Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/424,016

AN ORAL NICOTINE PRODUCT COMPRISING A PH ADJUSTING AGENT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 19, 2021
Examiner
FELTON, MICHAEL J
Art Unit
1747
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Swedish Match North Europe AB
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
4y 9m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
287 granted / 486 resolved
-5.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 9m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
527
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
58.1%
+18.1% vs TC avg
§102
18.6%
-21.4% vs TC avg
§112
18.8%
-21.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 486 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/01/2025 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) rejection in the prior office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 15-19, 24, 25, 27, 28-31, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aspgren (US 2018/0271139). Regarding claims 1 and 18, Aspgren discloses an oral pouched nicotine product comprising a filling material and a saliva-permeable pouch [0023] of a packaging material enclosing the filling material, the filling material comprising: a particulate non-tobacco material [0053, 0054], a nicotine source [0056], water in an amount within the range of from 1 wt% to 50 wt% based on the total weight of the filling material [0156], and a pH adjusting agent comprising: (i) Na2CO3, K2CO3 [0057] and (ii) a salt of Formula (I): M2+(An-)m or a hydrate of said salt, wherein M2+ is selected from the group consisting of Ca2+ and Mg2+ [0059], An- is an anion selected from the group consisting of chloride [0059], and said salt being present in an amount within the range of from 0.05 wt% to 5 wt%, based on the total weight of the filling material [0059]. As is known in the art, the magnesium chloride and calcium chloride have water solubility values of 560g/L and 745 g/L (i.e., >1g/L), respectively, at room temperature. Aspgren further teaches that the oral pouched nicotine product does not comprise a tobacco material (i.e., tobacco-free filling material) [0042, 0055, 0056]. Aspgren teaches the inclusion of carbonates as a pH adjuster and to affect the aroma profile at [0057, 0060], and Aspgren also teaches the inclusion of salts, e.g., MgCl2 and CaCl2, for effects on taste as well as improving the shelf life of the compositions [0059]. Further, the amounts of the pH adjusting agent taught by Aspgren falls within the claimed range [0060] and indicate that the pH of the product is about 7.5 to 8.5. Similarly, the amount of the salt as taught by Aspgren encompasses the claimed ranges [0057]. Aspgren does not expressly disclose that the combination of (i) and (ii) causes the pH of said filing material not to exceed a pH of 9.5 and/or the pH changes by no more than +/- 0.5 pH units upon storage with the storage is 15 weeks at relative humidity of 60-75% and temperature 22-30C. First, the results claimed are inherent because the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the instant claims. Aspgren indicates that the product contains a (1) tobacco or non-tobacco material, (2) water, (3) salt, and (4) pH adjuster [0056-0057]. Other ingredients are optional. In particular, the chemicals involved in pH adjustment and buffering (i.e. salt) are the same as instantly claimed and because the claims are written in closed language, no other pH adjusting agents are present than those which are expressly claimed. Therefore, because the prior art has the same ingredients, especially pH adjusting agents, the pH adjustments in the product during the same storage conditions would be inherent. Second, the storage of the product is intended use of the product. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, no structural difference is present and the prior art is capable of being stored under the same conditions. Regarding claims 4-5 and 15-17, Aspgren discloses the salts [0059] (i.e., magnesium chloride and calcium chloride) have water solubility equal to or above 2 g/L (i.e., 560g/L and 745 g/L), wherein chloride is chosen as the anion for the salts, and the filling material does not comprise a tobacco material [0053, 0054, 0042]. Furthermore, Aspgren discloses the oral pouched nicotine product comprises an amount of water within the range of 20 wt% to 50 wt% based on the total weight of the filling material [0156], wherein the salt of Formula (I), or hydrate of said salt, is present in an amount within the range of from 0.05 wt% to 5 wt% based on the total weight of the filling material [0059]. Regarding claims 19, 24, 25, and 27, Aspgren discloses wherein M2+ is selected from the group consisting of Ca2+ and Mg2+ (i.e., magnesium chloride and calcium chloride) [0059]. Furthermore, Aspgren teaches the oral pouched nicotine product where the salt of Formula (I) consists of CaCl2 [0059], wherein the filling material further comprises NaCl [0059] and MgCO3 [0057]. In addition, Aspgren does not explicitly state that the oral product includes more than one pH adjuster or salt. Therefore, it is evident that the composition of Aspgren includes only one pH adjuster and either MgCl2 or CaCl2 as a salt. Regarding claims 28-31, Aspgren discloses the filling material of oral pouched nicotine product has a pH from 7 to 10 when it is dispersed in purified water [0060], wherein at least part of the filling material (i.e., microcrystalline cellulose) is water-insoluble [0056]. Aspgren further teaches the oral pouched nicotine product comprises microcrystalline cellulose [0056]; wherein the filling material comprises one or more water- insoluble fibers selected from the group consisting of maize fibers, oat fibers, tomato fibers, barley fibers, rye fibers, sugar beet fibers, buck wheat fibers, wheat fibers, pea fibers, potato fibers, apple fibers, cocoa fibers, bamboo fibers, and citrus fibers [0063]. As is known in the art, microcrystalline cellulose is a gum that is the nonfibrous form of cellulose, and it is dispersible in water but not soluble. Regarding claim 39, Aspgren discloses sodium carbonate as a pH adjuster [0057] and discloses that prior art GothiaTek uses sodium chloride and sodium carbonate together [0112]. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aspgren (US 2018/0271139) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hodin et al. (US 2017/0318858). Regarding claim 14, Aspgren discloses an oral pouched nicotine product as set forth above. However, Aspgren does not explicitly teach the amount of water is within the range of from 0.5 wt% to 12 wt%, based on the total weight of the filling material. Hodin discloses a smokeless tobacco product for oral use comprising an amount of water ranging from about 2% to about 55% by weight, based on the total weight of the oral product ([0063]). Hodin is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the oral nicotine products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the oral pouched nicotine product of Aspgren to incorporate the teachings of Hodin by including an amount of water within the range of from about 2% to about 12% by weight. Doing so would add water to the oral product, maintaining its moisture content, as recognized by Hodin. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aspgren (US 2018/0271139), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Winterson et al. (US 2014/0158145). Regarding claim 21, Aspgren discloses an oral pouched nicotine product as set forth above. However, Aspgren does not explicitly teach the M2+ is selected from the group consisting of Mn2+, Zn2+, and Fe2+. Winterson discloses a non-tobacco pouch product with filling agents, including zinc oxide (ZnO; i.e., Zn2+) [0064]. Winterson is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the oral products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the oral pouched nicotine product of Aspgren to incorporate the teachings of Winterson by including zinc oxide as a salt for the oral nicotine product. Doing so would contribute to enhancing the stability of the pH-adjusting agent. Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aspgren (US 2018/0271139) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Persson et al. (US 2018/0257801). Regarding claims 32-33, Aspgren discloses an oral pouched nicotine product as set forth above. However, Aspgren does not explicitly teach the nicotine source is one or more of the following: nicotine hydrochloride, nicotine dihydrochloride, nicotine monotartrate, nicotine bitartrate, nicotine bitartrate dihydrate, nicotine sulphate, nicotine zinc chloride monohydrate, nicotine salicylate, nicotine polacrilex. Persson discloses an oral pouched nicotine-containing snuff product comprising nicotine bitartrate as the nicotine source ([0102]). Persson is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the oral pouched nicotine product of modified Aspgren to incorporate the teachings of Persson by including nicotine bitartrate. Doing so would add nicotine into the oral product, and thereby arriving at the presently claimed invention. persuasive as set forth above in the Response to Amendment section. 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 at 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 19, 2021
Application Filed
Dec 28, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 01, 2024
Response Filed
Jul 09, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Sep 16, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 09, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 13, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 06, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Dec 17, 2024
Interview Requested
Jan 15, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 15, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 15, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 15, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 27, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 31, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 02, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12564214
TOBACCO SMOKE FILTER AND METHOD OF PRODUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12564216
CIGAR ASHTRAY SYSTEM WITH COOLING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12538940
TOBACCO HAVING REDUCED TOBACCO SPECIFIC NITROSAMINE CONTENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12532907
HYDROPHOBIC PLUG WRAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12514281
ARTICLE FOR USE IN AN APPARATUS FOR HEATING SMOKABLE MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+14.8%)
4y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 486 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month