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 § 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(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qing-guang LI et. al. ("STUDY ON EXTRACTION OF KOREAN PINE SEED OILWITH SUPERCRITICAL CARBON DIOXIDE", China Electronic Journal Publishing House, Vol. 28, No. 11 (2007)), in view of Dramen (US 2019/0241537).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a method for enhanced separation of organic matters in a mixed component with a supercritical fluid combination medium, wherein the supercritical fluid combination medium (refer abstract disclosing supercritical CO2 extraction of seed oil of Korean pine) comprises a supercritical fluid (CO2) and a cosolvent (refer page 4 disclosing use of entrainer); and
the method comprises the following steps:
placing a mixed component to be separated and the cosolvent in a reaction vessel (refer page 4 disclosing loading raw material into cylinder and also disclosing providing enrainer), and introducing the supercritical fluid into the reaction vessel to conduct supercritical fluid separation (refer page 4 disclosing introducing supercritical CO2 into cylinder for supercritical fluid separation); wherein during the supercritical fluid separation, a separation temperature is changed periodically within a supercritical temperature range of the supercritical fluid combination medium (refer table 1 disclosing different pressure and temperatures).
Li discloses avoiding contact between raw material and entrainer (Refer page 4). However, Li does not disclose suspending the mixed component to be separated above a liquid level line of the cosolvent (entrainer).
Dramen teaches extraction of cannabis products using steam distillation, wherein plant material is placed on top of a support means (203) so that plant material is kept suspended above water (204) allowing steam to pass through the plant material (Refer [0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of Li to suspend the mixture above cosolvent as taught by Dramen to avoid mixing the mixture with the cosolvent.
Regarding claim 2, modified Li teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Li teaches that the supercritical fluid is supercritical CO2 (refer abstract).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, modified Li teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Li discloses in table 1 entrainer amount used in the experimentation. "[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). Selecting amount of cosolvent through routine experimentation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, modified Li teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. In table 1 Li discloses ranges of temperature and pressure that are within the claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, modified Li teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Li discloses in table 1 that temperature was changed 3 times and the change of temperature is within the claimed range of 5°C to 100°C.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, modified Li teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Li discloses that the mixed component is natural mixed component (extraction of seed oil from pine nuts).
Claim(s) 3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qing-guang LI et. al. ("STUDY ON EXTRACTION OF KOREAN PINE SEED OILWITH SUPERCRITICAL CARBON DIOXIDE", China Electronic Journal Publishing House, Vol. 28, No. 11 (2007)), in view of Dramen (US 2019/0241537) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Marinho et. al. (J Food Sci Technol (October 2019) 56(10):4448–4456).
Regarding claim 3, modified Li teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Modified Li does not teach that the cosolvent is water and/or organic alcohol. However, use of organic alcohol such as ethanol is known in the art. Marinho discloses extraction of corn germ oil with supercritical CO2 and cosolvents, wherein cosolvents include ethanol (Refer abstract). Marinho teaches addition of cosolvent led to higher yield (refer abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of modified Li to use ethanol as cosolvent to achieve higher yield as taught by Marinho.
Claim(s) 11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qing-guang LI et. al. ("STUDY ON EXTRACTION OF KOREAN PINE SEED OILWITH SUPERCRITICAL CARBON DIOXIDE", China Electronic Journal Publishing House, Vol. 28, No. 11 (2007)), in view of Dramen (US 2019/0241537) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Rovetto et. al. (J. of Supercritical Fluids 129 (2017) 16–27), and Hardardottir et. al. (JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE-Volume 53, No. 6, 1656-1658, 1988).
Regarding claim 11, modified Li teaches limitations of claim 10 as set forth above. Modified Li does not teach that the plant tissue is one or more selected from the group consisting of a Cannabis sativa stalk fiber, an eucalyptus fiber, a bamboo fiber, Balsa wood, and Paulownia; and the animal tissue is one or more selected from the group consisting of a natural dairy product, an animal fat, and an animal carapace.
Rovetto discloses extraction of Cannabis sativa L by supercritical CO2 (abstract), and discloses that extraction by supercritical CO2 is efficient and low cost (refer abstract, left column on page 17).
Hardardottir discloses extraction of lipid and cholesterol from fish muscle using superciritical CO2 (refer abstract).
Rovetto and Hardardottir establishes that it is well known in the art to use supercritical CO2 in extraction of cannabis and lipids. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the method of modified Li in extraction of Cannabis and Lipids.
Regarding claims 13-16, modified Li teaches limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Robetto further discloses that “by sensitive changes in pressure and temperature the CO2 solvent strength can be tuned, this change in the medium provides to some extent, selectivity to the extraction process. The low polarity of SC CO2 can be overcome by employing polar modifier as co-solvents, expanding in consequence the extraction range, to include more polar components” (refer left column on page 17). Adjusting process parameters according to the product being extracted would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. "[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).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qing-guang LI et. al. ("STUDY ON EXTRACTION OF KOREAN PINE SEED OILWITH SUPERCRITICAL CARBON DIOXIDE", China Electronic Journal Publishing House, Vol. 28, No. 11 (2007)), in view of Dramen (US 2019/0241537) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Anouar et al. (J. of Supercritical Fluids 98 (2015) 25–32).
Regarding claim 12, modified Li teaches limitations of claim 10 as set forth above. Modified Li does not teach that the artificially synthetic mixed component is one or more selected from the group consisting of waste plastics, waste rubber, and ink-containing waste paper.
Anouar discloses that supercritical CO2 extraction is used to purify post-consumer polyolefins (refer abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the method of modified Li to purify waste plastics because Anouar discloses that it is known in the art to use supercritical CO2 extraction for purification of waste plastics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights