention as described above in claim 8, including the adding the food material of (A) to the food grade oil of (B) during step (C).
Modified Sloat does not teach a specific ratio within one of the ranges recited in present claim 24.
However, Abo teaches that the ratio of flavoring material to oil when making an infused oil may be increased or decreased to suit personal tastes (page 3, 1st column, 3rd paragraph).
As the flavor of an infused oil is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the ratio of food material to oil to suit personal tastes, the ratio of food material to oil would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed ratio of food material of step (A) to oil of step (B) cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the ratio of food material to oil in the infused oil of Somm to obtain the desired taste as taught by Abo (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). MPEP § 2144.05.II.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-3, 7-13, and 18-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-14, 16-17, 19-21, and 24-26 of co-pending Application No. 17/949,126 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claims 1 and 8 require features of co-pending claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 17, and 19; instant claims 2 and 10 require the features of co-pending claim 2; instant claim 9 requires the features of co-pending claim 10; instant claims 2 and 10 require the features of co-pending claim 11; instant claim 11 requires the features of co-pending claim 12; instant claim 12 requires the features of co-pending claim 13; instant claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, and 16 require the features of co-pending claims 3, 5, 14, 16, 22, and 23; instant claims 18, 19, 20, and 21 require the features of co-pending claims 20 and 21.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Amendment
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 01/26/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1-3, 7-13, and 17-26 based upon the rejections as set forth in the last Office action.
Applicant stated that data demonstrating the unexpectedly improved performance of the claimed method of infusing an orally-ingestible consumable has been provided. Applicant stated that the method disclosed in steps (H)-(L) of the claimed method caused penetration of food compounds into the center of cacao beans, coffee beans, popcorn kernels, seeds, nuts, and fruit which are not readily infusible. Applicant stated that Applicant has not knowledge of a food compound infusion process that can produce lion’s mane, sea moss, elderberry, burdock root, and black seed infused coffee beans and trail mix (Declaration, paragraphs 3-7).
However, claim 1 and its dependents do not recite steps (H)-(L); therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding such steps are moot in reference to these claims. Regarding claim 8 and its dependents, the present specification does not contain any of the asserted data demonstrating the unexpected improved performance as the examples do not: disclose any specific experimental results using the claimed method; disclose the specific time and temperatures for the infusions in the hypothetical experiments (i.e., examples I-XIV in the specification); disclose the specific method steps used in the hypothetical experiments (i.e., the terms “may”, “can”, and “typically” do not mean that these steps were carried out); or disclose any results of the claimed method or the hypothetical experiments.
The Declaration does not compare results of the claimed method with results of any other method (e.g., traditional method, method using times and temperatures outside of the claimed ranges). Therefore, it is unclear as to how the claimed invention produces improved performance when the Applicant has not provided a basis of comparison from which to ascertain that performance has been “improved”. The Declaration does not demonstrate that food compounds infuse through an entire coffee bean and binds to internal fatty components of the bean. The Declaration does not demonstrate that coffee beans infused through the method of claim 8 increases in mass by over 20% due to the infusion of oil and food compounds.
Furthermore, none of the present claims recite lion’s mane, sea moss, elderberry, burdock root, and black seed infused coffee beans and trail mix; therefore, Applicant’s arguments referencing such features are moot. In the absence of such data in the specification and in the Declaration, Applicant’s arguments regarding the unexpectedly improved performance of the claimed infusion of an orally-ingestible consumable are not convincing as “arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record”. MPEP §716.01(c).
For at least these reasons, the Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 01/26/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1-3, 7-13, and 17-26 based upon the rejections as set forth in the last Office action.
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 01/27/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1-3, 7-13, and 17-26 based upon the rejections as set forth in the last Office action.
Applicant performed experiments comprising passively soaking coffee beans in oil containing a fluorescent tracer; and applying the steps of (H)-(L) of present claim 8 on the coffee beans. Applicant stated that the data show that oil immersion and heating without freezing the oil-bean mixture into a solid mass and then heating the frozen solid mass does not produce the penetration behavior recited in the claims. Applicant stated that passive soaking resulted in surface-restricted localization of the oil with surface wetting and filling of surface-connected fissures, which do not satisfy the claimed requirement of penetration into the consumable. Applicant stated that the beans processed according to steps (H)-(L) of the method of claim 8 resulted in internal penetration of the oil into the interior matrix of the beans (Declaration, paragraphs 3-39).
However, the Examiner points out that none of the present claims recite any penetration behavior, particularly wherein the term “infuse” does not imply any level of penetration depth beyond penetration of the most superficial surface of a substance (i.e., the surface that was cleaned by Applicant in the experiments to remove residual external oil). Therefore, Applicant’s statements regarding passive soaking not satisfying the claimed requirement of penetration into the consumable are moot. The Examiner points out that claim 8 recites that the method is for infusing a consumable with at least one of vitamins, minerals, and flavors wherein the method comprises steps (A)-(L). The experiments in the Declaration do not demonstrate that the consumable has been infused with anything beyond an oil and the fluorescent tracer and the experiments did not attempt to demonstrate steps (A)-(G) of the method of claim 8. Therefore, the Applicant does not demonstrate non-obviousness of the claimed process as the experiments do not use the claimed process.
The Examiner also points out that the process that Applicant asserts to correspond to claim 8 does not actually correspond to any of the recited combinations of claims. Claim 19, which depends from claim 8, is the only claim which recites coffee beans and claim 19 recites that the heating temperature in step (I) is 175-185°F, which does not include the temperature of 200°F used in the experiments of the Declaration. Furthermore, claim 8 (and claim 19) only recite a single heat/freeze cycle, whereas the experiments in the Declaration used three heat/freeze cycles. Thereby, none of the present claims actually require the features used in the experiments of the Declaration.
The Examiner also points out the Applicant measured the beans produced by steps (H)-(L) of claim 8 by measuring the whole area, rim, pulp, and center regions of the beans while Applicant measured the beans produced by passive soaking with interior fluorescence without disclosing what part(s) of the bean comprise(s) the “interior”. Therefore, it is unclear as to where in the beans the oil was located in the beans produced by passive soaking. The Examiner also points out that it is unclear as to what constitutes the control (e.g., bean that have not been exposed to oil at all). Therefore, it is unclear as to what the Applicant is comparing the data of the experimental beans. The Examiner also points out that the Applicant does not explain what entails “passive soaking” (e.g., soaking at room temperature; soaking in heated oil without freezing). Therefore, it is unclear as to how to understand the differences between the method steps used in the passive soaking experiments differ from the method steps used in the experiments asserted to correspond to claim 8.
The Examiner also points out that the rejections of the prior art is not based on “passive soaking” as Reddit I discloses the claimed heat/freeze cycles. As such, Applicant’s arguments are moot in regards to the prior art rejections.
For at least the reasons provided above, Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 01/27/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1-3, 7-13, and 17-26 based upon the rejections as set forth in the last Office action
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections: Applicant amended claims 8 and 24 to fully address the objections. Therefore, the objections of claims 8 and 25 are withdrawn. Claim 1 remains objected to for the reason provided above.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §112(a) of claims 1-3, 7-13, and 17-26: Applicant amended the claims to fully address the rejections. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 22: Applicant amended claim 22 to fully address the rejection. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 1-3 and 7 over Somm and Reddit I: Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered and are considered unpersuasive in regards to claims 1-2. Amended claim 7 is now rejected over the combination of Sloat and Reddit I; and amended claim 3 is rejected under the combination of Sloat,, Reddit I, and Ellementa.
Applicant amended claim 1 to recite that the food material in step (A) is an adaptogen. Applicant argued that neither Somm nor Reddit I disclose that the food material is an adaptogen or that the oil of step (B) is infused with at least one of vitamins, minerals, and flavors from the adaptogen (Applicant’s Remarks, page 3, 1st paragraph under heading beginning “Rejection of claims” – page 5, 1st paragraph).
However, as described above in the rejection of amended claim 1, Somm teaches a method of infusing a food grade oil with food compounds (corresponding to chile garlic CannaOil) comprising flavors, the method comprising: (A) providing a food material in the form of garlic and red chile pepper flakes; (B) providing a food grade oil; and (C) adding at least a portion of the food material of (A) to the oil of (B) to form a food material and food grade oil mixture (page 2, step 3 under “Directions”; page 2, paragraph under step 7 under “Directions”; page 2, steps 1-4 under “Chile Garlic CannaOil”). Garlic is an adaptogen as evidenced by Hobbs (page 1, 1st paragraph). Therefore, Somm discloses that the food material comprises an adaptogen as recited in step (A) of the presently claimed method. Somm also recites that flavor from the garlic is infused into the oil (page 2, paragraph under step 7 under “Directions”). Therefore, Somm teaches that the oil is infused with flavor as presently claimed.
Applicant then argued that the evidence in the Declaration filed 01/27/2026 demonstrates that freezing or reheating in isolation or reheating without the claimed sequence does not inherently or predictably result in the infusion behavior achieved by the claimed method. Applicant argued that claim 2 is patentable by reason of dependency from claim 1 (Applicant’s Remarks, page 5, 2nd-4th paragraphs).
For arguments regarding the Declaration, see the section labeled “Response to Amendment” above. In regard to claim 2 being patentable by reason of dependency from claim 1, claims 1 and 2 are both shown to be rendered obvious as described above in their prior art rejections.
Applicant then argued that the prior art does not teach that the food grade oil provide in step (B) is one from the list recited in amended claim 3. Applicant argued that the prior art does not teach that the adaptogen in step (A) is one from the list recited in amended claim 7 (Applicant’s Remarks, page 6, 1st paragraph – page 7, 2nd paragraph).
However, due to the amendment of the claims, amended claim 3 is now rejected under the combination of Sloat,, Reddit I, and Ellementa; and amended claim 7 is now rejected over the combination of Sloat and Reddit I.
Since the prior art has been shown to render the claims 1 and 2 obvious, the rejections of claims 1 and 2 are maintained as written herein. The rejections of claims 3 and 7 over new combinations of prior art stand as written herein. The rejection of claim 17 is moot due to the cancellation of the claim.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 8, 13, and 17 over Somm, Reddit I, TJ, and Seasoned II: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are considered moot.
Applicant canceled claim 17. Applicant argued that the combination of Sloat, Reddit I, TJ, and Seasoned II do not disclose the features of claims 8 and 13 (Applicant’s Remarks, page 7, 1st paragraph under “Somm/ Reddit I/TJ/Seasoned II”; page 37, paragraph under heading beginning “Sloat” – page 38, 1st paragraph).
Amended claims 8 and 13 stand rejected over a new combination of prior art. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments directed toward the combination of Somm, Reddit I, TJ, and Seasoned II are moot. The rejection of claim 17 is moot due to its cancellation.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 8, 10-12, and 25 over Sloat and Reddit I: Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered and are considered unpersuasive.
Applicant stated that the last Office Action stated that the combination of Somm, Reddit I, and TJ does not disclose steps (I) and (J) of the presently claimed method; and that Sloat does not disclose steps (I) and (J) of the presently claimed method. Applicant argued that, despite this, the Office asserted that the combination of Sloat and Reddit I disclose all steps of the presently claimed method, including steps (I) and (J) (Applicant’s Remarks, page 10, 1st paragraph under the heading “Sloat/ Reddit I” – page 11, 2nd paragraph).
The Examiner notes that no rejection comprising the combination of Somm, Reddit I, TJ, and Seasoned II is used in the current prior art rejections. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments directed to such combination of prior art are moot. However, the Examiner points out that in the rejection of claim 1 over Somm, Reddit I, TJ, and Seasoned II written in the previous Office Action, the Examiner explains how Reddit I discloses steps (I) and (J) of the presently claimed method when combined with the teachings from the other prior art references (see paragraph 37 of the last Office Action). The Examiner also explains how Reddit I discloses steps (I) and (J) of the presently claimed method when combined with the teachings from Sloat (see paragraph 44). Since the Examiner showed how Reddit I renders the claimed steps (I) and (J) obvious, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant then argued that steps (I)-(L) of the method of present claim 8 are unobvious because the Office failed to articulate why a skilled practitioner would combine Sloat and Reddit I to perform steps (I)-(L). Applicant argued that: (1) the disclosure in Sloat regarding soaking as a means to infuse compounds from the infused oil into a consumable; and (2) knowledge in the art regarding soaking being a means to infuse compounds into a consumable do not explain why a skilled practitioner would combine Sloat and Reddit I to arrive at steps (I)-(L) with the expectation of predictable infusion results (Applicant’s Remarks, page 11, 3rd paragraph – page 13, 2nd paragraph; page 35, 3rd paragraph – page 37, 1st paragraph).
However, as described above in the prior art rejection of claim 8 in regards to steps (I)-(L) of the claimed method, since Sloat teaches that the orally ingestible consumable is infused with food compounds by soaking the consumable in the infused oil [0234], a skilled practitioner would have readily recognized that the method of infusion by soaking disclosed by Reddit I may also be applied to infusing the consumable by soaking since (1) Sloat discloses soaking the consumable in the infused oil to add the compounds to the consumable; and (2) infusion by soaking is well-known and practiced in the art. Furthermore, since Reddit I discloses freezing the mixture of step (I), Reddit I also at least suggests that the method comprises increasing a pressure on the consumable, thereby causing the food compounds to penetrate the consumable as presently claimed. Therefore, the claimed steps (I)-(L) are rendered obvious.
Teachings from prior art and knowledge in the art provide motivation and a reasonable expectation of success of infusing compounds from one substance to another substance. Applicant has not explained why this knowledge disclosed in the prior art and this knowledge in the field of the art does not provide a reasonable expectation of success in infusing one compound to another when the prior art and knowledge in the art specifically describe such processes as being able to do so.
Applicant then argued that the Office is unable to cite a single reference wherein the heat/freeze process is used to infuse an oil into a food consumable as one would expected if infusion by soaking is well-known and practiced in the art and steps (I)-(L) were obvious (Applicant’s Remarks, page 13, 3rd and 4th paragraphs).
However, the Examiner cited Seasoned II in another prior art rejection, wherein Seasoned II is described as disclosing a method of infusing coffee with flavors by infusing roasted coffee beans with a flavoring oil through soaking the beans in the flavoring oil for at least 30 minutes (page 1, 1st answer by Juju). Therefore, the Examiner did cite a reference that discloses soaking as a means of infusing oil into a food consumable. The Examiner points out that none of the present claims require the infusion of oil into a consumable; the present claims require infusion of at least one of a vitamin, mineral, and flavor from an adaptogen, a seed, or a root into a consumable, which is a feature that Applicant has yet to demonstrate.
Applicant then argued that Sloat discloses soaking as a means of applying food compounds to the surface of a consumable instead of as a means of penetrating food compounds into the consumable. Applicant argued that Reddit I does not remedy this deficiency of Sloat. Applicant pointed to the Declarations filed 01/26/2026 and 01/27/2026 as demonstrating the difficulty of infusing food compounds into a consumable and as demonstrating the depth of penetration of the claimed method versus a passive soaking method. Applicant argued that a skilled practitioner would have no reasonable expectation of success in applying the method of Reddit I to infuse a consumable with food compounds (Applicant’s Remarks, page 13, 5th paragraph – page 16, 3rd paragraph).
However, the Examiner points out that Sloat states that its liquid solutions maybe added into a consumer product through soaking [0234]. Given the fact that Sloat has not provided any special definition of the term “soak”, the term “soak” means “to lie immersed in a liquid”, “become saturated by or as if by immersion”, “to permeate so as to wet, soften, or fill thoroughly” as evidenced by Merriam-Webster (“soak”, 2026, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/soak). Therefore, “soaking” as used in Sloat is interpreted as immersing a consumable in the liquid containing the food compounds, thereby allowing the food compounds to enter the consumable, i.e., infuse. Since (1) Sloat teaches soaking as a method of infusing consumables, (2) Reddit I discloses a method comprising soaking and (3) soaking is a well-known method of infusing consumables, a skilled practitioner would have a reasonable expectation of success in infusing consumables using the method comprising soaking as taught by Reddit I.
For responses to arguments regarding the Declarations, see the section labeled “Response to Amendment” above.
Applicant argued that claims 10-12 are patentable by reason of dependency from claim 8. Applicant argued that Reddit I does not suggest repeating steps (D), (E), (I), and (J) which produce the penetration behavior required by the claims (Applicant’s Remarks, page 16, 1st paragraph under “Claims 10-12” – page 18, 2nd paragraph).
However, Applicant has not demonstrated steps (D) and (E) at all. Therefore, Applicant’s argument that steps (D) and (E) provide the required penetration behavior is not supported. Furthermore, as discussed in the section labeled “Response to Amendment” above, the present claims do not require any specific level of penetration depth; and the Applicant has not demonstrated penetration of vitamins, minerals, or flavors from the infused oil into a consumable.
In regard to Applicant’s assertions that Reddit I does not disclose repeating steps (D), (E), (I), and (J), The Examiner described how Reddit I discloses steps Claims 8 and 10-12 remain rejected as described above in their prior art rejections.
Reddit I teaches a method of infusing a food grade oil (corresponding to coconut oil) (first comment made by TastySenpai) with food compounds (corresponding to beneficial compounds) (comment made by Daddybearshare), wherein the method comprises: heating a food material and food grade oil mixture (second comment made by TastySenpai); freezing the mixture into a solid, frozen biomass (corresponding to freezing to cool) (original post by xxtzimiscexx; first comment by xxtzimiscexx); heating the solid, frozen biomass (corresponding to running the infusion multiple times) (first comment by xxtzimiscexx; second comment by TastySenpai); and straining the mixture to separate the oil from the food material to yield oil infused with food compounds (first comment by xxtzimiscexx). Reddit I teaches that the method may further comprise repeating heating and freezing the mixture one or more times (corresponding to running the process more times than in the disclosed “infuse:cool, infuse:cool and infuse:strain” process) (Reddit I, first comment by xxtzimiscexx; second comment by TastySenpai).
In regards to steps (I)-(L) of the claimed method and the repetition of steps (I) and (J), since Sloat teaches that the orally ingestible consumable is infused with food compounds by soaking the consumable in the infused oil [0234], a skilled practitioner would have readily recognized that the method of infusion by soaking disclosed by Reddit I may also be applied to infusing the consumable by soaking since (1) Sloat discloses soaking the consumable in the infused oil to add the compounds to the consumable; and (2) infusion by soaking is well-known and practiced in the art. In infusing a consumable by the method comprising soaking disclosed in Reddit I, the method may comprise: (H) adding the consumable to the infused oil to form a mixture; (I) heating the mixture; (J) freezing the mixture; (I) heating the frozen mixture; (J) freezing the mixture; (K) heating the mixture; and (L) straining the mixture. This method of the prior art comprises steps (H)-(L) wherein steps (I) and (J) are repeated as required by claims 11 and 12, thereby rendering these claims obvious.
Applicant argued that the cited prior art does not teach the claimed step of “freezing the mixture of the consumable and the infused oil into a solid, frozen biomass” as recited in present claim 25 as the freezing step of Reddit I is applied in the context of drug extraction from plant matter and is not performed on food material for the purposes of infusion. Applicant argued that a skilled practitioner would not look to Reddit I to infuse vitamins, minerals, and flavors into a food as Reddit I uses its method for extracting compounds from a material and not infusing compounds into a material. (Applicant’s Remarks, page 18, 1st paragraph under “Claim 25” – page 19, 1st paragraph).
However, the Examiner has described how Reddit I renders the freezing step (J) obvious in the prior art rejections above and in the responses above. As described above in the rejections and the responses, the prior art and knowledge in the field of the art discloses soaking as a method of extracting compounds from a material and as a method of infusing compounds into a material. As such, the method comprising soaking of Reddit I is considered to achieve both the goal of extracting compounds from a material and infusing compounds into a material, especially wherein Applicant has not provided any evidence demonstrating otherwise and Applicant has not demonstrated that its method infusing vitamins, minerals, or flavors into consumables.
Applicant then argued that claim 25 does not merely recite a newly appreciated property of a known process as the claim recites a pressure-induced penetration of food compounds into a consumable defined by penetration depths. Applicant argued that this outcome is not produced by soaking-based methods so that the claimed process produces a different physical result than the process of the prior art (Applicant’s Remarks, page 19, 2nd paragraph).
However, the Examiner points out that the prior art rejections are not based on passive soaking, but based on the soaking method comprising soaking, heating, and freezing disclosed in part by Reddit I. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments that soaking-based methods of the prior art produce different physical results than the claimed method are not supported. Furthermore, claim 25 merely requires a step of freezing, which is disclosed in Reddit I, in order to increase pressure on a consumable. Since the prior art discloses the freezing step (I) and other method steps of claim 8, it would reasonable for a skilled practitioner to expect whatever results were produced in the claimed method to be produced in the method of the prior art.
Applicant then argued that the experimental results in the Declaration filed 01/27/2026 show that infusion into coffee beans was unexpected and not predictable based on cannabis extraction techniques (Applicant’s Remarks, 3rd-5th paragraph).
See section labeled “Response to Amendment” above.
Applicant then argued that the temperature recited in Reddit I does not overlap the temperature of “about 170°F” recited in claim 26 (Applicant’s Remarks, page 20, 1st -5th paragraphs).
However, Reddit I is no longer recited in the rejection of claim 26. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Since the prior art has been shown to render the present claims obvious, the rejections of the claims stand as written herein.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claim 9 over Sloat, Reddit I, and Chef: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are considered unpersuasive.
Applicant argued that claim 9 is patentable by reason of dependency from claim 8 (Applicant’s Remarks, page 20, 6th paragraph – page 21, paragraph under heading labeled “Claim 9”).
However, claim 8 and claim 9 are shown to be rendered obvious in the prior art rejections and in the responses written above. Since the prior art has been shown to render the present claims obvious, the rejections of the claims stand as written herein.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 18-19 over Sloat, Reddit I, and Seasoned II: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are considered unpersuasive.
Applicant argued that Seasoned II teaches soaking roasted coffee beans in oil to impart surface-level flavor. Applicant stated that the Declaration filed 01/27/2027 demonstrates the difference results produced from soaking versus the claimed method. Applicant argued that the Office improperly assumes that soaking is interchangeable with the claimed infusion process (Applicant’s Remarks, page 21, 11st paragraph under the heading beginning “Sloat” – page 22, 1st paragraph).
However, the Examiner points out that the prior art rejection cites Seasoned II merely to show that soaking coffee beans in a flavor-infused oil infuses flavors from the oil into the coffee beans so that the method of infusing coffee with compounds from an infused oil disclosed in Sloat may comprise soaking roasted coffee beans in the infused oil. Seasoned II is not cited for specific method steps for soaking the beans as Reddit I is cited for such a purpose as described in the rejection of claim 8 from which claims 18 and 19 depend. Therefore, the Office is not interchanging the method of Seasoned II for the claimed method. The Declaration does not test the method of Reddit I; therefore, the Declaration does not test the method cited in the prior art rejections for disclosing a method of infusing oil/consumables.
Applicant then argued that the Office’s reliance on temperature overlap is misplaced as the Examiner’s overlap analysis is based on improper construction of the claim language and ignores the ordered process and functional limitations recited in the claims. Applicant argued that freezing in the context of soaking-based methods does not inherently or predictably result in penetration of the compounds into the interior of coffee beans as demonstrated by the Declaration filed 01/27/2026 (Applicant’s Remarks, page 22, 2nd paragraph).
However, the Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of the claimed temperatures. “To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).” MPEP §716.02(d)II. Therefore, wherein the prior art discloses the claimed method steps of (A)-(L) comprising temperatures which overlap the claimed temperatures, sufficiently render the claimed temperatures obvious. Similarly, the Applicant has not demonstrated that freezing, such as that disclosed in the prior art, does not inherently increase pressure.
Applicant then argued that the Office relies on hindsight reconstruction to arrive at the claimed invention (Applicant’s Remarks, page 22, 3rd paragraph – page 23, 1st paragraph).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Since the prior art has been shown to render the present claims obvious, the rejections of the claims stand as written herein.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claim 20 over Sloat, Reddit I, and Reddit II: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are considered unpersuasive.
Applicant argued that claim 20 is patentable by reason of dependency from claim 8. Applicant argued that the combination of Sloat, Reddit I, and Reddit II do not teach the features of claim 20 as Reddit II does not suggest or motivate infusion a cacao bean with food compounds. Applicant argued that Sloat does not specifically disclose cacao beans and Reddit II does not teach a process for infusing cacao beans. Applicant argued that neither Sloat nor Reddit II disclose infusing cacao beans by soaking them in oil (Applicant’s Remarks, page 23, 1st – 2nd paragraphs under heading “Sloat/Reddit I/Reddit II”; page 40, paragraph under heading beginning “Sloat” – page 45, 1st paragraph).
However, as described above in the rejection of claim 20, Sloat teaches that the consumable in (H) is candy [0234], and that the consumable may be prepared by adding the infused oil containing adaptogen compounds to the consumable or by soaking the consumable in the infused oil [0234], but does not disclose a specific candy food product. Therefore, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Reddit II in order to determine a suitable candy in which to add the infused oil. In modifying Sloat in view of Reddit II, the infused oil may be used to infuse the cacao beans of Reddit II (original post by “SkinDeep69”) by soaking (Sloat [0234]) in order to produce infused cacao beans and candy from the infused cacao beans (corresponding to dark chocolate edibles in Reddit II (page 1, first comment from mistertelevisioneyes), thereby rendering cacao beans as the consumable in step (H) obvious.
Also, as described above, infusing foods by immersing them in a liquid such as oil is known in the art and disclosed by Sloat. Since Reddit I discloses immersing foods in oil and Reddit II discloses cacao beans as a food, a skilled practitioner would readily recognize that cacao beans may be immersed in oil in order to infuse the beans with compounds from the oil.
Since the prior art has been shown to render the present claims obvious, the rejections of the claims stand as written herein.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claim 21 over Sloat, Reddit I, and Sava: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are considered moot.
Applicant argued that the temperature recited in Reddit I does not overlap the temperature of “about 170°F” recited in claim 21 (Applicant’s Remarks, page 23, 1st -paragraph under heading “Sloat / Reddit I / Sava” – page 24, 4th paragraph).
However, Reddit I is no longer recited in the rejection of claim 21. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Since the prior art has been shown to render the present claims obvious, the rejections of the claims stand as written herein.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claim 22 over Sloat, Reddit I, Sava, and Gorman: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are considered moot.
Applicant argued that Gorman does not remedy the deficiencies of Reddit I in relation to the temperature recited in Reddit I not overlapping the claimed temperature of “about 170°F” as recited in claim 21 (Applicant’s Remarks, page 24, 1st -4th paragraphs under heading “Sloat / Reddit I / Sava / Gorman”).
However, Reddit I is no longer recited in the rejections of claims 21 and 22. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Since the prior art has been shown to render the present claims obvious, the rejections of the claims stand as written herein.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claim 23 over Somm, Reddit I, and Abo: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are considered unpersuasive.
Applicant argued that claim 23 is patentable by reason of dependency from claim 1 (Applicant’s Remarks, page 25, 1st – 2nd paragraphs).
Claims 1 and 23 are shown to be rendered obvious in the prior art rejections and responses above. Since the prior art has been shown to render the present claims obvious, the rejections of the claims stand as written herein.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claim 24 over Sloat, Reddit I, and Abo: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are considered unpersuasive.
Applicant argued that claim 24 is patentable by reason of dependency from claim 1 (Applicant’s Remarks, page 25, 1st – 2nd paragraphs under heading “Sloat / Reddit I/ Abo”).
Claims 1 and 24 are shown to be rendered obvious in the prior art rejections and responses above. Since the prior art has been shown to render the present claims obvious, the rejections of the claims stand as written herein.
New Claim 27: Applicant argued that new claim 27 should be considered allowable because it recites a specific and narrowed temperature range for step (D) that is not taught or suggested by the cited prior art (page 26, 1st paragraph).
However, new claim 27 is rejected over the combination of Somm and Reddit I as evidenced by Hobbs. As described above in the rejection of claim 27, Somm teaches step (D) further comprises heating the mixture of (C) to a temperature of 245°F or less (page 2, step 3 under “Directions”; page 2, steps 1-4 under “Chile Garlic CannaOil”). The temperature of 245°F or less encompasses the temperature recited in step (D) of the presently claimed method. The selection of a value within the encompassing range renders the claimed temperature obvious. MPEP 2144.05.I
Double Patenting: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are considered unpersuasive.
Applicant argued that the instant claims include specific process steps and conditions which are not required by or in inherent in the co-pending claims. Applicant argued that a proper inquiry is whether the instant claims define an obvious variation of the reference claims as a whole. Applicant requested that consideration of the nonstatutory double patenting be deferred until claims of the reference application are allowed and in final form (Applicant’s Remarks, page 26, 1st paragraph under heading beginning “Provisional” – page 27, 2nd paragraph).
However, the Examiner mapped out obvious variants of the independent claims in the double patenting rejection (e.g., instant claim 1 requires the same features of co-pending claims 1, 6, and 8, wherein the adaptogen of instant claim 1 corresponds to the mushrooms in co-pending claims 1, 6, and 8; and wherein the steps (A)-(G) of instant claim 1 correspond to steps (A)-(G) of co-pending claim 1). Therefore, the double patenting rejection is a proper inquiry. As such, the double patenting rejection is maintained as written herein.
Response to Amendments on Page 32 of Final Office Action filed 07/24/2025: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are considered unpersuasive.
Applicant amended the Declaration originally filed on 04/02/2025 (i.e., the amended Declaration was filed 01/26/2026) to expressly state that (1) the example described in the Declaration were produced by the steps recited in present claim 8; and (2) the method of claim 8 and its dependents were used to produce commercial products. Applicant stated that the required nexus between the objective evidence of record and a product or process that includes the claimed features has been established due to these amendments (Applicant’s Remarks, page 27, 1st-3rd paragraphs under heading beginning “Response”).
However, the present claims are directed to a process while the commercial products disclosed in the Declaration are products. In order to establish a nexus between the presently claimed invention and objective evidence of nonobviousness, the Applicant should establish a nexus between the presently claimed method and objective evidence of nonobviousness of the claimed method, not a product.
Applicant then argued that MPEP §716.01(c) states that evidence of secondary considerations such as unexpected results may be properly submitted in a Declaration; and need not appear in the specification in order to be considered. As such, Applicant argued that the absence of experimental data from the specification does not render the declaration unpersuasive or improper (Applicant’s Remarks, page 28, 1st – 3rd paragraphs).
However, the lack of such data from the specification is not the sole reason why the Declaration was found not to be persuasive. See the section labeled “Response to Amendment” above.
Applicant amended claim 8 to recite that the food material is at least one of an adaptogen, a seed, and a root to cover the specific foods listed in the Declaration filed 01/27/2026 (Applicant’s Remarks, page 28, 4th paragraph – page 29, 3rd paragraph).
However, the genera adaptogen, seed, and root may encompass lion’s mane, sea moss, elderberry, burdock root, and black seed, these genera do not specifically name lion’s mane, sea moss, elderberry, burdock root, and black seed. Thus, claim 8 and its dependents do not necessarily correspond to the subject matter discussed in the Declaration.
For at least these reasons and the reasons provided in the section labeled “Response to Amendment” above, the Declaration filed 01/26/2026 is not found to be convincing.
Response to Arguments in Final Office Action filed 07/24/2025: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are considered unpersuasive.
Applicant argued that the Examiner’s conclusion that cannabis is a “food material” because cannabis may be ingested is overbroad and inconsistent with the plain meaning of the term “food”. Applicant argued that substances may be ingested for pharmacological and intoxicating purposes without being considered food (Applicant’s Remarks, page 29, 1st paragraph under heading beginning “Response” – page 30, 1st paragraph; page 31, 1st paragraph under heading beginning “Response”- page 33, 1st paragraph).
However, the Examiner points out that all parts of the cannabis plant have been used for food for a long time since cannabis has a nutritional content as evidenced by Iftikhar in the 3rd paragraph of page 2 and in the entirety of sections 5 and 6 on pages 9-16 (Iftikhar et al., “Applications of Cannabis Sativa L. in Food and Its Therapeutic Potential: From a Prohibited Drug to a Nutritional Supplement”, 2021, Molecules, 26, 7699; previously cited). The Examiner points out that “food” is defined as a “substance consisting essentially of protein, carbohydrates, fat, and other nutrients used in the body of an organism to sustain growth and vital processes and to furnish energy” as evidenced by Britannica (“food”, 2026, Britannica¸ https://www.britannica.com/topic/food). Cannabis is a plant and thus contains protein, fat, carbohydrates, and nutrients. Therefore, not only does Iftikhar expressly state that cannabis is a food but cannabis fits the dictionary definition of “food”. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding cannabis not being a food are not supported.
Applicant then argued that Reddit I does not teach infusion of vitamins, minerals, and flavors into any food, but instead teaches the extraction of cannabinoids from cannabis into oil. Applicant argued that Reddit I is not analogous art as Reddit I does not solve the same problem as the present invention. Applicant argued that a skilled practitioner would not combine Reddit I with the other cited references to arrive at the claimed invention and that the claimed process achieves results that would not be expected based on Reddit I (Applicant’s Remarks, page 30, 2nd paragraph – page 31, 1st paragraph- page 33, 1st paragraph; page 38, 1st paragraph – page 40, 3rd paragraph).
However, as described above in the rejection of amended claims 1 and 8, the combination of Reddit I and Sloat and the combination of Reddit I and Somm render the infusion of vitamins, minerals, and flavors into oil and the infusion of vitamins, minerals, and flavors from an oil into a consumable obvious, especially wherein the prior art discloses methods comprising soaking of a substance in oil to produce both an oil infused with food compounds and a consumable infused with food compounds from infused oil.
In response to Applicant’s assertion that Reddit I is not analogous art as Reddit I does not solve the same problem as the present invention, as described in the prior art rejections and the response above, since the present invention is drawn to infusing compounds from food into oil by using heat/freeze cycles on mixtures comprising the food and oil and Reddit discloses infusing compounds from food into oil by using heat/freeze cycles on mixtures comprising the food and oil, Reddit I is analogous to the presently claimed method.
In response to Applicant’s assertion that the claimed process achieves results that would not be expected based on Reddit I, Reddit I discloses infusing compounds from food into oil by using heat/freeze cycles on mixtures comprising the food and oil. As such, the experiments comprising the method of claim 8 in the Declarations are analogous to the method of Reddit I. Therefore, it unclear as to how the claimed method achieves results that would not be expected based on Reddit I.
Applicant then argued that the statement in the rejections of the previous Office Action reciting that “a skilled practitioner would have readily recognized that the method of infusion by soaking disclosed by Reddit I may be also applied to infusing the consumable by soaking” is the Office implicitly taking Official Notice and a statement concerning the state of the art. Applicant argued that the Office has been unable to provide a single reference disclose steps (I)-(L) of the presently claimed method and that the fact that these steps work for infusing oil into an orally ingestible consumable is not demonstrated as being well-known. For this reason, Applicant argued that the use of Official Notice for steps (I)-(L) is improper (Applicant’s Remarks, page 33, 1st paragraph under heading beginning “The Office” – page 34, 4th paragraph).
However, as stated above in the rejection of amended claim 8, Sloat teaches that the orally ingestible consumable is infused with food compounds by soaking the consumable in the infused oil [0234] while Reddit discloses a method of infusion by soaking. A skilled practitioner would have readily recognized that the method of infusion by soaking disclosed by Reddit I may also be applied to infusing the consumable by soaking since Sloat discloses soaking as a means of infusing the consumable. This stance is further supported by the fact that infusion of a liquid and a food by soaking is well-known and practiced in the art as evidenced by the 1st -3rd paragraphs under “What Are Infusions?” on page 1 of Logsdon (Logsdon, J., “Infusing Liquids and Foods”, June 2021, https://www.amazingfoodmadeeasy.com/info/modernist-techniques/more/infusing; previously cited). Therefore, the asserted Official Notice is supported by disclosures in the cited prior art and by the state of the art at the time of filing.
Applicant then argued that the Office has been unable to cite a single reference that employs steps similar to (I)-(L) for infusing an orally ingestible component so that steps (I)-(L) are novel and non-obvious (Applicant’s Remarks, page 34, 5th paragraph).
However, the present claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 which “authorizes a rejection where, to meet the claim, it is necessary to modify a single reference or to combine it with one or more other references”. MPEP §2142. Therefore, the steps of (I)-(L) do not need to be disclosed in a single reference; and the combination of references used to render steps (I)-(L) obvious as described in the rejections and responses above are sufficient.
Applicant then pointed to the Declarations filed 01/26/2026 and 01/27/2026 to demonstrate unexpected results (Applicant’s Remarks, page 34, 6th paragraph – page 35, 2nd paragraph).
See the section labeled “Response to Amendment” above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly Kershaw whose telephone number is (571)272-2847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 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, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/KELLY P KERSHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights