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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 35-49 with the species of SNP rare-214* (SEQ ID NO: 18), SNP common_5002 (SEQ ID NO: 20), and the primer pairs of SEQ ID NO: 51-52, in the reply filed on 08/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 35-50 are pending.
Claim 50 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to the non-elected invention.
Claims 35-49 are examined with elected species of SNP rare-214* (SEQ ID NO: 18), SNP common_5002 (SEQ ID NO: 20), and the primer pairs of SEQ ID NO: 51-52.
Copending Applications
Applicants must bring to the attention of the Examiner, or other Office official involved with the examination of a particular application, information within their knowledge as to other copending United States applications, which are "material to patentability" of the application in question. MPEP 2001.06(b). See Dayco Products Inc. v. Total Containment Inc., 66 USPQ2d 1801 (CA FC 2003).
Objections
Claims 35, 38 and 49 are objected because the plant species name “Cannabis sativa” should be italicized as --Cannabis sativa---.
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 35-49 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.
The claims are indefinite for reciting the species “Cannabis sativa” and the genus “Cannabis” interchangeably. For example, independent claim 35 recites both “Cannabis sativa” and “Cannabis”, claims 36 recites “Cannabis”, while claims 38 and 47-49 recite “Cannabis sativa”. However, according to the prior art “Cannabis” is a genus that includes at least three species including Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, and Cannabis ruderalis . See WO 2015/065544 page 1. Therefore, clarification is required to more clearly define the metes and bounds of the claims.
Claims 38, 42, 46 and 48 and dependent claims are indefinite of tables, tables 1-3. The MPEP 2173.05(s) states:
[w]here possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table "is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim. Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience." Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608, 1609 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
Correction is required to more clearly define the metes and bounds of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 35 ,38-40, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural phenomenon without significantly more. The claims recite a method of identifying a Cannabis sativa plant comprising a high-varin QTL by genotyping at least one plant from a cannabis population plants by detecting an allele associated with the high varin trait QTL qtlV1 or qtlV2. The claims are non-statutory because "a patent must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words "apply it" See, e.g. Gottschalk v. Benson 409 U.S. 63:71-72. Giving the claims the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims read on mental steps and/or a natural phenomenon. The step of identifying and genotyping of claim 35 is not sufficient to transform natural correlations between the alleles/markers and the high-varin trait into patentable application. Izzo et al (Trends in Pharmacological Sciences (2009) 30(10): 515-527) teach Cannabis sativa plants containing naturally occurring high levels of Cannabidivarin (CBDV) and tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV) as well as cannabinoid acids and pharmacological relevance (Table 1 and Box 1). The detecting of markers encompasses mentally considering sequence information or comparing data from a single nucleotide position to a reference. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the process do not involve a physical transformation of the plant from one form to another. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims include the use of well-known techniques and commercially available markers as described in the specification. Any correlation between the markers and high-varin trait is considered a natural phenomenon or law of nature. Further, the claims do not recite a breeding step that would produce a new plant. Claims 18-21 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected.
For these reasons the claims are rejected under section 101 as being directed to non -statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 35-45, and 47-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims are drawn to a method for identifying a Cannabis sativa plant comprising in its genome a high-varin QTL, the method comprising providing a population of cannabis plants; genotyping at least one plant from the population by detecting an allele comprising one or more polymorphisms associated with the high-varin trait QTL qtlV1 or the high-varin trait QTL qtlV2; and identifying one or more plants from the population containing the allele as comprising in its genome a high-varin QTL; said method further comprising the steps of crossing the identified plants with at least one recipient parent plant that does not have the high-varin QTL to obtain a progeny population of cannabis plants; genotyping at least one plant from the progeny population with respect to the high-varin QTL by detecting the allele comprising the one or more polymorphisms associated with the high-varin trait as defined in Table 1 or Table 2; selecting one or more progeny plants having the high-varin QTL allele; crossing the one or more progeny plants with the plant containing the high- varin QTL of step; or selfing the one or more progeny plants; wherein the identified plant and/or the progeny plant contains the QTL qtlV1 and the QTL qtlV2; said method wherein the genotyping is performed by PCR-based detection using molecular markers.
In contrast, the specification describes a method of identifying SNP markers linked to two QTLs identified as qtlV1 and qtlV2 associated with a high-varin trait, the method comprising growing a population of Cannabis sativa plants; analyzing the cannabinoid content from flower and leaf tissue; and selecting a plant having the highest proportion of CBDV to CBDA among the plants grown (Example 1). A plant with “high varin” or “high-varin trait” is defined in the specification (page 10) as “a plant or a variety that has a varin (C19) cannabinoid content in the mature flower or leaf tissue that is > 10% of the total C19 cannabinoids when compared to the total C21 cannabinoids in the same flower or leaf tissue as measured by UPLC. Preferably C19 cannabinoid content is equal to or greater that the C21 cannabinoid content in the same mature flower or leaf tissue as measured by UPLC” . The specification also describes DNA extraction, marker panel identification and identification of two genomic regions comprising two QTLs (qtlV1 and qtlV2) containing the genetic element responsible for high-varin content trait (Examples 2 and 3). Tables 1-4 of the specification show SNP names and positions (reference to the CS10 reference genome) and the sequence identification of the SNP markers associated with qtlV1 on chromosome NC_044373.1 and qtlV2 on chromosome NC_044378.1. Tables 5 and 6 of the specification show primer sequences for detection of the SNP markers associated with high- varin content. Example 4 of the specification describes identification and selection of a candidate gene LOC115712547 based on its likely involvement in the production of hexanoyl-CoA and its proximity to SNP GBScompat_common_353 having the highest LOD on chromosome NC_044373.1 at qtlV1; and identification and selection of a cluster of seven candidate genes on chromosome NC_044378.1 based due to their predicted enzymatic function and due to their proximity to common_5002 SNP at qtlV2 with the highest LOD score (Table 7).
The purpose of the written description is to ensure that the inventor had possession at the time the invention was made, of the specific subject claimed. For a broad generic claim, the specification must provide adequate written description to identify the genus of the claim.
“The test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations. Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966”. While the written description requirement does not demand either examples or an actual reduction, actual “possession” or reduction to practice outside of the specification is not enough. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Rather, it is the specification itself that must demonstrate possession. Id.
The Federal Circuit has recently clarified the application of the written description requirement to inventions in the field of biotechnology. See University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568, 43 USPQ2d 1398; 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In summary, the court stated that a written description of an invention requires a precise definition, one that defines the structural features of the chemical genus that distinguishes it from other chemical structures.
Claims 35-37, 41, and 43-45 recite the qtlV1 and qtlV2, located on chromosome NC_044373.1 and chromosome NC_044378.1, respectively, are associated with high-varin trait. However, the specification does not describe the composition and structure of the qtlV1 and qtlv2, that are associated with the high-varin trait. The qtlV1 and qtlV2 are described by function only instead of by function and structure. There is known correlation between the structure and function of a QTL/gene that confers high-varin trait. The specification states the chromosome NC-044378.1 is a chromosome 7 of the Cannabis sativa genome (the cs10 as refence genome) and the chromosome NC_044373.1 refers to chromosome 4 in the Cannabis sativa reference genome assembly known cs10/CBDRx v2 (Genbank accession no.GCF_900626175.2). However, the claims do not recite the exact location of qtlV1 and qtlV2 and the sequences of the flanked SNP markers associated with the high-varin trait. The specification describes identification and selection of a candidate gene LOC115712547 based on its likely involved in the production of hexanoyl-CoA and its proximity to SNP GBScompat_common_353 with the highest LOD on chromosome NC_044373.1 at qtlV1; and identification and selection of a cluster seven candidate genes on chromosome NC_044378.1 based due to their predicted enzymatic function and due to their proximity to common_5002 SNP at qtlV2 with the highest LOD score (Table 7). However, no gene that is responsible for the high-varin trait has been disclosed in the specification or is known in the prior art. Claims 47-48 are drawn to a genus of Cannabis sativa plants produced by claim 36. However, specification fails to describe a single Cannabis sativa having a high-varin trait as a result of one or more of the SNP markers listed on Tables 1 and 2. No deposited seed information of the resultant Cannabis sativa plant to genotypically describe and distinguish the claimed plants are provided . Further, the claims require detecting an “an allele comprising one polymorphism associated with the high-varin”. However, each of SEQ ID NO: 23, 30, 33 and 37 at qtlV1, for example, is less than 20 nucleotides in length and the specification does not show that a single SNP is sufficient to detect high-varin QTL.
The claims do not recite the chemical composition and quantity of a high-varin cannabinoids THCV and CBDV. The specification merely defines a plant with “high varin” or “high-varin trait” as “a plant or a variety that has a varin (C19) cannabinoid content in the mature flower or leaf tissue that is > 10% of the total C19 cannabinoids when compared to the total C21 cannabinoids in the same flower or leaf tissue as measured by UPLC. Preferably C19 cannabinoid content is equal to or greater that the C21 cannabinoid content in the same mature flower or leaf tissue as measured by UPLC” (page 10). However, this definition does not help the written description of the qtlV1 and qtlV2 loci. In addition, the claims do require that the qtlV1 and qtlV2 are flanked and included by SNP markers listed in Tables 1 and 2. Therefore, the claimed method that requires identification of a genus of Cannabis plants including at least Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica, and Cannabis ruderalis comprising undescribed qtlV1 and qtlV2 loci in using a genus of markers and their alleles including SNPs on located on chromosome NC_044373.1 and chromosome NC_044378.1, respectively, associated with high-varin trait are not adequately described. Further, there is no known structure-function correlation for high-varin gene/sequences in cannabis. Since the specification fails to adequately describe the qtlV1 and qtlV2 and markers for detecting polymorphisms in said genus pf Cannabis plants, methods that employ said qtlV1 and qtlV2 and markers and plants identified by said method are similarly not described.
Therefore, for all the reasons discussed above, the specification fails to sufficiently describe the claimed invention in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms that a skilled artisan would recognize that Applicant was in possession of the invention as broadly claimed at the time of filing.
Improper Markush Grouping Rejection
Claims 38, 42, 46 and 48 are rejected under the judicially-created basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternative. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-722 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. and Int. 1984). The improper Markush grouping includes species of the claimed invention that do not share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. The members of the improper Markush grouping do not share a substantial feature and/or common use that flows from the substantial structural feature and/or common use that flows from the substantial structural feature for the following reasons:
Tables 1-2 list SNP marker sequences of SEQ ID NO: 1-26. Table 3 lists primer pair sequences of SEQ ID NO: 27-58 for said SNP markers. Each nucleotide sequence is disclosed with specific sequence identifier showing structural differences. No structural feature that is common between the markers of SEQ ID NO: 1-26 that defines function/use has been disclosed or known. In addition, the search of the elected sequences of SEQ ID NO: 1, 5, 11, 16, 20, 23, 28, 30, 33 and 37 do not reveal any of the other nucleotide sequences listed on Tables 1-2. Therefore, the nucleotide sequences do not share a substantial feature and/or common use that flows from the substantial structural feature and/or common use that flows from the substantial structural feature.
In response to this rejection, Applicant should either amend the claim(s) to recite only individual species or groupings of species that share a substantial structural feature as well as a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature, or present a sufficient showing that the species recited in the alternative of the claims in fact share a substantial structural feature as well as a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. This is a rejection on the merits and may be appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in accordance with 35 USC 134 and 37 CFR 41.31 (a)(1).
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.
Claims 47 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by each of Lewis et al (WO 2015/065544 A1; Applicant’s IDS) and Williams et al (WO 2019/164689 A1).
The claims are drawn to a Cannabis sativa plant obtained crossing a plant containing in its genome a high-varin QTL and a plant extract obtainable thereof.
Lewis et al teach Cannabis sativa plants identified by genotyping a population of cannabis plants, and selecting at least one or more plants producing varying amounts of varin compounds including cannabidivarin (CBDV) that is greater than 4%, tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV) greater than 4% and cannabigerol (CBG) greater than 5%, as measured by GC-FID and calculated on dry wt. of the inflorescence (see pages 7-8 and 32). The paragraph bridging pages 39 and 40 teaches plants with elevated levels of THCV have been found in populations of Cannabis sativa L.ssp indica from countries including China and India, and product extracted from said plants (Example 4 and Tables 14-15). Therefore, given the definition of high-varin in the specification, Lewis et al teach all claim limitations.
Williams et al teach modified Cannabis sativa plant having increased levels of various cannabinoids that is from 25% to 30% on dry wt. basis due to overexpression of genes controlling the expression tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA) synthase and cannabinolic acid (CBDA) synthase (see paragraphs [15]-[16]) and modified cannabinoid compounds harvested from said Cannabis sativa plant [33]. Therefore, given the definition of high-varin in the specification, Williams et al teach all claim limitations.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 35-37, 41, 43-45 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al (WO 2015/065544 A1; Applicant’s IDS) in view of Welling et al (Scientific Reports (2020)10:18643; Applicant’s IDS) and Pacifico et al (Molecular Breeding (2006), Vol. 17, pages 257-268) .
The claims are drawn to a method for identifying a Cannabis sativa plant comprising in its genome a high-varin QTL, the method comprising providing a population of cannabis plants; genotyping at least one plant from the population by detecting an allele comprising one or more polymorphisms associated with the high-varin trait QTL qtlV1 or the high-varin trait QTL qtlV2; and identifying one or more plants from the population containing the allele as comprising in its genome a high-varin QTL; said method further comprising the steps of crossing the one or more plants identified as comprising a high varin QTL with at least one recipient parent plant with one or more desirable traits and that does not have the high-varin QTL to obtain a progeny population plants; genotyping at least one plant from the progeny population with respect to the high-varin QTL by detecting the allele comprising the one or more polymorphisms associated with the high-varin trait; selecting one or more progeny plants having the high-varin QTL allele; crossing the one or more progeny plants with the plant containing the high- varin QTL or selfing the selected one or more progeny plants; wherein the identified plant and/or the progeny plant exhibits high-varin trait; said method wherein the genotyping is performed by PCR-based detection using sequencing of PCR products containing the polymorphism, targeted sequencing, whole genome sequence, restriction-based methods, or molecular markers at regular intervals within the high-varin QTL such that recombination can be excluded or such that recombination can be quantified to estimate linkage disequilibrium between a particular polymorphism and high-varin phenotype.
Lewis et al teach Cannabis sativa plants identified by genotyping a population of cannabis plants and detecting one or more allele for cannabinoids, and selecting at least one or more plants producing varying amounts of varin compounds including cannabidivarin (CBDV) that is greater than 4%, tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV) greater than 4% and cannabigerol (CBG) greater than 5%, as measured by GC-FID and calculated on dry wt. of the inflorescence (see pages 7-8 and 32). The paragraph bridging pages 39 and 40 teaches plants with elevated levels of THCV have been found in populations of Cannabis sativa L.ssp indica from countries including China and India, and product extracted from said plants (Examples 4-5 and Tables 14-15). Lewis et al also teach molecular marker assisted breeding for breeding new Cannabis varieties by crossing a first cannabis plant having cannabidivarin (CBDV) that is greater than 4%, tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV) greater than 4% and cannabigerol (CBG) greater than 5% (donor plant), as measured by GC-FID and calculated on dry wt. of the inflorescence, with a second cannabis recipient plant; said recipient plant is an elite line having one or more desired traits (paragraph bridging pages 67 and 68).
At page 61, Lewis et al cited Bakel et al (2011) who teach Cannabis sativa genome sequenced, and molecular markers including RFLPs, RAPDs, SSR that are designed and made based on the genome of the selected cannabis plants, and which can be used to monitor the transfer of the target genetic material in molecular marker assisted breeding (pages 61-62). At example 5, Lewis et al teach crossing between proprietary parental varieties selected for cannabinoid content to produce F1 progeny, genotyping and selection; selfing the F1 progeny to produce F2 and subsequent progeny and backcrossing steps to produce cannabis having high-varin trait (see Examples 4-5,Tables 14-15, pages 127-128).
While Lewis et al teach high-varin producing Cannabis plants obtained by breeding, Lewis et al do not teach the QTL qtlV1 or qtlV2 or SNPs linked thereto as defined in the specification.
Welling et al teach the complex pattern of inheritance of alkyl cannabinoid composition and associated alleles for THCAS and CBDAS and suggest applying QTL mapping to determine high-varin chemotype (chemical phenotype) THCA and CBDAs genotypes to other high-varin cannabinoids. Welling et al a linkage between cannabinoid pathway loci and suggest the need for further detailed characteristics of cannabinoid inheritance to facilitate metabolic engineering of chemically elite germplasm. Alkyl cannabinoids including CBDVA, THCVA, CBDA, THCA, CBDV, and THCV fresh weight content were analyzed. Parental lines were screened for cannabinoid C3/C4 alkyl cannabinoid fractions associated with alkyl cannabinoid loci (A loci) and di/tri cyclic cannabinoid fractions associated with B locus complex, and plants either having high Fc3 or Fc4 were selected for breeding generating an F1 hybrids having highest level of Fc3/Fc5 values was used to generate F2 population which was used as inheritance patterns. Table 1 shows experimental populations and segregation between C3 alkyl (THCVA) and di-cyclic C4 alkyl (CBDA) cannabis plants.
Pacifico et al teach marker assisted selection of the chemotype in Cannabis sativa and QTL method breeding for Cannabis plants for high cannabinoid contents (pages 257-268)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the breeding method of identifying Cannabis sativa plants that produces high-varin by genotyping population of plants by detecting an allele for polymorphism as taught by Lewis et al, and to modify that method by incorporating the QTL mapping to determine high-varin chemotype associated markers and candidate loci/gene as taught by each of Welling et al and Pacifico et al, given the medicinal benefits of cannabinoid varins, given that availability of high-varin producing Cannabis sativa plants as taught by Lewis et al, and given that genotyping of cannabis population and QTL mapping and methods of molecular marker breeding are considered conventional as taught by each of Lewis et al, Welling et al, and Pacifico et al. One would have been motivated to identify and produce high-varin Cannabis sativa plants, given the medicinal benefits of the varin cannabinoids, THCV and CBDV, as taught by Lewis et al. One would have a reasonable expectation of success to identity the specific QTL and markers associated with high-varins like THCV and CBDV using the QTL mapping method taught by Pacifico et al, to produce cannabis plants comprising high amounts of THCV and CBDV. The resultant Cannabis sativa plants and cannabinoid extracts thereof would also have been obvious.
Therefore, for all the reasons above, the claimed invention would have been a prima facie obvious, absent evidence to the contrary.
Remarks
No claim is allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDINA AHMED IBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-0797. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 - 6:00.
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, SHUBO ZHOU can be reached at 5712720724. 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.
MEDINA AHMED. IBRAHIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1662
/MEDINA A IBRAHIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1662