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
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 20 January 2026:
Claims 1-23 and 26-27 are pending
Claims 1 and 21 are amended
Claims 26-27 are new
Claims 24-25 are cancelled
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to the claims filed 20 January 2026 have been acknowledged. The rejection to Claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn due to cancellation of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 20 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
On Pages 5-6, Applicant has amended Claim 1 to further recite a solvent boiling temperature of 120 degrees Celsius or less and an infusion temperature above 20 degrees Celsius. Applicant argues that Basker teaches away from the amended claims as their infusion process operates at a temperature between 40 to 55 degrees Fahrenheit which is below that of the Applicant’s claimed process.
Examiner agrees with the Applicant’s arguments and therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art and further in view of the newly found art of Brunson et al (Publication No. US20200215138A1) and Mishra et al (Publication No. US20080029106A1).
On Pages 6-9, Applicant has amended Claim 21 to further recite a solvent boiling temperature of 120 degrees Celsius or less and an infusion temperature above 20 degrees Celsius. Applicant argues that Lurya teaches away from the amended claims as their infusion process uses an infusion liquid that comprises a solvent such as glycerol and propylene glycol which has boiling points above that of the Applicant’s claimed process. Applicant also further argues that the motivation to modify Turner with Lurya to preserve product shape and structure would not be applicable as this is specifically in regards to the freeze-drying step and not the vacuum infusion step.
Examiner agrees with the Applicant’s arguments and therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a different interpretation of the prior art.
Below is a modified rejection based on amendments to the claims.
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.
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, 2-3, 5-6, 8-11, 15, 17 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunson et al (Publication No. US20200215138A1) in view of Mishra et al (Publication No. US20080029106A1) and Novotny (Publication No. US20210052753A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Brunson discloses a process for incorporating an additive (70) into an aerosol-producing substrate (Botanical matter 20) (Abstract, [0047]; botanical matter includes smokable herbs which are considered equivalent to an aerosol-producing substrate) comprising:
combining the aerosol-producing substrate (20) with an infusing liquid (Mixture 60) (Fig. 1; Abstract, [0054-0056]; mixture contains additives for infusion; additive/mixture is combined with substrate matter by either pouring or spraying);
the infusing liquid (60) comprising the additive (73) dissolved in a solvent (Alcohol 30) (Fig. 1; [0052-0053]);
the solvent (30) having a boiling point of 120 degrees Celsius or less ([0052]; discloses ethanol as a solvent; one ordinarily skilled in the art is aware that ethanol has a boiling point of less than 120 degrees Celsius; Applicant also discloses that ethanol is a suitable solvent);
subjecting the aerosol-producing substrate (20) and infusing liquid (60) to increased pressures to cause the additive (70) to infuse into the aerosol-producing substrate (20) at a predetermined temperature ([0059-0062]);
and separating the infusing liquid (60) and the aerosol-producing substrate (20) (Fig. 1; [0065-0066]; residual infusing mixture/liquid is removed from the container via a pump; infused plant material is still within the container which implies the residual liquid removal step separates the liquid from the substrate).
Brunson does not disclose the following:
subjecting the aerosol-producing substrate and infusing liquid mixture to reduced pressure sufficient to cause the additive to infuse into the aerosol-producing substrate;
the reduced pressure infusion occurs at a temperature above 20 degrees Celsius.
Regarding (I), Mishra, directed to infusing smoking articles with additives, discloses a process for infusing heatable smoking article inserts (i.e., aerosol-generating substrate) [0004, 0017-0018] through a variety of methods for infusing a solid or liquid additive [0048]. Mishra specifically notes that the additive can be infused/immobilized into inserts using methods such as high-pressure infusion, vacuum (i.e., reduced pressure) infiltration, or combinations of any of these.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the infusion process disclosed by Brunson to infuse additives using a vacuum infiltration (i.e., reduced pressure) step instead of a high-pressure infusion step as disclosed by Mishra, as both are directed to a process for infusing additives into, where this involves substituting a known infusion method step (i.e., high pressure infusion) with another known infusion step (i.e., vacuum infiltration) to predictably result in a method that can infuse additives into an aerosol-generating substrate via reduced pressure (i.e., vacuum infiltration).
Regarding (II), Novotny, directed to an infusion method for infusing plant matter product such as cannabis or tobacco (i.e., aerosol-generating substrate) [0004, 0008, 0032], discloses a sub-atmosphere (i.e., reduced pressure) infusion process using a vacuum chamber to submit plant matter and liquid reagent/supplement (i.e., infusing liquid) to reduced pressure [0004, 0008, 0050-0056].
Novotny notes that infusion efficacy can depend on temperature and/or pressure [0082], wherein once the product (i.e., cannabis) is placed into the vacuum chamber, the chamber can be pre-heated to a temperature ranging from 20-55 degrees Celsius to provide an environment in which subsequently-introduced supplements/additives can become evenly dispersed in the chamber ([0049]; pre-heating before the vacuum infusion implies that the infusion occurs around the pre-heated temperature; Novotny’s disclosed temperature range is above 20 degrees Celsius).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the infusion process disclosed by Modified Brunson to have the vacuum infusion occur around 20-55 degrees Celsius (i.e., above 20 degrees Celsius) as disclosed by Novotny, as both are directed to a vacuum/low-pressure infusion process for aerosol-generating/smokable substrates, where Novotny teaches the advantage of pre-heating the infusion chamber to higher temperatures to provide an environment in which supplements/additives can become evenly dispersed in the chamber [0049].
Regarding Claim 2, Brunson further discloses the additive comprising a cannabinoid [0068].
Regarding Claim 3, Brunson further discloses the additive comprising a cannabidiol ([0005, 0068]; discloses that the additive can be cannabinoids or other cannabis-derived chemicals, wherein cannabidiol, otherwise known as CBD, is another common chemical derived from cannabis).
Regarding Claim 5, Brunson further discloses the additive comprising tetrahydrocannabinol ([0005, 0068]; discloses that the additive can be cannabinoids or other cannabis-derived chemicals, wherein tetrahydrocannabinol, otherwise known as THC, is another common chemical derived from cannabis).
Regarding Claim 6, Brunson further discloses that the additive (70) comprises a flavoring (i.e., flavorant) such as fruit flavoring [0069].
Regarding Claim 8, Brunson further discloses the solvent contained in the infusing liquid (60) comprises of an alcohol (30) ([0046, 0052]; Ethanol).
Regarding Claim 9, Brunson further discloses the solvent (30) contained in the infusing liquid (60) comprises of ethanol [0052].
Regarding Claim 10, Brunson further discloses the aerosol-producing substrate (20) comprises tobacco [0051].
Regarding Claim 11, Brunson further discloses the aerosol-producing substrate (20) comprises cannabis [0050-0051].
Regarding Claim 15, Brunson further discloses the aerosol producing substrate (20) comprises a botanical filler ([0071; discloses gotu kola can be used as a botanical matter that also serves as a filler for joints/blunts).
Regarding Claim 17, Brunson further discloses the aerosol-producing substrate (20) is immersed in the infusing liquid (60) ([0055] the mixture liquid is poured unto the aerosol-generating substrate which implies that said substrate will be immersed in the liquid that is poured upon it).
Regarding Claim 26, Modified Brunson does not explicitly disclose that the reduced pressure is from 350 mmHg to 700 mmHg. However, it should be noted that the courts have held that, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (see MPEP § 2144.05.II).
However, Novotny, directed to an infusion method for infusing plant matter product such as cannabis or tobacco (i.e., aerosol-generating substrate) [0004, 0008, 0032], discloses a sub-atmosphere (i.e., reduced pressure) infusion process using a vacuum chamber to submit plant matter and liquid reagent/supplement (i.e., infusing liquid) to reduced pressure [0004, 0008, 0050-0056].
Novotny notes that infusion efficacy can depend on temperature and/or pressure [0082]. Novotny’s process specifically discloses that once the product (i.e., cannabis) is placed into the vacuum chamber, the chamber can be evacuated to a base pressure of between 3 to 750 torr ([0048-0056]; torr is equivalent to mmHg; claimed range is 350 to 700 mmHg). The claimed range(s) for vacuum infusion overlap with the range(s) disclosed by Novotny and are therefore considered prima facie obvious (see MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the infusion process disclosed by Modified Brunson to have the vacuum infusion occurs at the claimed lower pressure range that overlaps with Novotny’s claimed pressure range, as both are directed to a vacuum/low-pressure infusion process for aerosol-generating/smokable substrates, where one ordinarily skilled in the art would reasonably expect that operating Modified Brunson’s vacuum infusion step at the low pressure ranges disclosed by Novotny will predictably result in successful infusion of additives into an aerosol-generating substrate/smoking herb.
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunson et al (Publication No. US20200215138A1) in view of Mishra et al (Publication No. US20080029106A1) and Novotny (Publication No. US20210052753A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Turner (Publication No. US20150181925).
Regarding Claim 4, Brunson does not explicitly disclose the additive comprise of cannabichromene, cannabinol, cannabigerol, tetrahydrocannabivarin, and cannabidivarin or mixtures thereof. However, Brunson does note that the additive may be terpenes, cannabinoids or an entourage of chemicals from the Cannabis plant [0068].
In that regard, Turner, directed to an infusion process for infusing terpenoid (i.e., additive) into an herbal smoking blend (i.e., aerosol-generating substrate), discloses that Cannabis comprises of a large class of phytocannabinoids which have been isolated and associated with therapeutic effects [0013]. Amongst this group of chemicals, specific ones derived from Cannabis includes cannabichromene, cannabinol, cannabigerol, tetrahydrocannabivarin, and cannabidivarin [0013-0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art that the additive disclosed in Brunson may incorporate additional specific cannabinoids derived from Cannabis such as cannabichromene, cannabinol, cannabigerol, tetrahydrocannabivarin, and cannabidivarin as disclosed by Turner, as both are directed to a process for infusing cannabinoid additives into herbal smoking blends, where Turner teaches the advantage of incorporating cannabinoids such as cannabichromene, cannabinol, cannabigerol, tetrahydrocannabivarin, and cannabidivarin for their associated therapeutic effects [0013-0015].
Regarding Claim 18, Modified Brunson does not disclose the infusion method further comprising a step for drying the additive infused, aerosol-producing substrate.
However, Turner, directed to an infusion process for infusing terpenoid (i.e., additive) into an herbal smoking blend (i.e., aerosol-generating substrate), discloses that once the smoking herb has been dipped, soaked or immersed in the terpenoid infusion liquid, the infused smoking herb can be subsequently dried ([0041, 0043, 0046]; drying the smoking herb would imply that the herb is removed from the infusion liquid should it be applied via soaking or immersion; this is similar to the removal of residual solution step in Brunson).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the infusion method disclosed by Modified Brunson to further comprising a drying step after the separation of infusion liquid from substrate step as disclosed by Turner, as both are directed to a liquid infusion method for infusing additives into an aerosol-generating substrate, where one ordinarily skilled in the art can reasonably apply a drying step in a known liquid infusion method disclosed by Turner, to another similar liquid infusion method disclosed by Brunson, to predictable yield an aerosol-generating substrate that has been infused with additives.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunson et al (Publication No. US20200215138A1) in view of Mishra et al (Publication No. US20080029106A1) and Novotny (Publication No. US20210052753A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Turner (Publication No. US20150181925) and Rousseau et al (Pub. No. US20200253264A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Modified Brunson does not disclose the following:
The infusion process further comprising a drying step;
and the aerosol-producing substrate (20) contains the additive (70) after the infusion and after drying in an amount greater than about 3.1 % by weight and less than about 70% by weight.
Regarding (I), Turner, directed to an infusion process for infusing terpenoid (i.e., additive) into an herbal smoking blend (i.e., aerosol-generating substrate), discloses that once the smoking herb has been dipped, soaked or immersed in the terpenoid infusion liquid, the infused smoking herb can be subsequently dried ([0041, 0043, 0046]; drying the smoking herb would imply that the herb is removed from the infusion liquid should it be applied via soaking or immersion; this is similar to the removal of residual solution step in Brunson).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the infusion method disclosed by Modified Brunson to further comprising a drying step after the separation of infusion liquid from substrate step as disclosed by Turner, as both are directed to a liquid infusion method for infusing additives into an aerosol-generating substrate, where one ordinarily skilled in the art can reasonably apply a drying step in a known liquid infusion method disclosed by Turner, to another similar liquid infusion method disclosed by Brunson, to predictable yield an aerosol-generating substrate that has been infused with additives.
Regarding (II), Rousseau, directed to a reconstituted cannabis material (i.e., aerosol-generating substrate), discloses the treatment of reconstituted plant material such as cannabis with water-soluble cannabis extract (i.e., additive) such that the reconstituted material contains an amount up to about 60% and generally in an amount greater than about 0.5% [0017-0019, 0055].
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Claims 12-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunson et al (Publication No. US20200215138A1) in view of Mishra et al (Publication No. US20080029106A1) and Novotny (Publication No. US20210052753A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Rousseau et al (Pub. No. US20200253264A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Brunson further discloses that the aerosol-generating substrate (20) can be smoking herbs such as cannabis and tobacco [0050-0051], but does not disclose that the smoking herb blend (i.e., substrate) comprises a reconstituted material derived from one or more plant products.
However, Rousseau, directed to a reconstituted cannabis material, discloses a reconstituted plant material comprising of cannabis and other plant materials such as hemp, coconut fibers, and tobacco [0011-0014, 0035].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the smoking herb blend disclosed in Turner with the reconstituted plant material disclosed by Rousseau, as both are directed to smokable herb/plant materials, where Rousseau teaches the advantage of the reconstituted plant material’s ability to carry active substances such as drugs, flavorants, and the like [0033]; this also involves the substitution of one known herbal/plant material with another known plant material to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143. I. B).
Regarding Claim 13, Modified Brunson further discloses the aerosol-producing substrate (20) comprises tobacco (Brunson, [0051]).
Regarding Claim 14, Modified Brunson further discloses the aerosol-producing substrate (20) comprises cannabis (Brunson, [0050-0051]).
Regarding Claim 19, Brunson further discloses that the infusing liquid (60) can comprise an essential oil [0036-0037], but does not disclose the infusing liquid being oil-free.
However, it should be noted that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Rousseau, directed to a reconstituted cannabis material, discloses extracts (i.e., additives) that are water-soluble (i.e., oil-free) [0083].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the infusing liquid disclosed in Brunson with a water-soluble extract and carrier liquid disclosed by Rousseau, so that it is possible to infuse an aerosol-generating substrate with a non-oil/water-soluble extract/additive [0083].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunson et al (Publication No. US20200215138A1) in view of Mishra et al (Publication No. US20080029106A1) and Novotny (Publication No. US20210052753A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Basker et al (Publication No. US20090297671A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Modified Brunson does not disclose an additional step wherein remaining (i.e., residual) infusing liquid (60) is contacted with a new substrate (20) and the process repeated.
However, Basker, directed to a method for pressurized infusion of fruits and vegetables (i.e., herb plant), discloses a method of infusing dextrin fiber solutes (i.e., additives) into plant matter (i.e., herb plant) by preparing an infusion liquid containing the desired solutes with water (i.e., solvent) and combining said infusion liquid with the desired food/plant product (Fig. 1; [0016-0017, 0023-0024]).
Once combined, the solutes from the infusion liquid are infused into the substrate/plant food using vacuum infusion and subsequently separated from the infusion solution (Fig. 1; [0029-0030]; vacuum infusion implies reduced pressure infusion). Basker also discloses that when the infusing liquid is removed from the vegetable/plant material, remaining infusing liquid/solution is conveyed to a collection tank for reconcentration and reused on further batches of vegetable material (i.e., new substrate) [0030].
It is noted that while Basker does not explicitly disclose a vacuum infusion method for an aerosol-producing substrate, Basker discloses that the infused material is a food product made from plants such as vegetables. In that regard, Modified Brunson discloses a similar infusion method wherein said process is applicable to a variety of botanical plant matter such as dried edible plants or herbs (Brunson, Abstract; edible plants/herbs can be considered equivalent to a plant food product). Both Modified Brunson and Basker discloses a plant-based infused material that encompasses both edible plant matter, wherein Brunson further notes that smokable herbs are within the same scope for the infusion method.
As such, one ordinarily skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation that the vacuum infusion method for infusing plant-based materials (i.e., plant food) disclosed by Basker can be utilized by Brunson to also successfully infuse another plant-based material (i.e., herbal smoking blend) to produce an additive-infused plant product.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method disclosed by Modified Brunson to include an additional step of repeating the infusion process with remaining (i.e., residual) infusing liquid on new substrate/plant material as disclosed in Basker, as both are directed to infusing a plant/herb material, where one ordinarily skilled in the art could apply Basker’s teachings of recycling/reusing infusing liquid disclosed in one known infusion method, to another similar infusion method disclosed by Modified Brunson, and reasonably expect that Modified Brunson’s method will be able to reuse remaining infusing liquid to successfully infuse more aerosol-producing substrate.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brunson et al (Publication No. US20200215138A1) in view of Mishra et al (Publication No. US20080029106A1) and Novotny (Publication No. US20210052753A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Tesfatsion et al (Pub. No. US20230165298A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Modified Brunson does not explicitly disclose the additive (70) is incorporated into the aerosol-producing substrate (20) at a concentration higher than the concentration of the additive in the infusing liquid (60).
However, it should be noted that the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
In that regard, Tesfatsion, directed to an infused aerosol-generating material, discloses infusing tobacco with varying concentrations of menthol additive [0165-0171]. The tobacco Blend 101 with added menthol of 2.5 and 5% concentrations contained higher menthol concentrations than the initial menthol infusion substance (2.97% and 5.03% respectively) ([0171]; see Data Table). Although the menthol was in the form of discrete particles [0165], Tesfatsion further mentions that the menthol can be in liquid form [0131-0132].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Modified Brunson’s process such that the additive is infused at a higher concentration than the initial infusing material as disclosed by Tesfatsion, where Tesfatsion teaches the advantage of having additive infused at a higher concentration than the initial infusing material to generate an aerosol-generating material that can more readily release active substances [0171).
Claims 21-23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousseau et al (Pub. No. US20200253264A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Rousseau discloses an aerosol-producing material comprising:
an aerosol-producing substrate in the form of a strip, strips, shreds, or mixtures thereof, the aerosol-producing substrate being made from at least one plant (Abstract, [0039, 0074]);
and an additive (i.e., cannabis extract) that has been infused into the aerosol-producing substrate [0055];
the additive being present in the aerosol-producing substrate in an amount greater than about 3.1 % by weight [0017-0019, 0055];
and the aerosol-producing substrate being free of oils ([0083]; Extracts can be water (i.e., oil-free)).
Rousseau does not disclose that the additive is incorporated into the aerosol-producing substrate by a process comprising:
combining the aerosol-producing substrate with an infusing liquid, the infusing liquid comprising the additive dissolved in a solvent, the solvent having a boiling point of 120 degrees Celsius or less;
the additive incorporation further comprising subjecting the aerosol-producing substrate and infusing liquid mixture to reduced pressure sufficient to cause the additive to infuse into the aerosol-producing substrate at a temperature above about 20 degrees Celsius;
and separating the infusing liquid and the aerosol-producing substrate.
Regarding (I-III), it should be noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, the determination of patentability is based upon the product or apparatus structure itself. Patentability does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP § 2113.I).
In this case, Rousseau discloses all details of the Applicant’s aerosol-generating material product such as its shape/form (i.e., strips) and additive, wherein the substrate is oil-free and the additive is present in said substrate in an amount greater than about 3.1 % by weight (see rejection above).
Since the Applicant’s product is the same as the product disclosed by Rousseau, Applicant’s claimed product is not considered patentable despite its different production process.
Regarding Claim 22, Rousseau further discloses wherein the aerosol-producing substrate comprises a tobacco or a cannabis [0035].
Regarding Claim 23, Rousseau further discloses wherein the additive comprises cannabidiol [0085-0086].
Regarding Claim 27, Rousseau does not disclose that in the process for producing the claimed aerosol-generating substrate, the reduced pressure is from 350 mmHg to 700 mmHg.
However, it should be noted that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, the determination of patentability is based upon the product or apparatus structure itself. Patentability does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP § 2113.I).
In this case, Rousseau discloses all details of the Applicant’s aerosol-generating material product such as its shape/form (i.e., strips) and additive, wherein the substrate is oil-free and the additive is present in said substrate in an amount greater than about 3.1 % by weight (see rejection above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Vu P Pham whose telephone number is (703)756-4515. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (7:30AM-4:00PM EST).
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.
/V.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755