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
Claims 1-23 are pending and examined on the merits.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the species cryogenic liquid, cannabis, rosin press, in the reply filed on 1/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/4/2024, 12/6/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-23 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.
The term “cold” in claims 1(B), 1(C)(1), 11(B), 11(C), 22 (B), 22(C)(2), 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “cold” 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. What temperature is considered “cold” or “cold enough”?
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation not greater than 4.0 meters per second, and the claim also recites not greater than 3.5 meters per second, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts et al. (US 10512938 B2).
Watts et al. teaches a method of separating trichomes by using rotary axis separation apparatus comprising: a) a chamber having at least one or more opening for adding and removing materials, b) a filter container adapted to rotate about an axis within the chamber, c) a container holding an inert freezing agent in fluid communication with the chamber via an inlet wherein the inlet is configured to direct the inert freezing agent into the chamber as a jet that impinges orthogonally on an inner wall of a fluid diverter cap in which the fluid diverter cap has openings on one or more sides of the inner wall to direct the inert freezing agent to flow outward laterally from the diverter cap (Claim 1).
In a preferred embodiment of the trimming process, while the plant matter is tumbling within the closed space of the filter 300, an inert freezing agent (such as one of carbon dioxide (CO.sub.2), nitrogen or a noble gas in one or both a liquid and gaseous state), is introduced therein in a quantity, rate and volume sufficient to rapidly reduce the temperature to about zero ° F., but more preferably about 10° F. to about 30° F. When an inert freezing agent, such as liquid carbon dioxide is introduced at a temperature of about −100 to −110° F. this temperature drop occurs in about 20 seconds to 2 minutes (column 11, lines 18-28). Another aspect of the invention is any such method of processing plant matter wherein the inert freezing agent is introduced to one of the outer container and the space as a jet and the jet is diverted to broadly distribute the liquid freezing agent to preclude direct impact of the jet with the plant matter within the confined space (column 3, lines 12-17).
Another aspect of the invention is further processing the “trim” to extract and isolate the trichomes there from. In such a process it is also desirable to minimize the extraction of cellulosic debris from the trim, as well as leaf cells components, such as chlorophyll (column 10, lines 5-9). Another aspect of the invention is further processing the intact flowers and buds to extracts the trichomes and produce a plant resin right concentrate (column 10, lines 10-12).
A gaseous or liquid inert freezing agent can be applied at varying pressure using any form of regulation, such as pressure regulation. Pressure regulation may also be obtained by letting the liquid freezing agent first expand in an adjacent chamber, so that a cold gaseous form of the agent is released in the chamber at a reduced and regulated pressure. The cold gaseous form of cryogenic liquids can also be released directly from specialized but commercially available containers. As such container 1320 can be configured to release both the gaseous and liquid form of the inert freezing agent, as mixture of the phases can be added to the chamber simultaneously or sequentially via the same of different nozzles, and optionally as a nozzle that produces a jet of liquid, gas or mixture thereof (column 13, lines 48-61).
When the filter 300 has mesh opening of about ¼ in. to ½ in, this fragmented plant matter on continued tumbling then traverses the mesh opening of the filter while the filter 300 retains a residual portion of the flowers. Under the above conditions in a 5 and 20 gallon capacity chamber about the time of the trimming process is on the order a minute per pound (454 gm) of plant material, depending on the temperature in the chamber. At the lower end of the preferred temperature range, the trimming can be completed in as little as 30 seconds, in liquid freezing agent trimming for a is preferred, but can occur in 30 sec. but in cases of overfilling a container the inability to reach and hold a lower temperature can extend the process time to circa to 20 min. per lb. of plant matter (column 11, lines 37-50).
A finer mesh or screen is preferably used in this aspect of the inventive process, such as a screen or mesh with hole sizes in the range of about 25 microns (0.025 mm) to 200 microns (0.2 mm) or 300 microns (0.3 mm), depending on the desired trichome size, which may differ with plant species. This process can be completed in additional 5-15 minutes of turning or rotating the container 311, after the initial 2-3 of turning or rotating the container 311 during the phase of cooling to about −60° F. More specifically it generally requires about 1-3 minutes of additional turning or rotating per lb. of material. The process generates a resin, or at least a resin rich concentrate, commonly known as kief for Cannabis resin extracts. The prior trimming process of the uncured leaves takes only about 30 seconds to a minute of additional turning or rotating per lb. When desired, dry or cured plant matter can also be trimmed or sugar and palm leaves by the first step as described above for green or uncured plant matter. However, if these temperatures cannot be reached due to the chamber size or other restraints, a temperature of about −20° F. can be sufficient, when longer process times are used (column 12, lines 27-47). Tips of flowers and the bottoms are knocked off by high pressure impact of the jet, braking the buds and flowers into popcorn size pieces, with diameter of about 3 to 6 mm, some of which can then fall through the ¼ in. (6.1 mm opening) mesh. It should be appreciated that the preferred use of a diverter means for any jet of gaseous and particularly inert liquid freezing agent keeps flowers intact as well as acts as a pressure regulator might in it avoids direct high velocity impact of matter on the flower directly but yet still cause rapid freezing. The inventive forms of the diverter means minimizes also minimizes trichome loss from the larger flowers, which would separate out with the palm and or sugar leaves via a mesh (column 17, lines 29-41).
However, Watts et al. does not teach cold gaseous velocity not greater than 4.5 meter per second, frozen plant material retains greater than 60% wt trichome, the pressure of Claims 12 -13 and 18, plant pieces of about 0.05-15 mm.
The references also do not specifically teach performing the process in the time span and temperature range claimed by applicant. Introducing cold gaseous velocity not greater than 4.5 meter per second to achieve frozen plant material in the chamber at a specific time line would be a parameter that one of ordinary skilled in the art would know. The process in the time span and temperature range is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Thus, optimization of general conditions is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ. It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal process in the time span and temperature range to use in order to best achieve the desired results. Thus, absent some demonstration of unexpected results from the claimed parameters, this optimization of ingredient amount would have been obvious at the time of applicant’s invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have frozen plant material greater than 60% wt because the more undamaged trichome will result in better yield of trichome materials for later isolation. One would have been motivated to make trichome content of greater than 60%wt for the expected benefit of increasing yield of trichome materials. Absent evidence to the contrary, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making the claimed invention from the combined teachings of the cited references.
The references also do not specifically teach the pressure specification claimed by applicant. Watts et al. teaches a gaseous or liquid inert freezing agent can be applied at varying pressure using any form of regulation, such as pressure regulation. Pressure regulation may also be obtained by letting the liquid freezing agent first expand in an adjacent chamber, so that a cold gaseous form of the agent is released in the chamber at a reduced and regulated pressure. The cold gaseous form of cryogenic liquids can also be released directly from specialized but commercially available containers. As such container 1320 can be configured to release both the gaseous and liquid form of the inert freezing agent, as mixture of the phases can be added to the chamber simultaneously or sequentially via the same of different nozzles, and optionally as a nozzle that produces a jet of liquid, gas or mixture thereof (column 13, lines 48-61). The pressure is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Thus, optimization of general conditions is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ. It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal process in the pressure to use in order to best achieve the desired results. Thus, absent some demonstration of unexpected results from the claimed parameters, this optimization of ingredient amount would have been obvious at the time of applicant’s invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have plant pieces of about 0.05-15 mm because a finer mesh or screen is preferably used in this aspect of the inventive process, such as a screen or mesh with hole sizes in the range of about 25 microns (0.025 mm) to 200 microns (0.2 mm) or 300 microns (0.3 mm), depending on the desired trichome size, which may differ with plant species (column 12, lines 27-47). Tips of flowers and the bottoms are knocked off by high pressure impact of the jet, braking the buds and flowers into popcorn size pieces, with diameter of about 3 to 6 mm, some of which can then fall through the ¼ in. (6.1 mm opening) mesh (column 17, lines 29-41). One would have been motivated to make trichome size for the expected benefit of increasing isolation of trichome materials. Absent evidence to the contrary, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making the claimed invention from the combined teachings of the cited references.
Claim(s) 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watts et al. (US 10512938 B2) as applied to claims 1-20 and 22-23 above, and further in view of Laughton et al. (US 20210252087 A1).
The teachings of Watts et al. are set forth above and applied as before.
Watts et al. does not specifically teach the rosin press.
Laughton et al. teaches a method of using rosin press to obtain an oil extract of cannabis (claims 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rosin press for isolating cannabis oil. Laughton et al. teaches a method of using rosin press to obtain an oil extract of cannabis (claims 1-3). One would have been motivated use rosin press for the expected benefit of isolating cannabis oil. Absent evidence to the contrary, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making the claimed invention from the combined teachings of the cited references.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERYNE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9947. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9-5:30 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, Anand U Desai can be reached on 571-272-0947. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Catheryne Chen Examiner Art Unit 1655
/ANAND U DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1655