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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilde (WO 2002074886).
With regards to claims 1 and 19, Wilde teaches a concrete from fragrant flowers such as jasmine, tuberose, and orange blossom (page 1) that is recovered from evaporation of a solvent (page 1) such as dimethylformamide (page 3) having a boiling point of 153°C.
With regards to claims 2 and 3, Wilde teaches the solvent to include tetrahydrofuran (page 3).
With regards to claim 4, Wilde teaches the solvent to include alcohols (page 3).
With regards to claim 6, Wilde teaches the natural material to be ground prior to the process (example 2 page 4).
With regards to claim 7, Wilde teaches the natural material to include jasmine, tuberose, and orange blossom (page 1) which reads on the claimed group i).
With regards to claim 8, Wilde teaches the natural material to then be placed in to a extraction column with a solvent (example 2 page 4).
With regards to claim 9, Wilde teaches the extraction to produce a solid and an oily liquid (pages 4-5) reading on a solid/liquid extraction.
With regards to claim 11, Wilde teaches the gas from the extraction to be condensed to a liquid using a condenser (page 3).
With regards to claim 13, Wilde teaches the use of a cosolvent (page 3).
With regards to claim 14, Wilde teaches the process to form a concrete (page 1).
With regards to claim 15, Wilde teaches the end product to be an absolute (page 2).
With regards to claim 16, Wilde teaches the end product to include an absolute and a concrete (pages 4-5 example 3).
With regards to claims 17, 18, and 20, Wilde teaches the composition to be used to form a perfumed concrete and absolute (page 2).
Claims 1-11, 13-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bourgou et al (5/24/2019, Phytochemical Analysis, 1-9).
With regards to claims 1 and 19, Bourgou teaches a process for the green extraction of Carum Carvi seeds using the solvent 2-methyltetrahydrofuran (MeTHF) (abstract) which has a boiling point of 78 to 80°C.
With regards to claim 2, Bourgou teaches the solvent to include MeTHF (abstract).
With regards to claim 3, Bourgou teaches the solvent to include MeTHF (abstract) reading on a tetrahydrofuran derivative.
With regards to claim 4, Bourgou teaches the use of an additional solvent, ethanol (abstract), having a boiling point of 78.4°C.
With regards to claim 5, Bourgou teaches the seeds to be put in an extractor with 250 mL of MeTHF (page 3) reading on 100% MeTHF.
With regards to claim 6, Bourgou teaches the seeds to be ground prior to being put in the extractor (page 3).
With regards to claim 7, Bourgou teaches the seeds to be Carum Carvi seeds (title and abstract) as applicants have placed in the claimed group iii).
With regards to claim 8, Bourgou teaches the seeds to be put in the extractor without the addition of heating or cooling, reading on ambient temperature (page 3).
With regards to claim 9, Bourgou teaches the process to include an extraction from a solid, the seeds, in a liquid, the solvent (abstract).
With regards to claim 10, Bourgou teaches the extractor ot be heated to a temperature of 40°C and for the extraction to occur for 6 hours (page 3).
With regards to claim 11, Bourgou teaches a condenser to be added to the extractor (page 3).
With regards to claim 13, Bourgou teaches the seeds to be contacted with ethanol (abstract) reading on a polar solvent and for the product to be maintained at a temperature of -20°C (page 3).
With regards to claim 14, Bourgou teaches the product to be in the form of a cake (reading on a concrete) (page 7).
With regards to claim 15, Bourgou teaches the product to include an oil (abstract) reading on an absolute.
With regards to claim 16, Bourgou teaches the product to be in the form of a cake (reading on a concrete) (page 7). Bourgou teaches the product to include an oil (abstract) reading on an absolute.
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.
Claims 5, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilde (WO 2002074886).
The disclosure of Wilde is adequately set forth in paragraph 3 above and is herein incorporated by reference.
With regards to claim 5, Wilde does not teach the concentration of the solvent and/or cosolvent used in the process.
However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05. Further, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 124 (CCPA 1955). In this case, one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would know to alter the amount and type of solvent based on the desired boiling point and desired viscosity of the composition.
With regards to claim 10, Wilde teaches the process to include heating (page 1) but is silent on the temperature and the time required. However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 124 (CCPA 1955). In this case, one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would know to balance the temperature and time needed in order to achieve the desired rate of evaporation of the solvent with the desired purity of the product.
With regards to claim 12, Wilde does not teach the addition of sonication to the process. However, it is well known in the art that the motivation for sonicating a sample would be because it breaks up the clumps and reduces the viscosity of the liquid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to add a step of sonication to the process of Wilde, thereby obtaining the present invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WHITELEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5203. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 5712721130. 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.
/JESSICA WHITELEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763