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 .
Response to Amendment
The 2026 March 9 amendment containing claims 1-28 is considered. The objections and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are overcome the language has been amended and the prior art does not specify the pore size of 1-10 μm is not stated explicitly or implicitly. The following 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are overcome: claim 1 now recites one method, not multiple methods; the term “extract” has been removed from the claim; the term “cannabinoids solids” is broad not indefinite; and the text “(or volume)” has been removed from claim 16. The 35 U.S.C. rejection 112 (b) rejection over “specific textures” is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
What are the components of a fractionated cannabis extract product? TURNER (Journal of Natural Products, 1980, 43(2), 169-234) describes that there are 421 chemical constituents of cannabis sativa (page 172, paragraph 3 to page 173, paragraph 2). Which of these chemical constituents is required to be part of a fractionated cannabis product? Paragraphs [0022] through [0049] of the specification describe the startup, fractionation, and harvesting but do not limit claim 1 as written due to broadest reasonable interpretation.
What are the specific extract textures of a product of claim 7? Figure 13 is one example (specification, pages 8-9, paragraph [0048]), but his one example does not limit the claim interpretation.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: the steps required to make a product containing a fractionated cannabis extract. None of the claims recite method steps for making a product that contains the extract.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the bulk extract”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no previous reference to a bulk extract.
Claim 1, 12, and 15-23 recite the limitation “the paste”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no previous reference to a paste.
The terms low-terpene solid fraction in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Neither term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Paragraph [0044] describes a high terpene fraction but does not define the metes and bounds of what is considered high.
The terms low-cost acidic cannabinoids and high terpene oils in claim 6 are each relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. Neither term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Paragraph [0044] describes a high terpene fraction but does not define the metes and bounds of what is considered high.
In claim 28, what is considered an “appropriate compliance tag”? Paragraph [0048] of the specification recites “appropriate compliance tags” but does not describe what one is.
Conclusion
Claims 1-28 are not allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: BARRINGER (US 20130079531, published 2013 March 13) describes a process of separating cannabinoids from pigments in a semi-continuous or continuous centrifugal process (figure 2; page 1, paragraph [0014] to page 2, paragraph [0022]). Claim 7 specifies that a basket centrifuge is one technique that can be employed. Reformulation is described (page 2, paragraphs [0023]-[[0025]).
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 NOBLE E JARRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9077. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached at 571-272-3311. 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.
/NOBLE E JARRELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights