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 .
Response to Amendment
The Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on September 18, 2026.
Claims 6-20 are withdrawn.
Claim 1 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-12, filed on September 18, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 5 and claims 2-4 under 35 U.S.C. 102 under 35 U.S.C. 103 respectively, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The Applicant has presented new amendments to claim 1 not previously presented, specifically regarding “un-mulched hemp leaves, wherein a smokable adhesive bonds overlapping surfaces of adjacent whole, un-mulched leaves to form a flat sheet configured as an individual wrap”.
On page 7, the Applicant argues that cooper does not disclose whole un-mulched hemp leaves.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cooper teaches untrimmed/unprepped cannabis leaves that are in natural state (page 7, line 1-3 and Fig. 6). Cooper further discloses that individual leaves 58 in Figure 6 are unprepped/untrimmed (page 14, line 16-17). It is clear that Cooper discloses different embodiments of prepping a smokable wrapping material and one of the embodiments uses whole hemp leaves that are not prepped, not trimmed and in natural state therefore reads into claim 1 limitation of whole, un-mulched hemp leaves.
On page 7, the Applicant argues that Cooper does not disclose a flat sheet configured as an individual wrap configured to hold smokable product.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cooper discloses multi leaf sheet configuration in Figure 9, showing overlapping leaves with “an approximate overlap area” 62, laid out flat in a plane before wrapping. Cooper additionally discloses that hemp leaves 58 form the wrapper portion 40 and binder 34 (page 14, line 20-24) and that the wrapper is wrapped around a rod element 30 of smokable material to make a single smoking product 20 (page 12, line 3-18). Furthermore, “configured to hold smokable product” is intended use language in a product claim. Cooper’s sheet is structurally capable of that use and is in fact used to hold a smokable product. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that multi leaf sheet configuration, having a wrapper portion and a binder portion, is capable of holding a smokable product, absent evidence to the contrary.
On page 7, the Applicant argues that Cooper's bonding agent, filter, and non-laminar- airflow "burning chamber" as an alleged "ventilation system" does not supply Cooper's missing disclosure of whole, un-mulched hemp leaves bonded at adjacent overlapping surfaces to form a flat-sheet individual wrap.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cooper discloses leaves having splines (veins) (page 11, line 16-24) arranged at defined binder and wrapper angles (page 12) that create restricted airflow sections, allow air through the wrapper, and direct it into a non-laminar “Bernoulli Burn Zone” (page 15, line 10-21, Figs. 10-11). This structure is integral to the leaves and admits direct air through the article and thus constitutes a “ventilation system”. Cooper’s ventilation system is applied to every leaf including the whole leaves in natural state. Cooper discloses untrimmed leaves 54 having five or seven leaves 58 per fan and each leaf 58 comprises a main spline 60 (page 14, line 11-16), further illustrates untrimmed leaf with its main spline 60 in figure 5.Furthermore, Cooper discloses that the splines used for leaf alignment are the center splines or veins of a cannabis leaf (page 11, line 1-3). A whole un-mulched leaf has its splines fully intact, and Cooper clearly supplies a ventilation system for whole un-mulched hemp leaves.
Regarding claims 2-4, Applicant argues the secondary references fail to remedy the deficiency of Cooper and that each of the 103 rejections rely on Cooper’s teachings of Claim 1. However, the argument that Cooper has deficiency was found unpersuasive above. Therefore, the remaining claim rejection arguments are found to be unpersuasive.
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments made to the claim(s).
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooper (WO2020163501A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cooper directed to a smoking product using cannabis/hemp leaves orientated and configured to make a smoking product (Abstract; page 11, line 17-20; page 14, line 5-7), discloses a smokable article (“smoking product 20”; page 14, line 7) comprising: two or more overlapping whole, un-mulched hemp leaves, (untrimmed/unprepped cannabis leaves that are in natural state (page 7, line 1-3 and Fig. 6) held together by a bonding agent (i.e., smokable adhesive bonds). Cooper further discloses that individual leaves 58 in Figure 6 are unprepped/untrimmed (page 14, line 16-17).
Cooper further discloses multi leaf sheet configuration in Figure 9, showing overlapping leaves with “an approximate overlap area” 62, laid out flat in a plane before wrapping. Cooper additionally discloses that hemp leaves 58 form the wrapper portion 40 and binder 34 (page 14, line 20-24) and that the wrapper is wrapped around a rod element 30 of smokable material to make a single smoking product 20 (page 12, line 3-18).
Furthermore, “configured to hold smokable product” is intended use language in a product claim. Cooper’s sheet is structurally capable of that use and is in fact used to hold a smokable product. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that multi leaf sheet configuration, having a wrapper portion and a binder portion, is capable of holding a smokable product, absent evidence to the contrary.
Cooper additionally discloses different stacking configurations of cannabis leaves designed for the purpose of creating custom smoking products (pages 15-18).
Regarding claim 5, Cooper discloses a bonding agent used to adhere the overlapped whole untrimmed/unprepped hemp leaves that are in natural state (page 7, line 1-3, Fig. 6).
Cooper further discloses leaves having splines (veins) (page 11, line 16-24) arranged at defined binder and wrapper angles (page 12) that create restricted airflow sections, allow air through the wrapper, and direct it into a non-laminar “Bernoulli Burn Zone” (page 15, line 10-21, Figs. 10-11). This structure is integral to the leaves and admits direct air through the article and thus constitutes a “ventilation system”. Cooper’s ventilation system is applied to every leaf including the whole leaves in natural state. Cooper discloses untrimmed leaves 54 having five or seven leaves 58 per fan and each leaf 58 comprises a main spline 60 (page 14, line 11-16), further illustrates untrimmed leaf with its main spline 60 in figure 5.Furthermore, Cooper discloses that the splines used for leaf alignment are the center splines or veins of a cannabis leaf (page 11, line 1-3).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (WO2020163501A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Joy King (https://blog.growlink.com/why-curing-cannabis-is-critical)
Regarding claim 2, Cooper teaches the smokable article of claim 1, comprising overlapping whole un-mulched hemp leaves. Cooper does not explicitly teach the hemp leaves are cured.
King, directed to process and advantages of curing cannabis/hemp, discloses “curing ensures the bud has a moisture level that doesn't allow mold and other pathogens to thrive as long as it's done correctly.” King further discloses “proper curing ends the degradation process before active compounds like terpenes and cannabinoids evaporate or transform.”
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cooper by curing the whole hemp leaves as taught by King, because both Cooper and King are directed to smokable hemp leaves, King teaches several advantages of curing such as to protect the hemp product while retaining robust flavors, and nutrients as well as preserving the products shelf life, and this merely involves applying a known technique to prepare hemp leaves for a similar purpose and yield predictable results.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Durance et al. (US20200246495A1).
Regarding claim 3, Cooper teaches the smokable article of claim 1, comprising overlapping whole un-mulched hemp leaves. Cooper does not explicitly teach the leaves are pasteurized.
Durance directed to a method and apparatus for pasteurizing cannabis plant material (Abstract), discloses cannabis (hemp) plant material, which includes leaves ([0016]), is pasteurized using microwave radiation under a controlled time and temperature zones that meets microbial regulatory standards ([0019]).
Durance further discloses pasteurization of hemp plant material is necessary when preparing the plant for human use, pasteurization destroys potentially pathogenic microorganisms that may be present on the plant material ([0004]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cooper by pasteurizing the whole hemp leaves as taught by Durance, because both Cooper and Durance are directed to smokable products using hemp leaves, Durance teaches the importance of pasteurizing hemp leaves in order to destroy pathogenic microorganisms present in hemp leaf and are health hazard to humans and this merely involves applying a known type of teaching of a similar plant product to yield predictable results.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that pasteurization of plant material intended for human consumption or inhalation is universally known, routine technique in food and agricultural science for eliminating bacteria, molds and pathogens.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rousseau et al. (US 20200253268 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Cooper teaches two or more overlapping hemp leaves used for wrapping a smokable article.
However, Cooper does not appear to explicitly disclose that the whole hemp leaves include at least one of flavor-enhancing compounds, essential oils, herbal extracts, heat-resistant coatings, and odor-absorbing treatments.
Rousseau directed to cannabis material (hemp leaves) used for wrapping a smoking article (Abstract); ([0033]), discloses the cannabis material (i.e., hemp leaves) includes flavor-enhancing compounds and odor-absorbing treatments (“a terpene or a blend of terpenes can be added to the wrapping material in order to impart a distinct aroma that indicates a high-quality cannabis product” [0015]).
Rousseau further discloses that herbal extracts can be included to the cannabis wrapping material. ([0088]). Additionally, Rousseau further discloses that including essential oils in the wrapping material ([0047]; [0133])
Rousseau further discloses heat-resistant coatings in the cannabis wrapper ([0020];0023]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cooper by providing at least one of flavor-enhancing compounds, essential oils, herbal extracts and heat-resistant coatings to the hemp leaves wrapper as taught by Rousseau because both Cooper and Rousseau are directed to smokable products using hemp leaves, Rousseau teaches that incorporating the above listed additives to hemp leaves-wrapper results in a high quality cannabis product and this merely involves applying known additives and coatings to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN G GHEBRESELASSIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0196. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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 5712701241. 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.
/HELEN GHEBRESELASSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
