Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/402,540

METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR EXTRACTION OF CANNABINOIDS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 02, 2024
Examiner
JEONG, YOUNGSUL
Art Unit
1772
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Nakatomi Trading LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
507 granted / 704 resolved
+7.0% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+21.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
749
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
57.2%
+17.2% vs TC avg
§102
8.9%
-31.1% vs TC avg
§112
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 704 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 first action on the merits of the application. Claims 1-10 are pending. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 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 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 02, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 25, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595193
MEMBRANE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576359
AUTOMATED GAS SCRUBBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570548
COOLING WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND ASSOCIATED METHODS FOR USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570826
Thermal Depolymerization and Monomer Repurposing Using Geothermal Energy
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565936
MULTIFUNCTIONAL FILTER VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+21.8%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 704 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month