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 Objections
Claims 1-2 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, delete “of an air pump” and amend to instead recite “air pumps” in order to place the claim in better form. The phrase “one or more air pumps” is acceptable language to encompass a single air pump.
Further, delete “of a one-way valve” and amend to instead recite “one-way valves” for the same reason stated above.
Regarding claim 2, delete “of a perforated grate” and amend to instead recite “perforated grates” for the same reason stated above.
Regarding claim 4, delete “of a humidity control back” and amend to instead recite “humidity control packs” for the same reason stated above.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “connected to the air pump” renders the claim indefinite since the antecedent basis is ambiguous. The claim previously recites “one or more of an air pump”, and it is unclear if the first one-way valve is connected to a single pump, or multiple. It is noted that the phrase “one or more air pumps” is acceptable language to encompass a single air pump. The rejection can be overcome by amending “of an air pump” to instead recite “air pumps” as stated in the objection above, and amending “the air pump” to instead recite “one of said one or more air pumps”.
Further, the limitation “one or more of a one-way valve” renders the claim indefinite since the claim requires both a first and a second one-way valve. It is unclear if the minimum number of one-way valves is one or two.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “perforated grates” renders the claim indefinite since claim 2 requires a minimum of one grate, and therefore the antecedent basis is ambiguous for the reasons stated for claim 1 above. The rejection can be overcome by amending “of a perforated grate” to instead recite “perforated grates” as stated in the objection above, and amending “the perforated grates” to instead recite “said one or more perforated grates”.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the sealed cylindrical housing” lacks antecedent basis and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Neither claims 1 nor 4 previously recite the lid is actually attached to the housing, only a lid capable of doing so i.e., “which attaches”. The rejection can be overcome by amending either of claims 1 and 4 to positively recite a sealed configuration, thereby establishing proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “may be” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the following subject matter is actually required by the claimed apparatus. The rejection can be overcome by amending “may be” to instead recite “is”.
Claims 2 and 5-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
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 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green NPL in view of Bemrose (US 4,110,916) and Varga (US 2022/0346333 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Green NPL teaches an apparatus for curing plant matter (page 1), comprising a cylindrical housing with a top and a bottom, wherein the bottom is closed and the top is open (page 1 figure 1), a lid which attaches to the top of the cylindrical housing (page 1 figure 1; page 4 “step six” figure), one or more air pumps (page 1 figure 2), a first check (one-way) valve fluidly connected to the air pump and attached toward the bottom of the housing for air intake (page 2 “step two”; page 3 “step three”), and a second one-way valve affixed to the cylindrical housing toward the top of the cylindrical housing for exhaust (page 3 “step three” and “step four” figure; page 4 “step five”).
Green NPL does not teach a circular sheet with a diameter equal to or smaller than the inside diameter of the cylindrical housing creating a false bottom between the circular sheet and the bottom of the cylindrical housing, the one or more air pumps located within the false bottom, and the positions of the first and second check valves relative to the circular sheet.
Bemrose teaches a forced air dryer cabinet for food (abstract; column 3 line 30) comprising a housing formed by walls 12-14, door 16, and floor 19 (figure 3; column 3 lines 24-27 and 66-67), where the treatment area of the cabinet is separated from the blower 21 by partition member 44 (column 3 lines 41-45). The cabinet structure is analogous to the claimed apparatus since cabinet housing encompasses both the treatment zone and the airflow means, where the two are separated by a barrier, the barrier construed to be a type of “false bottom” of the cabinet housing.
Varga teaches an apparatus for automated curing of plant matter in sealed containers (abstract), the cylindrical housing 105, airflow means 115,215 and a treatment area for holding said plant matter (figures 10-11), where the housing includes a screen 230 disposed therein to prevent the plant from contacting the lid 110 (paragraphs 59-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Green NPL to include a false bottom in the housing since the prior art recognizes that airflow means can be placed within the same housing of a treatment apparatus while maintaining the material to be treated separate from said airflow means, the material to be treated including plant matter, where one of ordinary skill would have recognized advantages such as reduced footprint and/or clutter by minimizing the space occupied by the air pump, facilitating transport of the apparatus since components are carried within the housing, and preventing contact and contamination between the plant material and the working components of the apparatus, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed features, and therefore to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
With respect to the false bottom being formed from a circular sheet having the claimed diameter, it would have been further obvious to modify Green NPL such that the false bottom is formed by a circular sheet since such materials are known and commonly used in the art (e.g., cardboard, foil, films, etc.), since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed features, and therefore as a matter of manufacturing choice for the type of material used, and to facilitate retention of the false bottom in the housing such that the plant matter does not contact undesired components.
With respect to the first valve attached to the circular sheet and the second valve affixed to the housing between the sheet and the top of the housing, the prior art combination above renders obvious a circular sheet disposed within the housing to separate the plant matter to be treated from the air pump below. Since Green NPL teaches wanting airflow from the bottom of the housing to the top (pages 2-3 “step two” and “step three”), it would have been further obvious to attach the first valve to the sheet as the “intake” and the second valve to the housing above the sheet as an “exhaust” in order to ensure proper airflow and operation while retaining the plant material separate from the air pump, as well as the reasons stated for the prior art combination above.
Green NPL as modified above does not teach a perforated vent affixed to the cylindrical housing between the bottom of the cylindrical housing and the circular sheet.
Bemrose further teaches the bottom of the housing includes an opening 32 having screen or grille material 34 in order to induct air through said openings by means of blower 21 (figure 3; column 3 lines 47-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Green NPL to include a perforated vent as claimed since the structure is known in the art for intake of air and/or gas into a device, where Green NPL as modified above would similarly require an intake opening for operation of the air pump, in order to prevent intake of undesired substances and/or contaminants, and therefore to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of airflow into the apparatus.
Regarding claims 2-3, Green NPL does not teach perforated grates stacked within the cylindrical housing between the circular sheet and the top of the cylindrical housing.
Bemrose further teaches a plurality of frames 56 having screen material (perforated grates) 59 on which the material to be treated is held, where the grates are stacked within the housing (figures 3-4; column 4 lines 34-42). The grates allow for gaps between layers of the material, where adjusting the gaps by removing or adding grates controls the flow of the air (column 2 lines 24-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Green NPL to include perforated grates stacked within the cylindrical housing above the circular sheet since the prior art recognizes such a feature for treating and preserving plant matter, since one of ordinary skill would have understood the structure increases surface area to volume ratio of the treated material, and therefore facilitate drying and/or curing rates by increased and more uniform exposure to airflow throughout, to similarly control a desired flow path, and to allow variations of the amount of plant matter treated and their relative positions within the device (e.g., plant matter can be moved from a lower grate near the air pump to a grate further away as it cures, and the lower grate is refilled with “fresh” plant matter).
Regarding claim 4, Green NPL teaches a humidity control pack freely located within the sealed cylindrical housing (page 4 “step six”).
Regarding claim 5, Green NPL teaches the apparatus comprises a timer mechanism (page 1 figure 2; page 4 “step five”).
Regarding claim 7, Green NPL teaches the cylindrical housing is a plastic bucket and the lid is a Gamma Seal lid (page 1 figure 1). A Gamma Seal lid is a attached by screwing as is known in the art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green NPL in view of Bemrose and Varga as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grow NPL.
Regarding claim 6, Green NPL does not teach a hygrometer.
Grow NPL teaches an auto curing system for plant matter (page 1), where the system can be combined with a humidity controller (necessarily including a hygrometer) in order to maintain a desired humidity level within the system (page 14 “use the air pump hooked up to the humidity controller”).
Varga teaches humidity should be controlled in order to minimize cannabinoid degradation, mold growth, ammoniated flavors, and texture of the plant matter (paragraph 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the apparatus of Green NPL to include a humidity controller (including a hygrometer) since the prior art recognizes use thereof in plant matter curing, in order to similarly monitor and control humidity to a desired level during curing, thereby ensuring a final product having optimal characteristics, and minimizing the problems disclosed by Varga.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)-270-3475. 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.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792