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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-19, drawn to a system for injecting cannabis oil in a cannabis product, classified in A24C 5/53.
II. Claims 20-29, drawn to a heating system for a cannabis oil injector, classified in A24C 5/608.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect. Group I requires a system for injecting cannabis oil into a cannabis product comprising a product holder, a plunger mounted in a barrel, a needle, and an engaging mechanism for relatively moving the product holder and syringe towards one another so that the needle is engaged in the product, which are not required by group II. Group II requires the heating system comprising a casing, including a syringe loading portion that receives at least part of the syringe and having an opening for allowing the needle therethrough, a heating member that is in close proximity with the tubing to transfer heat thereto, and a heat canalizing system for forcing part of the heat generated by the heating member out of the casing through the opening, which are not required by group I. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
--the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a conversation via electronic mail with Claude Fournier on 2/13/2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group II, claims 20-29. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-19 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The European Search Reports are incorrectly listed as foreign patent documents since they are not publicly published by any foreign patent office with a kind code, but are rather communications sent during the course of prosecution. They should therefore be submitted as non-patent literature documents.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites the limitation “for a cannabis oil injector that is provided with a cannabis oil reservoir and a syringe for delivering the cannabis oil and that is connected to the cannabis oil reservoir via tubing so as to be supplied with oil thereby,” which is considered to be a statement regarding the intended use of the claimed heating system in the preamble. During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, a manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim. See MPEP § 2111.02. In this case, the claim is considered to be directed to a heating system that could be used with the claimed cannabis oil injector but also other types of materials or components being heated.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “the syringe further including a barrel, a plunger mounted in the barrel and a hub that mounts the needle to the barrel; the barrel and the hub being positioned in the syringe-loading portion of the casing,” which is considered to be a statement regarding the intended use of the claimed heating system. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as if it required a heating system that could accommodate the claimed syringe.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the syringe… [is] located in the casing,” which is considered to be a statement regarding the intended use of the claimed heating system. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required a heating system that could accommodate the claimed syringe.
Regarding claim 24, the claim recites the limitation “whereby, in operation, when the needle and product holder are relatively moved towards each other for said delivering the cannabis oil, the bellow is moved from its extended configuration to its retracted configuration, while continuously acting as a conduct for the air forced towards the first opening,” which is considered to be a limitation regarding the intended use of the claimed heat-canalizing system. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required a bellows and product holder that could be operated in the claimed manner.
Regarding claim 26, the claim recites the limitation “a passage therebetween for the air,” which is considered to be a limitation regarding the intended use of the claimed passage. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required a passage through which air could flow.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “bellow” is used where the term “bellows” is correct since “bellows” is both the singular and plural form for the noun that describes a machine that blows air by expelling air through contraction ([0024], [0089], [0093], [0094], [0097], [0098], [00100]). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 24 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities: The term “bellow” is used where the term “bellows” is correct since “bellows” is both the singular and plural form for the noun that describes a machine that blows air by expelling air through contraction. 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.
Claims 20-29 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 20, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the cannabis oil” (line 2) in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited cannabis oil.
It is unclear whether the limitation “oil” (line 3) refers to the cannabis oil of line 2 or to new oil, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it referred to the cannabis oil of line 2.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the needle” (line 6) in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recites a needle.
The term “in close proximity” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in close proximity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this case, although applicant’s specification uses the term “in close proximity,” there is no measurement of objective standard of what constitutes “close proximity.” For the purpose of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required a heater that heats the tubing. Claims 21-29 are indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 24, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the air forced towards the first opening” in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited air forced towards the first opening. Claim 25 is indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 25, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the bellow” in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as if it depended on claim 24.
Regarding claim 26, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the air” in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited air. Claim 27 is indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 27, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the passage” in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as if it depended on claim 26.
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)(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.
Claims 20-21 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Partansky (US 11,800,890).
Regarding claim 20, Partansky discloses a system for automatic infusion of concentrate into containers (abstract) having a dosing valve (figure 3, reference numeral 310), that is attached to a needle assembly via screw threading (column 11, lines 7-19, figure 6, reference numeral 112). It is evident that the dosing valve has an opening to secure the needle since the needle would otherwise not be able to screw into the dosing valve. The dosing valve is supplied with concentrate material contained in a reservoir (figure 1, reference numeral 106) via a heating tube (column 6, lines 1-18, figure 1, reference numeral 108), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of tubing. A sleeve heater is formed around the tube by a nichrome wire heater (column 6, lines 1-18), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a heating member. The temperature of the concentrating material is maintained throughout the infusion process (abstract), and the concentrate travels through a pump assembly and dosing chamber to reach the needle (column 7, lines 19-25), indicating that the concentrate maintains its heat until it reaches the needle at the opening. This concentrate pathway is therefore considered to meet the claim limitation of a heat-canalizing system. The dosing valve and dosing chamber are together considered to meet the claim limitation of a casing since the dosing chamber is connected to both needle and pump to move concentrate (column 7, lines 19-25).
Regarding claim 21, the limitations regarding the syringe are not considered to limit the claim since the claim is directed to the heating system not the syringe. Partansky discloses that the device has a dosing chamber (figure 3, reference numeral 304) that receives concentrate through a feed valve (figure 3, reference numeral 308) that then releases the concentrate to the needle (column 9, lines 59-67, column 10, lines 1-16). The feed valve must have an opening to allow the concentrate to pass through, and this opening is considered to be registered with the opening of the needle since they form a common flow path for the concentrate.
Regarding claim 26, Partansky discloses that the reservoir is pressurized using a pressurized air pressure line (column 6, lines 66-67, column 7, lines 1-18), indicating that the condensate flow path through the device can also be an air passage after condensate has moved through.
Regarding claim 27, Partansky discloses that the tube is defined by a sleeve that is surrounded by the heating wire (column 6, lines 66-67, column 7, lines 1-18). The sleeve is considered to be a heat sink since it transfers heat from the heating wire to the condensate or air within the heating tube.
Regarding claim 28, Partansky discloses that the heating member spirals around the heating tube (column 6, lines 66-67, column 7, lines 1-18), indicating that the tube is held within a passage of the spiral.
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.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partansky (US 11,800,890) in view of Wu (US 2024/0156148).
Regarding claim 22, Partansky discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Partansky additionally discloses that the concentrate enters the dosing chamber on a lateral side (figure 3), and a heater fan that provides heat to a cannula of the needle (column 7, lines 26-35, figure 3, reference numeral 114). Partansky does not explicitly disclose (a) the needle being located on a different lateral side of the dosing chamber and (b) the heat canalizing system that transfers heated air from the tube to the heater fan.
Regarding (a), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the needle at an opposite lateral side of the dosing chamber from the side of the chamber at which the concentrate enters. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding (b), Wu teaches a pre-roll filing system (abstract) in which an infusion material is heated so that it can pass through a needle without clogging [0030]. Heat is provided from a needle heater (figure 5B, reference numeral 402) that distributes heated air via channels (figure 5B, reference numeral 406) that release air through ports ([0046], figure 5B, reference numeral 4060). The air is blown around the needle after it is released from the ports [0046]. Wu additionally teaches that heating using heated air is more effective since the infusion material is directly heated by a curtain of air.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention to combine the heater fan of Partansky with the channels and ports of Wu, and to provide to additional channels to reach the tube of Partansky and replace the wire heater of Partansky. One would have been motivated to do so since Wu teaches a heater that effectively heats an infusion material using a curtain of air.
Regarding claim 23, modified Partansky teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Partansky additionally discloses that the reservoir is heated by a silicone heater that encases a glass reservoir jar in a heating mechanism (column 8, lines 32-63, figure 2, reference numeral 206). Modified Partansky does not explicitly disclose a second fan transferring air from the reservoir towards the needle.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat the reservoir using the heater of Wu and to provide a second fan to transfer heat from the reservoir to the needle. One would have been motivated to do so since Wu teaches a heater that effectively heats an infusion material using a curtain of air. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI B.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partansky (US 11,800,890) in view of Wu (US 2024/0156148) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Patten (US 6,550) and Scott (Pin by Scott mcmillian on metal blacksmith bits, Microsoft Bing, https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=x0DFMkQL&id=8FCABE4D95083047BA96649B83F26F35F7222F3E&thid=OIP.x0DFMkQLEG_Yi988uIzUBAAAAA&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2Fa0%2F6c%2Ffc%2Fa06cfc4bf2483967574c551d255fbe46.gif&cdnurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth.bing.com%2Fth%2Fid%2FR.c740c532440b106fd88bdf3cb88cd404%3Frik%3DPi8i9zVv8oObZA%26pid%3DImgRaw%26r%3D0&exph=253&expw=472&q=blacksmith+bellows+air+inlet&form=IRPRST&ck=CFC113F27014B4A426D0D3C80598BF43&selectedindex=110&itb=0&cw=1721&ch=940&vt=2&sim=15,0).
Regarding claim 24, modified Partansky teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Partansky does not explicitly teach (a) a bellows, (b) the bellows having inlet and outlet sides and (c) the bellows being mounted in the claimed location.
Regarding (a), Patten teaches that a current of air can be drawn through a material to be dried through either a fan or a bellows.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the fan of modified Partansky for the bellows of Patten. One would have been motivated to do so since Patten teaches that a fan and bellows are equivalent devices for moving air. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP § 2143, B.
Regarding (b), Scott teaches a bellows having a lower flap valve in a lower paddle, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an inlet side, and upper paddle that defines a nozzle through which air exits (figure), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an outlet side. A rope is connected to the lower paddle, and folded section labeled as bellows connects the upper and lower paddles (figure). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the lower paddle is expanded and contracted to force air through.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the bellows of Scott as the bellows of modified Partansky. One would have been motivated to do since Scott teaches a bellows that releases air through a nozzle. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP § 2143, B.
Regarding (c), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the bellows in the claimed location. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partansky (US 11,800,890) in view of Wu (US 2024/0156148) and Patten (US 6,550) and Scott (Pin by Scott mcmillian on metal blacksmith bits, Microsoft Bing, https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=x0DFMkQL&id=8FCABE4D95083047BA96649B83F26F35F7222F3E&thid=OIP.x0DFMkQLEG_Yi988uIzUBAAAAA&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2Fa0%2F6c%2Ffc%2Fa06cfc4bf2483967574c551d255fbe46.gif&cdnurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth.bing.com%2Fth%2Fid%2FR.c740c532440b106fd88bdf3cb88cd404%3Frik%3DPi8i9zVv8oObZA%26pid%3DImgRaw%26r%3D0&exph=253&expw=472&q=blacksmith+bellows+air+inlet&form=IRPRST&ck=CFC113F27014B4A426D0D3C80598BF43&selectedindex=110&itb=0&cw=1721&ch=940&vt=2&sim=15,0) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Richardt (US 2012/0237377).
Regarding claim 25, modified Partansky teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Partansky does not explicitly teach the bellows having a plurality of nesting sleeve members.
Richardt teaches a bellows having a pump with conically tapering bellows that have several bellows elements that have a different diameter and can be pushed into an adjacent larger bellows element (abstract), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of nesting. The bellows has an inlet valve ([0036], figure 3, reference numeral 70) and an outlet valve ([0035], figure 3, reference numeral 25). Richardt additionally teaches that the bellows is easier to transport since it takes up relatively little space when compressed [0013].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the bellows of modified Partansky for the bellows of Richardt. One would have been motivated to do so since Richardt teaches a bellows that can be reduced to a small size for easier transport.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Partansky (US 11,800,890) in view of Quantum Alloys UK (Nichrome 80/20 A, Quantum Alloys UK, Group Companies, AircraftMaterialsUK.com, https://www.quantumalloys.com/data/electronic/alnicr.html).
Regarding claim 29, Partansky discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Partansky does not explicitly disclose the nichrome wire having a thermal conductivity.
Quantum Alloys UK teaches a Nichrome 80/20 A resistance alloy used in electric heating applications with good hot strength (page 1, middle) that has a thermal conductivity (page 2, top), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a heat conductive body.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Nichrome 80/20 A resistance alloy of Quantum Alloys UK as the heating wire of Partansky. One would have been motivated to do so since Quantum Alloys UK teaches a heating material that has good hot strength.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 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, 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755