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 .
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicants amendments filed 06/03/2026.
Claims 1-17, 19, 21 and 24 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-12, 14-15 and 17 are amended.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner withdraws the 112 rejections of claims 4-7, 10-12, 14-15 and 17 due to amendments to the claims filed 06/03/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-14, filed 06/03/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8 the Applicant argues that Carnahan does not teach a hashish product comprising a cohesive mass of the isolated cannabis trichomes as claimed. The Applicant highlights differences in the process of Carnahan, including that Carnahan separates cannabis material where the present invention consolidates, that Carnahan does not teach isolated cannabis trichomes as a starting material, and that the paste of Carnahan has a different composition, manner of formation, and intended use than the resinous mixture of the claimed invention.
The Examiner acknowledges these differences between the prior art and the disclosed present invention, but maintains that modified Carnahan teaches everything required by the claims.
Carnahan teaches providing cannabis trichomes ([0020], [0058]; provided to hopper 20; [0068]); mixing the cannabis trichomes (via rotation in auger 30; [0068]) under conditions sufficient to obtain a resinous mixture (paste; [0064]); and retrieving at least a portion of the resinous mixture through an extrusion die (extruder press head 60; [0068]) to obtain the hashish product comprising a cohesive mass of the cannabis. Thus, all claimed limitations are met.
The Examiner also notes that the claim requires merely that “a cohesive mass” is retrieved. This may refer to any component that is retrieved together, and does not require that all portions of the pre-treated cannabis are present.
The Examiner acknowledges that Carnahan does not teach pre-treated isolated trichomes as a starting material. However, as in the rejection, Carnahan is modified to use the pre-treated isolated cannabis trichomes taught by Pal.
Finally, the Examiner notes that the claim does not require a precise composition or an intended use of the resinous mixture. Furthermore, intended use of the final product does not impart additional structure on the process itself and thus does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
On pages 8-10 the Applicant argues that Pal does not cure the deficiencies of Carnahan. Specifically, the Applicant notes that Pal does not suggest using the end product for hashish extrusion (instead Pal teaches its use in further extraction), that Pal would not produce a similar cannabis oil layer as claimed, and that there is no motivation to combine the prior art of Carnahan and Pal, as neither is directed to hashish manufacturing.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicants positions.
Pal teaches a method for providing isolated trichomes prior to further processing ([0005]), teaches that isolating the trichomes improves the quality of the final cannabis product ([0005]). Pal further teaches that the isolated trichomes may be pre-heated to at least partially decarboxylate the cannabinoids to produce psychoactive compounds ([0041], [0051]).
Regarding the intended use of the end product of Pal, Pal merely teaches the provision of isolated cannabis trichomes for further processing ([0005]). Pal does not require that these trichomes be used in a specific method. Furthermore, intended use of the final product does not impart additional structure on the product itself. Thus, it would be entirely within the knowledge and ability of one having ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the trichomes of Carnahan for the pre-treated trichomes of Pal with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the cannabis oil layer, while Pal does not explicitly disclose that the pre-treated trichomes comprise a cannabis oil layer on at least a portion of a surface thereof, the pre-treating process taught by Pal is equivalent to the process as claimed by the Applicant and therefore one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect that the pre-treating taught by Pal would result in a similar cannabis oil layer as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. The Examiner further notes that the instant specification requires heating at 120C for 25 minutes and Pal requires heating at 120C for 90 minutes. The process of Pal would therefore necessarily go through the process of secretion within 25 minutes. It would not be expected that the oil layer would be removed by longer heating. The Applicant does not provide sufficient evidence that Pal would not produce this oil layer.
Regarding the modification of Carnahan with Pal, Pal teaches that producing isolated, decarboxylated trichomes is known to improve a final product quality and increase psychoactive compounds ([0005], [0041], [0051]). As Carnahan is directed to a process using trichomes, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the benefit taught by Pal would similarly benefit the final product of Carnahan and would thus be motivated to combine the teachings of the two references. This constitutes a suitable motivation to combine related references.
On pages 10-11 the Applicant argues that the pre-treatment of trichomes as claimed would produce unexpected mechanical properties of the final hashish product. The Applicant cites Example 5 and Table 7 of the instant disclosure as support.
The Examiner agrees that, in the instant specification paragraphs [0257-0266], Example 5 and Table 7, the Applicant has demonstrated that the final product created by the use of pre-treated isolated trichomes has a benefit/difference over that of untreated isolated cannabis trichomes. However, the Applicant has failed to argue that the properties of the end product are a) unexpected or b) an improvement not produced by the trichomes of Pal in modified Carnahan. The Examiner notes that the pre-treated trichomes provided by Pal are equivalent to the pre-treated trichomes as claimed and disclosed by the Applicant and therefore one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect that the pre-treating taught by Pal would result in a similar improvement in the final product, absent evidence to the contrary
On pages 11-12 the Applicant argues that prior art Luna Technologies does not cure the deficiencies of Carnahan and Pal. The Applicant further argues that the instant disclosure reveals a “newly discovered relationship” between trichome decarboxylation level and resulting mechanical properties of the final hashish product that is not taught by Luna Technologies.
The Examiner maintains that Carnahan and Pal appropriately teach the invention of claim 1. Furthermore, the mechanical properties of the disclosed invention would necessarily result from a change in decarboxylation level, whether expected or not. The motivation for changing the decarboxylation level may be different, but would produce the same end product.
On pages 12-13 the Applicant argues that that one would not look to general extrusion principles such as taught by Orbetron when making hashish, especially as water would affect the properties of the hashish.
The Examiner disagrees.
Both Carnahan and Orbetron are directed to extrusion processes. Thus, the extrusion process of Carnahan would provide suitable motivation for one having ordinary skill in the art to look to general extrusion principles to obtain performance. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that a moisture content would be needed to perform extrusion, regardless of the end product. This moisture content may easily be adjusted after the extrusion step and before the final product is established.
On page 13 the Applicant argues that that plastic extrusion process taught by PapidDirect is not applicable to hashish extrusion and that RapidDirect does not appropriately teach the particular functional relationship of the die and the hashish product.
The Examiner disagrees.
Both Carnahan and RapidDirect are directed to extrusion processes. Thus, the extrusion process of Carnahan would provide suitable motivation for one having ordinary skill in the art to look to any other extrusion principles to obtain performance, whether within or outside of the hashish art. The prior art references both relate to extrusion and are thus considered to be related. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that a functional relationship between the die and the hashish product is not claimed.
Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
The following is a modified rejection based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 48, the claim recites the term “a substantially homogeneous resinous mixture”. It is unclear as to the scope of the term “substantially homogenous”, as the term is subjective to reader interpretation. Furthermore, no definition or degree of what constitutes “substantially” is provided in the specification. For examination purposes, any mixture will be interpreted to meet the limitation.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 13 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnahan (US 20200199091 A1) in view of Pal et al. (US 20200261824 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Carnahan teaches a process of making a hashish product, comprising:
providing cannabis trichomes ([0020], [0058]; provided to hopper 20; [0068]);
mixing the cannabis trichomes (via rotation in auger 30; [0068]) under conditions sufficient to obtain a resinous mixture (paste; [0064]);
and retrieving at least a portion of the resinous mixture through an extrusion die (extruder press head 60; [0068]) to obtain the hashish product comprising a cohesive mass of the cannabis trichomes.
Carnahan does not explicitly teach that the cannabis trichomes are isolated cannabis trichomes pre-treated with pre-heating to obtain at least partial decarboxylation of one or more cannabinoids to comprise a cannabis oil layer on at least a portion of a surface thereof.
Pal, directed to a method for providing isolated trichomes prior to further processing ([0005]), teaches that isolating the trichomes improves the quality of the final cannabis product ([0005]). Pal further teaches that the isolated trichomes may be pre-heated to at least partially decarboxylate the cannabinoids to produce psychoactive compounds ([0041]; [0051]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Carnahan by using isolated, pre-heated trichomes as taught by Pal because Carnahan is directed to a method comprising producing trichomes and Pal is directed to producing trichomes, Pal teaches that producing isolated, decarboxylated trichomes is known to improve final product quality and increase psychoactive compounds, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar process to yield predictable results.
The Examiner notes that, while Pal does not explicitly disclose that the pre-treated trichomes comprise a cannabis oil layer on at least a portion of a surface thereof, the pre-treating process taught by the prior art is equivalent to the process as claimed and disclosed by the Applicant and therefore one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect that the pre-treating taught by Pal would result in a similar cannabis oil layer as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 2, Pal teaches that step a) comprises pre-heating the isolated cannabis trichomes under conditions to obtain at least partial decarboxylation of one or more cannabinoid(s) of the isolated cannabis trichomes ([0041], [0051]).
Regarding claim 4, Pal teaches that the pre-heating is performed at a temperature of from about 70C to about 130C (Pal [0051] teaches heating at a temperature of 115C-120C)
Regarding claim 5, Pal teaches that the pre-heating is performed for a duration of from about 10 minutes to about 80 minutes (Pal claim 14 teaches 30 minutes).
Regarding claim 8, modified Carnahan does not explicitly teach that the pre- heating step is performed on a trichome-containing layer of at least 5 mm.
However, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that trichomes to be pre-heated would necessarily comprise a layer of greater than 0mm. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the thickness of the trichomes may be optimized so as to reduce the drying time while also minimizing damage to the trichomes (that may occur if a layer is too thin).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the trichomes to be pre-heated, one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this is a result effective variable and be motivated to optimize this variable to optimize drying time, and because it has been held that, 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, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 9, Carnahan does not explicitly teach that the trichome-containing layer is no more than 10 mm.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the trichomes to be pre-heated, one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this is a result effective variable and be motivated to optimize this variable to optimize drying time, and because it has been held that, 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, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 13, Pal teaches that the acid form of the one or more cannabinoid(s) of the hashish product comprises tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THC- A) ([0041]).
Regarding claim 17, Carnahan does not explicitly teach that het process further comprises cutting the hashish product.
Carnahan teaches that the extruded material ([0030]) may be edible/consumable material ([0016], [0021], [0040]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Carnahan by cutting the extruded material into a desired size because one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that cutting would be necessary to package and/or use the extruded material, one having ordinary skill would further recognize that cutting after extrusion is known in the art, and this involves applying a known teaching to the process to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, Pal teaches that the process further comprises incorporating one or more cannabinoids (Pal [0006] teaches that isolated trichomes may be selected to comprise high content of cannabidiol, tetrahydrocannabinol or other cannabinoids).
Regarding claim 48, Carnahan teaches a process of making a hashish product, comprising:
providing cannabis trichomes ([0020], [0058]; provided to hopper 20; [0068]);
mixing the cannabis trichomes (via rotation in auger 30; [0068]) with compression and shear forces (auger or press screw 30 is described to produce pressure (compression). This would also be expected to produce shear force as the auger rotates) via a plurality of interpenetrate helicoidal surfaces (an auger or extrusion press screw is shaped as such) within an elongated enclosure (auger housing or press cylinder 40; [0068]) to obtain a resinous mixture (paste; [0064]);
and retrieving at least a portion of the resinous mixture through an extrusion die (extruder press head 60; [0068]) to obtain the hashish product comprising a cohesive mass of the cannabis trichomes.
Carnahan does not explicitly teach that the cannabis trichomes are isolated cannabis trichomes pre-treated with pre-heating to obtain at least partial decarboxylation of one or more cannabinoids to comprise a cannabis oil layer on at least a portion of a surface thereof.
Pal, directed to a method for providing isolated trichomes prior to further processing ([0005]), teaches that isolating the trichomes improves the quality of the final cannabis product ([0005]). Pal further teaches that the isolated trichomes may be pre-heated ([0041], [0051] teach that trichomes may be heated to decarboxylate the cannabinoids to produce psychoactive compounds).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Carnahan by using isolated, pre-heated trichomes as taught by Pal because Carnahan is directed to a method comprising producing trichomes and Pal is directed to producing trichomes, Pal teaches that producing isolated, decarboxylated trichomes is known to improve final product quality and increase psychoactive compounds, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar process to yield predictable results.
The Examiner notes that, while Pal does not explicitly disclose that the pre-treated trichomes are pre-treated under conditions sufficient to cause cannabis oil to ooze out and form a cannabis oil layer on at least a portion of surfaces of the isolated cannabis trichomes, the pre-treating process taught by the prior art is equivalent to the process as claimed and disclosed by the Applicant and therefore one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect that the pre-treating taught by Pal would result in a similar cannabis oil layer as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claims 3, 6-7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnahan in view of Pal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Luna Technologies (Decarboxylation: What is it and why is it Important <URL: https://lunatechequipment.com/blogs/blog/decarboxylation-what-is-it-and-why-is-it-important>).
Regarding claim 3, Pal teaches that step a) comprises i) isolating cannabis trichomes to obtain isolated cannabis trichomes ([0001]) and ii) pre-heating cannabis under conditions to obtain at least partial decarboxylation of one or more cannabinoid(s) of the cannabis ([0041], [0051]).
Pal does not teach that the cannabis is pre-heated prior to trichome isolation.
Luna technologies, directed to pre-heating/decarboxylating cannabis (page 1), teaches that trichomes may be pre-heated prior to trichome isolation to obtain the same decarboxylation of cannabinoids in the trichomes (page 1).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Carnahan by pre-heating the trichomes prior to isolation as taught by Luna Technologies because both modified Carnahan and Luna Technologies are directed to pre-treating trichomes to obtain decarboxylated cannabinoids, Luna Technologies teaches that the pre-heating process may alternatively be performed prior to trichome isolation, and this involves substituting one alternative pre-heating process for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, modified Carnahan does not specify that the pre-heating is performed to obtain a decarboxylation level of the one or more cannabinoid(s) of from about 30% to about 100%.
Luna Technologies, directed to pre-heating/decarboxylating cannabis (page 1), teaches that decarboxylation can occur at varying rates, such that products may comprise both the acidic and the decarboxylated cannabinoid (page 3). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the amount of psychoactive compound in the product may therefore be controlled or optimized.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the decarboxylation of cannabinoids to obtain a desired amount, because Luna Technologies teaches that the decarboxylation level of cannabinoids is a result effective variable, one with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize this variable in order to obtain the desired amount of psychoactive compound, and because it has been held that, 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, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 7, modified Carnahan does not specify that the pre-heating is performed to obtain a ratio of a decarboxylated to acid form content of the one or more cannabinoid(s), by weight, of from about 100:1 to about 1:100.
Luna Technologies, directed to pre-heating/decarboxylating cannabis (page 1), teaches that decarboxylation can occur at varying rates, such that products may comprise both the acidic and the decarboxylated cannabinoid (page 3). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the ratio of a decarboxylated to acid form in the product may therefore be controlled or optimized.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the decarboxylation of cannabinoids to obtain a desired amount, because Luna Technologies teaches that the decarboxylation level of cannabinoids is a result effective variable, one with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize this variable in order to obtain the desired amount of psychoactive compound, and because it has been held that, 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, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 10, modified Carnahan does not explicitly teach that the hashish product comprises a content in acid form of one or more cannabinoid(s) of no less than 1%.
Luna Technologies, directed to pre-heating/decarboxylating cannabis (page 1), teaches that decarboxylation can occur at varying rates, such that products may comprise both the acidic and the decarboxylated cannabinoid (page 3). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the amount of psychoactive compound in the product may therefore be controlled or optimized.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the decarboxylation of cannabinoids, including to no less than 1%, to obtain a desired amount, because Luna Technologies teaches that the decarboxylation level of cannabinoids is a result effective variable, one with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize this variable in order to obtain the desired amount of psychoactive compound, and because it has been held that, 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, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Upon adjusting the level of decarboxylation, one would directly be adjusting the number of acidic cannabinoids. Thus, a hashish product that comprises a not negligible content in acid form would similarly be obvious to one having ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 11, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the decarboxylation of cannabinoids to obtain a desired amount, because Luna Technologies teaches that the decarboxylation level of cannabinoids is a result effective variable (page 3), one with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize this variable in order to obtain the desired amount of psychoactive compound, and because it has been held that, 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, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Upon adjusting the level of decarboxylation, one would directly be adjusting the number of acidic cannabinoids. Thus, a hashish product that comprises an acid form of one or more cannabinoids of no less than 3 wt. % would similarly be obvious to one having ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 12, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the decarboxylation of cannabinoids to obtain a desired amount, because Luna Technologies teaches that the decarboxylation level of cannabinoids is a result effective variable (page 3), one with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize this variable in order to obtain the desired amount of psychoactive compound, and because it has been held that, 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, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Upon adjusting the level of decarboxylation, one would directly be adjusting the number of acidic cannabinoids. Thus, a hashish product that comprises an acid form of one or more cannabinoids of up to about 30 wt. % would similarly be obvious to one having ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 14, modified Carnahan does not specify that the pre-heating is performed to obtain a decarboxylation level of the one or more cannabinoid(s) of from about 50% to about 100%.
Luna Technologies, directed to pre-heating/decarboxylating cannabis (page 1), teaches that decarboxylation can occur at varying rates, such that products may comprise both the acidic and the decarboxylated cannabinoid (page 3). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the amount of psychoactive compound in the product may therefore be controlled or optimized.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the decarboxylation of cannabinoids to obtain a desired amount, because Luna Technologies teaches that the decarboxylation level of cannabinoids is a result effective variable, one with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize this variable in order to obtain the desired amount of psychoactive compound, and because it has been held that, 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, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnahan in view of Pal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Orbetron (The Science of Material Flow: Overcoming Challenges in Bulk Feeding <URL: https://orbetronextrusion.com/the-science-of-material-flow-overcoming-challenges-in-bulk-feeding/>).
Regarding claim 15, Carnahan does not explicitly teach that the process further comprises incorporating water to the pre-treated isolated cannabis trichomes prior to step b).
Orbetron, directed to material flow, teaches that flowability and moisture content are important factors when feeding materials to an extruder to prevent clogging (page 2).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the feed conditions by adding and optimizing a water content, such as to about 20 wt.%, because Orbetron teaches that moisture content is a result effective variable, one with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize this variable to achieve successful extrusion and because having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would be important to find a moisture content that enabled flow while still maintaining an extruded shape, and because it has been held that, 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, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnahan in view of Pal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of RapidDirect (What is Plastic Extrusion: A Definitive Process Guide <URL: https://www.rapiddirect.com/blog/plastic-extrusion-process/>).
Regarding claim 16, Carnahan does not explicitly teach that the extrusion die is a first extrusion die; and the process comprises passing the resinous mixture through a second extrusion die smaller than the first extrusion die to obtain the hashish product comprising the cohesive mass of the isolated cannabis trichomes.
RapidDirect, directed to extrusion processes, teaches that a first extrusion die portion may be followed by a second extrusion die portion smaller than the first extrusion die (see Annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
359
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 (Annotated from RapidDirect page 2)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Carnahan by using an extrusion die with a first portion and a smaller second portion as taught by RapidDirect because both Carnahan and RapidDirect are directed to extrusion processes, Carnahan is silent to the extrusion die design and one with ordinary skill would recognize that die design has a significant effect on extrusion flow profile and would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable die design, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnahan in view of Pal as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, as evidenced by Bjorncrantz (US 20150105455 A1).
Regarding claim 21, modified Carnahan teaches further incorporating one or more cannabinoids (Pal [0006] teaches that isolated trichomes may be selected to comprise high content of cannabidiol, tetrahydrocannabinol or other cannabinoids).
Bjorncrantz, directed to cannabis extracts ([0002]), teaches that trichomes obtained from a cannabis plant may be considered crude cannabis extract ([0026]).
Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that modified Carnahan implicitly teaches incorporating a crude cannabis extract by incorporating various trichomes.
Regarding claim 24, modified Carnahan teaches further incorporating one or more cannabinoids (Pal [0006] teaches that isolated trichomes may be selected to comprise high content of cannabidiol, tetrahydrocannabinol or other cannabinoids).
Bjorncrantz, directed to cannabis extracts ([0002]), teaches that trichomes obtained from a cannabis plant may be considered crude cannabis extract ([0026]).
Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that modified Carnahan implicitly teaches incorporating a crude cannabis extract by incorporating various trichomes.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlotte Davison whose telephone number is (703)756-5484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. 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.
/C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights