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 .
This is a response to Applicant's amendment filed on May 22, 2026.
Status of Claims
No claim has been amended. No new claim has been added. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1-10 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks/Arguments filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that: the claim 1 and its dependent claims are not anticipated nor prima facie obvious over cited prior art(s), Cumings et al. (US 9,926,512 B2).
Applicant argues that: Cumings does teach that the inert gas is discharged upon completion of the extraction. As stated in col. 14, lines 11-18, to depressurize the collection vessel, the discharge hose is connected to the Quick Connect to the conical section of the collection vessel to discharge the nitrogen (inert gas). Therefore, Cuming does teach the discharge of the inert gas to equalize pressure in the system and, indeed, does so in several places in addition to the ones stated above. It would therefore not be obvious to introduce an inert gas into the system and then operate it without removing it. Leaving the inert gas in the system has advantages. These include assistance with pressure management during the transfer of materials between vessels and the ability to avoid connecting and disconnecting hoses, such as the discharge hose referenced above. The inert gas is introduced, and then the inert gas container can remain connected or be disconnected. If the gas container is disconnected, there is no discharge, which simplifies system operations. In some embodiments, keeping the inert gas container connected allows the system to recover the inert gas into the container and draw from it as needed. Additionally, discharging the inert gas poses a risk to the operator, as the hydrocarbon solvent will have mixed with the inert gas to some extent, so discharging the inert gas will release some of the gaseous hydrocarbon. Keeping the inert gas in the system would not be obvious over Cuming and provides important benefits. See Remarks, page 4.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussions presented in the Office action dated 03/05/2026 (see pages 3-4), Cumings discloses a method/an apparatus for extracting desired components from plant material including cannabis (Abstract), wherein the method comprises (Fig. 1 and Fig. 9; Note: Fig. 9 shows apparatus matched in the process diagram shown in Fig. 1; col. 6, line 60 thru col. 7, line 50) the step of adding an inert gas of nitrogen (claim 2) (165, Fig. 1) to a cannabis extraction system (the entire system shown in Fig. 1 or Fig. 9).
Regarding the use of inert gas, Cumings discloses: the method for closed loop extraction of oils from plant material further comprises: (i) providing a source of inert gas in fluid communication with the solvent vessel; and (ii) flowing the inert gas into the solvent vessel while the solvent is in the extraction vessel to promote the flow of the solvent into the collection vessel. In an embodiment, the inert gas is argon, nitrogen or a combination thereof (col. 2, lines 43-54).
Cumings discloses the inert gas input (110n, Fig. 9) enters the top space of the solvent vessel (110, Fig. 9) above the solvent contained in the vessel, thus adding pressure to the headspace above the liquid solvent (col. 9, lines 1-10), which meets the recitation “pumping the inert gas to change pressures within the system to aid in the movement of the solvent” recited in claim 1.
Regarding the recitation “of “without removing the inert gas from the system” while pumping the inert gas to the system, Cumings discloses a gaseous solvent recirculation path: (1) a conduit 135, Fig.1 from the collection vessel 130, Fig. 1 to the solvent vessel (110, Fig. 1); (2) a conduit 150, Fig. 1 from the dewaxed extract collection vessel 150, Fig. 1 to the solvent vessel (110, Fig. 1); and (3) a conduit 150, 155 and 160, Fig. 1 from the dewaxed extract collection vessel 150, Fig. 1 to solvent vessel (110, Fig. 1) (col. 7, lines 1-50). In addition, there is no outlet for removing inert gas from the system in Fig. 1 or Fig. 9. In light of teachings from Cumings, since one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that the inert gas nitrogen is mixed with gaseous solvent and recirculated through the gaseous solvent recirculation path (1), and/or (2), and/or (3), set forth above. As a result, the recitation “without removing the inert gas from the system” while pumping the inert gas to the system is considered prima facie obvious over the teachings of Cumings.
It is still the examiner’s position that the Cumings reference addresses the claimed invention recited in claim 1, as presented in the Office action dated 03/05/2026, and applicants’ arguments/evidence had not been fully developed enough to overcome the rejection. In view of the foregoing, when all of the applicants’ arguments/evidence are considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness. Therefore, the previous rejections to claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are maintained.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cumings et al. (US 9,926,512 B2, hereinafter “Cumings”).
In regard to claims 1 and 2, Cumings discloses a method/an apparatus for extracting desired components from plant material including cannabis (Abstract), wherein the method comprises (Fig. 1 and Fig. 9; Note: Fig. 9 shows apparatus matched in the process diagram shown in Fig. 1; col. 6, line 60 thru col. 7, line 50):
(i) adding an inert gas of nitrogen (claim 2) (165, Fig. 1) to a cannabis extraction system (the entire system shown in Fig. 1 or Fig. 9), wherein the cannabis extraction system taught by Cumings meets the recited “a cannabinoid extraction system”;
(ii) mixing a solvent (a solvent from a solvent vessel 110, Fig. 1) with plant matter having one or more desired compounds (source material in an extraction vessel 120, Fig. 1) to form a mixture (a mixture of the solvent and the plant source material in the extraction vessel 120, Fig. 1);
(iii) recovering the solvent from the mixture through a solvent transfer line (135, Fig. 1) to the solvent vessel (110, Fig. 1), leaving a residual liquid in a collection vessel (130, Fig. 1); and
(iv) the inert gas input (110n, Fig. 9) enters the top space of the solvent vessel (110, Fig. 9) above the solvent contained in the vessel, thus adding pressure to the headspace above the liquid solvent (col. 9, lines 1-10), which meets the recitation “pumping the inert gas to change pressures within the system to aid in the movement of the solvent” recited in claim 1.
But Cumings does not explicitly disclose the feature of “without removing the inert gas from the system” while pumping the inert gas to the system.
However, Cumings discloses a gaseous solvent recirculation path: (1) a conduit 135, Fig.1 from the collection vessel 130, Fig. 1 to the solvent vessel (110, Fig. 1); (2) a conduit 150, Fig. 1 from the dewaxed extract collection vessel 150, Fig. 1 to the solvent vessel (110, Fig. 1); and (3) a conduit 150, 155 and 160, Fig. 1 from the dewaxed extract collection vessel 150, Fig. 1 to solvent vessel (110, Fig. 1) (col. 7, lines 1-50). In addition, there is no outlet for removing inert gas from the system in Fig. 1 or Fig. 9.
In light of teachings from Cumings, since one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that the inert gas nitrogen is mixed with gaseous solvent and recirculated through the gaseous solvent recirculation path (1), and/or (2), and/or (3), set forth above. As a result, the recitation “without removing the inert gas from the system” while pumping the inert gas to the system is considered prima facie obvious over the teachings of Cumings.
In regard to claim 3, Cumings discloses mixing the solvent with plant extracts in an extraction vessel (120, Fig. 1; col. 6, line 60 thru col. 7, line 50).
In regard to claim 4, Cumings discloses the solvent comprises moving the mixture to a solvent separator comprising filter (125, Fig. 1; col. 6, line 60 thru col. 7, line 50).
In regard to claims 5, 6 and 7, Cumings discloses the inert gas input (110n, Fig. 9) enters the top space of the solvent vessel (110, Fig. 9) above the solvent contained in the vessel, thus adding pressure to the headspace above the liquid solvent (col. 9, lines 1-10). In addition, Cumings discloses a transport of solvent from the solvent vessel 110, Fig. 1 to the extraction vessel 120, Fig. 1 through the collection vessel 130, Fig. 1, or a transport of solvent from the extraction vessel 120, Fig. 1 through the collection vessel 130, Fig. 1 to the solvent vessel 110, Fig. 1 (Fig. 8; col. 8, lines 52-64). This renders the recitations recited in claims 5-7 prima facie obvious.
In regard to claim 8, Cumings discloses adding the inert gas comprises adding the inert gas (165, Fig. 1) to the system from an inert gas supply (820, Fig. 9). Cumings discloses there is a nitrogen intake quick release coupling 110n (Fig. 5; col. 8, lines 14-26). Since the nitrogen intake quick release coupling 110n is configured to open/close valve as needed, one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that the inert gas supply (820, Fig. 9) has no interaction with the system after adding the inert gas when the nitrogen intake quick release coupling 110n is closed, as a result, the recitation of claim 8 is considered prima facie obvious.
In regard to claim 9, Cumings discloses adding the inert gas comprises using a separate gas vessel (820, Fig. 9) to allow the gas to be pulled from the separate gas vessel. Since there is a nitrogen intake quick release coupling 110n (Fig. 5; col. 8, lines 14-26), one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that the separate gas vessel (820, Fig. 9) is also capable of nitrogen gas being pumped into.
In regard to claim 10, Cumings discloses removing the solvent from the mixture comprises heating the mixture to cause the solvent to evaporate (col. 3, lines 45-49).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights