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 .
Application Status
Claim 1-21 are under examination.
Claim 1-21 are rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 7, ln. 1 recites “the solid composition” should be “the solid cannabinoid composition” to be consistent with claim language set forth in claim 1, ln. 1. 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.
Claim 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20 and 21 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the acid component" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the base component" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the acid component" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the base component" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the pH of the liquid cannabinoid composition" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the liquid cannabinoid formulation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the acid component" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the base component" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the solid composition" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the acid component" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the base component" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cave et al. (US 2022/0175719 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Cave et al. (Cave) discloses a dissolvable table (composition) comprising cannabinoids including tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (‘719, [0063], [0067]-[0071]), malic acid (acid/acid component) (‘719, [0063], [0332]) and sodium bicarbonate (base/base component)(‘719, [0063], [0389]).
It is noted the cited “such that, when dissolved the composition provides a final pH of at least 7.5” in claim 1 and “when dissolved, the solid composition provides, a pH of at least about 8.0” in claim 7 and claim 10, are considered a functional limitations of the claimed product when it’s dissolved; additionally, it is noted a final pH when the composition dissolved is depended upon a substance wherein the composition is dissolved in. Hence it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or substantially identical process, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitation that stem from the claimed structure (product). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spade, 15 USPQ2d 655,1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 10, Cave discloses the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in an amount of 3 mg (‘719, [0333]), which is in range with the cited range. Cave discloses flavoring (flavorants) (‘719, [0188], [0377], claim 3, claim 9) in the dissolvable table (composition).
Regarding claim 3, Cave discloses the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in an amount of 3 mg (‘719, [0333]), which is in range with the cited range.
Regarding claim 4, Cave discloses terpenes (‘719, [0080]) in the dissolvable table (composition).
Regarding claim 5, Cave discloses flavoring (flavorants) (‘719, [0188], [0377], claim 3, claim 9) in the dissolvable table (composition).
Regarding claim 6, Cave discloses sweetener (‘719, [0374]-[0376]) in the dissolvable table (composition).
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) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cave et al. (US 2022/0175719 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Healthline (Ref. U).
Regarding claim 11, Cave discloses the dissolvable table (composition) in water (‘719, [0393]) to form a beverage (liquid cannabinoid composition). Cave does not explicitly disclose the water with a pH of at least 7. 5. However U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommend drinking water in a range of 6.5 to 8.5 as taught by Healthline (pg. 2, ln. 5-6), which overlaps the cited range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ drinking water pH range as taught by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Cave’s beverage to provide aesthetic quality of water.
Claim(s) 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cave et al. (US 2022/0175719 A1) in view of Healthline (Ref. U).
Regarding claim 12, 13, 18, 19, 20 and 21, Cave discloses a dissolvable table (composition) in water (‘719, [0393]) to form a beverage (liquid cannabinoid composition). Cave does not explicitly disclose the water with a pH of at least 7. 5. However U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommend drinking water in a range of 6.5 to 8.5 as taught by Healthline (pg. 2, ln. 5-6), which overlaps the cited range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ drinking water pH range as taught by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Cave’s beverage to provide aesthetic quality of water. Cave et al. (Cave) discloses a dissolvable table (composition) comprising cannabinoids including tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (‘719, [0063], [0067]-[0071]), malic acid (acid/acid component) (‘719, [0063], [0332]) and sodium bicarbonate (base/base component)(‘719, [0063], [0389]). With respect to claim 21, Cave discloses the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in an amount of 3 mg (‘719, [0333]), which is in range with the cited range. Cave discloses flavoring (flavorants) (‘719, [0188], [0377], claim 3, claim 9) in the dissolvable table (composition).
Regarding claim 14, Cave discloses the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in an amount of 3 mg (‘719, [0333]), which is in range with the cited range.
Regarding claim 15, Cave discloses terpenes (‘719, [0080]) in the dissolvable table (composition).
Regarding claim 16, Cave discloses flavoring (flavorants) (‘719, [0188], [0377], claim 3, claim 9) in the dissolvable table (composition).
Regarding claim 17, Cave discloses sweetener (‘719, [0374]-[0376]) in the dissolvable table (composition).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONG THI YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7AM to 3PM.
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.
/HONG T YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792