RE:RE:i wish Reviewing the documentation between the applicant and the patent office (see link below) reveals some things of interest.
The patent application was rejected by the US patent office multiple times between 2014 and 2020. The applicant kept submitting amendments and arguments why the patent should be allowed. An amended version of the patent was finally allowed based in part on the applicant’s argument that:
"Nowhere do the cited references teach or suggest to extract cannabinoids using liquid CO2 under subcritical conditions of temperature and pressure, nor do the cited references teach or suggest to reduce the temperature and/or pressure to separate the cannabinoids from the CO2." (June 26, 2020)
It appears that the role of a patent examiner is to query the patent record using key words like THC, CBD, hemp, delta 9, cannabinoids, carbon dioxide, subcritical, etc. to determine if an earlier version of the present patent application exists. Examiners do not make judgement calls on what can be reasonably inferred from a patent. That’s left to the courts.
Prior patents may not have explicitly stated that one must reduce the temperature and/or pressure after using same to extract molecules from plant materials but it is common sense that it is a necessary step in the process. I believe the courts will conclude the same thing.
https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair
Application no. 14/276,165