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 .
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 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; or
(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 1, 7-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vanevenhoven et al. (“Vanevenhoven”)(US 2019/0194585).
Vanevenhoven (fig. 4) teaches a trichome separation system (para. 1, 7 teaching cryogenic trichome separation) comprising:
(re: base claim 1) a liquid nitrogen cooling conveyor, source plant material loadable in said liquid nitrogen cooling conveyor, liquid nitrogen sprayable directly to the source plant material via said liquid nitrogen cooling conveyor (fig. 4 teaching cryo auger 225 and para. 46-49 teaching that trichome material is conveyed via auger screw and then sprayed via injectors 222 with liquid nitrogen);
a grinder (235) situated downstream of said liquid nitrogen cooling conveyor, cooled source plant material exiting said liquid nitrogen cooling conveyor is receivable in said grinder (para. 49-51 teaching feeding trichome from cryo auger into the Bud Mill 235 for grinding); and
an agitation mechanism (255) situated downstream of said grinder, ground source plant material exiting said grinder is receivable in said agitation mechanism, trichomes separatable from the ground source plant material via said agitation mechanism (para. 52-53 teaching delivering of crushed and super-cooled particles into rotating drum sifter 255, wherein trichome streams are generated within the fine fraction of the sieving process);
(re: claim 7) wherein said agitation mechanism is a trommel barrel (para. 52, 53).
Vanevenhoven (fig. 4) teaches a method of separating trichomes from source plant material (para. 1, 7 teaching cryogenic trichome separation method) comprising:
(re: base claim 8) loading source plant material in a liquid nitrogen cooling conveyor, spraying liquid nitrogen to the source plant material via said liquid nitrogen cooling conveyor (fig. 4 teaching cryo auger 225 and para. 46-49 teaching that trichome material is conveyed via auger screw and then sprayed via injectors 222 with liquid nitrogen);
downstream of said liquid nitrogen cooling conveyor, delivering cooled source plant material via said liquid nitrogen cooling conveyor to a grinder, said grinder grinding the cooled source plant material; and downstream of said grinder (para. 49-51 teaching feeding trichome from cryo auger into the Bud Mill 235 for grinding),
delivering ground source plant material to an agitation mechanism, said agitation mechanism separating trichomes from the ground source plant material (para. 52-54 teaching delivering of crushed and super-cooled particles into rotating drum sifter 255, wherein trichome streams are generated within the fine fraction of the sieving process);
(re: claim 11) wherein said agitation mechanism is a trommel barrel, the method further comprising rotating said trommel barrel and collecting trichomes that pass through a netting of said trommel barrel (Id.).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2-3, 9-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanevenhoven et al. (“Vanevenhoven”)(US 2019/0194585) in view of Hefle et al. (“Hefle”)(US 2004/0124293).
Vanevenhoven as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 2) an inert freezing agent dispenser situated at least adjacent said grinder,
an inert freezing agent dispensable at said grinder from said inert freezing agent dispenser and to the cooled source plant material received in said grinder;
(re: claim 3) wherein said inert freezing agent dispenser is a dry ice supply, dry ice dispensable directly into an inlet opening of said grinder via said dry ice supply and to the cooled source plant material;
(re: claim 9) dispensing an inert freezing agent to the cooled source plant material downstream of said liquid nitrogen cooling conveyor and upstream of said grinder;
(re: claim 10) wherein said inert freezing agent enters said grinder concurrently with the cooled source plant material and is subject to grinding via said grinder;
(re: claim 12) supplying dry ice to the cooled source plant material in said grinder and downstream of said liquid nitrogen cooling conveyor;
(re: claim 13) grinding the supplied dry ice via said grinder concurrently with grinding of the cooled source plant material via said grinder;
(re: claim 14) maintaining the source plant material in a cooled state amid the method and to delivery to said agitation mechanism, the cooled state maintained via the spraying of liquid nitrogen to the source plant material and via the dispensing of inert freezing agent to the cooled source plant material.
Hefle teaches that it is well-known in the grinding arts to integrate a cooling element to assist with the comminuting process, wherein the cooling element may comprise a dispensing unit for cryogenic gases or dry ice granules at the entrance of the grinder (fig. 2 near 10a and para. 40-42 teaching that dry ice may be introduced into grinder via dispensing/dosing unit for better control or simultaneously with particles; para. 23-26 teaching that introduction of dry ice particles directly into grinder is more efficient than cooling entire grinding unit).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found
in the prior art itself as cited above and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (i.e., cooling elements) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Vanevenhoven for the reasons set forth above.
Claims 4-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanevenhoven and Hefle (“Vanevenhoven et al.”) as applied to the claims above, and further in view Bruggemann (US 2020/0338566) and legal precedent.
Vanevenhoven et al. as set forth above teach all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claim 4) wherein said liquid nitrogen cooling conveyor is mounted atop said agitation mechanism, and said grinder is mounted at a side of said liquid nitrogen cooling conveyor and at a side of said agitation mechanism;
(re: claim 5) a catch basin located beneath said agitation mechanism, separated trichomes via said agitation mechanism collectible in said catch basin;
(re: claim 6) an inert freezing agent dispenser situated at least adjacent said grinder,
an inert freezing agent dispensable at said grinder from said inert freezing agent dispenser and to the cooled source plant material received in said grinder; and
a catch basin located beneath said agitation mechanism,
separated trichomes via said agitation mechanism collectible in said catch basin; wherein said liquid nitrogen cooling conveyor is mounted atop said agitation mechanism, and said grinder is mounted at a side of said liquid nitrogen cooling conveyor and at a side of said agitation mechanism.
(re: claim 15) dispensing an inert freezing agent to the cooled source plant material downstream of said liquid nitrogen cooling conveyor and upstream of said grinder,
wherein said inert freezing agent enters said grinder concurrently with the cooled source plant material and is subject to grinding via said grinder;
wherein said agitation mechanism is a trommel barrel, rotating said trommel barrel and collecting trichomes that pass through a netting of said trommel barrel; and
maintaining the source plant material in a cooled state amid the method and to delivery to said trommel barrel, the cooled state maintained via the spraying of liquid nitrogen to the source plant material and via the dispensing of inert freezing agent to the cooled source plant material.
Here, it is first noted the inert freeing agent dispenser has already been taught as part of the combination above.
Bruggemann further teaches that it is well-known to integrate a catch basin as well as a mesh netting with a trommel barrel for more effective separation and collection of trichomes (fig. 4 showing basin near 140 below rotating trommel and fig. 10 showing mesh area near 106, 108; para. 28-29, 32, 34, 52-56 teaching that mesh netting in combination with trommel rotation is more effective at separating plant material than a simple trommel).
Further, the claimed features relating to the configuration of known features, such as positioning of the cooling conveyor or grinder, can be regarded as common design parameters/operating variables controlled by the design incentives and/or economic considerations involved in this type of subject matter. This is especially applicable in the separating arts as the type of material to be separated controls variations in the specific device configuration, features and/or separating steps. Moreover, legal precedent teaches that variations in these type of common design parameters/operating variables are obvious and are the mere optimization of result-effective variables that would be known to one with ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 I.II (teaching ample motivation to optimize or modify result-effective variables based on “design need(s)” or “market demand”); see also MPEP 2144.04.V.D. and VI (teaching that the mere rearrangement or duplication of known elements, or making known elements adjustable, is not a patentable advance).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of references with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention as these modifications are already well-known and commonly implemented in the separating and grinding arts. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above and in legal precedent as described above. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Vanevenhoven et al. for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
January 6, 2026