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 .
The amendment filed 15 June 2026 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claims 1-160 have been cancelled.
New claims 161-180 have been submitted and are presented for examination on the merits.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the claims have been cancelled. Thus the rejection of the previous Office action is withdrawn.
Claims 161-180 are presented for examination on the merits.
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 161-180 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 claims are directed to a method of producing a cannabis-derived product, at such a high-level of generality that it is unclear what limitations actually exist. For example:
Claim 161 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. That is – there would appear to be details missing and/or it is unclear how the steps are connected. It is unclear what is actually the end product of the process. That is – the method is directed to a process of producing a cannabis-derived product, not a system or apparatus for growing cannabis plants. The only step directed to obtaining the “cannabis-derived product” is step (d) which simply states “producing the cannabis-derived product from the cannabis plants”. However, this means that the claim is directed to a method of producing a cannabis-derived product by the step of producing a cannabis-derived product. It is unclear what the term “producing” is meant to entail, as the cannabis plant already comprising cannabis-derived products.
It is also unclear how the steps relate to each other, that is – is the electrical power, heat, or carbon dioxide provided to enclosure containing the cannabis plants or does step (b) simply mean that electricity is provided by natural gas (i.e, comprising methane) to a cannabis growing system.
Does the step (a) mean that burning of methane produces the electrical power, heat, or carbon dioxide used in the claimed method or does step (a) include obtaining electricity by natural gas, which is the leading fuel for power generation in the U.S.?
The phrase “combusting a gas comprising methane to produce one or more outputs selected from the group consisting of electrical power, heat, and a gas stream comprising carbon dioxide” would seem to mean that the combustion of the gas produce one or more of: (a) electrical power, (b) heat, and/or (c) a gas stream comprising carbon dioxide, and only these options. However, claim 164 states “wherein combustion of the gas produces mechanical power which drives a generator to produce at least a portion of the electrical power”. This would seem to indicate that combustion of the gas of step (a) produces mechanical power, in addition to electricity, heat and carbon dioxide. Similarly, with claim 165.
Claim 179 is rendered vague and indefinite by the phrase “at least a portion of the heat is used to reheat dehumidified air supplied to the enclosure”. The is no mention of dehumidified air being supplied to the enclosure in claim 161 not to mentioned it being cooled, thus there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this language means that the dehumidified air is cooled and heated again and then supplied to the enclosure.
“[W]here there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 35 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 USC 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claims or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” MPEP 2173.06 II.
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.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL G FIEBIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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 Desai can be reached at 5712720947. 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.
/RUSSELL G FIEBIG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Prosecution Insights