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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
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 1-6 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 claim recites the limitation “shredding the hemp leaf material into pieces having a maximum length of 1/2-2” and preferably 1-2” in length and a width of between 0.25 and 1” (lines 3-4). It is unclear whether this limitation requires the shredded hemp leaf to have a length of 1/2-2” or 1-2”. The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if the length of the shredding the hemp leaf material into pieces have a range between 1/2” and 2”. Claims 2-6 are indefinite by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine (US 20220324780) in view of Nadimi (US 20080000488), Kaneko (US 3835550), Wentz (US 12137636), Wyrwas (US 20230189878) and Cannabis Business Times ( 4 Steps to Dry Hemp with the Wisconsin Method, 2020).
In regards to claim 1, Levine discloses a method for processing hemp biomass comprising:
providing fresh hemp leaf material without crystallized cannabinoids ([0003]; [0036]);
shredding the hemp leaf material (Levine teaches the hemp biomass may be provided for treatment in a shredded or unshredded form ([0138]);
removing chlorophyll from the shredded hemp leave material by aqueous rinse (rinsing hemp biomass with water which results in the removal of chlorophyll ([0069], [0140]); and
drying shredded hemp leaf material at between 90°C and 160°C ([0069]; [0058]; [0060]; [0091]).
The claimed range of 180°F and 220°F overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Levine does not explicitly disclose (I) a method of making shisha from hemp, (II) shredding the hemp leave material into pieces having a maximum length of ½ - 2” and a width of between 0.25 and 1”., (III) pressing the hemp leaf material, (IV) fluffing the hemp leaf material, and (V) placing the hemp leaf material on screens.
In regard to (I), Wyrwas directed to a multipurpose tool for smoking devices, teaches it is known in the art to use hemp in a smoking device such as a shisha pipe ([0020]: smoking pipes include shisha pipe which burn or vaporize a smokable material (e.g. tobacco, cloves, shisha, hemp).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to use the hemp material of Levine in a shisha pipe as taught by Edward, because both Levine and Edward are directed to hemp, and this merely involves using hemp in a known manner to yield predictable results
In regard to (II), Nadimi, directed to a method of making tobacco-less smoking material, teaches shredding cigarette rolling paper made of hemp ([0018]) into shreds having a length of about 0.75 inches to 1.25 inches and a width of about 0.25 inches to 0.50 inches in order to yield a product that resembles the look of traditional hookah tobacco ([0021]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the shredded material of Levine to have a width of about 0.25 inches to 0.50 inches and a length of about 0.75 inches to 1.25 inches as taught by Nadimi, because both Levine and Nadimi are directed to shredded material for smoking products, Nadimi teaches these dimensions resemble the look of a traditional hookah tobacco, and this merely involves applying a known length and width characteristic of a similar shredded material to yield predictable results and result in a product resembles traditional hookah tobacco.
In regard to (III), Kaneko, directed to a process for providing dry plans, teaches it is known that convention processes for drying may involve pressing (page 1, lines 13-15).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious of one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the drying of the hemp material of Levine by incorporating press drying the plant as taught by Kaneko, because both Levine discloses drying washed hemp biomass, Kaneko teaches a conventional process to dry plant material involving pressing, and this merely involves combining known means for drying plant material to yield predictable results of a dried product. dried plants to a similar product as dried hemp to yield predictable results.
In regard to (IV), Wentz teaches moving of the plant material to promote drying may include fluffing or lifting into the air (Page 3, Line 12-13).
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Levine by incorporating fluffing the plant material as taught by Wentz, because both Levine and Wentz are directed to drying plant materials, Wentz teaches fluffing promotes drying and this merely involves applying a known technique to improve drying to a known drying process to yield predictable results.
In regard to (V), Cannabis Business, directed to a method of drying hemp, teaches:
Placing the product on racks and forcing air to pass around/through as much product as possible to increase the drying effectivity (page 2, third paragraph).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious of one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the drying process of Levine to place the hemp on racks and forcing air to pass through as much product as possible as taught by Cannabis Business, because both Levine and Cannabis Business teach drying hemp, Cannabis Business teaches this increases the drying effectivity, and this merely involves applying a known technique to improve drying to a known drying process to yield predictable results.
As Levine teaches drying at 194F to 320F, it would be further obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain this drying temperature when incorporating the process of Cannabis Business, and thus the flowing of the hot air over the hemp leaf material would be at a temperature of between 194F to 320F.
Furthermore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Levine and have pressing and fluffing the hemp leaf material occur before placing the hemp leaf material on screens and flowing hot air over the hemp lead material. It would be obvious to apply the pressing and fluffing techniques to improve drying and reduce the time of heating/drying that would be required by using hot air.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine (US 20220324780) in view of Nadimi (US 20080000488), Kazuko (US3835550 ), Wentz (US 12137636), Wyrwas (US 20230189878) and Cannabis Business Times (4 Steps to Dry Hemp with the Wisconsin Method, 2020) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Belfance (US 20170112181).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Levine does not explicitly teach packing and storing dried and shredded hemp leaf material.
Belfance teaches a method of storing and preserving cannabis or a cannabis-containing substance, the method comprising:
providing a container assembly, the container assembly comprising (Claim 1)
i. a lid and a container body, wherein the lid is configured to be closed onto the container body over an opening of the container body, the opening providing access to an interior space comprising a product compartment configured to store product; (Claim 1)
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious of one having ordinary skill in the art for packaging and storing the hemp leaf material of Levine by storing with a lid and container body as taught by Belfance because both Levine and Belfance are directed to cannabis containing materials, Belfance teaches this preserves and stores the material, and this merely involves a known way to package a substance to a similar cannabis containing material to yield predictable results.
Claim 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Levine (US 20220324780), in view of Nadimi (US 20080000488), Kazuko (US3835550 ), Wentz (US 12137636), Wyrwas (US 20230189878) and Cannabis Business Times (4 Steps to Dry Hemp with the Wisconsin Method, 2020) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Belfance (US 20170112181) and Truemoola (Organic Herbal Shisha – Peach, 2022) .
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Modified Levine does not explicitly teach packing and storing dried and shredded hemp leaf material.
Belfance teaches a method of storing and preserving cannabis or a cannabis-containing substance, the method comprising:
providing a container assembly, the container assembly comprising (Claim 1)
i. a lid and a container body, wherein the lid is configured to be closed onto the container body over an opening of the container body, the opening providing access to an interior space comprising a product compartment configured to store product; (Claim 1)
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious of one having ordinary skill in the art for packaging and storing the hemp leaf material of Levine by storing with a lid and container body as taught by Belfance because both Levine and Belfance are directed to cannabis containing materials, Belfance teaches this preserves and stores the material, and this merely involves a known way to package a substance to a similar cannabis containing material to yield predictable results.
Modified Levine does not explicitly teaches mixing a liquid base material from a group consisting of vegetable glycerin pectin, honey, fructose, molasses, citric acid, and flavonoids with the dried hemp leaf material.
Truemoola, directed to a tobacco free organic herbal shisha product that is used for hookah, teaches:
Organic Herbal Shisha – Peach 2000mg infused with a liquid base such as hemp oil, Delta 8 THC, honey, Glycerine, cane molasses, natural flavoring (see pages 1-2 under “Ingredients”).
Many people are using this hemp hookah for its relaxing and calming properties (see page 2 under “description”).
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious of one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Levine by adding honey as a liquid base for the dried hemp leaves, because Truemoola teaches honey is a known shisha additive, and this merely involves adding a known additive to a similar shisha product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, Truemoola further teaches cannabidiol derived from hemp (Truemoola, page 2) Delta 8-THC or Delta 8-Tetrahydrocannabinol is a new, cutting edge cannabinoid (derived from Hemp) which carries psychoactive effects and euphoric feelings associated with the typical properties associated with cannabis use (Truemoola, see Frequently Asked Questions). Therefore, Delta 8-THC in the liquid base includes cannabidiol derived from hemp. As such, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious of one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Levine by adding Delta 8-THC as a liquid base for the dried hemp leaves, because Truemoola teaches Delta 8-THC is a known shisha additive, and this merely involves adding a known additive to a similar shisha product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Truemoola further teaches at least one terpene derived from hemp (Truemoola, Frequently Asked Questions). Truemoola uses CBD derived from industrial hemp plants, NOT from the marijuana plant and NOT from hemp seeds referencing (Frequently Asked Questions). CBD derived from industrial hemp plants naturally contains terpenes and Delta 8 THC contains terpenes as well. Therefore, CBD includes at least one terpene derived from hemp. As such, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious of one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Levine by adding at least one terpene derived from hemp as a liquid base for the dried hemp leaves, because Truemoola teaches additives that are known to contain terpenes suitable for a shisha additive, and this merely involves adding a known additive to a similar shisha product to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHADEED QA'ID DRAKEFORD whose telephone number is (571) 272-9499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Philip Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1241. 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.
/SHADEED QA'ID DRAKEFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 1755
/PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755