DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 81-95 are pending and represent all claims currently under consideration.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/06/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-80 were canceled. Claims 81 and 88-91 were amended. Claims 92-95 were newly added. No new material was added.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous objections to the claims and specification, and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The rejection of claims 81-91 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been modified to address the amendments and maintained.
The new claims 92-95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pages 7-9), filed 11/06/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 81-91 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendment. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ditzler and Leo.
Applicant argues that Ditzler does not disclose or suggest “providing a flow of ozone through the vessel from the inlet to the outlet and throughout exposure of the material to the ozone” and rather discloses “ozone exposure occurs in a static atmosphere rather than continuously passing a stream of ozone over a product” (Remarks, pages 7-9). This argument is not persuasive, because Ditzler teaches a valve 42 joining the ozone storage tank to the drum (i.e., the inlet) and teaches ozone enters the drum when the valve is open (Ditzler, page 3, paragraph 0021). Ditzler then teaches evacuation of the drum by opening appropriate valves (i.e., ozone flows through the drum from the inlet and to the outlet; Ditzler, page 3, paragraph 0025). Ditzler further teaches tumbling continuously exposes fresh surface area of the product to the treatment (Ditzler, page 1, paragraph 0005), suggesting ozone is continuously flowing over the product.
Priority
This application is a CIP of PCT/US2021/029832 filed on 04/29/2021, which claims priority to PRO 63/068,038, PRO 63/034,222, and PRO 63/018,418.
Claims 81-86, 91, and 95 are considered to have an effective filing date of 04/30/2020.
Claims 89 and 92 are considered to have an effective filing date of 06/03/2020.
Claims 87-88, 90, and 94 are considered to have an effective filing date of 08/20/2020.
Claim 93 is considered to have an effective filing date of 10/28/2022.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/018,418, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Regarding claim 87, there is no support for intermittent tumbling.
Regarding claims 88-89, there is no support for a pressure of the vessel.
Regarding claim 90, there is no support for a humidity of the vessel.
Regarding claim 92, there is no support for modifying the ozone concentration based on feedback provided by an ozone sensor.
Regarding claim 93, there is no support for introducing concentrated nitrogen gas into the vessel.
Regarding claim 94, there is no support for pressurizing the vessel.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/034,222, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Regarding claim 87, there is no support for intermittent tumbling.
Regarding claim 88, there is no support for a pressure of the vessel that is atmospheric pressure or above.
Regarding claim 90, there is no support for a humidity of the vessel.
Regarding claim 93, there is no support for introducing concentrated nitrogen gas into the vessel.
Regarding claim 94, there is no support for pressurizing the vessel by introducing gas while closing off release of gas.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/068,038, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Regarding claim 93, there is no support for introducing concentrated nitrogen gas into the vessel.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. PCT/US2021/029832, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Regarding claim 93, there is no support for introducing concentrated nitrogen gas into the vessel.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/06/2025 has been considered.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 81-89, 91, 93, and 95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditzler (US 20100028510 A1; IDS reference, 04/04/2024), further in view of Leo (US 20190246591 A1). The references were cited previously by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 81, Ditzler teaches a process for disinfection (i.e., treatment) which comprises placing foodstuffs in a chamber with ozone gas while tumbling (Ditzler, claim 1), and teaches the tumbling occurs in a rotating drum (i.e., vessel) and rotates through the entire succession of product treatment (i.e., throughout exposure of the material to the ozone; Ditzler, page 1, paragraph 0005). Ditzler teaches a valve 42 joining the ozone storage tank to the drum (i.e., the inlet) and teaches ozone enters the drum when the valve is open (Ditzler, page 3, paragraph 0021). Ditzler then teaches evacuation of the drum by opening appropriate valves (i.e., ozone flows through the drum from the inlet and to the outlet; Ditzler, page 3, paragraph 0025). Ditzler teaches tumbling continuously exposes fresh surface area of the product to the treatment (Ditzler, page 1, paragraph 0005), suggesting ozone is continuously flowing over the product.
Ditzler teaches ozone treatment of foodstuffs including grains and seeds (i.e., harvested plant materials as defined by the instant specification, page 15, paragraphs 0069-0070; Ditzler, abstract), but does not specifically teach the treatment of cannabis flowers or seeds. Leo teaches a system for processing of processing of foodstuffs including cannabis plants (Leo, paragraph 0002).
Ditzler and Leo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because Ditzler, Leo, and the instant invention are in the same field of plant treatment methods. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the system taught by Ditzler to treat the specific plants taught by Leo, because both teach the use of ozone for the treatment of harvested plant materials, and Leo states a need for such pest management systems on cannabis farms (Leo, page 1, paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 82, Ditzler and Leo teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 81. Ditzler teaches the amount of product added will fill the chamber to about 45% of the volume (Ditzler, page 3, paragraph 0020), which is substantially close to the claimed range of one-half or more. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 83, Ditzler and Leo teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 81. Ditzler teaches the chamber is infused with ozone gas at a concentration ranging from 200-100,000 ppm (Ditzler, claim 1), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 84, Ditzler and Leo teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 81. Ditzler teaches the chamber is infused with ozone gas (i.e., treated) for most preferably 2-5 minutes (Ditzler, page 1, paragraph 0012), which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 85, Ditzler and Leo teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 81. Ditzler teaches ozone treatment at a concentration of 200-100,000 ppm (Ditzler, claim 1) with pressurization and tumbling which can occur for a time period of 30 seconds to 60 minutes (Ditzler, page 2, paragraph 0013), which overlaps the claimed ranges for both ozone concentration and time. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 86, Ditzler and Leo teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 81. Ditzler teaches the tumbling is continuous throughout the ozone treatment step (Ditzler, claim 1).
Regarding claim 87, Ditzler and Leo teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 81. Ditzler teaches each cycle is repeated one or more times (Ditzler, page 2, paragraph 0016) and treatments are performed while tumbling (i.e., tumbling can be repeated or intermittent; Ditzler, page 2, paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 88, Ditzler and Leo teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 81. Ditzler teaches the exposure to treatment agents at a pressure above atmospheric (Ditzler, abstract) and teaches once the desired pressure is reached, the ozone exposure occurs (i.e., the flow of ozone is introduced when the pressure in the interior of the vessel is above atmospheric; Ditzler, page 2, paragraph 0013).
Regarding claim 89, Ditzler and Leo teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 81. Ditzler teaches the drum is pressurized by opening an appropriate valve and teaches the pressure regulating valve is opened to pressurize the drum (i.e., regulate a back pressure) with nitrogen (i.e., a gas; Ditzler, page 3, paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 91, Ditzler and Leo teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 81. Ditzler teaches ozone treatment of foodstuffs including grains and seeds (i.e., harvested plant materials as defined by the instant specification, page 15, paragraphs 0069-0070; Ditzler, abstract), but does not specifically teach the treatment of cannabis flowers or seeds. Leo teaches a system for processing of processing of foodstuffs including cannabis plants (Leo, paragraph 0002) such as the flower or seeds (Leo, paragraph 1786) which can include a unit for ozone treatment (Leo, page 63, paragraph 0746). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the system taught by Ditzler to treat the specific plants taught by Leo, because both teach the use of ozone for the treatment of harvested plant materials, and Leo states a need for such pest management systems on cannabis farms (Leo, page 1, paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 93, Ditzler and Leo teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 81. Ditzler teaches an inert gas for pressurization which is preferably a gas other than argon, which can be carbon dioxide (Ditzler, page 2, paragraph 0013).
Regarding claim 95, Ditzler and Leo teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 81. Ditzler teaches ozone treatment of foodstuffs including grains and seeds (i.e., harvested plant materials as defined by the instant specification, page 15, paragraphs 0069-0070; Ditzler, abstract), but does not specifically teach the treatment of cannabis flowers or seeds. Leo teaches a system for processing of processing of foodstuffs including cannabis plants (Leo, paragraph 0002) such as the flower (Leo, paragraph 1786) which can include a unit for ozone treatment (Leo, page 63, paragraph 0746). Leo further teaches cannabinoid mixtures do not easily disperse and teaches the use of a homogenizer (Leo, page 220, paragraph 2462). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the need to homogenize a cannabis flower. As above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the system taught by Ditzler to treat the specific plants taught by Leo, because both teach the use of ozone for the treatment of harvested plant materials, and Leo states a need for such pest management systems on cannabis farms (Leo, page 1, paragraph 0010).
Claim 90 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditzler (US 20100028510 A1; IDS reference, 04/04/2024) and Leo (US 20190246591 A1) as applied to claims 81-89, 91, 93, and 95, and further in view of Kain (US 20140193294 A1). The references were cited previously by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 90, Ditzler and Leo teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 81. Ditzler teaches the products are treated with hot moisture (i.e., the humidity is modified; Ditzler, paragraph 0010), but does not teach the humidity is monitored. Kain, however, teaches a method for sanitation comprising ozone treatment (Kain, abstract) and teaches the container has a maintenance device for monitoring and maintaining the humidity and ozone levels (Kain, page 11, paragraph 0082) and teaches levels are maintained within reasonable ranges (i.e., preset levels; Kain, page 8, paragraph 0062).
Ditzler and Kain are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because Ditzler, Kain, and the instant invention are in the same field of ozone treatment methods. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized a device for monitoring and maintaining the humidity as taught by Kain, because both Ditzler and Kain teach modification of the humidity, and Kain teaches real-time monitoring of the conditions is preferable (Kain, page 11, paragraph 0087).
Claims 92 and 94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditzler (US 20100028510 A1; IDS reference, 04/04/2024) and Leo (US 20190246591 A1) as applied to claims 81-89, 91, 93, and 95, further in view of Sunnen (US 20190124865 A1; IDS reference, 04/04/2024).
Regarding claim 92, Ditzler and Leo teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 81. Ditzler teaches infusing ozone gas at a specific concentration (Ditzler, claim 1), but does not teach a sensor as claimed. Sunnen, however, teaches a system for plant treatment with ozone (Sunnen, page 1, paragraph 0002) wherein an ozone sensor measures a level of ozone (Sunnen, claim 8) which is configured to detect and maintain the level of ozone within a targeted area (Sunnen, page 6, paragraph 0094).
Ditzler and Sunnen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because Ditzler, Sunnen, and the instant invention are in the same field of plant treatment methods with ozone. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system taught by Ditzler to include a sensor to maintain the level of ozone as taught by Sunnen, because Sunnen teaches a sensor can maintain a desired level for plant disinfection (Sunnen, page 6, paragraph 0094).
Regarding claim 94, Ditzler and Leo teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 81. Sunnen teaches a system for plant disinfection with ozone which does not comprise pressurizing the vessel by introducing gas while closing off release of gas from the vessel (Sunnen, claim 20). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system taught by Ditzler to remove the unnecessary step of pressurization based on the teachings of Sunnen.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHASITY P JANOSKO whose telephone number is (703)756-5307. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 ET.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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.
/C.P.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1613
/JENNIFER A BERRIOS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613