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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-17, 21-24, 26, 27, and 29 are pending and are subject to this office action. This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 05/11/26.
Claims 1 and 3 are amended.
Claim 6 is canceled.
Claim 27 remains withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 5/11/26) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues: (1) the cannabis leaves and stems of Greenbaum are not commensurate with a filler recited in Claim 1, (2) Greenbaum does not teach or suggest a filler comprising a cellulose material and/or one present in an amount of at least 50% by weight of the oral product, (3) the prior rejection improperly equates "% by weight of the casing component" with "% by weight of the oral product,” (4) the prior rejection on the grounds of inherency fails because Greenbaum does not have an overlapping composition with the oral product recited in claim 1 as amended, (5) the Applicant's specification discloses that the water activity, stability, release, and absorption properties recited in claim 1, and claims depending therefrom, are surprising findings, (6) the disclosure in Greenbaum [0031] is silent on the structural configuration of the nano-emulsion, and (7) Hovsepyan cannot remedy the deficiencies of Greenbaum. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding argument (1): First, the claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. Here, the claim limitation of “filler” in Claim 1 does not use the word “means” (or “step”) and does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Therefore, the claim limitation is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the plain meaning of the term “filler” in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, but is not limited by the specification; and is interpreted in this Office Action to broadly refer to a component utilized, at least in part, to take up space or add mass/bulk to the product.
Second, the cannabis leaves and stems of Greenbaum can be explicitly interpreted as a filler component based on the teachings within Greenbaum and consistent with the interpretation of “filler” above. Greenbaum teaches that the flowers of the cannabis plant are traditionally used in the industry and that the leaves and stems of the cannabis plant are generally considered a waste product. ([0007], [0013]). Greenbaum ostensibly seeks to utilize this generally considered waste component as useful component of a pouched oral product. While Greenbaum labels the leaves and stems of the cannabis plant as part of the “herbal component”([0016]), Greenbaum further teaches that the leaves and stems of the cannabis plant may have “very little, if any cannabinoid content.” ([0030]). Thus, where cannabinoid content is desired, Greenbaum teaches that cannabinoid extracts are added to the moist snuff. ([0031]). From this disclosure, it is clear that Greenbaum teaches the use of the leaves and stems of the cannabis plant not for any active ingredient component of the leaves and stems, but rather to provide for the primary bulk of the snuff composition. Thus, the cannabis leaves and stems of Greenbaum are a filler component consistent with the interpretation of this Office Action of the claim limitation “filler” above.
Regarding argument (2), the Applicant argues that Greenbaum does not teach or suggest a filler in an amount of at least 50% by weight of the oral product. Applicant’s argument has been considered but are unpersuasive because the prior rejection states “Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Greenbaum discloses the pouched oral product wherein the product comprises fibrous components ([0016]-[0018]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the filler is present in an amount of at least about 50% by weight of the oral product…” (Office Action dated 1/12/26, page 9). Rather, Hovsepyan teaches a pouched oral product wherein the filler is present in an amount of at least about 50% by weight of the oral product, which is discussed in further detail in the rejection to amended Claim 1 below.
Regarding argument (3), Applicant’s argument regarding improperly equating "% by weight of the casing component" with "% by weight of the oral product” has been fully considered and is persuasive in light of the amendment to Claim 1. However, the claim rejection is modified where necessary based on Applicant’s amendments.
Regarding argument (4), Applicant’s argument regarding the prior rejection on the grounds of inherency has been fully considered and is persuasive in light of the amendment to Claim 1. However, the claim rejection is modified where necessary based on Applicant’s amendments.
Regarding argument (5), in response to applicant's argument that “Applicant's specification discloses that the water activity, stability, release, and absorption properties recited in claim 1 and claims depending therefrom are surprising findings attributable to the specific combination of a cellulose material filler with a cannabinoid in a product having controlled water activity,” the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Moreover, the courts have held that the question as to whether unexpected advantage has been demonstrated is a factual question. In re Johnson, 747 F.2d 1456, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is incumbent upon applicant to supply the factual basis to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness established by examiner. See, e.g., In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972). Here, Applicant does not provide an adequate explanation regarding a factual showing in the specification of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the rejected claim(s). Therefore, absent further evidence to the contrary, the disclosure in Applicant’s Specification does not clearly demonstrate superior results over the prior art.
Regarding argument (6), Greenbaum at [0031] states “the cannabinoids will be a nanoemulsion of cannabinoid components and/or whole plant cannabis extracts. Nano emulsions can be formed using any nano emulsion methods known to those having skill in the art.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that cannabinoids are highly soluble in an oil but not water. Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the emulsion methods referred to by Greenbaum comprise dissolving the cannabinoids in an oil and emulsifying that oil phase in a non-oil phase. The nano-emulsion taught by Greenbaum would thereby be a nano-emulsion of an oil emulsified into the solvent of the composition; and the solvent of Greenbaum comprises an aqueous phase where the composition comprises a mixture water and glycerin and/or propylene glycol ([0020]). Thus, the disclosure of the structural configuration of the nano-emulsion within Greenbaum is consistent with the nano-emulsion as claimed.
Regarding argument (7), obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In this application, Greenbaum and Hovsepyan demonstrate the broad range of knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art in pouched oral products. While Greenbaum and Hovsepyan present different approaches to preparation of pouched oral products, the general information disclosed Greenbaum and Hovsepyan demonstrate the wider breadth of knowledge available to one of ordinary skill in the art from which renders the claimed invention obvious. Furthermore, and as discussed above, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the teachings of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Thus, while Applicant may have recognized an advantage which would flow naturally from the general disclosures of Greenbaum and Hovsepyan, this recognition does not render the claimed invention patentable over Greenbaum in view of Hovsepyan.
The following rejections are maintained and modified where necessary based on Applicant’s amendments.
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 15-17, 21-24, 26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenbaum (US 20190037909 A1) in view of Hovsepyan (EP 3756649 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Greenbaum discloses a pouched oral product (cannabis based moist snuff composition. [0007]) comprising:
a permeable pouch (The cannabis based moist snuff composition may be packaged in a plurality of individual mesh pouches. [0038]), and
a composition incorporated therein, the composition comprising: (i) a cannabinoid (The pouch comprises a moist casing component which may further comprise cannabinoids. [0007], [0015])
(ii) a filler (The pouch may comprise cannabis leaves and stems, which are fibrous organic materials. [0007], [0016]-[0018]. The presence of a fibrous material in the pouch acts as a filler material.)
(iii) water, wherein the water content of the oral product is from about 10% to about 30% by weight of the oral product (The cannabis leaves and stems component has a moisture content of about 7-10%. [0017]. The casing component may comprising water in a range of about 8-25% by weight. [0020]. “The casing component is combined with the cannabis leaf/stem component to create the cannabis based moist snuff. The casing material is used in varying amounts as a binder...” [0019]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05(I)), and
(iv) a humectant in an amount from 5% to 25% by weight of the oral product wherein the humectant is selected from the group consisting of glycerin, propylene glycol, and mixtures thereof ("Glycerin and propylene glycol may be present in the composition at a range of about 8-25% by weight of the casing component." [0020]. “The casing component is combined with the cannabis leaf/stem component to create the cannabis based moist snuff. The casing material is used in varying amounts as a binder...” [0019]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Greenbaum discloses the pouched oral product wherein the product comprises fibrous components ([0016]-[0018]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the filler is present in an amount of at least about 50% by weight of the oral product. However, Hovsepyan discloses a similar pouched oral product wherein the filler is present in an amount of at least about 50% by weight of the oral product ("carrier material may be a cellulose carrier material… the formulation preferably comprises 45% to 60%" [0024]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05(I)). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the fibrous component of Greenbaum with a fibrous component in an amount of at least about 50% by weight of the oral product as taught by Hovsepyan because Greenbaum and Hovsepyan are both directed to pouched oral products, Hovsepyan teaches preferred ranges of fibrous material as the filler for the pouched oral product, and this merely involves applying a known fibrous component to a similar pouched oral product to yield predictable results.
Greenbaum and Hovsepyan do not explicitly disclose the water activity of the pouched oral products. However, given that the water content and water activity directly affects the preservation, flavor, and texture of the pouched oral product, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform routine optimization. Moreover, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success through experimentation of determining a preferred user range of water activity through modification of the disclosed variables of water content, solid fiber content, and humectant content as disclosed in Greenbaum and Hovsepyan. Therefore, it follows that a person having ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization of the water content, solid fiber content, and/or humectant content disclosed in Greenbaum and Hovsepyan, would arrive at the water activity as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding Claim 3, Greenbaum discloses a pouched oral product wherein the product comprises the fibrous components of cannabis leaves and stems ([0016]-[0018]) and discloses the addition of other ingredients which comprise cellulosic composition including corn silk ([0018]), but does not explicitly disclose the use of other fibrous materials as a filler component. However, Hovsepyan discloses a pouched oral product wherein the cellulose material is selected from the group consisting of maize fiber, oat fiber, barley fiber, rye fiber, buckwheat fiber, sugar beet fiber, bran fiber, bamboo fiber, wood pulp fiber, cotton fiber, citrus pulp fiber, grass fiber, willow fiber, poplar fiber, cocoa fiber, derivatives thereof, and combinations thereof ("The carrier material may be a cellulose carrier material for example selected from the group consisting of... water insoluble plant fibers... Suitable plant fibers include bamboo fibers, oat fibers, maize fibers, cocoa fibers, tomato fibers, apple fibers and similar. " [0024]). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the fibrous component of Greenbaum with a non-cannabis derived fibrous component such as the fibrous components taught by Hovsepyan because Greenbaum and Hovsepyan are both directed to pouched oral products, Hovsepyan teaches the use of various fibrous materials as the fibrous filler material for a pouched oral product comprising a cannabinoid, and this merely involves applying a known fibrous component to a similar pouched oral product to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 4, Hovsepyan further discloses a pouched oral product wherein the cellulose material is a derivative of wood pulp fiber ("The carrier material may be a cellulose carrier material for example selected from the group consisting of microcrystalline cellulose, powdered cellulose, or water insoluble plant fibers, or any combination thereof… In particular, microcrystalline cellulose is preferred." [0024]).
Regarding Claim 5, Hovsepyan further discloses a pouched oral product wherein the cellulose material is microcrystalline cellulose ("The carrier material may be a cellulose carrier material… In particular, microcrystalline cellulose is preferred." [0024]).
Regarding Claim 7, Hovsepyan further discloses a pouched oral product wherein the filler is present in an amount of from about 55% to about 80% by weight of the oral product ("carrier material may be a cellulose carrier material… the formulation preferably comprises 45% to 60%" [0024]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Greenbaum discloses the pouched oral product wherein the product comprises a cannabinoid ([0015]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cannabinoid is present in an amount of from about 1% to about 30% by weight of the oral product and/or wherein the cannabinoid is present in an amount of from about 5% to about 15% by weight of the oral product. However, Hovsepyan discloses a pouched oral product wherein the cannabinoid is present in an amount of from about 1% to about 30% by weight of the oral product, and wherein the cannabinoid is present in an amount of from about 5% to about 15% by weight of the oral product ("The amount of CBD in each pouch depends on the intended use… A useful proportion of CBD may be from 0.1% to 10%" [0022]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05(I)). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify quantity of the cannabinoid component of Greenbaum such that the cannabinoid is present in an amount of from about 1% to about 30% by weight of the oral product, and/or wherein the cannabinoid is present in an amount of from about 5% to about 15% by weight of the oral product as taught by Hovsepyan because Greenbaum and Hovsepyan are both directed to pouched oral products, Greenbaum is silent on the amount of cannabinoid component to utilize and Hovsepyan teaches a preferred quantity of cannabinoid in a similar product, and this merely involves applying a known quantity of cannabinoid component to a similar pouched oral product to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 10, Greenbaum discloses a pouched oral product wherein the cannabinoid is selected from the group consisting of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD), tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA), Cannabidiolic acid (CBDA), cannabinol (CBN), cannabigerol (CBG), cannabichromene (CBC), tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV), and cannabidivarin (CBDV) ([0012]).
Regarding Claim 11, Greenbaum discloses a pouched oral product wherein the cannabinoid comprises cannabidiol (The cannabinoid may comprise cannabidiol (CBD). [0012]).
Regarding Claim 12, Hovsepyan discloses a pouched oral product wherein the cannabinoid comprises cannabidiol in an amount of at least 98% by weight of the cannabinoid ("CBD in the formulation can be provided as CBD isolate, for example CBD isolate with at least 98% purity" [0022]).
Regarding Claim 13, Greenbaum discloses a pouched oral product wherein the oral product contains an emulsion comprising a continuous phase and a dispersed phase wherein the emulsion comprises at least one cannabinoid ("the cannabinoids will be a nanoemulsion of cannabinoid components and/or whole plant cannabis extracts. Nano emulsions can be formed using any nano emulsion methods known to those having skill in the art." [0031]).
Regarding Claim 15, Greenbaum discloses a pouched oral product containing an emulsion as discussed in regard to Claim 13 but does not explicitly disclose an oral product wherein the emulsion is in the form of a nano-emulsion in which nanoparticles of an oil phase are dispersed in an aqueous phase. However, given that a nano-emulsion of nanoparticles comprising of an oil phase dispersed in an aqueous phase is dependent on the composition of the oral product, specifically the emulsified mixture of water and the lipophilic cannabidiol as claimed in Claims 1 and 13, it follows that Greenbaum, having an overlapping composition as the claimed oral product, would reasonably have a nano-emulsion in which nanoparticles of an oil phase are dispersed in an aqueous phase as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claim 16, Greenbaum discloses a pouched oral product wherein the cannabinoid is present in the nanoparticles of the oil phase (The casing component may comprise ingredients that are liquid, semi-liquid, or solid. In the case of solid or powdered ingredients, they may be dissolved in the liquid ingredients prior to mixing with the cannabis leaf/stem component. [0019]).
Regarding Claim 17, Greenbaum discloses a pouched oral product wherein the oral product further comprises at least one additive selected from the group consisting of a flavoring agent, a taste modifier, a preservative, a humectant, a sweetener, a binder, a buffering agent, salt and mixtures thereof ("Various flavoring compositions may be included in the casing component" [0022])
Regarding Claim 21, Greenbaum discloses a pouched oral product wherein the oral product comprises a salt ("sodium chloride (NaCl) is added both to improve/enhance flavor, as a preservative and/or to induce salivation." [0023]).
Regarding Claim 22, Greenbaum and Hovsepyan render obvious a pouched oral product according to Claim 1 as discussed above but does not explicitly disclose an oral product wherein the oral product is chemically and physically stable for a period of at least 6 months. However, given that the chemical and physical stability of an oral product is dependent on the composition, specifically the compositional ratio of water to filler, humectant, and cannabinoid, it follows that Greenbaum and Hovsepyan, rendering obvious a pouched oral product having an overlapping composition as the claimed oral product, would reasonably be chemically and physically stable for a period of at least 6 months as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. Moreover, given that the chemical and physical stability of the product directly affects the product shelf life, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform routine optimization. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success through experimentation of determining a preferred chemical and physical stability of the product through modification of the disclosed variables of water content, solid fiber content, and humectant content as disclosed in Greenbaum and Hovsepyan. Therefore, it follows that a person having ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization of water content, solid fiber content, and/or humectant content disclosed in Greenbaum and Hovsepyan, would arrive at the chemical and physical stability properties of the product as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding Claim 23, Greenbaum and Hovsepyan render obvious a pouched oral product according to Claim 1 as discussed above but do not explicitly disclose an oral product wherein at least 50 wt% of the cannabinoid is released within at most about 60 minutes when placed in the oral cavity of a user. However, given that the rate of cannabinoid release of an oral product is dependent on the composition of the oral product, specifically the composition of filler and cannabinoid, it follows that Greenbaum and Hovsepyan, rendering obvious a pouched oral product having an overlapping composition as the claimed oral product, would reasonably release at least 50 wt% of the cannabinoid within at most about 60 minutes when placed in the oral cavity of a user as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. Moreover, given that the cannabinoid release properties directly affects the user experience, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform routine optimization. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success through experimentation of determining a preferred user range of time for cannabinoid release through modification of the disclosed variables of water content, solid fiber content, and humectant content as disclosed in Greenbaum and Hovsepyan. Therefore, it follows that a person having ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization of water content, solid fiber content, and/or humectant content disclosed in Greenbaum and Hovsepyan, would arrive at the cannabinoid release properties as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding Claim 24, Greenbaum and Hovsepyan render obvious a pouched oral product according to Claim 23 but does not explicitly disclose an oral product wherein at least 30 wt% of the released cannabinoid is absorbed into the oral mucosa within at most about 60 minutes. However, given that the oral mucosa absorption of the cannabinoid is dependent on the composition of the oral product, specifically the overall quantity of the cannabinoid in the product, it follows that Greenbaum and Hovsepyan, rendering obvious a pouched oral product having an overlapping composition as the claimed oral product, would reasonably have at least 30 wt% of the cannabinoid be absorbed into an oral mucosa within at most about 60 minutes when placed in the oral cavity of a user as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. However, given that the rate of cannabinoid release of an oral product is dependent on the composition of the oral product, specifically the composition of filler and cannabinoid, it follows that Greenbaum and Hovsepyan, rendering obvious a pouched oral product having an overlapping composition as the claimed oral product, would reasonably release at least 50 wt% of the cannabinoid within at most about 60 minutes when placed in the oral cavity of a user as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. Similarly as discussed above, given that the cannabinoid absorption properties directly affects the user experience, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform routine optimization. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success through experimentation of determining a preferred user range of time for cannabinoid absorption through modification of the disclosed variables of water content, solid fiber content, and humectant content as disclosed in Greenbaum and Hovsepyan. Therefore, it follows that a person having ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization of water content, solid fiber content, and/or humectant content disclosed in Greenbaum and Hovsepyan, would arrive at the cannabinoid absorption properties as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding Claim 26, Greenbaum discloses a package containing the pouched oral product according to Claim 1 ("The resulting cannabis based moist snuff composition may be packaged in any suitable container, such as in a tin, in a plurality of individual mesh pouches, such as for example those employed by Skoal in their “bandits” product, snus, or Copenhagen pouches, or any other package known in the art." [0038]).
Regarding Claim 29, Greenbaum discloses a pouched oral product comprising from about 1% to about 7.5% of an alkali metal salt by weight of the pouched oral product (“Sodium bicarbonate may be present in about 0.5-4% by weight of the casing.” [0024]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenbaum and Hovsepyan in view of Keller (US 20210068447 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Greenbaum discloses a pouched oral product wherein the emulsion may be formed by known methods in the art ("Nano emulsions can be formed using any nano emulsion methods known to those having skill in the art." [0031]), but does not explicitly teach the use of emulsifying agents as the method to form a nano emulsion. Keller teaches a similar pouched product comprising cannabinoid (The pouched mixture may include an active ingredient such as a cannabinoid. [0004], [0014]-[0017], [0129]) wherein the oral product further comprises one or more emulsifying agents (Additives may include emulsifiers. [0150]). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the pouched composition of Greenbaum in view of Hovsepyan with the addition of an emulsifying agent as taught by Keller because Greenbaum, Hovsepyan, and Keller are all directed to pouched oral products comprising a cannabinoid, Keller teaches the addition of an emulsifying agent in the pouched oral product, and this merely involves applying a known component to a similar pouched oral product to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jeffrey Buckman whose telephone number is (571)270-0888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-4:00.
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, 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.
/JEFFREY A. BUCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights