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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buse et al. (WO 2015/192137 A2, “Buse”) in view of Gerhard (US 5,992,157, “Gerhard”), Yang et al. (US 2021/0211008 A1, “Yang”).
Claim 1. Buse teaches jacketed extraction chambers containing solvent-bearing plant material and thermally regulating the contents by directing thermally regulated fluid, including hot high-pressure vapor, through an extraction-chamber jacket without contacting the solvent-bearing material (pp. 3, 19–21; FIG. 8).
Buse does not expressly teach the jacket comprising a plurality of longitudinal channels extending along the length of the extraction vessel or introducing the thermally regulated fluid through a plurality of input orifices respectively associated with the longitudinal channels.
Gerhard teaches a vessel having a plurality of longitudinal thermal-fluid channels extending substantially along the length of the vessel, physically separated from the vessel contents, through which heating or cooling medium, including steam, is passed (Abstract; col. 2, ll. 34–67; col. 3, ll. 1–26; FIGS. 1–3). Specifically, five longitudinal channels extend substantially the entire cylindrical length of the vessel and carry a heating or cooling medium.
Gerhard, however, does not expressly teach introducing the thermal-control fluid through a plurality of input orifices, each communicating with a respective longitudinal channel.
Yang teaches a plurality of longitudinal channels and a plurality of inlets fluidly communicating with the longitudinal channels to distribute coolant thereto (¶¶[0004], [0051]–[0053]; FIGS. 7–9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the thermal-fluid jacket of Buse with the plurality of longitudinal thermal-fluid channels of Gerhard and plurality of input orifices of Yang to distribute thermally regulated fluid among the longitudinal channels and provide heat transfer substantially along the length of the extraction vessel.
Claim 4. Buse expressly teaches solvent extraction of plant material retained within its extraction chambers (pp. 6–7, 13, 19–23; FIGS. 7–9). Thus, Buse teaches the claimed solvent-bearing biomass.
Claim 5. Buse teaches sensors for monitoring process conditions, including temperature, with sensed information supplied to a microprocessor controlling the extraction process (p. 14). It would have been obvious to employ the disclosed controller to monitor extraction-vessel temperature to control thermal conditions during solvent extraction and removal.
Claim 10. Buse expressly teaches extraction chamber 715 being under evacuation of residual solvent while the plant material remains in the chamber, including the FIG. 8 configuration in which outlet valve 725 communicates with evacuating compressor 774 (WO ’137, pp. 20–21; FIG. 8). Thus, Buse teaches evacuating solvent from the vessel while retaining the solvent-bearing mass before/further during thermal removal of residual solvent.
Claims 2, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishihara (US2006/0153968 A1).
Claim 2. The combination of Buse, Gerhard, and Yang teaches indirectly thermally regulating a solvent-bearing mass and removing solvent therefrom.
The combination does not expressly teach regulating the thermally regulated fluid to a temperature at least equal to the boiling point of the first solvent so as to evaporate the first liquid solvent portion and produce the claimed solvent vapor portion.
Ishihara teaches heating solvent-containing material at or above the boiling point of a solvent to volatilize that solvent (¶[0007]).
It would have been obvious to operate the thermally regulated fluid of the combined extraction vessel at a temperature at least equal to the boiling point of the solvent to promote evaporation and recovery of solvent remaining in the solvent-bearing mass.
Claim 3.
The combination applied to claim 2 teaches thermally evaporating solvent from a solvent-bearing mass.
The combination does not expressly teach a solvent-bearing mass comprising at least two solvents having differing boiling-point temperatures, with the thermal fluid being at a temperature at least equal to the higher second solvent boiling point and producing a vapor comprising the at least two solvents.
Ishihara teaches material containing a plurality of solvents having different boiling points and regulating heating temperature according to those boiling points, including water (100°C), ethylene glycol (198°C), and glycerin (290°C), and expressly permits heating at or above the boiling point of a higher-boiling solvent (¶¶[0022]–[0025]).
It would have been obvious to heat a mass containing the plurality of solvents at a temperature at least equal to the higher solvent boiling point to volatilize the solvents present in the mass and thereby produce vapor comprising the volatilized solvents.
Claim 9. The combination applied to claim 3 teaches thermally removing solvents from a mass containing solvents having differing boiling points.
The combination does not expressly teach subsequently introducing a second thermally regulated fluid at a temperature higher than the first temperature and at least equal to the second solvent boiling point to evaporate a second liquid solvent portion.
Ishihara further teaches sequentially increasing heating temperature according to the respective solvent boiling points and expressly teaches increasing a subsequent temperature to a temperature at or above the boiling point of the next higher-boiling solvent (¶¶[0022]–[0025]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to introduce the second thermally regulated fluid at a temperature higher than the first temperature and at least equal to the boiling point of the higher-boiling second solvent to sequentially evaporate and recover the solvents and facilitate removal of the higher-boiling residual solvent.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under §103 over Buse in view of Gerhard and Yang as applied to claim 5 and further in view of Nicholls et al. (2007/0009007 A1, “Nicholls”).
Claim 6. Buse teaches monitoring extraction-system temperature using sensors and a controller.
Buse, Gerhard, and Yang do not expressly teach measuring an extraction-vessel temperature with a thermal sensor arranged on or in the extraction vessel.
Nicholls teaches a distributed temperature sensor arranged with a vessel and sensing temperature at locations along the vessel (¶¶[0019]–[0021]).
It would have been obvious to provide the extraction vessel of Buse with such a thermal sensor to obtain vessel-temperature measurements for monitoring and controlling the thermally regulated process.
Claim 7. The combination applied to claim 6 teaches measuring temperatures at locations along the extraction vessel.
The combination of Buse, Gerhard, and Yang alone does not expressly teach monitoring a thermal-gradient value across the length of the extraction vessel.
Nicholls further expressly teaches obtaining a temperature profile from temperature measurements at locations extending substantially along the vessel and expressly discusses the temperature gradient within the vessel (¶¶[0019]–[0021], [0025]–[0026]). Thus, monitoring the claimed thermal-gradient value across the vessel length would have been obvious to identify and control nonuniform thermal conditions along the extraction vessel.
Claim 8 is rejected under §103 over Buse, Gerhard and Yang as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Fissore et al. (US2010/0018073A1).
Buse teaches heating an extraction chamber containing solvent-bearing material to remove residual solvent.
Buse, Gerhard, and Yang do not expressly teach monitoring vapor pressure of the extraction vessel and determining from the monitored pressure whether residual solvent remains, and, when residual solvent remains, performing an additional heated solvent-removal operation.
Fissore teaches isolating a drying chamber while heating continues, measuring the resulting chamber-pressure rise, and using that pressure measurement to determine the water and/or solvent desorption rate and residual solvent/moisture content (¶¶[0017]–[0037], [0074]–[0077]). Fissore further teaches that if the determined residual solvent/moisture has not reached the desired endpoint, the drying operation is continued and the determination repeated (¶¶[0064]–[0070]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to monitor pressure associated with solvent vapor in Buse's extraction vessel and use the monitored pressure to determine whether residual solvent remains, as taught by Fissore, to determine whether solvent removal is complete and, when residual solvent remains, continue the heated solvent-removal operation until the desired residual-solvent level is achieved. When residual solvent is determined to remain, introducing another portion of thermally regulated fluid through the thermal-fluid channels to evaporate an additional solvent portion and collecting the resulting vapor would have been an obvious application of Fissure’s continued-drying procedure to the Buse extraction system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
