DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Figure 6A - claims 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14-20 - in the reply filed on 1/13/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 11, 14-17, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng (US 20110123698 A1) in view of Jia (CN 104764298 A).
Regarding claim 8, Meng discloses a system for drying a plant material, comprising:
a substantially airtight (note: see Comment 1 below regarding the term, “airtight”) plant material container (10) containing the plant material (60);
a substantially airtight circulation device container (Fig. 1: housing of the blower 31) containing a circulation device (fan blades of the blower 31);
a dehydration chamber (Fig. 1, 22);
an outlet duct (32) extending from the circulation device through a wall of the plant material container (Fig. 1);
a dehydration chamber inlet duct (Fig. 1: portion of duct 21 upstream the dehydration chamber 22) extending through a wall of the plant material container to a proximal end of the dehydration chamber; and
a dehydration chamber outlet duct (Fig. 1: portion of duct 21 downstream the dehydration chamber 22) extending from a distal end of the dehydration chamber through a wall of the circulation device container.
Comment 1. The plant material container and circulation device container are understood to be airtight based on the figures. Moreover, it would been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to make the containers airtight so that humid air is not introduced into the closed loop drying system. If humid air or other contaminants are introduced, then drying would be prolonged and the final product would be of reduced quality.
Meng fails to disclose:
wherein the dehydration chamber contains a plurality of molecular sieves.
However, Jia teaches a molecular sieve dryer comprising a plurality of molecular sieves (pg. 3, middle paragraph).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Meng wherein the dehydration chamber contains a plurality of molecular sieves. The motivation to combine to provide a device that can remove a large amount of moisture in the drying air, thereby resulting in faster drying of the plant material. This is because molecular sieves are better at removing moisture in air compared to many other drying devices. Molecular sieves are also economical because they can be regenerated and be reused over many cycles.
Regarding claim 9, modified Meng discloses the system of claim 8, further comprising one or more support rack within the plant material container, and wherein the plant material is contained on the one or more support rack.
Meng discloses using bins (Fig. 3, 12a) for holding the plant material, and a bin is a type of enclosed rack. Moreover, Official Notice is taken that it is well-known and common knowledge to use support racks for holding plant material, and it would have been obvious at the effective filing date to use support racks because they are ubiquitous.
Regarding claim 11, modified Meng discloses the system of claim 8, except wherein the plant material container includes a removable lid. However, Official Notice is taken that a container having a removable lid is well-known and common knowledge, and it would have been obvious at the effective filing date for the container to have a removable lid so that a user can get access to the inside of the container.
Regarding claim 14, modified Meng discloses the system of claim 8, except wherein the ratio of the molecular sieves to the plant material is 3:1 by mass. However, the limitation is a matter of optimization that can be found through routine experimentation. A higher ratio would provide more drying capability for the plant material, but would also cost more. A lower ratio may be insufficient for drying, or would require more frequent regeneration.
Regarding claim 15, modified Meng discloses the system of claim 8, except wherein the sieve chamber is formed from a material capable of withstanding temperatures of 400 degrees F to 600 degrees F. However, the limitation is a matter of optimization that can be found through routine experimentation. Meng discloses using heat in the drying process. Jia teaches using heat to regenerate the molecular sieves. Therefore, the molecular sieves must be able to withstand high temperatures in order to function properly.
Regarding claim 16, modified Meng discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the sieve chamber includes heating elements (see Jia, middle of pg. 2), except where it is capable of heating the sieve chamber to between 400 degrees F and 600 degrees F. However, the temperature range is a matter of optimization that can be found through routine experimentation. A high temperature is needed to regenerate the molecular sieves, but if the temperature is too high than it would degrade or destroy the molecular sieves.
Regarding claim 17, modified Meng discloses (see rejection of claim 1 for citations) a method for drying a plant material, comprising: providing: an airtight plant material container containing the plant material, an airtight circulation device container containing a circulation device and a gas, a sieve chamber containing a plurality of molecular sieves, an outlet duct extending from the circulation device through a wall of the plant material container; a sieve chamber inlet duct extending through a wall of the plant material container to a proximal end of the sieve chamber, and a sieve chamber outlet duct extending from a distal end of the sieve chamber through a wall of the circulation device container; circulating the gas from the circulation device, through the outlet duct, through the plant material container, through the sieve chamber inlet duct, through the sieve chamber, through the sieve chamber outlet duct, to the circulation device container, and back into the circulation device; wherein circulating the gas causes the gas to contact the plant material and the plurality of molecular sieves, wherein water within the plant material turns to water vapor and flows with the gas, wherein the water vapor contacts the molecular sieves, and wherein the molecular sieves adsorb the water vapor.
Regarding claim 19, modified Meng discloses the method of claim 17, wherein after drying the plant material, the sieve chamber is removed and regenerated by heating the sieve chamber and the plurality of molecular sieves (Jia, in the middle of pg. 2, teaches two sieve chambers 95, 96, wherein when one chamber is actively absorbing moisture from the gas, the other chamber is removed from the drying process, so as to be heated and the collected moisture suctioned out), except to a temperature between 400 degrees F and 600 degrees F. However, see the rejection of claim 16 regarding the temperature range.
Regarding claim 20, modified Meng discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the sieve chamber includes heating elements capable of heating the sieve chamber and the molecular sieves (see Jia, middle of pg. 2), except between 400 degrees F and 600 degrees F (see rejection of claim 16 regarding the temperature range), and wherein after drying the plant material, the sieve chamber is regenerated by heating the sieve chamber and the plurality of molecular sieves (see Jia, middle of pg. 2), except to a temperature between 400 degrees F and 600 degrees F (see rejection of claim 16 regarding the temperature range).
Claim(s) 12, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng (US 20110123698 A1) in view of Jia (CN 104764298 A), as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Weisselberg (US 8464437 B1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Meng discloses the system of claim 8, except further comprising a manifold within the plant material container, and wherein the outlet duct is connected to the manifold inside of the plant material container.
However, Weisselberg teaches a drying system comprising a manifold (Fig. 2, portion manifold 142 downstream the dampers 152) within the material container (102), and wherein an outlet duct (portion of manifold 142 that is outside the container 102) is connected to the manifold inside of the material container.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Meng to further comprise a manifold within the plant material container, and wherein the outlet duct is connected to the manifold inside of the plant material container. The motivation to combine is so that the plant material is provided uniform drying conditions, e.g., uniform flow, pressure, and temperature. The result is a consistent final product.
Regarding claim 18, modified Meng discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising a manifold within the plant material container, wherein the outlet duct fluidically connects to the manifold, and wherein the circulation device causes the gas to flow from the outlet duct through the manifold and then through the plant material container (see modification made in the rejection of claim 12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights