DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on 02/23/2026 has been fully considered. Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 1-10 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 17 are amended.
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 .
Priority
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites “the remaining aerial parts and hemp fibers comprises” in lines 5-6, which is grammatically incorrect. The Office suggests that Applicant change the “comprises” to “comprise”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 11-13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates (US 2016/0325288 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Bates teaches a method of obtaining cannabinoid oil from processed hemp comprising [0082] receiving the processed hemp, which has been processed from a whole hemp stalk to a particulate form having reduced size [0083], and extracting the cannabinoid oil from the processed hemp using a fluid extraction process in which an extracting solvent is applied to the processed hemp [0084], wherein the received processed hemp is characterized in that it has been previously pelletized as part of its processing from the whole hemp stalk to the particulate form [0085], wherein each whole hemp stalk includes bast fiber and shive [0005, 0043, 0044, 0076], wherein the size of the particulate hemp is between 25 microns and 500 microns [0009, 0015, 0042, 0073, 0079], wherein the particulate hemp includes bast fiber and shive throughout the step of processing the particulate hemp [0010, 0012, 0040, 0043, 0071, 0072, 0075, 0078, 0081], wherein the whole hemp stalks have a moisture content less than 15% by weight [0036], wherein the step of extracting the cannabinoid oil includes generating used processed hemp deprived of the cannabinoid oil initially contained therein [0094], wherein there is a step of drying the used processed hemp so as to be suited for use as or in a salable product [0095], which reads on a hemp biodegradable absorbent, comprising: an absorbent material formed from remaining aerial parts and hemp fibers of an extracted hemp biomass, wherein the remaining aerial parts and hemp fibers are devoid of oleoresins, oils, waxes, and lipids and wherein the remaining aerial parts and hemp fibers comprises: a moisture content of less than 15%, and a filtered particle size having a range of between 25 µm and 500 µm.
Bates does not teach with sufficient specificity that the remaining aerial parts and hemp fibers comprises: a moisture content of less than about 10%. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in art would have found it obvious to optimize the moisture content of Bates’s used processed hemp to be less than 10% by weight. The proposed modification would read on wherein the remaining aerial parts and hemp fibers comprises: a moisture content of less than about 10% as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for optimizing suitability of Bates’s used processed hemp as or in a salable product because Bates teaches that the whole hemp stalks have a moisture content less than 15% by weight [0036], and that that there is a step of drying the used processed hemp so as to be suited for use as or in a salable product [0095], which means that the moisture content of Bates’s used processed hemp in % by weight would have affected suitability of Bates’s used processed hemp as or in a salable product.
Bates does not teach with sufficient specificity that the remaining aerial parts and hemp fibers comprises: a filtered particle size having a range of between about 0.5 µm and about 50 µm. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the size of Bates’s particulate hemp to be between 25 microns and 50 microns. The proposed modification would read on wherein the remaining aerial parts and hemp fibers comprises: a filtered particle size having a range of between 25 µm and 50 µm as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for optimizing usability of Bates’s processed hemp for extracting the cannabinoid oil from Bates’s processed hemp and generating used processed hemp deprived of the cannabinoid oil initially contained therein because Bates teaches that the size of the particulate hemp is between 25 microns and 500 microns [0009, 0015, 0042, 0073, 0079] so as to be usable for further processing of the particulate hemp into one of a plurality of different products each with different size [0073, 0079], that the method of obtaining cannabinoid oil from processed hemp comprises [0082] receiving the processed hemp, which has been processed from a whole hemp stalk to a particulate form having reduced size [0083], extracting the cannabinoid oil from the processed hemp using a fluid extraction process in which an extracting solvent is applied to the processed hemp [0084], that the step of extracting the cannabinoid oil includes generating used processed hemp deprived of the cannabinoid oil initially contained therein [0094], and that there is a step of drying the used processed hemp so as to be suited for use as or in a salable product [0095], which means that the size of Bates’s particulate hemp in microns would have affected usability of Bates’s processed hemp for extracting the cannabinoid oil from Bates’s processed hemp and generating used processed hemp deprived of the cannabinoid oil initially contained therein.
The Office recognizes that all of the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Bates, namely that the hemp biodegradable absorbent is an absorbent, wherein the remaining aerial parts and hemp fibers comprises: an absorbent capacity of between at least about 300% and up to about 600% by weight. However, Bates renders obvious all of the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the hemp biodegradable absorbent and the remaining aerial parts and hemp fibers as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that the selected particles are dried to a moisture content of less than about 10% to create a hemp biodegradable absorbent base that can be used to form various types of absorbent products that may provide an absorbent capacity of between about at least about 300% and up to about 600% by weight [0003], that depending on the particle size of the hemp biomass material, and the extraction process used to process the hemp biomass material, the absorption capacity may vary in unexpected ways [0012], that the article size and/or shape may be selected according to a desired absorption rate or capacity such that the surface area may be matched according to a desired absorption capacity [0013], and that It has been found that increases in surface area of individual particles of the hemp biomass material relative to particle weight provides greater absorption capacity as compared to absorbent materials having larger particle sizes [0013]. Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the hemp biodegradable absorbent and the remaining aerial parts and hemp fibers that are rendered obvious by Bates. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 12, Bates teaches that the method of obtaining cannabinoid oil from processed hemp comprises [0082] receiving the processed hemp, which has been processed from a whole hemp stalk to a particulate form having reduced size [0083], wherein the received processed hemp is characterized in that it has been previously pelletized as part of its processing from the whole hemp stalk to the particulate form [0085], wherein each whole hemp stalk includes bast fiber and shive [0005, 0043, 0044, 0076], wherein the processing of the particulate hemp includes [0008, 0041, 0072, 0078] reducing the particulate hemp in size so as to lie in a first range between 25 microns and 500 microns [0009, 0015, 0042, 0073, 0079], wherein the particulate hemp includes bast fiber and shive throughout the step of processing the particulate hemp [0010, 0012, 0040, 0043, 0071, 0072, 0075, 0078, 0081], wherein the step of processing the particulate hemp, after the step of reducing the particulate hemp in size so as to lie in the first range, additionally includes further altering the particulate hemp in size such that the particulate hemp comprises an average dimension between 0.5 microns and 3.20 centimeters [0019, 0048], wherein the step of processing the particulate hem, after the step of reducing the particulate hemp in size so as to lie in the first range, may additionally include further reducing the particulate hemp in size so as to lie in a second range between 0.5 microns and 300 microns [0020, 0049], which optionally reads on wherein a majority of the remaining aerial parts and hemp fibers comprises a particle size of more than 0.5 µm and less than 32,000 µm.
Bates does not teach that a majority of the remaining aerial parts and hemp fibers comprises a particle size of about 0.5 µm or less. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the size of a majority of Bates’s particulate hemp to be slightly greater than 0.5 microns and to optimize the size of a minority of Bates’s particulate hemp to be between 25 microns and 50 microns. The proposed modification would read on wherein a majority of the remaining aerial parts and hemp fibers comprises a particle size of about 0.5 µm as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for optimizing usability of Bates’s processed hemp for extracting the cannabinoid oil from Bates’s processed hemp and generating used processed hemp deprived of the cannabinoid oil initially contained therein because Bates teaches that the method of obtaining cannabinoid oil from processed hemp comprises [0082] receiving the processed hemp, which has been processed from a whole hemp stalk to a particulate form having reduced size [0083], that the received processed hemp is characterized in that it has been previously pelletized as part of its processing from the whole hemp stalk to the particulate form [0085], that each whole hemp stalk includes bast fiber and shive [0005, 0043, 0044, 0076], that the processing of the particulate hemp includes [0008, 0041, 0072, 0078] reducing the particulate hemp in size so as to lie in a first range between 25 microns and 500 microns [0009, 0015, 0042, 0073, 0079] so as to be usable for further processing of the particulate hemp into one of a plurality of different products each with different size [0073, 0079], that the particulate hemp includes bast fiber and shive throughout the step of processing the particulate hemp [0010, 0012, 0040, 0043, 0071, 0072, 0075, 0078, 0081], that the step of processing the particulate hemp, after the step of reducing the particulate hemp in size so as to lie in the first range, additionally includes further altering the particulate hemp in size such that the particulate hemp comprises an average dimension between 0.5 microns and 3.20 centimeters [0019, 0048], that the step of processing the particulate hem, after the step of reducing the particulate hemp in size so as to lie in the first range, may additionally include further reducing the particulate hemp in size so as to lie in a second range between 0.5 microns and 300 microns [0020, 0049], that the method of obtaining cannabinoid oil from processed hemp further comprises [0082] extracting the cannabinoid oil from the processed hemp using a fluid extraction process in which an extracting solvent is applied to the processed hemp [0084], that the step of extracting the cannabinoid oil includes generating used processed hemp deprived of the cannabinoid oil initially contained therein [0094], and that there is a step of drying the used processed hemp so as to be suited for use as or in a salable product [0095], which means that the size of a majority of Bates’s particulate hemp in microns and the size of a minority of Bates’s particulate hemp in microns would have affected usability of Bates’s processed hemp for extracting the cannabinoid oil from Bates’s processed hemp and generating used processed hemp deprived of the cannabinoid oil initially contained therein.
Regarding claim 13, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Bates, namely that the hemp biodegradable absorbent comprises an absorbent capacity of up to about 490% by weight. However, Bates renders obvious all of the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the hemp biodegradable absorbent and the remaining aerial parts and hemp fibers as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that the selected particles are dried to a moisture content of less than about 10% to create a hemp biodegradable absorbent base that can be used to form various types of absorbent products that may provide an absorbent capacity of between about at least about 300% and up to about 600% by weight [0003], that depending on the particle size of the hemp biomass material, and the extraction process used to process the hemp biomass material, the absorption capacity may vary in unexpected ways [0012], that the article size and/or shape may be selected according to a desired absorption rate or capacity such that the surface area may be matched according to a desired absorption capacity [0013], and that It has been found that increases in surface area of individual particles of the hemp biomass material relative to particle weight provides greater absorption capacity as compared to absorbent materials having larger particle sizes [0013]. Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the hemp biodegradable absorbent and the remaining aerial parts and hemp fibers that are rendered obvious by Bates. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 15, Bates teaches that the method of obtaining cannabinoid oil from processed hemp comprises [0082] receiving the processed hemp, which has been processed from a whole hemp stalk to a particulate form having reduced size [0083], and that the received processed hemp is characterized in that it has been previously pelletized as part of its processing from the whole hemp stalk to the particulate form [0085], which reads on wherein the absorbent material is pelletized as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, Bates teaches that hemp crumbs or hemp pellets may be blended with binders like corn or wheat starch to form an animal litter which is able to form clumps [0127], and that the particulate hemp is sized into one of several forms including hemp pellets and hemp crumbs [0011], which optionally reads on wherein the pelletized absorbent material further comprises a binding agent mixed into the filtered remaining aerial parts and hemp fibers as claimed.
Bates does not teach a specific embodiment wherein the pelletized absorbent material further comprises a binding agent mixed into the filtered remaining aerial parts and hemp fibers. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Bates’s binders that are corn or wheat starch to modify Bates’s used processed hemp. The proposed modification would read on wherein the pelletized absorbent material further comprises a binding agent mixed into the filtered remaining aerial parts and hemp fibers as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Bates teaches that hemp crumbs or hemp pellets may be blended with binders like corn or wheat starch to form an animal litter which is able to form clumps [0127], and that the particulate hemp is sized into one of several forms including hemp pellets and hemp crumbs [0011], which means that the proposed modification would have been beneficial for binding Bates’s used processed hemp and enabling it to form clumps, which would have been desirable because Bates teaches that there is a step of drying the used processed hemp so as to be suited for use as or in a salable product [0095].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates (US 2016/0325288 A1) as applied to claim 11, further in view of Kirsch et al. (CA 2607753 A).
Regarding claim 14, Bates renders obvious a hemp biodegradable absorbent according to claim 11 as explained above.
Bates does not teach that the hemp biodegradable absorbent further comprises dust-reducing agents added to the remaining filtered aerial parts and hemp fibers. However, Kirsch teaches a dust reducing agent that is present in particles [00014] that are composite particles that include an absorbent material and a superabsorbent polymer [00011]. Bates and Kirsch are analogous art because both references are in the same field of endeavor of an absorbent comprising a particle size. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Kirsch’s dust reducing agent to modify Bates’s used processed hemp. The proposed modification would read on a hemp biodegradable absorbent according to claim 11, further comprising dust-reducing agents added to the remaining filtered aerial parts and hemp fibers as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Kirsch teaches a dust reducing agent that is present in particles [00014] that are composite particles that include an absorbent material and a superabsorbent polymer [00011], and that the dedusting agent can be added to the particles in order to reduce the dust level in the final product [00079], which means that the proposed modification would have been beneficial for reducing the dust level in Bates’s used processed hemp, which would have been desirable because Bates teaches that there is a step of drying the used processed hemp so as to be suited for use as or in a salable product [0095], and that in certain consumer products for which hemp is suitable such as animal litter and bedding, it is desirable that the litter or bedding is free of dust [0030].
Bates does not teach that the hemp biodegradable absorbent further comprises fragrance added to the remaining filtered aerial part and hemp fibers. However, Kirsch teaches a fragrance that is present in particles [00014] that are composite particles that include an absorbent material and a superabsorbent polymer [00011]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Kirsch’s fragrance to modify Bates’s used processed hemp. The proposed modification would read on a hemp biodegradable absorbent according to claim 11, further comprising fragrance added to the remaining filtered aerial part and hemp fibers as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Kirsch teaches a fragrance that is present in particles [00014] that are composite particles that include an absorbent material and a superabsorbent polymer [00011], which means that the proposed modification would have been beneficial for modifying the odor of Bates’s used processed hemp, which would have been desirable because Bates teaches that there is a step of drying the used processed hemp so as to be suited for use as or in a salable product [0095], that the hemp pellets and hemp crumbs are suitable for use in animal litter for domestic pets because these hemp products provide desirable characteristics suited for animal litter including ability to rapidly minimize unpleasant odors [0125], and that the hemp products produced by the system have characteristics including ability to rapidly minimize unpleasant odors [0126].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bates (US 2016/0325288 A1) as applied to claim 11, further in view of Jones (GB 2469014 A).
Regarding claim 17, Bates renders obvious a hemp biodegradable absorbent according to claim 11 as explained above.
Bates does not teach that the hemp biodegradable absorbent further comprises a fertilizer blend mixed into the filtered remaining aerial parts and hemp fibers. However, Jones teaches fertilizer that is present in a composition (p. 4), a slow-release fertilizer that is present in a composition (p. 7), a slow-release fertilizer that is impregnated in a fiber matrix that is in a granular form (p. 7) and that is present in a composition (p. 4), and that the fiber matrix may be manufactured from hemp (p. 7). Bates and Jones are analogous art because both references are in the same field of endeavor of a material comprising a particle size and hemp fiber. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Jones’s fertilizer to modify Bates’s used processed hemp. The proposed modification would read on a hemp biodegradable absorbent according to claim 11, further comprising a fertilizer blend mixed into the filtered remaining aerial parts and hemp fibers as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Jones teaches fertilizer that is present in a composition (p. 4), a slow-release fertilizer that is present in a composition (p. 7), a slow-release fertilizer that is impregnated in a fiber matrix that is in a granular form (p. 7) and that is present in a composition (p. 4), and that the fiber matrix may be manufactured from hemp (p. 7), which means that the proposed modification would have been beneficial for improving an ability of a composition comprising hemp at fertilize soil, which would have been desirable for Bates’s used processed hemp because Bates teaches that there is a step of drying the used processed hemp so as to be suited for use as or in a salable product [0095].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the applicant’s argument that the issue raised in the objection to claims 11-17 in the Office action is addressed by the amendments to the claims (p. 6), claims 11-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites “the remaining aerial parts and hemp fibers comprises” in lines 5-6, which is grammatically incorrect. The Office suggests that Applicant change the “comprises” to “comprise”. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 6, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID KARST whose telephone number is (571)270-7732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/DAVID T KARST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights