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. Claim Status Applicant’s amendments, filled on 23 January 2023 are acknowledged, and have been fully considered. Claims 5-9, 11-12, 14, 16, 20, 23-26, 29, 31-35, 38, 40-41, 43, and 45-47 are cancelled. Claims 4, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 27, 28, 30, 36, 37, 39, and 44 are amended. Claims 1-4, 10, 13, 15 , 17 -19, 21-22, 27-28, 30, 36-37, 39, 42, and 44 are being examined on the merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1- 4, 10 , 18-19, 30, 36-37, 39, 42, AND 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as being anticipated by CIP OLLETTI, Giovanni et al . ( W02019/020738A1) . The instant Claims are drawn to a method for producing a purified cannabinoid extract, comprising: mixing a cannabaceae biomass extract comprising cannabinoid compounds in methanol to obtain a substantially homogeneous methanolic phase; mixing water and said methanolic-phase to obtain a hydro-methanolic- phase; performing a liquid-liquid extraction of said hydro-methanolic phase by using a non polar solvent whereby cannabinoid compounds are extracted in the non-polar solvent; recovering a non-polar solvent phase comprising said cannabinoid compounds and a rafinate comprising said hydro-methanolic phase; and evaporating the non-polar solvent from said non-polar solvent phase comprising said cannabinoid to provide the purified cannabinoid extract. Cipolletti et al. ‘738 , however, anticipates the claims by teach ing ( see pages 2-4 at Summary of Invention , para.1 - 6 ); a process for the production of “ (CBD) … or other neutral cannabinoid, said process comprising: contacting a biomass containing … neutral cannabinoid or in the form of carboxylic acid, with an extraction solvent for at least 10 minutes at a temperature between 0°C and the reflux temperature of the solvent, to obtain, after biomass removal, an extraction solution; said extraction solvent selected from the group consisting of pentane, hexane, heptane, octane, methylcyclohexane, acetone, propanol, ethanol, methanol, ethyl acetate, toluene, methylene chloride, and mixtures thereof; continuing according to a process (A) comprising: ii-a) contacting the extraction solution with a hydro-alcoholic solution and adjusting pH to 7.5-12.5 with a suitable alkaline solution, to obtain, after phase separation, a first hydro-alcoholic phase and a first organic phase; if the extraction solvent is a water- miscible solvent, adding also a first water-immiscible solvent selected from the group consisting of pentane, hexane, heptane, methylcyclohexane, and mixtures thereof; ” , the non-polar solvent discussed in instant claims are the extraction solvent of the reference. Although Cipolletti does not expressly recite raffinate (a s in the instant claim s 1 + ) , it is noted that it remains anticipated by the prior art for the following. T he raffinate is a component in the liquid form after removal of impurities by the solvent extraction (as evidenced by the instant disclosure) , which the extract of Cipolletti appears to be the same or materially sufficiently similar thereto, and would have intrinsically contained raffinate , as raffinate is broadly and reasonably considered as obtained from the same Hemp/cannabis biomass source materials , and treated with the same ( and/ or nearly the same) solvents and separations , so as to have resulted in the same extracted materials , and including those expressly recited and/or as evidenced by instant disclosure appreciating the materials present there in ( see MPEP 2112.02 at E x parte Novitski - regardin g refer e nce-silent features of biological materials remaining anticipated by the prior art) . Cipolletti et al. ‘738 further teaches cannabaceae biomass extract is Hemp (as required of instant claims 2 - 3 ), teaching “ the extraction of cannabinoids from a vegetal matrix; particularly, it refers to the extraction of (-)-cannabidiol (CBD) and obtaining in the form of high purity crystal from hemp types ” ( page 1 at Filed of invention [para 1]) ; and the “ the raw material (i.e. the biomass) used is industrial hemp (species Cannabis Sativa; subspecies Sativa ” ( page 4 at DETAILED SPECIFICATION OF THE INVENTION at [para1] ) , which anticipates the instant claims (see instant claim 3 ) whereby the subspecies of Sativa are Cannabis Sativa, Cannabis Indica, a hybrid of Cannabis Sativa and Indica and Cannabis ruderalis. ‘738 further teaches that “ The biomass is preferably micronized before being subjected to solvent extraction ” ( page 4 at lines 26+; at DETAILED SPECIFICATION OF THE INVENTION [para2 ] ) (as re q uired of instant claim 4 , pre-treating of the Cannabaceae biomass ) . Furthermore, ‘738 states that “ the acid form (CBDA) is separated from the decarboxylated form (CBD) and from the impurities by the addition of a hydro-alcoholic solution in which the alcohol is conveniently selected from the group consisting of ethanol, methanol, preferably methanol ” ( see Process A [para2] , on page 5) . The process may also comprise a n on-polar solvent , from among straight, branched, or saturated hydrocarbon s comprising 5 to 10 carbon atoms ( as stated in instant claim 10 ) , because Cipolletti et al. (see ‘738 at Process A and B) further teaches : “ the CBDA and CBD extraction takes place by keeping the hemp in contact with a solvent conveniently chosen in the group consisting of pentane, hexane, heptane, octane, methylcyclohexane and mixtures thereof; more preferably hexane (n-hexane or isomers mixture) as extraction solvent is used” and “ a second more or less apolar water-immiscible solvent, preferably hexane (n-hexane or isomers mixture) ” . Regarding instant Claim s 18 and 19 , wherein the cannabaceae biomass extract crude extract comprises a mixture of two or more cannabinoids compounds selected from THC, cannabichromene (CBC), cannabidiol (CBD), cannabigerol (CBG), cannabinol (CBN), cannabinodiol (CBND), cannabicyclol (CBL), cannabielsoin (CBE), cannabicitran type (CBCT), cannabitriol (CBT), cannabielsoin (CBL), their corresponding carboxylated form, sesquicannabigerol, cannabicoumarononic acid, cannabinoid benzoquinone, and cannabispiroindane , (Claim 18); wherein the cannabaceae biomass crude extract comprises CBD, THC, CBDA (cannabidiolic acid) and THCA (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) (Claim 19) , the claims are anticipated by the refer e nce as Cipolletti ‘738 teaches “ Cannabinoids or cannabinols are chemicals of natural origin and biochemically classified as terpenophenols…. identified a family of chemical compounds present in Cannabis sativa … tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, A9-THC), cannabidiol (CBD), tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV), cannabinol (CBN), cannabichromene (CBC), cannabicyclol (CBL), cannabielsoin (CBE), cannabigerol (CBG), cannabinodiol (CBND), cannabitriol (CBT), cannabivarin (CBV), cannabidivarin (CBDV), cannabichromevarin (CBCV), cannabigerovarin (CBGV), and cannabigerol monoethyl ether (CBGM). Recently Sativex, a drug extracted from Cannabis Sativa, with a standardized cannabinoid content (THC e CBD), has been placed on the market. Cannabinoids are found in the Cannabis sativa hemp plant in the form of their carboxyl derivatives, the cannabinoid carboxylic acids, from which the so-called "neutral cannabinoids" are derived by decarboxylation, i.e. the CO2 elimination. Thus, for example, cannabidiol (CBD) is formed by the cannabidiolic acid (CBDA) decarboxylation . ” ( ‘738, at Background) . The Instant Claim 30 ; comprising after the step of recovering said non-polar solvent phase comprising said cannabinoid compounds .. . second non-polar solvent phase to the non-polar solvent phase comprising said cannabinoid compounds Cipolletti ‘738 teaches ( see at Example 1) “ the hexane extraction from biomass ” the steps taken to achieve the recovering of non-polar solvent phase of the cannabinoid compounds. Regarding i nstant Claim 36 , wherein the purified cannabinoid extract comprises decarboxylating carboxylic acid-containing cannabinoids , Cipolletti ‘738 teaches “ The CBDA and CBD extraction takes place by keeping the hemp in contact with a solvent preferably selected from the group consisting of acetone, propanol, ethanol, methanol, ethyl acetate, toluene, n-hexane or hexane-mixture of isomers; more preferably methanol, at the reflux temperature of the solvent for a time of at least 10 minutes. If necessary, the suspension is kept under stirring until complete decarboxylation of the CBDA to CBD ” (see ‘738 at B Process). Cipolletti also teaches “ Obtaining CBD in a laboratory scale from hemp having a CBDA/CBD ratio of about 90/10 by extraction and separation of its acid form (CBDA) ” , ( ‘738, see page 10+ at Results , E xample 3 : broadly , obtaining a total weight (wt/wt) amount of cannabinoid to the purified cannabinoid extrac t that is relatively higher , or 35 - 100% (wt/wt) (see instant claims 37, 39 respectively) , or where a CBD /C BDA relative total weight is higher, or comprising from about 30 - 80% , 30% or 80% (w/w) ( see instant Claims 42, 44 respectively )) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 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. Claim(s) 1-4, 10, 13, 15, 17 -19, 27, 30, 36-37, 39, 42, and 27 a re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CIP OLLETTI, Giovanni et al. (W02019/020738A1). as applied to claim 1-4, 10, 18-19, 30, 36-37, 39, 42, AND 44 above, and further in view of Oroskar; Anil Rajaram et al. (US 10189762 B1). The claims and teachings of Cipolletti ‘738 are as of record above. However the claims are further distinguish ed as drawn to (see t he instant Claims 13, 15, 17 and 30 ) wherein instant claim 13, recites, non-polar solvent to the volume of the hydro-alcoholic phase ratio; claim 15 recites the cannabinoid extract is purified at room temperature and/or the non-polar solvent cold ethanol; Claim 17 recites the total weight amount of cannabinoid compounds is from about 15% to about 60% (wt/wt) relative to the weight of the cannabaceae biomass extract , claim 30 recites steps using non polar solvents for purification of cannabinoid . OROSKAR ‘106 (see summary page 2, all left col. and page 3 all right col.), where reference teaches purification steps of cannabidiol and the use of non-polar solvent hexane. Furthermore, claim 30 which recites extraction steps for purifying cannabinoid compounds, mere duplication of steps would have been obvious as the repeated steps provide no patentable significance (i.e. merely provide the repetition of the same or similar steps), unless a new and unexpected result is produce d , and simply making known product purer isn’t automatically a new inventive step (non-obvious). (See MPEP 2144.04 section V and VI) . Additionally, instant claims 21, 22, 27, and 28 are distinguished in expressly reciting the amounts (mass or volume ratios (claims 21, 22, 28) and contacting the cannabaceae biomass extract with activated carbon (claim 27). OROSKAR ‘106 ( see col. 10 at DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS and Claims e.g. ‘106 at claim 1; see instant claim 27 ) , however teaches the use of activated carbon to remove impurities and that it was known in the art to provide in a “ process for the purification of cannabidiol (CBD) in a crude cannabis extract stream to provide at least one high purity cannabidiol product selected from the group consisting of a high purity cannabinoid oil stream, … a) passing the crude cannabis extract stream comprising debris and small particles, cannabidiol, tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiolic acid, tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, other cannabinols, … b) passing the filtered crude cannabinoid stream comprising cannabidiol… a decolorization chromatographic column containing a modified activated carbon ,” . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the instant invention effective filing date to have provided a composition as instantly claimed because the cited reference teaches the components were known in the art as a method for extracting purified cannabinoid. Cipolletti and Oroskar are relied upon for the reasons discussed above. If not expressly taught by the references, based upon the overall beneficial teachings provided with respect to providing the Cannabis/hemp source material, and solvent partitioning/extracting and recovering of the purification fractions and materials, in the manner disclosed therein and in view of the knowledge and ordinary skill of one in the art (i.e. one knowledgeable of the plant solvent extractions), the adjustments of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., determining one or more suitable ranges ( quantities (amounts, proportions , concentrations , pH, volume- or mass-ratios ) and/or reaction conditions (times, temperatures) , for the ranges in which to perform such a purifying process , including as recited among instant claims 13, 15, 17, 21, 22, and 28 ), is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan , and would have been obvious based on the teachings of the reference and ordinary skill and knowledge of one in the art to achieve the process and similar results. The claimed method of producing purified cannabinoid extract, thus it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Cipolletti et al. and OROSKAR et al. to achieve reasonable expectations of success. From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Conclusion No claims are presently allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Alpa Amin whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0562 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:30 - 5:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Terry McKelvey can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1113 . 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. /ALPA NILESH AMIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1655 /AARON J KOSAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1655