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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 05/05/2026 (references with 78 pages, 3 pages and 7 pages respectively) fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-26 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.
The term “50%-100%” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “50%-100%” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It seems the Applicant meant to refer to the weight percentage. Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is reminded to point out the support in the instant application.
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 1-14, 16, 19-20 and 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian et al. (U.S 20160073689) in view of Yasumitsu et al. (JP 2010013758 with English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Sebastian discloses a packaging material ([0001] and fig. 1) for use in an oral pouched nicotine product in order to enclose a filling material, said filling material comprising a particulate non-tobacco material and a nicotine source [0009],
said packaging material being a saliva-permeable [0009], it is noted that claim 1 recites the thermoplastic fibres as optional and the packaging material can be a saliva-permeable, chemically bonded or adhesive bonded nonwoven material comprising carded fibres. For purpose of examination, a packaging material being a saliva-permeable meets this recitation;
Sebastian discloses the carded fibers [0011], wherein about 67% (within the claimed range of 50% to 100%) of the carded fibres are cellulose based staple fibres and 33% (within the claimed range of 0% to 50%) of said carded fibres are heat sealable binder (corresponding to the claimed thermoplastic fibres) ([0050]; 1:2 ratio of heat sealable binder to other fiber types indicates about 67% of other fiber types) of said carded fibers are cellulose-based staple fibers). While the reference does not specifically disclose the measurement conditions for the thermoplastic fibers (21°C and 50% RH), given the ranges taught by the prior art, the thermoplastic fibers would clearly fall within the claimed range under the conditions cited in the claim.
Sebastian also discloses cellulose-based staple fibers have a linear density less than 1.7 decided [0077].
Sebastian discloses said packaging material has a basis weight of about 20 gsm to about 35 gsm ([0059], lines 8-9,) which overlaps with the claimed range of above 30 g/m². In case of overlapping ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range.
Sebastian further discloses the packaging (includes nonwoven web) can be carded and further comprises chemical adhesive (binder) [0053] but does not expressly discloses the amount of binder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to look and found the teaching of the amount of binder in the disclosure of Yasumitsu. Yasumitsu discloses a packaging material of nonwoven material further includes chemical binder resin including polyvinyl acetate; wherein the binder constituting 2g to 20g /m² (page 5 of the translation). The combination of Sebastian and Yasumitsu taken together as a whole discloses the range of the binder (6% (2gsm/35gsm) to 57% (20gsm/35gsm) overlapping with the claimed range of 20%-60% of a total weight of said packaging material. In case of overlapping ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, Sebastian discloses the packaging material wherein the carded fibers are cellulose-based staple fibers with 67% by weight [0017 and 0050] within the claimed range of 55%-99% of said carded fibers are cellulose-based staple fibers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Sebastian et al. discloses the packaging material wherein 1%-45% of said carded fibres are thermoplastic fibres ([0050], lines 14-18, 1:2 ratio of binder to other fiber types indicated about 33% of binder fibers; [0044], lines 2-5, binder fibers as multicomponent fibers comprising thermoplastic fibers; [0045], lines 12-13, polylactic acid or PLA).
Regarding claim 4, Sebastian et al. discloses the packaging material wherein said carded fibres consist of said cellulose-based staples fibres and said thermoplastic fibres ([0077], lines 1- 4).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sebastian and Yasumitsu discloses the packaging material wherein said packaging material consists of said cellulose-based staple fibres, said thermoplastic fibres and said binder ([0050] and [0053] of Sebastian and page 5 of Yasumitsu).
Regarding claim 6, Sebastian discloses the basis weight of the packaging material ranging about 20 gsm to about 35 gsm [0059] overlapping with the claimed range of greater or equal to 32 g/m². In case of overlapping ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Sebastian et al. discloses the packaging material wherein said cellulose-based staple fibres are natural cellulose fibres or man-made cellulose-based fibres [0043].
Regarding claim 8, Sebastian et al. discloses the packaging material wherein said cellulose-based staple fibres have a linear density within the claimed range of less than or equal to 1.5 decitex [0077].
Regarding claim 9, Sebastian et al. discloses the packaging material wherein said cellulose-based staple fibres have a length within the range of 30-80 mm ([0052].
Regarding claim 10, Sebastian et al. discloses the packaging material wherein said thermoplastic fibres comprise of one or more of PP, PLA, PET, PP/PE, or PLA/co-PLA [0045].
Regarding claim 11, Sebastian et al. discloses the packaging material wherein said thermoplastic fibres have a length within the range of 30-80 mm [0052].
Regarding claim 12, Sebastian et al. discloses the packaging material wherein said thermoplastic fibres have a linear density within the claimed range of less than or equal to 4.4 decitex [0077].
Regarding claim 13, Sebastian et al. discloses the packaging material wherein said thermoplastic fibres have a melting point within the range of 110-260°C [0045].
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sebastian [0053] and Yasumitsu (page 5 of translation) taken together as a whole discloses the range of the binder (6% (2gsm/35gsm) to 57% (20gsm/35gsm) overlapping with the claimed range of 20%-60% of a total weight of said packaging material.
Regarding claim 16, Sebastian et al. teaches the packaging material wherein said packaging material has an air permeability of greater than about 10,000 ml/min/cm² ([0059] (greater than approximately 1,667 L/m²/s) overlapping with the claimed range of < 4,000 L/m²/s. In case of overlapping ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range.
Regarding claim 19, Sebastian et al. discloses an oral pouched nicotine product [0001], said product comprising a filling material ([0009], lines 4-6, composition comprising a water- soluble component) and a saliva-permeable pouch ((0009], lines 3-4, outer water-permeable pouch), said filling material comprising a particulate non-tobacco material and a nicotine source ([009], lines 12-14), said pouch enclosing said portion ({0010], lines 8-11; Fig. 1), said pouch comprising the packaging material of claim 1, wherein said packaging material is sealed with at least one seal to enclose said portion ([0018], lines 17-19; Fig. 1), and wherein said binder constitutes 20%-60% of a total weight of said packaging material ([0050], lines 14-18, 1:2 ratio of binder to other fiber types indicated about 33% of binder fibers).
Regarding claim 20, Sebastian et al. discloses the packaging material wherein said thermoplastic fibres are at least partially melted ({0043], lines 5-9; [0057], lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 22, Sebastian discloses the chemical adhesive (binder) (corresponding to the claimed not bonded by hydro-entanglement) [0053].
Regarding claim 24, Yasumitsu discloses a packaging material of nonwoven material further includes chemical binder resin including polyvinyl acetate (corresponding to the claimed polymerization of vinyl acetate) (page 5 of the translation).
Regarding claims 25-26, in additions to the features discussed above for claim 1, Sebastian also discloses the regenerated cellulose fibers can be rayon or viscose fibers [0043], viscose fibers have a linear density overlapping with the claimed range of less than 1.3 decitex. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian et al. (U.S. 2016/0073689 A1) in view of Yasumitsu et al. (JP 2010013758 with English translation) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Persson (EP 3 330 191 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Sebastian et al. discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Sebastian et al. also discloses using ultrasonic bonding to strengthen the pouch seal ([0057], lines 9-13). However, the reference does not explicitly disclose the packaging material having a dry seal strength of at least 0.2 N/mm when said seal is made by ultrasonic welding.
Persson teaches a similar packaging material [0001] wherein said packaging material has a dry seal strength of at least 0.2 N/mm ((0029], lines 30-31, at least 0.2 N/mm in dry state) when said seal is made by ultrasonic welding ([0020], lines 37-40; [0115], lines 57-58). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the product of Sebastian et al. to specify a dry seal strength of at least 0.2 N/mm as taught by Persson to improve the quality of the packaging material product. A higher dry seal strength will reduce the possibility of a seal breaking during both the shipment and the use of the product.
Claims 17, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian et al. (U.S. 2016/0073689 A1) in view of Yasumitsu et al. (JP 2010013758 with English translation) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Irie et al. (U.S. 2010/0189936 A1).
Regarding claims 17, 18, and 21, Sebastian does not explicitly disclose that the packaging material has a median pore size of < 300 µm² and a powder leakage of < 400 mg, or that the oral pouched nicotine product has a powder leakage of < 100 mg. Irie et al. teaches a similar packaging material (abstract; [0039], lines 5-9, low fabric weight preferred; [0063], bag shape, heat sealed; [0065], bags containing a packing material; [0142] wherein said packaging material has a median pore size of 3 to 30 µm (corresponding to about 7 µm² to about 700 µm²) [0071] overlapping with the claimed range of < 300 µm². In case of overlapping ranges, it would have been obvious to tone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range. Irie et al. specifically teaches that the maximum pore size should preferably be between 3 and 30 um because nonwoven fabrics need to have both an excellent filtering function and an excellent barrier function ((0071], lines 4-7).
Irie further teaches that the packaging material has a powder leakage of < 400 mg (Page 8, Table 2, Ex. 2 has a powder leakage of 0.1%) and that the oral pouched product has a powder leakage of < 100 mg (Page 8, Table 2, Ex. 2 has a powder leakage of 0.1%). While Irie et al. does not explicitly teach the intended use of an oral pouched nicotine product, it does teach that possible applications of the nonwoven fabric include making tea filters and bags ((0142], the likes). Additionally, the inclusion of tea filters and bags for seasoning indicates that the nonwoven fabric can be used for items intended for human consumption such as oral pouched nicotine products.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the product of Sebastian et al. to specify a median pore size of < 300 µm² and a powder leakage of < 400 mg or more specifically < 100 mg for oral pouched nicotine products as taught by Irie et al. as a way to improve the quality of the packaging material product. Since the average particle size of a powder filling material would be very small, it is necessary that a sufficiently small median pore size is selected to minimize the powder leakage of the packaging material. Reducing the powder leakage will then reduce the amount of filling material lost during both the shipment and the use of the packaging material product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/13/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Sebastian’s heat sealable binder fibers are not a binder as recited in claim 1. The above rejection only rely on Sebastian disclosure of the chemical adhesive [0053] corresponding to the binder as recited in the instant claim 1.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Sebastian discloses the nonwoven further includes a chemical adhesive in addition to the heat sealable binder fibers and second fiber types [0053]; however Sebastian does not explicitly disclose the amount of the chemical adhesive (page 5 of the pre-appeal brief). As explained above in the rejection, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to look and found the teaching of the amount of binder in the disclosure of Yasumitsu. Yasumitsu discloses a packaging material of nonwoven material further includes chemical binder resin including polyvinyl acetate; wherein the binder constituting 2g to 20g /m² (page 5 of the translation). The combination of Sebastian and Yasumitsu taken together as a whole discloses the range of the binder (6% (2gsm/35gsm) to 57% (20gsm/35gsm) overlapping with the claimed range of 20%-60% of a total weight of said packaging material. In case of overlapping ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHU H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5931. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 5712703882. 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.
/PHU H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights