CTNF 17/051,490 CTNF 82917 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 9/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant arguments concerning claim amendments (e.g. water) are addressed in the rejections below. The applicant argues that the prior art only contemplates that glycerin or propylene glycol are present in the alternative and are single agents and that mixtures are not contemplated by Tucker. This is incorrect. Tucker explicitly claims that the additive contains an aerosol former…”selected from the group consisting of propylene glycol, glycerin and combinations thereof.” (claim 19). Although paragraph 0125 uses the word “or”, one of ordinary skill would not consider the single use of “or” to limit the document as a whole. The applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would not have had any reason to expect that the generally disclosed range of the claims of Anderson could be extrapolated from the disparate and different compounds of Anderson to WS-23 and that the variety of additives with different effects and physiological effects are not listed by Anderson with specific inclusion amounts for cooling agents per se. The examiner disagrees. The examiner agrees that Anderson teaches inclusion of a broad range of compounds that have similar physiological effects and does not provide specific amounts for specific compounds. This is a general teaching that these types of compounds can be broadly added in these amounts. No evidence has been provided to indicate that one of ordinary skill would expect the disclosed range of Anderson would not work for the disclosed compounds or related compounds. Leffingwell has been added as evidence that it is well known in the art that cooling compounds are well known and that their interaction with receptors is well understood . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 11-15, 17-18, 34 and 35 , is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker et al. (US 2013/0192620) in view of Anderson et al. (WO 2017103136) . Regarding claims 11-15, 17-18, 34 and 35, Tucker et al. disclose an electronic cigarette with a replaceable cartridge (also called first section [0036]) that contains a formulation that is vaporized. The formulation includes a diluents such as glycerin, propylene glycol [0125], or water [0128, 0137, 0138], nicotine [0126] and a chemesthesis agent such as WS-23 (i.e. N,2,3,-trimethyl-2-propan-2-yl butanamide (see specification received 10/29/2020, col. 3, 17-18)), which can be added to provide a cooling sensation [0134]. Tucker et al. do not disclose the amount of WS-23 to add. However, Anderson et al. disclose a similar formulation and indicate that 0.0001 to 1 percent of a similar cooling agent can be added (see claims 1, 2, and 6). Anderson et al. disclose N-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2,3-dimethyl-2-isopropyl butanamide. This is a known cooling agent analogous to WS-23 (see Leffingwell, 2014). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing/invention to use the WS-23 in the invention of Tucker et al. at the amounts disclosed by Anderson et al. to achieve an effective cooling effect and to reduce harshness and enhance strength or chemesthesis action of the vapor as disclosed by Anderson et al. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4805. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Thursday-Friday 7:00-4:30, Wednesday 7:00-1:00. 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 on 571-270-3882. 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. /Michael J Felton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747 Application/Control Number: 17/051,490 Page 2 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 17/051,490 Page 3 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 17/051,490 Page 4 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 17/051,490 Page 5 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 17/051,490 Page 6 Art Unit: 1747
Prosecution Insights