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 .
Claims 1-6 are pending in this application.
Priority
This application, which discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. 16/452,734, now U.S. 12,104,320, filed 06/25/2019, appears to claim only subject matter directed to an invention that is independent and distinct from that claimed in the prior application, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a divisional application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they contain the Trademarked material CLARISEB™ and PECTINEX™ . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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. See the MPEP at 608.01(v), I. which states:
In the event that a registered mark is a "symbol or device" depicted in a drawing, either the brief description of the drawing or the detailed description of the drawing should specify that the "symbol or device" is a registered mark of Company X. The owner of a mark may be identified in the specification
Specification
The use of the terms FIBERLAB™, CLARISEB™, PECTINEX™ and NUBLEND™ , which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trade marks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: There should be a comma between “disrupted” and “thereby”. 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 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 3 and 5 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 3 recites the limitation, "…and enzymes". Claim 5 recites the limitations, “the stems or the leaves”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Vinson et al. (US 7,811,613 B2), cited in the IDS in view of Tomlinson et al. (US 3,046,182).
Vinson et al. teaches trichomes may be obtained from suitable plant sources by any suitable method known in the art, including the step of separating a trichome from an epidermis of a non-seed portion of a plant, wherein the separating can include chemical process steps (Column 9, Lines 51-56);
and wherein the chemical process step can include a sulfite process (Column 11, Lines 7-9);
and wherein the individualized trichomes/fibers are removed from a suspension (Column 5, Lines 46-48 and 60-67 and Column 6, Lines 1-4), and reading on Claim 1.
With regard to Claims 2 and 6, the reference teaches the plant biomass is Stachys byzantina stems and leaves (Column 13, Lines 17-19).
Vinson et al. does not specifically teach contacting a plant biomass with an acidic solution at a temperature and a pH less than 4.0 to create a suspension and release trichomes from the biomass, as required by Claim 1;
wherein the process takes place at a temperature greater than 30 °C, as required by Claim 3;
wherein the contacting takes place for at least 1 minute, as required by Claim 4;
or wherein the suspension is mixed until the trichome are released, as required by Claim 5.
Tomlinson et al. teaches a sulfite process comprising contacting plant biomass with an acid at a temperature between 160-190 °C at a pH between 3-4 for about 30 minutes to 4 hours (Column 11, Claim 5).
It would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sulfite process method of preparing and recovering individualized trichomes from plant biomass of Vinson et al. with the use of the particular temperature, pH and time parameters of the sulfite process of Tomlinson because Vinson only generally describes the process and Tomlinson provides specific parameters for performance of the process. It would have been further obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to mix/agitate the acid suspension of plant biomass (stems/leaves) because this would cause consistent contact between the plant biomass and the acid affecting release of the trichomes. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine the pH, time and temperature needed to perform the process of Vinson. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because both references are drawn to sulfite processing of plant biomass.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAUL C MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3348. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12pm-8pm EST.
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, Sharmila G Landau can be reached at (571) 272-0614. 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.
/PAUL C MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1653 07/10/2026
Prosecution Insights