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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, the term “configured” should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recite the functionality of the water permeable pouch. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6, the term “configured” should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recite the functionality of the indicator device. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, the term “configured” should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recite the functionality of the water permeable pouch. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, the term “configured” should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recite the functionality of the separate indicator device. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, the specification does not appear to specify any specific thermochromic material comprising the optical indicator.
Regarding claim 9, the specification does not appear to specify any specific halochromic material comprising the optical indicator.
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 2 and 14 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the pouch" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the pouch" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the indicator device" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note Regarding Prior Art
Examiner cites particular sections, columns, line numbers, paragraphs and figures, in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 – 7 and 10 – 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucas et al. (US 2016/0018424 A1; hereinafter “Lucas”) in view of Glatzel (US 2016/0324776 A1; hereinafter “Glatzel”).
Regarding claim 1, Lucas teaches throughout the publication a steeping system for preparing a beverage by extracting (e.g., paragraph 29) at least one compound from a beverage preparation material (Abstract; paragraphs 9, 29, 35, 36 and 41 – 63; figures 1 – 7), wherein the steeping system comprises:
an indicator device (e.g., test papers containing a diagnostic reagent for detecting cannabinoid substances; paragraphs 39, 41 and 42) for indicating a concentration of the beverage, wherein the indicator device comprises a carrier provided with an optical indicator, wherein the carrier is arranged to be inserted into the beverage for exposing the optical indicator to the beverage, wherein the optical indicator is arranged to indicate whether a concentration of the compound in the beverage corresponds to a predetermined reference concentration of the compound (e.g., paragraph 42), and wherein the compound is a cannabinoid (e.g., paragraphs 42 and 43).
Lucas does not specifically teach a water permeable pouch for containing the beverage preparation material.
Glatzel teaches a preparation method for a drink containing cannabinoids using a water permeable pouch or tea bag for containing beverage preparation material (paragraphs 55, 56, 61, 62, 66, 67, 75, 78 and 79). Glatzel teaches that hemp oil or cannabis oil and emulsifier complex can be added to leave leaves and the resulting solid mixture can be brewed using a tea bag, which is implicitly a water permeable pouch (paragraphs 61, 78 and 79). Glatzel teaches that appropriate measurement is required to determine the amount of cannabinoid in the brewed tea drink (paragraph 78). It would have been considered to be suitable and predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the cannabinoid determination method with the use of the drink preparation method using the water permeable pouch containing the cannabinoid tea drink in order to determine the resulting amount of cannabinoid in the prepared drink. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a water permeable pouch for containing the beverage preparation material.
Regarding claim 2, Lucas does not specifically teach the steeping system according to claim 1, wherein the optical indicator is provided on the pouch. Lucas does teach that the test papers can be sealed into a vacuum-sealed, air tight package (paragraph 39). It would have been logical to have the optical indicator, such as test papers, accompany the water permeable pouch (tea bag) for convenience and ready access to the cannabinoid testing papers. The rationale to support an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may rely on logic and sound scientific principle (see MPEP § 2144.02). Furthermore, the prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP § 2143.02). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the optical indicator is provided on the water permeable pouch.
Regarding claim 3, Lucas does not specifically teach the steeping system according to claim 1, further comprising a packet enclosing the pouch and the optical indicator. Lucas does teach that the test papers can be sealed into a vacuum-sealed, air tight package (paragraph 39). It would have been considered logical use a packet that encloses the water permeable pouch and the optical indicator, such as test papers, accompany the water permeable pouch (tea bag) for convenience, avoiding contamination and preserving the system components for future use.The rationale to support an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may rely on logic and sound scientific principle (see MPEP § 2144.02). Furthermore, the prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success (see MPEP § 2143.02). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a packet enclosing the pouch and the optical indicator.
Regarding claim 4, Lucas teaches the steeping system according to claim 1, wherein the optical indicator comprises a chromic material (e.g., cannabinoid-sensitive visualization reagents; paragraphs 41 and 42), which is arranged to vary an optical property thereof, wherein the optical property is related to the predetermined reference concentration of the compound for determining the concentration of the compound (via a calibrated quantification reference chart; paragraphs 41 and 42).
Regarding claim 5, Lucas teaches the steeping system according to claim 4, wherein the chromic material comprises a reactant (e.g., cannabinoid-sensitive visualization reagents; paragraphs 41 and 42), for chemically reacting with the compound for varying the optical property.
Regarding claim 6, Lucas teaches the steeping system according to claim 5, wherein the reactant comprises potassium hydroxide (paragraphs 35 and 42).
Regarding claim 7, Lucas teaches the steeping system according to claim 5, wherein the optical indicator is spaced from an end of the carrier, wherein the carrier comprises a porous material arranged for driving a capillary flow of the beverage through the carrier from said end to the optical indicator (implicit in paragraph 39; the test papers comprise a porous matrix impregnated with the reagent).
Regarding claim 10, Lucas teaches the steeping system according to claim 4, wherein the optical property is related to at least one predetermined optical reference property, wherein the indicator device further comprises at least one reference marking indicating the at least one predetermined optical reference property (via a calibrated quantification reference chart; paragraphs 41 and 42).
Regarding claim 11, Lucas teaches the steeping system according to claim 1, wherein the optical indicator (e.g., cannabinoid-sensitive visualization reagents; paragraphs 41 and 42) is arranged to form an optical contrast with the beverage, wherein the optical contrast is related to at least one predetermined reference contrast corresponding to at least one predetermined reference concentration of the compound (via a calibrated quantification reference chart; paragraphs 41 and 42).
Regarding claim 12, Lucas teaches the steeping system according to claim 1, wherein the optical indicator comprises at least one optical marking having an optical property, wherein the optical marking is related to the predetermined reference concentration of the compound for determining the concentration of the compound (via a calibrated quantification reference chart; paragraphs 41 and 42).
Regarding claim 13, Lucas teaches the steeping system according to claim 12, wherein the at least one optical marking comprises an optical scale corresponding to a plurality of predetermined reference values, each representative for a predetermined reference concentration of the compound (via a calibrated quantification reference chart; paragraphs 41 and 42).
Regarding claim 14, as discussed above for the rejection of claim 1, modified Lucas teaches the steeping system according to claim 1, further comprising the beverage preparation material, wherein the pouch contains the beverage preparation material.
Regarding claim 15, as discussed above, modified Lucas teaches all of the positively recited components (i.e., the water permeable ouch and the indicator device) of the kit as claimed. Lucas does teach the use of various kits (e.g., paragraphs 65 – 67).
Regarding claim 16, as discussed above, modified Lucas teaches all of the positively recited components of the claimed system, wherein the instant method merely recites the conventional operation of the recited components. Modified Lucas anticipates the method for indicating a concentration of a beverage prepared by extracting at least one compound from a beverage preparation material, wherein the compound is a cannabinoid, and wherein the method comprises the steps of:
providing the beverage (Glatzel: e.g., paragraphs 61 and 79; Lucas: e.g., paragraphs 41 and 42);
providing an indicator device (Lucas: e.g., test papers containing a diagnostic reagent for detecting cannabinoid substances; e.g., paragraphs 39, 41 and 42) comprising a carrier provided with an optical indicator for indicating whether a concentration of the compound in the beverage corresponds to a predetermined reference concentration of the compound (Lucas: via a calibrated quantification reference chart; e.g., paragraphs 41 and 42);
determining an optical indication of the optical indicator (Lucas: e.g., paragraphs 41, 42, 47 and 48); and
determining the concentration of the compound on the basis of the determined optical indication and the predetermined reference concentration of the compound (Lucas: via a calibrated quantification reference chart; e.g., paragraphs 41, 42 and 66; and wherein the compound is a cannabinoid compound; paragraphs 41 and 42).
Regarding claim 17, Lucas teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein the step of providing the beverage comprises the step of extracting the compound from the beverage preparation material (e.g., paragraph 29), and wherein the step of providing the indicator device comprises providing the indicator device in contact with the beverage (e.g., paragraphs 39 – 42) simultaneously with the step of extracting the compound from the beverage preparation material (e.g., paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 18, Lucas teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein the step of determining the concentration of the compound comprises relating the determined optical indication to at least one predetermined optical reference indication corresponding to the at least one predetermined reference concentration (via a calibrated quantification reference chart; paragraphs 41 and 42).
Regarding claim 19, Lucas teaches the method according to claim 16, wherein the optical indicator is spaced from an end of the carrier, wherein the carrier comprises a porous material arranged for driving a capillary flow of the beverage through the carrier from said end to the optical indicator, and wherein the step of determining the optical indication comprises inserting said end of the carrier into the beverage, while keeping the optical indicator out of the beverage (e.g., paragraphs 39 – 42), and driving a capillary flow of the beverage through the carrier from said end to the optical indicator (implicit in paragraph 39; the test papers comprise a porous matrix impregnated with the reagent).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN J. SINES whose telephone number is (571)272-1263. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM EST M-F.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
BRIAN J. SINES
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1796
/BRIAN J. SINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights