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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-21 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-17 and 20-21) in the reply filed on 08/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18 and 19 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the resolution of the drawings is very low and the figures are not readable. (See MPEP § 806.02(V)(l)). Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-3,5-9, 11-14, 16-17, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll (US 3369552 A) in view of Jansen et al. (US20200199055 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Carroll directed to a process for producing a tobacco substitute (column 1, lines 27-30), discloses producing an alternative tobacco product from leafy edible biomass (column 1, lines 45-50), wherein the process comprises:
(a) providing a biomass feedstock comprising leafy edible biomass (leafy plants such as cabbage, broccoli, spinach; (column 1, lines 45-51) wherein the biomass feedstock optionally contains moisture (fresh leaves; (column 2, lines 25-26);
(b) introducing the biomass feedstock and a liquid solvent mixture to an extraction vessel (extraction tank; (column 4, lines 19-20)), wherein the liquid solvent mixture (column 4, lines 53-60) contains an aqueous ammonia (solvent) and methyl alcohol (anti-solvent);
(c) Carroll discloses the leaves are subjected to an organic solvent extraction designed to remove the oily and oil soluble constituents of the leaves (column 2, lines 54-60). Carroll further discloses the claimed step (c) of claim 1 limitation: the leaves stay in the extracting solvent from 40 to 60 hours, with a pump providing recirculation of the solvent mixture through the leaves, at the end of this period of time the solvent mixture is pumped off the leaves (column 4, lines 25-30). Carroll’s description “solvent mixture is pumped off the leaves” in the examples (1-5) provided throughout the extraction experiment discloses the claimed second phase (i), portion of the liquid solvent mixture.
Carroll further discloses that the extracted leaves (i.e., extracted biomass solids) are removed from the extraction vessel, disclosing first phase (i). Furthermore, the residual solvent (i.e., first phase (i)) is removed by heat (column 4, lines 45-46), (column 4, lines 72-74). Carroll’s extraction procedure further discloses generating second phase (ii) one or more compounds, the steps in this extraction are intended to remove leaf constituents such as chlorophyll, carotene, xanthophyll, vitamins E and K and long chain fats and waxes (column 4, lines 46-50).
(d)Carroll discloses recovering at least a portion of the liquid solvent mixture (solvent mixture is pumped off (column 4, lines 25-30) from the second phase, thereby generating recovered solvent;
(g) Carroll discloses that after the solvent is pumped off the leaves, the extracted leaves are removed from extraction vessel and the residual solvent is removed by heat (column 4, lines 43-46), (column 4, lines 70-74), generating the extracted leaves (i.e., extracted biomass solids) and the residual solvent;
(j) Carroll discloses after the organic solvent extraction phase of the process is completed, the dried and extracted leaves are placed under infrared heat lamps and toasted until they are golden brown (Col.5, line 65-69). Carroll further disclosed a process for producing a tobacco substitute material for smoking or chewing purposes is a primary objective (col.2, line 9-11) and is accomplished by stripping the leafy material of substantially all of its ingredients except carbohydrates and nitrogen compounds such as proteins, and then adding appropriate flavoring ingredients to impart taste and aroma to the product commensurate with the tobacco product (col. 1, line 56-61).
Carroll’s experiments/Examples 1-5 (col.4 – col.5) disclose, in general terms, steps of solvent being pumped off (i.e., solvent mixture recovery), re-using solvent across successive extraction cycles (i.e., recycling), clean solvent mixture (i.e., purified recovered solvent) and that residual solvent is removed from extracted leaves by heat (drying). However, Carroll doesn’t explicitly disclose the specific apparatus or mechanism for steps:
(e) removing at least a portion of the one or more compounds from the recovered solvent, thereby generating purified recovered solvent;
(f) recycling the purified recovered solvent back to the extraction vessel;
(h) condensing at least a portion of the vapor of the residual solvent, thereby generating condensed recovered solvent; and
(i) recycling the condensed recovered solvent back to the extraction vessel; and
Jansen directed to processes for extracting, refining and fractionating extracts of plant material (Abstract), discloses an integrated system for extracting, refining, and fractionating plant constituents, the system comprising a biomass feeding unit, a solvent extraction unit and a solvent recycling unit ([0008] – [0009], FIG.1A). Jansen further discloses that fresh or dried plant material (i.e., biomass feedstock) is fed into the extraction unit, where the solvent extracts the plant material to provide a loaded extractant comprising plant constituents and water ([0098]).
Jansen further discloses step (e), a clarified stream of solvent comprising extracted constituents 311 is transferred to evaporator 350, ([0123]); the vapors collected at evaporator 350 top may be condensed and transferred back to liquid/liquid separation 330 ([0124]). This discloses that the evaporator 350 vaporizes the solvent cleanly off the loaded stream, leaving the extracted compounds behind (i.e., removing one or more compounds) in the concentrated liquid residue. Thus the vaporized solvent is a purified recovered solvent that is generated by evaporation process.
Jansen discloses step (f), recovered solvent is transferred from a refining unit to recovery 900 for removal of excess water and impurities (purified recovered solvent generated) and then is recycled for further use ([0098]).
Jansen further discloses detailed steps of recycling purified recovered solvent: vapors collected (i.e., purified recovered solvent) at evaporator 350 top are transferred back to separator 330 ([0124]), separator 330 transfers recovered solvent via conduit 301 to solvent tank 250 (extraction vessel; [0122]), chiller 260 receives recycled solvent from extraction vessel ([0107]).
Jansen discloses step (g), drying the first phase (spent biomass; [0120]) dried by drier 370 to remove at least a portion of the residual solvent, thereby generating dried extracted biomass solids and a vapor of the residual solvent ([0120]).
Jansen discloses step (h), condensing the vapors released from the spent biomass at drier 370, comprising residual solvent, thus generating condensed recovered solvent ([0120], [0122])).
Jansen discloses step (i), separator 330 receives the condensed vapors from spent biomass drier 370 separator 330 and transfers recovered solvent via conduit 301 to extraction vessel ([0122]), further continues to chiller 260 receiving recycled solvent from extraction vessel via conduit 251 ([0107]). These steps disclose recycling a condensed recovered solvent back to the extraction vessel.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Carroll by adopting a single interconnected instrument/apparatus having an evaporator, separator, dryer and a chiller/extractor with a conduit path that returns recovered, purified, condensed solvent for further extraction step, thus performing the functions of steps (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i), as taught by Jansen, because both Carroll and Jansen are directed to solvent based extraction method of a plant material, Jansen teaches an integrated solvent recovery-recycle system to achieve an efficient, high yielding, and well-controlled continuous process and this involves applying a known technique to a similar process to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Carroll discloses leafy edible biomass such as cabbage, broccoli, spinach (column 1, lines 45-51).
Regarding claim 3, Carroll discloses an extraction process wherein the solvent mixture of methyl alcohol (i.e., anti-solvent) and aqueous ammonia (water containing ammonia) (col. 4, line 53-60).
Regarding claim 5, Carroll discloses the extraction vessel comprises a pump providing recirculation of the liquid solvent mixture to facilitate extraction (col. 4, line 19-50).
Regarding claim 6, Carroll discloses extraction conditions including extraction time and temperature during extraction steps disclosed in the examples 1-3 (col. 4 - col. 5).
Furthermore, Carroll’s example 2 discloses aqueous ammonia based solvent mixture of about 80% methyl alcohol and 20% aqueous ammonia (col. 4, line 53-60), this alkaline mixture typically exhibits a pH range from about 10 to about 13. This pH range overlaps with the claimed pH range from about 6 to about 13 and is considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Carroll discloses that effective extraction is accomplished by stripping the leafy material of substantially all of its ingredients except carbohydrates and nitrogen compounds such as proteins (col. 1, line 56-60). Furthermore, Carroll discloses a solvent extraction, wherein ingredients such as pigments, chlorophyll, carotene, xanthophyll, and related products are extracted (col. 1, line 65-72). These compounds are the claimed “one or more compounds” of claim 1 (c) second phase (ii). Carroll further discloses that these compounds are removed from the leaves after steps of extraction (col. 4, line 45-50).
Carroll is silent regarding the numerical amount of extraction yield of these compounds, however as it is disclosed that substantially all of the leaf’s ingredients (col. 1, line 56-59) are stripped or removed (col. 1, line 65-72, col. 4, line 46-50), thus achieving the objective by undergoing all the extraction steps under effective extraction conditions such as controlled time as disclosed in Example 2 (Col. 4) and Example 3 (Col. 4). Furthermore, the Examiner notes that Carroll’s disclosure of extracting “substantially all of the leaf ingredients” is considered to make obvious the claimed extraction yield of at least 90%.
Regarding claim 8, Carroll discloses recovering at least a portion of the liquid solvent mixture (solvent mixture is pumped off; col. 4, lines 25-30) from the second phase.
Carroll doesn’t explicitly disclose a percentage yield of at least 95% of the liquid solvent mixture is recovered from the second phase.
Jansen directed to processes for extracting, refining and fractionating extracts of plant material (Abstract), discloses an integrated system for extracting, refining, and fractionating plant constituents, the system comprising a biomass feeding unit, a solvent extraction unit and a solvent recycling unit ([0008] – [0009], FIG.1A).
Jansen further discloses a solid/liquid separation unit 300 is optimized to minimize solvent loss, solvent loss of an entire extraction operation is about 5% ([0119]), which means at least 95% of the solvent mixture is recovered from the second phase.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Carroll by incorporating the extraction steps as taught by Jansen, because both Carroll and Jansen are directed to solvent based extraction method of a plant material, Carroll discloses the general extraction process of claimed product but is silent in disclosing the amount of solvent mixture recovered, one of ordinary skill would look to a similar reference for known amount of recovered solvent extraction and this merely involves applying a known teaching to a similar process to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Carroll discloses recovering at least a portion of the liquid (solvent mixture is pumped off; Examples 1-5, col. 4 - col. 5).
Carroll doesn’t disclose specific apparatus such as a falling-film evaporator or a membrane separator or a cooling and filtering process to recover at least a portion of the solvent from the second phase.
Jansen discloses a separator 330 comprises a stationary decanter, a centrifuge, or any appropriate device for separating an organic solvent phase from an aqueous phase ([0122]). Jansen further discloses an evaporator 530 comprising a wiped film evaporator; vapors collected at evaporator 530 top may be condensed and transferred via 532 back to solvent tank 520 ([0114]).
Jansen further discloses an evaporator 350 comprising a single or double effect ([0124]). Clarified stream of solvent comprising extracted constituents 311 is transferred to evaporator 350 ([0123]). Clarified stream of solvent comprising extracted constituents 311 corresponds to the claimed step (c) second phase resultants comprising a portion of the liquid solvent mixture and one or more compounds. Furthermore, the vapors (i.e., portion of the solvent from second phase) collected/recovered at evaporator 350 top are condensed and transferred back to separator 330 ([0124]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Carroll’s generally disclosed solvent recovery method by adopting specific solvent-recovery apparatus as taught by Jansen, because both Carroll and Jansen are directed to solvent based extraction method of a plant material, Jansen teaches a single/double effect evaporator and a wiped film evaporator for efficient solvent recovery and this merely involves applying a known teaching to a similar process to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Carroll discloses steps extraction intended to remove compounds of the leaf such as chlorophyll, carotene, xanthophyll, and vitamins E and K; and further step of removing the long chain fats and waxes from the leaf (col. 4, line 46-50).
Carroll doesn’t disclose a percentage amount of extraction yield of these compounds, however as it is disclosed that substantially all the leaf’s ingredients (col. 1, line 56-59), are stripped or removed (col. 1, line 65-72, col. 4, line 46-50). Furthermore, the Examiner notes that Carroll’s disclosure of extracting “substantially all of the leaf ingredients” is considered to make obvious the claimed extraction yield of at least 95%.
Carroll further discloses solvent recovery in example 3 (col. 5) of the extraction procedure. In this procedure ammonia saponifies the fats and waxes, facilitating the extraction of the previously described ingredients (col. 5, line 20-25). Carroll’s example 2 (col. 4) uses the same aqueous-ammonia solvent as a principal wash component for the extraction step.
While Carroll doesn’t explicitly talk about pH adjustment of the recovered solvent, one of ordinary skill would understand that maintaining a higher pH (ammonia-based solvent) in the recovered solvent is integral to Carroll’s extraction procedure throughout the process.
Regarding claim 12, Carroll’s example 2 (col. 4, line 53-60) discloses aqueous ammonia-based solvent mixture which is inherently alkaline, corresponding the claimed pH range for the liquid solvent mixture. Furthermore, Carroll discloses re-use of solvent mixture across extraction cycles (col. 4 and col.5), the recovered purified solvent mixture of about 80% methyl alcohol and 20% aqueous ammonia (col. 4, line 53-65) typically has a pH range from about 10 to about 13. The resultant purified and condensed recovered solvent would fall into similar pH range from about 10 to about 13.
Regarding claim 13, Carroll doesn’t disclose step (e) utilizes chromatography to remove at least a portion of the one or more compounds from the recovered solvent.
Jansen discloses chromatographic separation using a strong base anion exchange resin ([0068]) to remove particulates ([0186], [0202], 0354]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Carroll by utilizing chromatography for removing unwanted compounds from recovered solvent as taught by Jansen, because both Carroll and Jansen are directed to solvent based extraction method of a plant material, Jansen teaches anion -exchange resin chromatography is a known technique for removing plant-derived particulates or impurities from a recovered solvent and this merely involves applying a known teaching to a similar process to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, 16 and 17, Carroll discloses reusing/recycling purified recovered solvent in the extraction tank (leaves washed again with a clean solvent mixture of the same ingredients (col. 4, line, 25-32).
Carroll doesn’t explicitly disclose step (f), the amount of the purified recovered solvent that is recycled is at least 90%, step (h), at least 90% of the vapor of the residual solvent is condensed, and step (i), at least 90% of the condensed recovered solvent is recycled to the extraction vessel.
Jansen discloses steps (f), (h) and (i) of claim 1. Jansen further discloses that solvent loss of the entire extraction operation is about 10%, which corresponds to about 90% solvent recovery ([0119]). Jansen’s aggregate solvent recovery percentage for the entire extraction procedure demonstrates high efficiency solvent conservation, necessarily encompassing recycling, condensation and further recycling steps, is an achieved known target in similar field.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Carroll by adopting this benchmark teaching of solvent recovery taught by Jansen and optimizing the procedure of each individual solvent recovery (condensing, recycling sub steps) to achieve at least 90% for each step, because both Carroll and Jansen are directed to solvent based extraction method of a plant material, Jansen teaches minimal solvent loss strategy as a known approach in solvent extraction process and this merely involves applying a known teaching to a similar process to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 20, Carroll directed to a process for producing a tobacco substitute (column 1, lines 27-30), discloses producing an alternative tobacco product from leafy edible biomass (column 1, lines 45-50), from a process comprising:
(a) providing a biomass feedstock comprising leafy edible biomass (leafy plants such as cabbage, broccoli, spinach; (column 1, lines 45-51) wherein the biomass feedstock optionally contains moisture (fresh leaves; (column 2, lines 25-26);
(b) introducing the biomass feedstock and a liquid solvent mixture to an extraction vessel (extraction tank; (column 4, lines 19-20)), wherein the liquid solvent mixture (column 4, lines 53-60) contains an aqueous ammonia (solvent) and methyl alcohol (anti-solvent);
(c) Carroll discloses the leaves are subjected to an organic solvent extraction designed to remove the oily and oil soluble constituents of the leaves (column 2, lines 54-60). Carroll further discloses the claimed step (c) of claim 1 limitation: the leaves stay in the extracting solvent from 40 to 60 hours, with a pump providing recirculation of the solvent mixture through the leaves, at the end of this period of time the solvent mixture is pumped off the leaves (column 4, lines 25-30). Carroll’s description “solvent mixture is pumped off the leaves” in the examples (1-5) provided throughout the extraction experiment discloses the claimed second phase (i), portion of the liquid solvent mixture.
Carroll further discloses that the extracted leaves (i.e., extracted biomass solids) are removed from the extraction vessel, disclosing first phase (i). Furthermore, the residual solvent (i.e., first phase (i)) is removed by heat (column 4, lines 45-46), (column 4, lines 72-74). Carroll’s extraction procedure further discloses generating second phase (ii) one or more compounds, the steps in this extraction are intended to remove leaf constituents such as chlorophyll, carotene, xanthophyll, vitamins E and K and long chain fats and waxes (column 4, lines 46-50).
(d)Carroll discloses recovering at least a portion of the liquid solvent mixture (solvent mixture is pumped off (column 4, lines 25-30) from the second phase, thereby generating recovered solvent;
(g) Carroll discloses that after the solvent is pumped off the leaves, the extracted leaves are removed from extraction vessel and the residual solvent is removed by heat (column 4, lines 43-46), (column 4, lines 70-74), generating the extracted leaves (i.e., extracted biomass solids) and the residual solvent;
(j) Carroll discloses after the organic solvent extraction phase of the process is completed, the dried and extracted leaves are placed under infrared heat lamps and toasted until they are golden brown (Col.5, line 65-69). Carroll further disclosed a process for producing a tobacco substitute material for smoking or chewing purposes is a primary objective (col.2, line 9-11) and is accomplished by stripping the leafy material of substantially all of its ingredients except carbohydrates and nitrogen compounds such as proteins, and then adding appropriate flavoring ingredients to impart taste and aroma to the product commensurate with the tobacco product (col. 1, line 56-61).
Carroll’s experiments/Examples 1-5 (col.4 – col.5) disclose, in general terms, steps of solvent being pumped off (i.e., solvent mixture recovery), re-using solvent across successive extraction cycles (i.e., recycling), clean solvent mixture (i.e., purified recovered solvent) and that residual solvent is removed from extracted leaves by heat (drying). However, Carroll doesn’t explicitly disclose the specific apparatus or mechanism for steps:
(e) removing at least a portion of the one or more compounds from the recovered solvent, thereby generating purified recovered solvent;
(f) recycling the purified recovered solvent back to the extraction vessel;
(h) condensing at least a portion of the vapor of the residual solvent, thereby generating condensed recovered solvent; and
(i) recycling the condensed recovered solvent back to the extraction vessel; and
Jansen directed to processes for extracting, refining and fractionating extracts of plant material (Abstract), discloses an integrated system for extracting, refining, and fractionating plant constituents, the system comprising a biomass feeding unit, a solvent extraction unit and a solvent recycling unit ([0008] – [0009], FIG.1A). Jansen further discloses that fresh or dried plant material (i.e., biomass feedstock) is fed into the extraction unit, where the solvent extracts the plant material to provide a loaded extractant comprising plant constituents and water ([0098]).
Jansen further discloses step (e), a clarified stream of solvent comprising extracted constituents 311 is transferred to evaporator 350, ([0123]); the vapors collected at evaporator 350 top may be condensed and transferred back to liquid/liquid separation 330 ([0124]). This discloses that the evaporator 350 vaporizes the solvent cleanly off the loaded stream, leaving the extracted compounds behind (i.e., removing one or more compounds) in the concentrated liquid residue. Thus the vaporized solvent is a purified recovered solvent that is generated by evaporation process.
Jansen discloses step (f), recovered solvent is transferred from a refining unit to recovery 900 for removal of excess water and impurities (purified recovered solvent generated) and then is recycled for further use ([0098]).
Jansen further discloses detailed steps of recycling purified recovered solvent: vapors collected (i.e., purified recovered solvent) at evaporator 350 top are transferred back to separator 330 ([0124]), separator 330 transfers recovered solvent via conduit 301 to solvent tank 250 (extraction vessel; [0122]), chiller 260 receives recycled solvent from extraction vessel ([0107]).
Jansen discloses step (g), drying the first phase (spent biomass; [0120]) dried by drier 370 to remove at least a portion of the residual solvent, thereby generating dried extracted biomass solids and a vapor of the residual solvent ([0120]).
Jansen discloses step (h), condensing the vapors released from the spent biomass at drier 370, comprising residual solvent, thus generating condensed recovered solvent ([0120], [0122])).
Jansen discloses step (i), separator 330 receives the condensed vapors from spent biomass drier 370 separator 330 and transfers recovered solvent via conduit 301 to extraction vessel ([0122]), further continues to chiller 260 receiving recycled solvent from extraction vessel via conduit 251 ([0107]). These steps disclose recycling a condensed recovered solvent back to the extraction vessel.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Carroll by adopting a single interconnected instrument/apparatus having an evaporator, separator, dryer and a chiller/extractor with a conduit path that returns recovered, purified, condensed solvent for further extraction step, thus performing the functions of steps (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i), as taught by Jansen, because both Carroll and Jansen are directed to solvent based extraction method of a plant material, Jansen teaches an integrated solvent recovery-recycle system to achieve an efficient, high yielding, and well-controlled continuous process and this involves applying a known technique to a similar process to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 21, Carroll discloses alternative tobacco products, produced from leafy edible biomass such as cabbage, broccoli, spinach (column 1, lines 45-51).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll in view of Jansen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Avgousti (US 20140329295 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Carroll’s extraction tank retains solid leaf material (extracted leaves) during the pump driven recirculation of Examples 1-2 wash liquid circulation (col.4 ) but does not explicitly disclose an inlet filter plate and outlet filter plate.
Avgousti directed to process for extracting solid pellet with a solvent to provide extracted oil (Abstract), discloses an extraction vessel equipped with a 2-micron sintered metal filter on the effluent end of the vessel ([0187]).
Avgousti further discloses extraction of yeast samples is conducted in a custom high-pressure extraction apparatus (FIG. 1.), dried and mechanically disrupted yeast cells were charged to an extraction vessel 1 packed between plugs of glass wool ([0187]). This describes the solid yeast material is packed between glass wool plugs, which means a plug at each end of the packed end (i.e., one near fluid inlet and one near outlet) of the extraction vessel. Each end of glass wool plug retains the solid yeast material, preventing it from passing through. The glass wool allows liquid or vapor to pass through ([0187]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Carroll by providing an inlet filter and outlet filter positioned at the corresponding ends of the extraction vessel as taught by Avgousti, because both Carroll and Avgousti are directed to solvent based extraction method of solid biomass, Avgousti teaches glass wool plugs as a filtering technique to contain solid biomass stay securely in the vessel while allowing liquid or vapor to pass through and this merely involves applying a known teaching to a similar process to yield predictable results.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll in view of Jansen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fisher (US2341433 A).
Regarding claim 10, Carroll discloses reusing clean solvent mixtures of the same ingredients (col. 4, line 28-32) across successive extraction washes (Example 1 incorporated into Example 2; col. 4) but doesn’t disclose a distillation step to adjust a ratio of the solvent to the anti-solvent within the recovered solvent, wherein the distilling reduces the composition of solvent to anti-solvent ratio within the recovered solvent, and a bubble-plate distillation column that may be used alone or in conjunction with a reboiler tank.
Fisher directed to separation of hydrocarbon solvents (col 1, line 1-4), discloses bubble plate distillation columns (col. 2, line 23-26). Furthermore, a withdrawing agent of methyl alcohol-methyl acetate and the ethylene chloride-cyclohexane mixture to be separated in a bubble plate distillation column (Example 3; col. 4, line 44-48).
Fisher further discloses that methanol withdrawing agent layer would be withdrawn and returned to column 2 for reflux (col. 5, 24-26). Furthermore, it is desirable at all times to have an adequate amount of the methyl alcohol withdrawing agent (col. 5, 45-49). Fisher further teaches that under conditions of continuous operation, the quantity of methanol may be increased by adding methanol to the feed mixture (col. 5, 50-55). These statements express that the methanol content of its recycled/reflux stream is monitored and actively adjusted process, additionally disclosing a bubble plate distillation column used to process a recycled methanol-containing steam in which methanol quantity/ration is treated as a controllable process variable, adjusted as needed by the method operator to maintain process effectiveness.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Carroll’s method of repeated reuse of solvent mixture across wash cycles by adopting a bubble-plate distillation method and maintaining solvent mixture ratio as taught by Fisher, because both Carroll and Fisher are directed to a chemical process using methanol, Fisher teaches a bubble plate distillation method with a controlled solvent ratio recycle stream and this merely involves applying a known teaching to a similar process to yield predictable results.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll in view of Jansen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Claflin et al. (US20210053899 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Carroll discloses the general drying function of step (g), “residual solvent removed by heat” (col. 4 – col. 5) and further disclosed extracted leaves are placed under infra-red heat lamps (Col.5, line 65-69) but does not disclose a fluidized-bed dryer or a forced hot air drum dryer, wherein at least 95% of the residual solvent is removed from the first phase.
Claflin directed to extraction of essential oils form biomass (Abstract), discloses a process for extraction of hemp using solvents such as alcohol ([0020]- [0023]).
Claflin further discloses post extraction hemp, with some alcohol mixed therein, exiting extractor 16, is deposited on the lower extremity of an elongated inclined bucket-lift conveyor 51 ([0023]). In this case, “hemp with some alcohol mixed therein” corresponds to the claimed first phase comprising extracted biomass solids mixed with residual solvent.
Claflin further discloses a fluidized-bed dryer 106 is employed to blow an alcohol (i.e., residual solvent) out of the hemp biomass to enable collection and reuse/recycle ([0032]).
Claflin further discloses a continuous fluidized-bed process in about 10 minutes, with 90+% drying efficiency ([0039], [0040]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Carroll by providing a fluidized-bed dryer that removes almost all of the residual solvent as taught by Claflin, because both Carroll and Claflin are directed to solvent based extraction method of a plant material, Claflin teaches an efficient drying process of solid biomass by using fluidized-bed dryer to remove residual solvent and this merely involves applying a known teaching to a similar process to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
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
