DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 9, 2025.
Claims 1-10, 12 and 13 have been examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by, or, in alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Himes et al. (US 20200030397 A1, published on September 18, 2019) (“Himes” hereunder)
Claim 1 is directed to method of a method of preparing a Cannabis plant material for extraction of a compound comprising: a. obtaining fresh plant material; b. flash freezing the plant material in a container containing a cooling material for a period of time; and c. dry sifting the plant material in a cold environment to isolate trichomes; wherein the isolated trichomes comprise a biochemical profile of cannabinoids or terpenoids that is substantially similar to the biochemical profile of the fresh plant material. Applicant explains, “[d]ry sifting is a process that separates the trichomes from the plant material.” See published specification, [0029].
Himes teaches a method of harvesting trichomes from a cannabis plant, the method comprising:
a) providing cannabis plant material including flower material, which can be fresh or dried;
b) freezing the plant material by exposing the plant piece to a cryogenic liquid or gas to create a frozen plant piece;
c) processing the frozen plant piece to separate the trichomes from the plant using one or more screens; and collecting the trichomes that have passed through the one or more screens. See reference claim 1; paragraph [0005].
Regarding the method step a) of the Himes method, the reference teaches that “preferably the cannabis plant, or pieces of the cannabis plant are frozen directly after harvesting or after drying.” See [0027]. Since the reference discloses using the Cannabis plant materials directly after harvesting, the presently claimed method of using a fresh plant material from Cannabis is anticipated or obvious.
The method step c) of the Himes method is a dry sifting process, in which the frozen plant piece is subjected to impact (e.g., metal balls, etc) to detach the trichomes from the plant material and to vibration on a screen. The trichomes are separated from the plant, pass through the screen. See [0028].
In the present claim 1, line 1, the recitation “for extraction of a compound” denotes the intended future use of the present invention. As the separated trichomes according to the Himes method are suitable and capable for further processing for extraction of a compound, the prior art method anticipates the present claim.
Since the resulting trichomes in the prior art are isolated according to the same method steps of the present invention, including using fresh flower materials, the biochemical profile of cannabinoids or terpenoids obtained by the Himes method must be substantially similar to the biochemical profile of the fresh plant material.
Regarding claims 3, Himes teaches that the cannabis plant pieces are subjected to cryogenic treatment “directly after harvesting” which suggests that the treatment is to take place immediately without delay.
Regarding claim 7, the Himes method is a solventless process.
Regarding the present claims 8-10, applicant states in the specification, “a ‘comparison process’ can include any traditional process such as air drying.” See published application, [0032]. Since the Himes method steps are identical to the presently claimed process, it follows that the kief obtained from the prior art method using fresh Cannabis plant materials inherently produce more yield than conventional methods such as air-drying.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurzer (US 20140271940 A1, published on September 18, 2014) in view of Filippi et al. (EP2940475 A1, published on November 4, 2015) (“Filippi” hereunder).
Wurzer discloses a method of preparing trichomes concentrates from a Cannabis plant material for extraction of the active compounds, the method comprising, placing the plant material in a cylindrical mesh drum driven by a belt and motor, which expels the trichome from the mesh pores. See [0071]; Example 1. The reference further teaches that the plant material can be frozen prior to tumbling or tumbled in the presence of dry ice. See the present claims 1, 2 and 5.
Although Wurzer teaches using freshly dried Cannabis plant, Filippi teaches that even air-dried cannabis buds results “in a loss of the most volatile compounds, particularly affecting the contents in monoterpenes”. See [0005]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the teachings of Wurzer and use fresh Cannabis plant materials as motivated by Filippi as the latter teaches and suggests that using fresh Cannabis buds would more effectively preserve the contents of volatile compounds. By combining the teachings of the references, the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully separate trichome having more preserved volatile compounds.
Claim 1 recites, “wherein the isolated trichomes comprise a biochemical profile of cannabinoids or terpenoids that is substantially similar to the biochemical profile of the fresh plant material”. Since the isolated trichomes in the prior art are obtained according to the same method steps of the present invention, the biochemical profile characteristics of the trichomes of the two methods must be inherent the same.
Regarding claim 2, Wurzer teaches using dry ice.
Regarding claim 3, as Filippi teaches and suggests using fresh Cannabis plant materials, one of ordinary skill in the art would have obviously process the fresh plant without delays so as to preserve the volatile contents.
Regarding claim 4, Wurzer teaches, “[t]he longer the duration of the extraction, the greater the yield of trichome heads”. The reference uses the term “extraction” here to mean the process of separating trichome from the plant. The reference teaches that 6 hours of agitation of the plant material yields 14.5 % yield. See [0116].
Regarding claim 5, the mesh drum in Wurzer meets the rotating drum with perforations.
Regarding claim 6, Wurzer teaches that the trichomes are collected in the bottom pan of the collection box. See Example 1, [0111-0113].
Regarding claim 7, Wurzer suggests that the dry ice method does not involve using a solvent.
Regarding claims 8-10, as the Wurzer method requires the identical method steps of the present claim 1, the prior art method must inherently have the same efficacy as defined in the present claims.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Wurzer further teaches a method of solvent extraction of the resulting trichomes. See [0072]. The cannabinoids and terpenoids content, or the purity level as recited in claim 11, must be inherent to the resulting extracts obtained according to the method of Wurzer in view of Filippi. Such result would have been also obvious and expected as Filippi teaches that using fresh Cannabis plants more effectively preserves the contents of volatile compounds in trichrome than dried plants.
Regarding claim 12, Wurzer teaches that supercritical carbon dioxide extraction is among the preferred extraction methods. See [0072, 0074]. Applying such known technique to extract cannabinoid compounds from the collected trichrome would have been prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GINA JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)272-8605. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5 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, BETHANY BARHAM can be reached at 571-272-6175. 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.
/GINA C JUSTICE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617