DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5, 7, 9-12, 15, 17-20, 22-23, and 28 in the reply filed on 08 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 24-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08 June 2026.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04 March 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: XX, YY, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, P1, P2, P3, P5, C1, C2, C3, C4, Z1, Z2, 2, 30.
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: V7.
6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), and/or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
7. Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
8. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the parenthetical references to extensive design details should not be included, and because “Extraction Apparatus” should read --An extraction apparatus--. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
9. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 3, 10th par: “heating mean” should read --heating means--.
Page 4, 1st par: “(which preferably has a substantially constant cross-section along its length)” is a hanging sentence fragment.
Page 4, 3rd par: the reference character “P1” is used to refer to a perimeter of a flow passageway, and later the same reference character is used to refer to a pressure sensor, which is improper. Neither reference character is used in the drawings, so the reference characters should likely be deleted.
Page 5, 1st par: “2l to 25l” should read --2 L to 25 L--, to properly reflect the SI unit for liters.
Page 6, 4th par: “heating mean” should read --heating means--.
Page 10, 6th par: “eg BDS extracts” should read --e.g., BDS extracts--
Page 13, 3rd par introduces a step-wise temperature gradient “as described in the table”, but the disclosure includes no such table referencing vessel temperature.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
10. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 1-2, “heating mean” should read --heating means--.
11. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the last line, “0,05” should read --0.05--.
12. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the last line, “the range 1 litre to 50 litres” should read --a range from 1 litre to 50 litres--.
13. Claim 12 is objected to because of reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses: “P3” in line 9. Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
14. Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the last line, “a heating means (YY)” should read --a second heating means (YY)--, to clearly differentiate from the heating means (XX) established in claim 1.
15. Claim 18 is objected to because of the unnecessary duplicate limitations that were already recited in claim 1, including wherein the apparatus includes “said temperature adjustment means” and “said extraction vessel”. Further, when introducing new elements that were not previously recited, the use of “a or said” is improper and should be revised to --a-- or --an--. Where multiple elements with the same identifying noun are introduced, Examiner recommends the phrasing, e.g., --a first conduit--, --a second conduit--, etc. for clarity.
16. Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the third line, “one or more of pressure sensors” should read --one or more pressure sensors--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
17. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
18. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
19. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Accordingly:
the temperature adjustment means of claim 1 is interpreted to cover the heating means or electrical heater (Specification page 4), or equivalent.
the heating means of claim 1 is interpreted as a resistance heating element or resistance coil (Specification pages 4-5), or equivalent.
the control means of claims 5, 9, 12, 15, 22, and 25 has no such structure listed in the Specification.
the cooling means of claim 12 is interpreted as a refrigeration unit (Specification page 6), or equivalent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
20. 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.
21. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-12, 15, 17-20, 22-23, and 28 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.
22. Regarding claim 1, reference to “said inlet and said outlet” in line 11 is indefinite as the claim recites an inlet and an outlet of the extraction vessel (line 4) as well as another inlet and outlet with respect to the heating means (line 9). It is unclear whether these inlets and outlets are intended to be the same inlet and outlet, or if different, to which inlet and outlet the quoted limitation purports to refer.
23. Claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 15, 17-20, and 22-23 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on indefinite claim 1.
24. Regarding claims 5, 9, 12, 15, 22, and 25, the limitation “control means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In fact, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, referring simply to ‘control means’ as performing the control functions throughout. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
25. Regarding claims 7, 11, 18, and 19, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are a required part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
26. Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “wherein said extraction vessel includes heating means (XX) for heating the contents of the vessel”, and it is unclear whether this is the same or different heating means as the one introduced in claim 1. Including the reference character XX would normally indicate that this is the same heating means as that of claim 1, but the Specification indicates that the vessel may have its own heating means transferring heat through the wall of the vessel (page 5, second par).
27. Regarding claim 10, the limitation “its lower end” lacks antecedent basis because no definite number or orientation of ends for the extraction vessel has been established.
28. Regarding claim 11, the claim recites wherein pump is arranged to pump solvent “at a rate of 10 times to 50 times a bed volume of material of natural origin in the extraction vessel”, but no bed or other definite volume relating to the material of natural origin has been positively recited in the claims so this bed volume is construed as a variable subject to change depending on the use of the apparatus. Thus, the range of acceptable values to satisfy the claimed rate are unascertainable, see MPEP 2173.05(b)(II).
29. Regarding claim 18, the claim includes a list of alternatives separated by “and/or” but it is unclear what these alternatives entail. Namely, it is unclear whether the alternatives only include the orientation where there should be no vessel therebetween, or whether any or all of the apparatus structures from lines 3-12 of the claim are a non-required alternative as indicated by the punctuation. Thus, the scope of what is required by the claim is indefinite.
30. Regarding claim 20, it is unclear whether “an extraction vessel” and “a solvent” introduced in lines 12-14 are the same or different than the extraction vessel and solvent introduced in claim 1.
30. Regarding claim 23, it is unclear what is meant by the limitation wherein the apparatus includes “only one mechanical element within the closed loop”, as there are numerous elements besides pump 22 in the apparatus of FIG. 1 that can be construed as mechanical elements (e.g., heating systems, cooling systems, valves, vacuum pump, etc.) and the Specification does not provide a definition for what constitutes a “mechanical element” (see last par of page 9), nor is it clear what part of the apparatus constitutes “the closed loop”. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted to require only one pump or equivalent fluid mover in at least the loop i.e., recycle portion of the apparatus.
31. Regarding claim 28, the temperature adjustment means is recited as adjusting the temperature of the solvent upstream of the inlet to the extraction vessel, but that the temperature of the solvent passing from the inlet to the outlet of the extraction vessel is increased by at least 10 °C in less than 60 seconds. Where does the temperature rise occur, between the inlet and outlet of the extraction vessel, or upstream? Because of this uncertainty, the structure of the temperature adjustment means is indefinite.
Further, it is unclear whether “an extraction vessel” and “a solvent” introduced in lines 12-14 are the same or different than the extraction vessel and solvent introduced earlier in the claim; if intended to be the same, this would be a duplicate recitation and should be rephrased to --wherein the material of natural origin is a member of the Cannabaceae plant family, and wherein the solvent comprises a C1-4 fluorinated hydrocarbon--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
32. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
33. Claims 1-4, 7, 9-11, 17-19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thomas (US 20190151771 A1).
34. Regarding claim 1, Thomas discloses an apparatus for extracting components from a material of natural origin (systems for extracting oil from plant material, Abstract, par 0064), the apparatus comprising:
a) an extraction vessel for containing the material of natural origin (FIG. 1, volatilization chamber 7; oil of plant material may be volatized in the extraction chamber, Abstract), said extraction vessel (FIG. 7 illustrates an additional embodiment of the volatilization chamber, par 0102) including an inlet for introducing a solvent into the extraction vessel (FIG. 7, gas stream carrying entrained plant material enters the volatilization chamber through a bottom passage 46, par 0102) and an outlet for removing the solvent from the extraction vessel (FIG. 7, gas stream to exit the chamber through an exit passage 48, par 0102); and
b) a temperature adjustment means for adjusting the temperature of the solvent upstream of said inlet (temperature of the gas stream exiting the heater 2 may be adjusted to maintain a desired temperature in the volatilization chamber, par 0066; FIG. 1, gas stream heater 2 upstream of extraction vessel 6/7), wherein said temperature adjustment means comprises:
i. an electrically-powered heater (primary gas stream heater may use electric heating elements, par 0063); and/or
ii. a heating means (FIG. 1, gas stream heater 2) having an inlet and an outlet (gas stream passes through the gas stream heater 2, par 0113).
The limitation wherein said heating means is arranged to increase the temperature of solvent passing from said inlet to said outlet by at least 10 °C in a time of less than 60 seconds, besides being an alternative limitation that is not required by the claim, recites a manner of operating the device that does not differentiate from the prior art per MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that the operating ranges taught by Thomas in par 0113 include flow rates from 0.1 to over 500 cubic feet per minute, outlet temperatures from 100 to 445 degrees Fahrenheit, and inlet temperatures from 0 to 180 degrees Fahrenheit. Operating at the midpoint of these ranges, the device would heat 250 cubic feet of gas solvent per minute from 90 degrees up to over 270 degrees Fahrenheit, thus it is understood that the device as arranged would be capable of delivering the required heating of at least 10 °C in a time of less than 60 seconds.
35. Regarding claim 2, Thomas discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, and the following heating means arrangements are recited as a manner of operating the device that does not differentiate from the prior art per MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that the operating ranges taught by Thomas in par 0113 include flow rates from 0.1 to over 500 cubic feet per minute, outlet temperatures from 100 to 445 degrees Fahrenheit, and inlet temperatures from 0 to 180 degrees Fahrenheit. Operating at the midpoint of these ranges, the device would heat 250 cubic feet of gas solvent per minute from 90 degrees up to over 270 degrees Fahrenheit, thus it is understood that the device as arranged would be capable of delivering the required heating of at least 15 °C in a time of less than 60 seconds. Modifying flow rates and inlet/outlet temperatures within the ranges presented by Thomas can read upon the other, non-required alternatives.
36. Regarding claim 3, Thomas discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said heating means comprises an electrically-powered heater as described in b(i) (primary gas stream heater may use electric heating elements, par 0063). The limitation wherein the heater includes a heater resistance of 50 - 200Ω/m is recited as optional thus is not required by the claim.
37. Regarding claim 4, Thomas discloses the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein said heating means comprises a body which is in contact with a wall which defines a flow passageway for solvent, said body having a surface temperature of at least 35 °C (gas stream heated to 100 to 445 degrees Fahrenheit, par 0113).
38. Regarding claim 7, Thomas discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said extraction vessel is downstream of said temperature adjustment means, for example said heating means (FIG. 1, stream 1 moves from heating means 2 to extraction vessel 6/7), and the apparatus is arranged for flow of solvent from said temperature adjustment means to said extraction vessel via a conduit (FIG. 1; closed network of passages containing a moving primary gas stream 1, par 0062), which is directly connected to the extraction vessel with no other vessel between the temperature adjustment means and the extraction vessel (FIG. 1, primary entrainment zone and the volatilization chamber/chambers may together define an extraction chamber, par 0065). The limitation wherein said extraction vessel has a volume in the range 1 litre to 50 litres is recited as optional and thus not required by the claim.
39. Regarding claim 9, Thomas discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said extraction vessel includes heating means for heating the contents of the vessel (it is preferred that the volatilization chamber be provided with its own heat source, par 0102), wherein said heating means is electrically powered and/or includes a resistance heating element arranged to transfer heat to an outside wall of the extraction vessel (electrical heat source within the jacket space or an electrical heating wire wrapped directly around the volatilization chamber may also be used, par 0097).
Examiner notes that even though the pressure sensor and control means are alternative limitations and thus not required features of the claim, Thomas teaches that pressure sensors may be placed in communication with control means in various arrangements per par 0095.
40. Regarding claim 10, Thomas discloses the apparatus according to claim 9, wherein said extraction vessel includes an inlet for solvent at its lower end (FIG. 7, gas stream enters the volatilization chamber through a bottom passage 46, par 0102) and/or is arranged for flow of solvent upwards between its inlet and outlet (FIG. 7, gas stream carrying entrained plant material enters the volatilization chamber through a bottom passage 46…to travel upward with the gas stream to exit the chamber through an exit passage 48, par 0102).
41. Regarding claim 11, Thomas discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said apparatus includes a solvent pump (FIG. 1, primary gas stream mover 19 is preferably a regenerative blower, turbo blower, pressure blower or other form of centrifugal blower, par 0063) for pumping solvent into and/or through the temperature adjustment means, for example said heating means (primary gas stream 1 is propelled through the primary gas stream heater 2 by the primary gas stream mover 19, par 0063).
The limitation wherein said pump is arranged to pump solvent at a rate of 10 times to 50 times a bed volume of material of natural origin in the extraction vessel recites a manner of operating the device that does not differentiate from the prior art per MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that the operating ranges taught by Thomas in par 0113 includes pumped flow rates from 0.1 to over 500 cubic feet per minute and feed rates of 0.001 to more than 10.0 pounds per minute. Though Thomas is silent about the size of the entrainment zone, i.e., a bed volume for plant material, it is understood from the ranges of pumped volumetric flow rates and plant material feed rates that the device of Thomas would be capable of pumping the gas solvent at a rate of 10 times to 50 times a bed volume of material of natural origin in the extraction vessel to read upon the claim.
42. Regarding claim 17, Thomas discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein references to a compressor are included as an optional alternative in the cooling circuit (pars 0074 and 0091) and as an optional alternative for the gas stream mover 19 (par 0119), wherein the gas moving device can exemplarily comprise a regenerative blower, turbo blower, or other form of centrifugal blower, or other method capable of moving a gas (par 0063) such as simply a compressed air tank (par 0134), reading upon wherein said apparatus does not include a vapour compressor in embodiments of the FIG. 1 system.
43. Regarding claim 18, Thomas discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said apparatus includes:
said temperature adjustment means, for example a heating means (temperature of the gas stream exiting the heater 2 may be adjusted to maintain a desired temperature in the volatilization chamber, par 0066, FIG. 1);
a or said solvent storage vessel (FIG. 1, sump area 13 to store collection solvent, par 0062);
said extraction vessel (FIG. 1, volatilization chamber 7; oil of plant material may be volatized in the extraction chamber, Abstract);
a or said evaporator vessel (FIG. 1, evaporation device 31, pars 0087-0089);
a or said conduit between the temperature adjustment means and extraction vessel (FIG. 1, closed network of passages containing a moving primary gas stream 1, par 0062);
a or said conduit between the solvent storage vessel and the temperature adjustment means (FIG. 1, closed network of passages containing a moving primary gas stream 1, par 0062);
a or said conduit between the evaporator vessel and the solvent storage vessel (FIG. 1, closed network of passages containing a moving primary gas stream 1, par 0062);
a or said conduit between the extraction vessel and the evaporator vessel (FIG. 1, closed network of passages containing a moving primary gas stream 1, par 0062), wherein there is no vessel between the temperature adjustment means and the extraction vessel (FIG. 1, primary entrainment zone and the volatilization chamber/chambers may together define an extraction chamber, par 0065).
44. Regarding claim 19, Thomas discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus includes only one pump for pumping solvent (FIG. 1, gas moving device 19; gas moving device can exemplarily comprise a regenerative blower, turbo blower, or other form of centrifugal blower, or other method capable of moving a gas, par 0063) around a fluid flow path defined from the extraction vessel and back (FIG. 1, follow bold arrows of gas stream 1) for example via a or said evaporator vessel, a or said solvent storage vessel and a or said temperature adjustment means (FIG. 1).
45. Regarding claim 22, Thomas discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said apparatus includes a control means (system controlled by one or more programmable logic controllers and/or proportional integral derivative controllers and/or other forms of computerized controls, par 0095) which receives information from one or more temperature sensors (when electronic controls are implemented, the temperatures may be monitored by thermocouples, resistance temperature detectors and/or other temperature detection methods, par 0095) and one or more pressure sensors (pressures may be monitored by electronic pressure sensors, par 0095).
46. Regarding claim 23, Thomas discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the apparatus is a closed-loop system (system is a substantially closed loop system, par 0029) which includes only one mechanical element within the closed loop (FIG. 1, loop 1 includes primary gas stream mover 19 along with vessels, filters, etc.), wherein said mechanical element is a pump (primary gas stream mover 19 is preferably a regenerative blower, turbo blower, pressure blower or other form of centrifugal blower, par 0063).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
47. 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.
48. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 20190151771 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Thomas discloses the apparatus according to claim 4, wherein said apparatus includes control means for controlling operation of said heating means (electrical heaters…controlled by one or more programmable logic controllers and/or proportional integral derivative controllers and/or other forms of computerized controls, par 0095) to adjust the amount of heat transferred, in use, to solvent (electric heating elements to heat the gas stream as the primary gas stream passes through the primary gas stream heater 2, par 0063), thereby to control the temperature of solvent at said outlet of said heating means (temperature of the gas stream exiting the heater 2 may be adjusted to maintain a desired temperature in the volatilization chamber, par 0066).
Although Thomas teaches that placement of various temperature and pressure sensors to regulate components throughout the system are conceivable to those skilled in the art (par 0095), Thomas does not specifically teach wherein said apparatus includes a temperature sensor (T1) downstream of said heating means (XX), for monitoring the temperature of solvent, wherein information relating to the temperature sensed is communicated to a or said control means. However, Thomas teaches that the temperature of the gas stream exiting the heater 2 may be adjusted by the control means to maintain a desired temperature in the volatilization chamber (par 0066), indicating that a temperature sensor at that location is an advantageous placement that would be apparent to a skilled artisan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to place a temperature sensor downstream of said heating means in communication with the control means as taught by Thomas because doing so would monitor a temperature of the solvent exiting the heater to maintain a desired temperature in the extraction chamber (par 0066) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
49. Claims 12, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 20190151771 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murphy et al (US 20190240593 A1).
50. Regarding claim 12, Thomas discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said apparatus includes a solvent storage vessel (FIG. 1, sump area 13 to store collection solvent, par 0062), upstream of said extraction vessel and upstream of said temperature adjustment means (FIG. 1, sump area 13 upstream of gas stream heater 2), wherein a conduit is directly connected between the extraction vessel and said temperature adjustment means (FIG. 1; closed network of passages containing a moving primary gas stream 1 from heater 2 to extraction vessel 6/7, par 0062), wherein said solvent storage vessel includes a cooling means (FIG. 1, gas stream cooler 50 is preferably designed as a tube-in-shell heat exchanger that uses…coolant fluids pumped or moved with the aid of a pump, vapor compression or absorption chiller coils, par 0074) which is arranged to liquefy solvent in the solvent storage vessel (condensed droplets drain directly or through other components of the system to reach the sump area 13, par 0073), wherein limitations regarding temperature sensor T2 are recited as optional thus not considered a required part of the claim.
Although Thomas teaches that placement of various temperature and pressure sensors to regulate components throughout the system are conceivable to those skilled in the art (par 0095), Thomas does not specifically teach that said solvent storage vessel includes a pressure sensor P3 for sensing pressure in the solvent storage vessel, wherein information relating to the pressure in the vessel is arranged to be communicated to said control means; and said solvent storage vessel includes a temperature sensor (T3) for sensing the temperature of solvent in the solvent storage vessel, wherein said sensor (T3) is arranged to communicate information relating to the temperature sensed to the control means.
Murphy teaches an analogous system for extracting an organic compound from a natural source (Abstract, FIG. 1, pars 0004 and 0008) wherein the extraction gas storage vessel may comprise pressure sensors, temperature sensors, or a combination thereof (par 0031), wherein the sensors may obtain data that may be stored by a computer processor that may be configured to control the pressure and ensure a steady storage temperature (par 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include within the storage vessel of Thomas a pressure sensor and temperature sensor to communicate pressure and temperature information, respectively, to the control means as taught by Murphy, because these sensors would predictably enable control of pressure and temperature within the storage vessel in the same manner with a reasonable expectation of success and involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
51. Regarding claim 15, Thomas discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said apparatus includes an evaporator vessel (FIG. 1, evaporation device 31, pars 0087-0089). Although Thomas teaches that placement of various temperature and pressure sensors to regulate components throughout the system are conceivable to those skilled in the art (par 0095), Thomas does not specifically teach wherein said evaporator vessel includes a temperature sensor (T4) for sensing the temperature of solvent in the evaporator vessel, wherein said sensor (T4) is arranged to communicate information relating to the temperature sensed to a control means .
Murphy teaches an analogous system for extracting an organic compound from a natural source (Abstract, FIG. 1, pars 0004 and 0008) wherein an evaporation loop system comprises an analogous flash drum (pars 0054-0055) along with thermal sensors that which may obtain data for in a computer processor that may control the temperature in the evaporator by heating or cooling (pars 0059-0060).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to locate in the evaporator vessel of Thomas a temperature sensor to communicate sensed temperature information to a control means as taught by Murphy, because this would predictably enable temperature detection and control within the evaporator in a similar manner with a reasonable expectation of success and involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and MPEP 2143(I)(G).
52. Regarding claim 20, Thomas discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein said apparatus includes an extraction vessel (FIG. 1, volatilization chamber 7; oil of plant material may be volatized in the extraction chamber, Abstract). Examiner notes that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, details of the material and solvent are considered along with the intended use of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114(II). Thomas further teaches that the apparatus is designed to process in the extraction vessel a material of natural origin which is a member of the cannabaceae plant family (types of plant materials that may be processed using the present invention may include various forms of hemp or cannabis, par 0003) using a solvent that can be ethanol or a mixture of ethanol and water, water, chloroform or a number of other suitable organic or inorganic solvents (par 0002). However, Thomas does not specifically teach that the apparatus would be fully operable with a solvent which comprises a C1-4 fluorinated hydrocarbon.
Murphy teaches an analogous system for extracting an organic compound from a natural source (Abstract, FIG. 1, pars 0004 and 0008) and demonstrates that a solvent selected of hydrofluorocarbons of chain lengths from C1-C3 (par 0020) can effectively extract organic products from plants in the cannabis family (pars 0016-0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use for the solvent in operation of the apparatus of Thomas a C1-4 fluorinated hydrocarbon as taught by Murphy, as such a hydrofluorocarbon would predictably perform as a suitable extraction solvent to obtain desired extract compounds from cannabis plants and involves simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
53. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 20190151771 A1) in view of Murphy et al (US 20190240593 A1) and Fong (US 20110284520 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Thomas discloses an apparatus for extracting components from a material of natural origin (systems for extracting oil from plant material, Abstract, par 0064), the apparatus comprising:
(A) an extraction vessel for containing the material of natural origin (FIG. 1, volatilization chamber 7; oil of plant material may be volatized in the extraction chamber, Abstract), said extraction vessel (FIG. 7 illustrates an additional embodiment of the volatilization chamber, par 0102) including an inlet for introducing a solvent into the extraction vessel (FIG. 7, gas stream carrying entrained plant material enters the volatilization chamber through a bottom passage 46, par 0102) and an outlet for removing the solvent from the extraction vessel (FIG. 7, gas stream to exit the chamber through an exit passage 48, par 0102); and
(B) a temperature adjustment means for adjusting the temperature of the solvent upstream of said inlet (temperature of the gas stream exiting the heater 2 may be adjusted to maintain a desired temperature in the volatilization chamber, par 0066; FIG. 1, gas stream heater 2 upstream of extraction vessel 6/7), wherein said temperature adjustment means comprises:
(i) an electrically-powered heater (primary gas stream heater may use electric heating elements, par 0063). The limitation wherein this heater is arranged to increase the temperature of solvent passing from said inlet to said outlet by at least 10 °C in a time of less than 60 seconds, recites a manner of operating the device that does not differentiate from the prior art per MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that the operating ranges taught by Thomas in par 0113 include flow rates from 0.1 to over 500 cubic feet per minute, outlet temperatures from 100 to 445 degrees Fahrenheit, and inlet temperatures from 0 to 180 degrees Fahrenheit. Operating at the midpoint of these ranges, the device would heat 250 cubic feet of gas solvent per minute from 90 degrees up to over 270 degrees Fahrenheit, thus it is understood that the device as arranged would be capable of delivering the required heating of at least 10 °C in a time of less than 60 seconds.
Similarly, the limitations wherein the extraction vessel contains a material of natural origin which is a member of the cannabaceae plant family and includes a solvent which comprises a C1-4 fluorinated hydrocarbon are considered as an intended use of the apparatus. See MPEP 2114(II). Thomas further teaches that the apparatus is designed to process in the extraction vessel various forms of hemp or cannabis (par 0003) using a solvent that can be ethanol or a mixture of ethanol and water, water, chloroform or a number of other suitable organic or inorganic solvents (par 0002). However, Thomas does not specifically teach that the apparatus would be fully operable with a solvent which comprises a C1-4 fluorinated hydrocarbon.
Murphy teaches an analogous system for extracting an organic compound from a natural source (Abstract, FIG. 1, pars 0004 and 0008) and demonstrates that a solvent selected of hydrofluorocarbons of chain lengths from C1-C3 (par 0020) can effectively extract organic products from plants in the cannabis family (pars 0016-0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use for the solvent in operation of the apparatus of Thomas a C1-4 fluorinated hydrocarbon as taught by Murphy, as such a hydrofluorocarbon would predictably perform as a suitable extraction solvent to obtain desired extract compounds from cannabis plants and involves simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The disclosure of Thomas is silent regarding the resistivity of the electric heating means thus does not specifically teach wherein said heater has a heater resistance of 50 - 200 Ω/m.
Fong teaches a resistive wire heating element analogous to the claimed controllable electric heating element (Abstract, FIG. 1, pars 0001 and 0050-0051) wherein a helically wound coil with 15 turns per inch results in a resistance of 54.5 Ω/m (pars 0040 and 0050) and desirably provides low electromagnetic fields and prevents hotspots (pars 0051-0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ for the electric heating means of Thomas a wire heating element having a resistance of 50 - 200 Ω/m as taught by Fong, because this wire resistance would predictably provide suitable heating for the fluid conduit element and involves simple substitution of one known element (wire material resistivity) for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Conclusion
54. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights