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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/22/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-9, 12-16 and 18-25 are pending.
Claims 1, 14-16 and 18 have been amended.
Claims 11 and 17 have been cancelled.
Claims 20, 21 and 24 remain withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the limitation that the calcium carbonate is present in an amount of at least 85 wt % have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of EP0419974 (Jakob hereinafter) in view of US 6779531 (Biggs hereinafter) and further in view of US 5396911 (Casey hereinafter), as evidenced by Specialty Minerals Performance Minerals Locations (Specialty Minerals Plants) and ViCALity® SG Food Grade Precipitated Calcium Carbonate (Technical Data Sheet).
The Applicant argues that Jakob is directed to a cast sheet or extruded material, not a pellet or pill, and is not identical in structure or process of manufacture. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The process of manufacture is not patentably significant as the claims are directed to a product. While Jakob does not expressly teach that the extruded material is in pellet or pill form, Jakob does not teach away or discredit the extruded material being in pellet or pill form. The combined teaching of Jakob and Biggs is relied upon to teach the extruded material in pellet form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 12, 13 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP0419974 (Jakob hereinafter) in view of US 6779531 (Biggs hereinafter) and further in view of US 5396911 (Casey hereinafter), as evidenced by Specialty Minerals Performance Minerals Locations (Specialty Minerals Plants) and ViCALity® SG Food Grade Precipitated Calcium Carbonate (Technical Data Sheet).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-8 and 12, Jakob teaches an aerosolizable product comprising: (a) an aerosol forming material (“aerosol generating material”) in the form of a liquid, specifically a combination of glycerol and propylene glycol (col. 8, lines 51- col. 9, line 1); and (b) a substrate material (“inorganic filler materials (e.g. precipitated calcium carbonate)),” col. 7, lines 15-17), wherein the substrate material consists of precipitated calcium carbonate available as Code No. 2A from Pfizer, Inc. (col. 24, lines 37-39). Minerals Technologies Inc. took over a number of precipitated calcium carbonate plants operated by Pfizer, Inc. and currently produces precipitated calcium carbonate for many purposes including food and pharmaceuticals (Specialty Minerals Plants). The food grade precipitated calcium carbonate produced by Specialty Minerals is 98.75% Calcium Carbonate (Technical Data Sheet). Thus, the substrate material of Jakob is 98.75% Calcium Carbonate based on the substrate material. Jakob teaches the total surface area of the calcium carbonate present in the aerosolizable product is less than 30 m2 per gram (according to the BET method) present in the aerosolizable product (col. 12, lines 5-8 and 12-15 and col. 11, lines 1-3).
Jakob does not expressly teach that the liquid aerosol forming material is present in an amount of 1 to 10 wt%, based on the aerosolizable product or that the calcium carbonate is present in an amount of at least 85 wt%, based on the aerosolizable product.
Biggs teaches an aerosolizable product comprising an aerosol forming material and an inorganic filler, wherein any other components are optional (abstract). Biggs teaches that the aerosol forming material is present in a range of about 2% to about 30% by weight (col. 1, lines 28-30). Biggs teaches that the inorganic filler is calcium carbonate (col. 1, lines 61-62), which is present in at least about 45% by weight (col. 2, lines 1-2). Thus, the most calcium carbonate that the aerosolizable product comprises is 98% by weight. Biggs further teaches that the aerosolizable product is in particulate form, specifically the product is extruded and then suitably cut to a particulate form (col. 1, lines 40-44), which would result in a “pellet” form. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have looked to Biggs for the specific amount of aerosol forming material and calcium carbonate to include, given that Jakob does not expressly teach the amounts and also that both Jakob and Biggs teach an aerosolizable product comprising an aerosol forming material and calcium carbonate for use in a smoking article. The combination would have a reasonable expectation of success and would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The original disclosure teaches that the calcium carbonate has a specific surface area (according to the BET method) of at least 5 m2 per gram (page 21-22) and also teaches that the aerosol forming materials may be present in any suitable amount in the aerosolizable product, including at least 1 wt% based on the aerosolizable product (page 15-16). Thus, Jakob in view of Biggs teaches calcium carbonate which has the same specific surface area (according to the BET method) and also teaches aerosol forming materials in the claimed amount, specifically in an amount of about 2% to about 30% based on the aerosolizable product (Biggs, col. 1, lines 28-30). Therefore given that Jakob in view of Biggs teaches calcium carbonate which has the same specific surface area (according to the BET method) as the instant disclosure and also teaches aerosol forming materials in the claimed amount, specifically in an amount of about 2% to about 30% based on the aerosolizable product (Biggs, col. 1, lines 28-30), the total surface area of the calcium carbonate present in the product per gram of liquid aerosol forming material is expected inherently to be the same. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, In re Best, 195 USPQ 430.
The instant specification states, in paragraph [0118], that “We have found that by use of a calcium carbonate substrate such that the total surface area of the calcium carbonate present in the aerosolizable product is at least 25 m² per gram of aerosol forming material present in the aerosolizable product, it is possible to form a substrate having a substantially solid form which is able to hold aerosol forming materials such as glycerol. As a result, problems associated with leakage and user acceptance of the prior art may be overcome…By controlling the surface area of the calcium carbonate relative to the amount of aerosol forming material present in the aerosolizable product it is possible to avoid the issues of leakage.” Therefore given that Jakob in view of Biggs teach calcium carbonate which has the same specific surface area (according to the BET method) as the instant disclosure and also teaches aerosol forming materials in the claimed amount, specifically in an amount of about 2% to about 30% based on the aerosolizable product (Biggs, col. 1, lines 28-30), the property that “the liquid aerosol forming material is held by the surface of the substrate material so that it does not leak from the aerosolizable product” is expected inherently to be the same. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, In re Best, 195 USPQ 430.
Jakob in view of Biggs does not expressly teach that the aerosolizable product comprises channels and/or ridges.
Casey teaches substrate material for smoking articles, particularly cigarettes (abstract) wherein inorganic filler materials can be incorporated as fillers in the substrate, including calcium carbonate (col. 12, lines 37-42). Casey teaches that the substrate composition may be formed into a useful substrate for cigarettes and other smoking articles by various processing methods (col. 12, lines 55-58) including extruding a relatively thick slurry into discretely shaped particles, which may also include one or more passageways or channels therein or thereon, for modification of the surface area (col. 13, lines 2-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have made the substrate of Jakob in view of Biggs have channels therein or thereon, as taught by Casey, for modification of the surface area (col. 13, lines 2-5).
Regarding claim 9, modified Jakob teaches an aerosolizable product comprising water (Jakob, col. 21, line 12).
Regarding claim 13, modified Jakob teaches an aerosolizable product comprising tobacco (Jakob, col. 8, lines 1-15), which comprises nicotine.
Regarding claim 25, regarding the limitation, “wherein the channels and/or ridges provide airflow paths around the material for drawing vapor generated from the liquid aerosol forming material,” this is a functional limitation. The courts have held that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114 II. In this case, all of the structural limitations are taught (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakob in view of Biggs and further in view of Casey as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 20120312314 (Plakidis hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Jakob does not expressly teach that the calcium carbonate has a specific surface area (according to the BET method) of at least 70 m2/g.
Plakidis teaches an aerosol generating article for a smoking article comprising particulate sorbent material coated and/or impregnated with diluent, wherein the particulate material has a high BET specific surface area or is calcium carbonate ([0001]). Plakidis teaches that, preferably, the particulate porous material has a BET specific surface area of at least 1300 m2/g, preferably at least 1400, 1500, 1600, 1700 or 1800 m2/g. In general, the greater the BET specific surface area, the greater the amount of diluent that can be carried by the particles. However, the brittleness can increase if the surface area is too high. Preferably, the BET specific surface area is 3000 m2/g or less, preferably 2500 m2/g or less, preferably 2000 m2/g or less ([0012]). Since Plakidis teaches that calcium carbonate is an equivalent alternative for particulate material with a high BET specific surface area, it is reasonable that the BET specific surface area of calcium carbonate is roughly equivalent to the particulate material with a high BET specific surface area, which is well above 70 m2/g.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to have included calcium carbonate with a BET specific surface area above 70 m2/g, as taught by Plakidis, in modified Jakob because, in general, the greater the BET specific surface area, the greater the amount of diluent, specifically aerosol generating material, that can be carried by the particles which is beneficial for an aerosol generating article (Plakidis, [0012] and [0020]-[0021]).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakob in view of Biggs in view of Casey as applied to claim 13, and further in view of US 4807648 (Breckwoldt hereinafter).
Regarding claim 14 and 15, Modified Jakob teaches an aerosolizable product comprising tobacco (col. 8, lines 1-15), which comprises nicotine, but does not expressly teach the amount of nicotine in the aerosolizable product.
Breckwoldt teaches an aerosol generating article for a smoking article aerosol forming composition that comprises 0.1 to 10 percent by weight nicotine (col. 2, lines 64- col. 3, line 2), which overlaps with the claimed ranges.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have applied a known technique (the weight percent of nicotine taught by Breckwoldt) to a known product (the aerosolizable product of modified Jakob which contains nicotine) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jakob in view of Biggs in view of Casey and further in view of Breckwoldt.
Regarding claims 16, 18 and 19, Jakob teaches a dosage form of an aerosolizable product comprising: (a) an active agent, specifically nicotine in the tobacco (col. 8, lines 1-15), (b) an aerosol forming material (“aerosol generating material”) in the form of a liquid, specifically a combination of glycerol and propylene glycol (col. 8, lines 51- col. 9, line 1); and (c) a substrate material (“inorganic filler materials (e.g. precipitated calcium carbonate),” col. 7, lines 15-17), wherein the substrate material consists of precipitated calcium carbonate available as Code No. 2A from Pfizer, Inc. (col. 24, lines 37-39). Minerals Technologies Inc. took over a number of precipitated calcium carbonate plants operated by Pfizer, Inc. and currently produces precipitated calcium carbonate for many purposes including food and pharmaceuticals (Specialty Minerals Plants). The food grade precipitated calcium carbonate produced by Specialty Minerals is 98.75% Calcium Carbonate (Technical Data Sheet). Thus, the substrate material of Jakob is 98.75% Calcium Carbonate based on the substrate material. Jakob teaches that the aerosol forming material is in a liquid form, specifically a combination of glycerol and propylene glycol (col. 8, lines 51- col. 9, line 1). Jakob teaches the total surface area of the calcium carbonate present in the aerosolizable product is less than 30 m2 per gram (according to the BET method) present in the aerosolizable product (col. 12, lines 5-8 and 12-15 and col. 11, lines 1-3).
Jakob does not expressly teach that the liquid aerosol forming material is present in an amount of 1 to 10 wt% based on the aerosolizable product.
Biggs teaches an aerosolizable product comprising an aerosol forming material and an inorganic filler, wherein any other components are optional (abstract). Biggs teaches that the aerosol forming material is present in a range of about 2% to about 30% by weight (col. 1, lines 28-30). Biggs teaches that the inorganic filler is calcium carbonate (col. 1, lines 61-62), which is present in at least about 45% by weight (col. 2, lines 1-2). Thus, the most calcium carbonate that the aerosolizable product comprises is 98% by weight. Biggs further teaches that the aerosolizable product is in particulate form, specifically the product is extruded and then suitably cut to a particulate form (col. 1, lines 40-44), which would result in a “pellet” form. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have looked to Biggs for the specific amount of aerosol forming material and calcium carbonate to include, given that Jakob does not expressly teach the amounts and also that both Jakob and Biggs teach an aerosolizable product comprising an aerosol forming material and calcium carbonate for use in a smoking article. The combination would have a reasonable expectation of success and would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The original disclosure teaches that the calcium carbonate has a specific surface area (according to the BET method) of at least 5 m2 per gram (page 21-22) and also teaches that the aerosol forming materials may be present in any suitable amount in the aerosolizable product, including at least 1 wt% based on the aerosolizable product (page 15-16). Thus, Jakob in view of Biggs teaches calcium carbonate which has the same specific surface area (according to the BET method) and also teaches aerosol forming materials in the claimed amount, specifically in an amount of about 2% to about 30% based on the aerosolizable product (Biggs, col. 1, lines 28-30). Therefore given that Jakob in view of Biggs teaches calcium carbonate which has the same specific surface area (according to the BET method) as the instant disclosure and also teaches aerosol forming materials in the claimed amount, specifically in an amount of about 2% to about 30% based on the aerosolizable product (Biggs, col. 1, lines 28-30), the total surface area of the calcium carbonate present in the product per gram of liquid aerosol forming material is expected inherently to be the same. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, In re Best, 195 USPQ 430.
The instant specification states, in paragraph [0118], that “We have found that by use of a calcium carbonate substrate such that the total surface area of the calcium carbonate present in the aerosolizable product is at least 25 m² per gram of aerosol forming material present in the aerosolizable product, it is possible to form a substrate having a substantially solid form which is able to hold aerosol forming materials such as glycerol. As a result, problems associated with leakage and user acceptance of the prior art may be overcome…By controlling the surface area of the calcium carbonate relative to the amount of aerosol forming material present in the aerosolizable product it is possible to avoid the issues of leakage.” Therefore given that Jakob in view of Biggs teach calcium carbonate which has the same specific surface area (according to the BET method) as the instant disclosure and also teaches aerosol forming materials in the claimed amount, specifically in an amount of about 2% to about 30% based on the aerosolizable product (Biggs, col. 1, lines 28-30), the property that “the liquid aerosol forming material is held by the surface of the substrate material so that it does not leak from the aerosolizable product” is expected inherently to be the same. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, In re Best, 195 USPQ 430.
Jakob in view of Biggs does not expressly teach that the aerosolizable product comprises channels and/or ridges.
Casey teaches substrate material for smoking articles, particularly cigarettes (abstract) wherein inorganic filler materials can be incorporated as fillers in the substrate, including calcium carbonate (col. 12, lines 37-42). Casey teaches that the substrate composition may be formed into a useful substrate for cigarettes and other smoking articles by various processing methods (col. 12, lines 55-58) including extruding a relatively thick slurry into discretely shaped particles, which may also include one or more passageways or channels therein or thereon, for modification of the surface area (col. 13, lines 2-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have made the substrate of Jakob in view of Biggs have channels therein or thereon, as taught by Casey, for modification of the surface area (col. 13, lines 2-5).
Modified Jakob does not expressly teach the amount of nicotine in the aerosolizable product.
Breckwoldt teaches an aerosol generating article for a smoking article aerosol forming composition that comprises 0.1 to 10 percent by weight nicotine (col. 2, lines 64- col. 3, line 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have applied a known technique (the weight percent of nicotine taught by Breckwoldt) to a known product (the aerosolizable product of Modified Jakob which contains nicotine) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.
Modified Jakob does not expressly teach how much 0.1 to 10 percent by weight nicotine translates to in terms of grams but 0.1 percent by weight nicotine in Jakob falls within 0.001 grams to 1 gram nicotine, or in the alternative, it would been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have optimized the weight amount of nicotine in modified Jakob given that it is the active ingredient and given that the optimal percent by weight nicotine is also known, with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results.
Regarding the limitation, “a dosage form”, the specification does not explicitly define or limit the structure of “a dosage form,” thus this limitation does not impart patentable weight to the claim.
Claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoun in view of Biggs in view of Jakob and further in view of Casey, as evidenced by Specialty Minerals Performance Minerals Locations (Specialty Minerals Plants) and ViCALity® SG Food Grade Precipitated Calcium Carbonate (Technical Data Sheet).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Aoun teaches a contained aerosolizable product comprising: (a) a container, or cartridge, wherein the container is configured for engagement with an electronic aerosol provision system, or device (page 18, lines 28-29); and (b) an aerosolizable product (“aerosol generating material”) comprising: (a) an aerosol forming material (“aerosol generating agent”) in the form of a liquid, wherein the aerosol forming material is present in an amount of 10-35 wt% aerosol generating material (abstract and page 2, lines 24-25); and (b) a substrate material (“filler”) (page 2, lines 3-6), wherein the substrate material consists of calcium carbonate (page 2, lines 24-25).
Aoun does not expressly teach that the calcium carbonate is present in an amount of at least 85 wt.% based on the aerosolizable product.
Biggs teaches an aerosolizable product comprising an aerosol forming material and an inorganic filler, wherein any other components are optional (abstract). Biggs teaches that the aerosol forming material is present in a range of about 2% to about 30% by weight (col. 1, lines 28-30). Biggs teaches that the inorganic filler is calcium carbonate (col. 1, lines 61-62), which is present in at least about 45% by weight (col. 2, lines 1-2). Thus, the most calcium carbonate that the aerosolizable product comprises is 98% by weight. Biggs further teaches that the aerosolizable product is in particulate form, specifically the product is extruded and then suitably cut to a particulate form (col. 1, lines 40-44), which would result in a “pellet” form. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have applied the teachings of Biggs to Aoun with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results.
Modified Aoun does not expressly teach the total surface area of the calcium carbonate present in the aerosolizable product or that the substrate material includes at least 50 weight % calcium carbonate based on the substrate material.
Jakob teaches an aerosolizable product comprising: (a) an aerosol forming material (“aerosol generating material”) in the form of a liquid, specifically a combination of glycerol and propylene glycol (col. 8, lines 51- col. 9, line 1); and (b) a substrate material (“inorganic filler materials (e.g. precipitated calcium carbonate)),” col. 7, lines 15-17), wherein the substrate material consists of precipitated calcium carbonate available as Code No. 2A from Pfizer, Inc. (col. 24, lines 37-39). Minerals Technologies Inc. took over a number of precipitated calcium carbonate plants operated by Pfizer, Inc. and currently produces precipitated calcium carbonate for many purposes including food and pharmaceuticals (Specialty Minerals Plants). The food grade precipitated calcium carbonate produced by Specialty Minerals is 98.75% Calcium Carbonate (Technical Data Sheet). Thus, the substrate material of Jakob is 98.75% Calcium Carbonate based on the substrate material. Jakob teaches the total surface area of the calcium carbonate present in the aerosolizable product is less than 30 m2 per gram (according to the BET method) present in the aerosolizable product (col. 12, lines 5-8 and 12-15 and col. 11, lines 1-3). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have applied the teachings of Jakob to the invention disclosed by modified Aoun because it has been held that applying a known technique (the optimization of the surface area of calcium carbonate as taught by Jakob) to a known product (calcium carbonate as taught by modified Aoun) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (optimal loading of calcium carbonate with aerosol generating material in an aerosolizable product) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143.
The original disclosure teaches that the calcium carbonate has a specific surface area (according to the BET method) of at least 5 m2 per gram (page 21-22) and also teaches that the aerosol forming materials may be present in any suitable amount in the aerosolizable product, including at least 1 wt% based on the aerosolizable product (page 15-16). Thus, Modified Aoun teaches calcium carbonate which has the same specific surface area (according to the BET method, Jakob) and also teaches aerosol forming materials in the claimed amount, specifically in an amount of 10-35 wt% aerosol generating material (Aoun, abstract and page 2, lines 24-25). Therefore given that Modified Aoun teaches calcium carbonate which has the same specific surface area (according to the BET method, Jakob) as the instant disclosure and also teaches aerosol forming materials in the claimed amount, specifically in an amount of 10-35 wt% aerosol generating material (Aoun, abstract and page 2, lines 24-25), the total surface area of the calcium carbonate present in the product per gram of liquid aerosol forming material is expected inherently to be the same. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, In re Best, 195 USPQ 430.
Modified Aoun does not expressly teach that the aerosolizable product comprises channels and/or ridges.
Casey teaches substrate material for smoking articles, particularly cigarettes (abstract) wherein inorganic filler materials can be incorporated as fillers in the substrate, including calcium carbonate (col. 12, lines 37-42). Casey teaches that the substrate composition may be formed into a useful substrate for cigarettes and other smoking articles by various processing methods (col. 12, lines 55-58) including extruding a relatively thick slurry into discretely shaped particles, which may also include one or more passageways or channels therein or thereon, for modification of the surface area (col. 13, lines 2-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have made the substrate of Modified Aoun have channels therein or thereon for modification of the surface area (col. 13, lines 2-5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANA B KRINKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
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, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. 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.
/YANA B KRINKER/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755