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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Non-final Rejection
Claim Status
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Priority Status
PNG
media_image1.png
230
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
No foreign priority was claimed; EFD is 08/03/2018.
Drawings
The one (1) drawing submission filed on 09/07/2020 has been accepted by the Examiner.
Abstract Objection
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
The current submitted abstract is 27 words. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejection – 112(b)
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 3 recites the limitation: “wherein the sizing unit comprises a screen that the plant material passes through” renders the claims indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 also lacks antecedent basis when it depends of claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation: “wherein the sizing unit comprises a screen that the plant material passes through” renders the claims indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 also lacks antecedent basis when it depends of claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation: “wherein the at least one solvent recycling unit comprises” renders the claims indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 depends on Claims 5-8 which are dependent on Claims 1-4.
Claim 12 recites the limitation: “wherein the second refining unit comprises” renders the claims indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 depends on Claims 9 which is dependent on Claims 5-8, which depends on Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-8, 10-11, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 9,987,567 B1 (hereinafter “Patent’567”).
With respect to Claim 1, Patent’567 discloses integrated modular system for extracting, refining, and fractionating plant constituents, comprising (also see Fig. 2 below):
a) a biomass feeding unit; (Fig. 1 - Steps 10-14, col. 2, ln. 66 to col 3, ln. 10; Fig. 2 - Steps 100, 105, col. 3, lns. 30-57)
b) at least one solvent extraction unit; (Fig. 1 - Steps 10-14, col. 2, ln. 66 to col 3, ln. 10; Fig. 2 - Steps 112, 115; col. 4, lns. 5-14)
c) a first refining unit; (Fig. 1 - Steps 10-14, col. 2, ln. 66 to col 3, ln. 10; Fig. 2 – Steps 112, 115)
d) a second refining unit; (Fig. 1 - Steps 16, col. 2; Fig. 2 - Steps 123-128)
e) at least one chemical conversion unit; (Fig. 1 - Steps 10-14, col. 2, ln. 66 to col 3, ln. 10; Fig. 2- Step 165) and
f) a third refining unit (Fig. 1 - Steps 10-14, col. 2, ln. 66 to col 3, ln. 10; Fig. 2- Steps 129-133, 134-138, 170-180).
PNG
media_image2.png
940
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claims 2-8: Patent’567 discloses the above process (col. 1, lns. 40-50) which includes:
Claim 2-4 : wherein the biomass feeding unit further comprises a biomass grinding unit; wherein the sizing unit comprises a screen that the plant material passes through; wherein the sorting unit separates the plant material by density (col. 1, lns. 65-66; col. 4, lns. 57-67; Fig. 1; Fig. 2).
Claim 5: further comprising at least one solvent recycling unit (Fig. 1 - Steps 10-14, col. 2, ln. 66 to col 3, ln. 10; Fig. 2 – Steps 112, 115).
Claims 6-8: further comprising pumps, pipes, and conveyors for transferring the biomass; wherein the system is designed and constructed for continuous extracting, refining and fractionating high purity constituents from plant material; further comprising: a) a central computer control; b) control valves; c) monitors and sensors for continuously monitoring temperature, pressure, or flow (Exemplary Process – col. 3, ln. 22 to col. 8, ln. 5; Apparatus – col. 8, ln. 8 to col. 9, ln. 67).
With respect to Claim 10: Patent’567 discloses wherein the plant biomass comprises cannabis (abstract; biomass of Patent’567).
With respect to Claim 11: wherein the first refining unit comprises: i) at least one column of granulated activated carbon (GAC) (discloses using charcoal particles in the first refining unit: col. 5, lns. 25-34).
With respect to Claims 14-16: Patent’567 discloses the above in a process which include: Claim 14: wherein the at least one chemical conversion unit comprises a stirred heating tank (col. 9, lns. 11-15; decarboxylate unit).
Claim 15: wherein the third refining unit comprises a distillation unit (col. 3, ln. 29).
Claim 16: wherein the distillation unit comprises a short path distillation unit (col. 6, lns. 60-67).
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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,987,567 B1 (hereinafter “Patent’567”) and in view of WO 2019/156831 A1 (priority date: 02/07/2018; hereinafter “Pub’831”).
With respect to Claim 1, Patent’567 discloses integrated modular system for extracting, refining, and fractionating plant constituents, comprising (also see Fig. 2 above). The teachings of Patent’567 are disclosed above and those teachings are incorporated by reference herein. With respect to Claims 9, 12 and 13, Patent’567 discloses a process which includes an integrated modular system for extracting, refining, and fractionating plant constituents. The scope of the prior art relates to cannabis extraction, and refining.
Patent’567 fails to disclose Claims 9, 12 and 13, wherein the solvent recycling unit comprises, tanks, distillation system, a press, a dryer, a chiller, pumps, piping, etc. (for claim 9) and the second refining unit comprises a filter, an ion exchange column, settler, and an evaporator and a second temperature controlled stirring tank (for claims 12-13).
Pub’831 from WIPO discloses in the abstract image (pg. 1, abstract; Figure 1 pg. 7)
PNG
media_image3.png
560
784
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Pub’831 further teaches the system for extracting organic products. In the Figure 1 above, this teaches the following components of Claims 9, 12 and 13, wherein the solvent recycling unit comprises, tanks (primary tank-101, supply tank- 107), distillation system (pg. 42; The system 100 disclosed in FIGURE 1 advantageously permits the spray evaporation loop system 170 to be
configured to purify or collect an extracted product in flow or in batch. Purifying in flow
may permit the scaling out of an extraction process), a press (compressor-176), a dryer (dryer-180), a chiller (chiller-183), pumps (recirculation pump-150), piping (pg. 39, lns. 19-29); all above for claim 9).
Pub’831 further teaches the second refining unit comprises a filter (filtering layer-132), an ion exchange column (chromatography sensors-108; pg. 31, lns. 5-25), settler (pg. 40, lns. 21-29; the settler is a part of the mixer apparatus), and an evaporator (evaporator-175) and a second temperature controlled stirring tank (pg. 27, lns. 1-15; for claims 12-13)
It would therefore be obvious to combine Pub’831 & Patent’567 as they disclose a summary of the process in extracting and refining. In this process, the details towards the extraction process, apparatus, alternate process and variations are disclosed and would be
obvious prior to the filing date of the Instant Application since both are directed to the process of extracting plant biomass.
As seen under KSR Prong A, the processing methods to extracting cannabis biomass is known in the art. Also if using Pub’831 & Patent’567 in combination would provide the process of the instant application since the utility of the prior art and the instant application are similar. One in the art in seeking a solution to the problem being addressed, would be motivated to use the prior art for: further impurity removal since initial extraction methods (like ethanol or CO2) often pull in unwanted plant lipids, waxes, and chlorophyll. Refining removes these in such purifications. Refining transforms crude oil into high-purity distillates or isolates. And finally, refining in the cannabis process used to turn "crude" oil into high-purity product through removing unwanted compounds like fats, waxes, and chlorophyll. This is essential for enhancing potency and ensuring product stability within the product.
Conclusion
Claims 1-16 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josmalen M. Ramos-Lewis whose telephone number is (571)-272-0084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30 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, Clinton A. Brooks can be reached at (571) 270-7682. 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.
Josmalen M. Ramos-Lewis, Ph.D.
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1621
/VALERIE RODRIGUEZ-GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621
Prosecution Insights