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 .
Priority
PNG
media_image1.png
78
398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed June 2, 2023, July 16, 2025 and February 24, 2026 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS documents were considered and signed copies of the 1449 forms are attached.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I (claims 27-29 and 32-45), in the reply filed March 19, 2026 is acknowledged. Further, Applicant’s election without traverse of triglyceride as the elected non-volatile molecule the same reply is also acknowledged. Claims 27-29 and 32-44 within the elected group read on the elected species.
In accordance with the MPEP, if upon examination of the elected species, no prior art is found that would anticipate or render obvious the instant invention based on the elected species and the claims drawn to the elected species are allowable, the search of the Markush-type claim will be extended (see MPEP 803.02). If prior art is then found that anticipates or renders obvious the non-elected species, the Markush-type claim will be rejected. It should be noted that the prior art search will not be extended unnecessarily to cover all non-elected species. Should Applicant overcome the rejection by amending the claim, the amended claim will be reexamined. Id. The prior art search will be extended to the extent necessary to determine patentability of the Markush-type claim. Id. In the event prior art is found during reexamination that renders obvious or anticipates the amended Markush-type claim, the claim will be rejected and the action made final. Id.
As indicated above, the Examiner searched the claimed invention based on the elected species above, wherein: no prior art was discovered over the elected species. Accordingly, the scope of search and consideration has been expanded further to include the full scope of the claimed invention. Accordingly, the election of species requirement is no longer in effect.
Status of Claims
Currently, claims 27-29 and 32-48 are pending in the instant application. Claims 46-48 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claims 27-29 and 32-45 read on an elected invention and are therefore under consideration in the instant application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 27-29 and 32-45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over (a) claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 10822320. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed process of US 10822320 encompasses the examined claims. The recited power less than 100 kW per gram of composition is equivalent to 50-100 kJ (column 6, line 62 to column 7, line 19). Example 2 describes the isolation of CBG from other cannabinoids (column 19, lines 30-59; figure 4). The procedure involves 10-20 kW of resistive heating for 5 seconds (column 19, lines 1-30). A duration of 5 sec of 10-20 kW is equivalent to 50000-100000 kJ. Other compounds are present in the organic hemp tested (column 20, lines 10-40, table 2; figure 5). Example 4 describes a process in which water is less than 10 % (column 20, line 40 to column 21, line 10).
PNG
media_image2.png
427
329
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
395
323
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA L OTTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7683. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM to 4:00 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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached on 571-272-3311. 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.
/ALICIA L OTTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights