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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended the claims to require adding one or more surfactant to the mixture and aerating the wetted mixture as well as new claims. These will be addressed below.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 7/23/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of USP 11,879,211, 12,104,320, 10,309,057, and 10,344,428 have been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Vinson et al, US Patent Publication 2007/0011762.
Regarding claims 1-4 and 16, Vinson teaches a method for individualizing trichomes (see title and abstract) comprising the steps of providing a mixture of trichomes and non-trichrome materials (trichrome-bearing materials that are used to liberate the trichrome [0096-0103], specifically after separating from the host plant [0102]), adding water to the mixture to form a slurry (optionally done in an aqueous solution [0102] and a wet process taught in [0103], see also [0132]); physically separating the trichomes form the non-trichrome material [0096- 0107] specifically by screening or aerating [0100] (reads on using air to float a second portion) and removing at least a portion of the trichomes [0104].
Vinson further teaches adding one or more surfactants to the slurry [102] and then using screens to select the sized trichomes desired (slotted screens reads on sieves [0099-0101].
Vinson further teaches that the desired screen size is about 3 mm wise [0099] and that conventional screens can be utilized [0100]. A 3 mm wide screen reads on the cited value of between an 8 mesh and a 5 mesh as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as a reduction in sieve openings.
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.
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 5-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinson et al, US Patent Publication 2007/0011762 in view of Cuyubamba et al, US Patent Publication 2015/0094252.
Regarding claims 5-14, Vinson teaches the use of surfactants but only provides a couple of specific examples [0102] and not any other information in regards to the selection.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to look to the conventional art to determine the ideal surfactants to utilize.
In the same field of endeavor of making produces form trichomes based papermaking slurries [0061], Cuyubamba teaches the use of an anionic surfactant such as alkyl ethoxy sulfate and an amphoteric surfactant such as amine oxide [0044] and nonionic surfactant such as alcohol alkoxylate [0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the surfactants as taught by Cuyubamba in the Vinson method as both are to the same assignee to accomplish the same goal of producing sanitary products from trichome containing pulp.
Regarding claim 15, Cuyubamba further teaches the anionic to amphoteric surfactant ratio is preferred at 2:1 to 4.5:1 [0088].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinson et al, US Patent Publication 2007/0011762 in view of Sayre et al, US Patent Publication 2019/0085347.
Regarding claim 17, Vison remains as applied above but is silent on the use of enzymes in the separation process.
In the same field of endeavor of isolating cannabinods in plants, Sayre teaches that the isolation and separation of plant trichromes can be performed with the use of a glycosylation enzymes [0102].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the isolation practices of Sayre in Vison reference for the benefit of isolating the trichomes in a known and conventional manner to achieve the same goal of isolation and separation of the trichomes from the plant material.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinson et al, US Patent Publication 2007/0011762 in view of Woods, US Patent Publication 2014/0315259.
Regarding claims 18-20, Vinson teaches a method for individualizing trichomes (see title and abstract) comprising the steps of providing a mixture of trichomes and non-trichrome materials (trichrome-bearing materials that are used to liberate the trichrome [0096-0103], specifically after separating from the host plant [0102]), adding water to the mixture to form a slurry (optionally done in an aqueous solution [0102] and a wet process taught in [0103], see also [0132]); physically separating the trichomes form the non-trichrome material [0096- 0107] specifically by screening or aerating [0100] (reads on using air to float a second portion) and removing at least a portion of the trichomes [0104].
Vinson further teaches adding one or more surfactants to the slurry [102] and then using screens to select the sized trichomes desired (slotted screens reads on sieves [0099-0101].
Paragraph [0102] Talks about how the chemical treatment and separation can occur either before or after dry liberation from the host plant. Therefore, the average artisan would view the processes for individualization trichomes section to be able to be performed either before or after the separation from the host plant material.
Vinson is silent on the specific use of a dissolved air floatation unit as the preferred separating device, instead only stating that air separators can be utilized.
In order to show that dissolved air floatation units are conventional to the average artisan, the Woods reference is presented.
Woods teaches that treated biomass can undergo recovery steps in known manners. Woods teaches that it is conventional to utilize skimmers often referred to as dissolved air floatation separations [0110] to recover CO products of the process. This is advantageous as it allows for a collection of the desired components as well as the clarified liquid that can be utilized for future processing.
While Woods is not directed to the specific use of separating trichomes, it does teach that conventional biomass separation from process liquids is known by the use of dissolved air floatation, and that it is advantageous to utilize this type of separating for isolating and collection of known materials.
A simple substitution of one known element of another that would lead to predicable end results is well within ability of the average artisan. The selection of a dissolved air floatation would have been an obvious choice for separation based on the teachings of the prior art and basic engineering practice.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T MINSKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7003. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 5712707475. 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.
JACOB T. MINSKEY
Examiner
Art Unit 1741
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights