CTNF 17/787,892 CTNF 98723 DETAILED ACTION 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. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/28/2026 has been entered. Status of the Claims Claims 1-5, 7-8, and 10-17 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claims 11-15 have been withdrawn. Claim 9 has been cancelled. Claim 17 is newly added. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. Response to Amendment The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 4/28/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/28/2026, pages 5-9, with respect to claim(s) 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The following is a modified rejection based on amendments made to the claims. 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-3, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordskog (US2017/0238607) in view of Duc (US2019/0274350) and Kim (US2018/0134568) and as evidenced by Hausner Ratio (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378517323001199) . Regarding claims 1-2 and 5, Nordskog discloses: A population of particles for use in a non-combustible aerosol provision system (aerogel that may be in the form of a plurality of particles, [0020]- [0022]), wherein each particle comprises (i) a gelling agent that promotes formation of the gel ([0027]), and therefore the gelling agent is considered to be a binder. (ii) an absorbent, wherein the absorbent comprises silica or a silicate (wherein the aerogel may be a silica aerogel [0025], which the applicant’s specification teaches is known to be an absorbent (page 4, second paragraph) also reading on claim 5 ), and (iii) an aerosol-generating material (aerosol forming material, [0053]). The aerosol forming material reads on an aerosol-former material as recited in claim 2 . Nordskog does not explicitly disclose (I) wherein the population of particles has a bulk density of between about 0.6 and about 1.1 g.cm3, (II) wherein the weight ratio of absorbent to binder is from about 1.3:1 to about 1.9:1, and (III) wherein the population of particles has a Hausner ratio value of less than about 1.25. In regard to (I), Nordskog further teaches wherein the population of particles has a bulk density of between about 0.01 g/cm3 to about 0.5 g/cm3 ([0023]). About 0.5 g/cm3 includes just above and just below 0.5 g/cm3 (e.g. a 10% variance or specifically plus or minus 10%) thus an ordinary artisan would interpret about 0.5 g/cm3 to be 0.55 g/cm3 (0.5 g/cm3 + 10%). Further, the claim recites a bulk density of between about 0.6 and 1.1 g/cm3, and about 0.6 g/cm3 includes just above and just below 0.6 g/cm3 (e.g. a 10% variance or specifically plus or minus 10%) and thus an ordinary artisan would interpret about 0.6 g/cm3 to be 0.54 g/cm3 (0.6 g/cm3 – 10%). Therefore, as the range taught by the prior art of about 0.5 g/cm3 to about 0.01 g/cm3 overlaps the claimed range of about 0.6 and 1.1 g/m3, the claim is considered to be prima facie obvious. Further, the Courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). In regard to (II), Nordskog further teaches: The aerogel may be coated with at least one aerosol-forming material and/or flavoring agent ([0020]). In certain embodiments, the aerogel is a silica aerogel ([0025]). Aerogels are formed by creating a gel in solution and then carefully removing the liquid to leave the aerogel structure intact. Generally, a gel is produced by combining a metal-based compound precursor, a gelling agent and a liquid ([0027]). The amount of either the flavoring agent and/or aerosol-forming material in the aerogel is more often about 1 to about 20 wt. % ([0054]). As such, the silica aerogel is considered to consist of silica (i.e. absorbent), a gelling agent (i.e. binder), and an aerosol-forming material and/or flavorant. Nordskog is silent to the amount of silica and gelling agent in the silica aerogel. Duc, directed to an aerosol-generating article that comprises an aerogel, teaches: A silica aerogel that may comprise between about 30 percent by weight and about 40 percent by weight of synthetic amorphous silica ([0036]- [0037]). As Nordskog is silent to the amount of silica in the silica aerogel, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to look to other known teachings of silica aerogels that one of ordinary skill could apply to Nordskog with a reasonable expectation of success in the silica amount being suitable for use in the silica aerogel. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate to Nordskog the silica aerogel comprising between 30 and 40 wt.% of synthetic amorphous silica as taught by Duc, because both Nordskog and Duc are directed to smoking articles that comprise silica aerogel, and this merely involves incorporating a known amount of silica to a similar aerogel to yield predictable results. The amount of gelling agent (i.e. binder) would be the remainder weight percent of the silica aerogel after taking into account the amount of silica and the flavoring and/or aerosol-forming material. Therefore, the amount of gelling agent in the silica aerosol is considered to be between 10 and 69.5 wt.%, yielding a weight ratio of absorbent to binder being about 0.43:1 to 4:1. The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of between about 1.3:1 to about 1.9:1 and is therefore prima facie obvious. In regard to (III), Nordskog silent to the Hausner ratio and/or the tap density of the population of particles. However, Kim, directed to a method for preparing spherical silica aerogel granules, teaches: Silica aerogel with a spherical shape and granules having a uniform size and a low tap density has the silica aerogel exhibit a high working property and excellent flowability ([0076]). The tap density of the spherical silica aerogel granules is shown in Table 2 ([0092]), which shows tap densities between 0.09 and 0.34 g/cm3 (see Table 2). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the population of particles of Nordskog to have a low tap density such as between 0.09 g/cm3 and 0.34 g/cm3, because both Nordskog and Kim are directed to spherical silica aerogel granules, Kim teaches this exhibits excellent flowability, and this merely involves discovering optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. As evidenced by Hausner Ratio, the Hausner ratio is the tapped density divided by the bulk density (Pg. 4, section 4.15 Hausner Ratio). Therefore, modified Nordskog would yield the population of particles to have a Hausner ratio between 0.18 and 34. The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of than 1.25 and is therefore prima facie obvious. Regarding claim 3 , Nordskog discloses: Wherein the aerosol generating material comprises a flavor ([0052]- [0053], flavoring agent). Regarding claim 7 , Nordskog discloses: Wherein the aerosol-generating material is present in an amount of between about 0.5 wt.% to about 50 wt.% of the total weight of the particles ([0054]). The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of 50 wt.% and 90 wt.% and is therefore considered to be prima facie obvious . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordskog (US2017/0238607) in view of Duc (US2019/0274350) and Kim (US2018/0134568) and as evidenced by Hausner Ratio (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378517323001199) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhuang (US2007/0000505) . Regarding claims 4 and 16 , Nordskog further teaches that the gelling agent promotes formation of the gel and can be acidic or basic in nature including but not limited to mineral acids or ammonia-based compounds and precursors (e.g., NH.sub.4Cl) ([0027]). Nordskog is silent to more specific binder types such as wherein the binder comprises cellulose or a cellulose derivative as recited in claim 4 and wherein the binder comprises microcrystalline cellulose as recited in claim 16 . Zhuang, directed to a smoking article with tobacco beads, teaches: The tobacco beads optionally include binders such as microcrystalline cellulose or other cellulosic material (Abstract). It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the gelling agent of Nordskog be the microcrystalline cellulose or other cellulosic material of Zhuang. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP § 2144.07 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordskog (US2017/0238607) in view of Duc (US2019/0274350) and Kim (US2018/0134568) and as evidenced by Hausner Ratio (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378517323001199) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rasouli (US2015/0114405) . Regarding claim 8 , Nordskog further discloses that the particle size of the aerogel can vary ([0022]). Nordskog does not teach wherein the median particle size D50 is between about 1 mm and about 2 mm. Rasouli, directed to a smoking article that comprises a tobacco aerogel, teaches: The tobacco aerogel particle may have an average size of less than about 1000 micrometers ([0042], 1000 micrometers is equivalent to 1 mm). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the aerogel medium particle size of Nordskog to be less than about 1 mm as taught by Rasouli, because both Nordskog and Rasouli are directed to aerogel particles for smoking articles, and this merely involves incorporating a known aerogel particle size (i.e. less than 1 mm) to a similar aerogel to yield predictable results. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.07. The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of about 1 mm to about 2 mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordskog (US2017/238607) in view of Rasouli (US2015/0114405), Duc (US2019/0274350) and Kim (US2018/0134568), and as evidenced by Hausner Ratio (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378517323001199) . Regarding claim 10 , Nordskog discloses: A population of particles for use in a non-combustible aerosol provision system (aerogel that may be in the form of a plurality of particles, [0020]- [0022]), Wherein each particle comprises (i) a gelling agent that promotes formation of the gel ([0027]), and therefore the gelling agent is considered to be a binder. (ii) an absorbent, wherein the absorbent comprises silica or a silicate (wherein the aerogel may be a silica aerogel [0025], which the applicant’s specification teaches is known to be an absorbent (page 4, second paragraph)), and (iii) an aerosol-generating material (aerosol forming material, [0053]). Nordskog does not explicitly disclose (I) wherein the median particle size D50 is between about 1 mm and about 2 mm, (II) wherein the weight ratio of absorbent to binder is from about 1.3:1 to about 1.9:1, and (III) wherein the population of particles has a Hausner ratio value of less than about 1.25. In regard to (I), Nordskog further teaches the particle size of the aerogel can vary ([0022]). Rasouli, directed to directed to a smoking article that comprises a tobacco aerogel, teaches: Aerogels can be formed by creating a gel in solution and then carefully removing the liquid to leave the aerogel structure intact. The gel is formed by combining tobacco with a gelling agent and a liquid ([0023]). The tobacco aerogel particle may have an average size of less than about 1000 micrometers ([0042], 1000 micrometers is equivalent to 1 mm). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the aerogel medium particle size of Nordskog to be less than about 1 mm as taught by Rasouli, because both Nordskog and Rasouli are directed to aerogel particles for smoking articles, and this merely involves incorporating a known aerogel particle size (i.e. less than 1 mm) to a similar aerogel to yield predicable results. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.07. The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of about 1 mm to about 2 mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. In regard to (II), Nordskog further teaches: The aerogel may be coated with at least one aerosol-forming material and/or flavoring agent ([0020]). In certain embodiments, the aerogel is a silica aerogel ([0025]). Aerogels are formed by creating a gel in solution and then carefully removing the liquid to leave the aerogel structure intact. Generally, a gel is produced by combining a metal-based compound precursor, a gelling agent and a liquid ([0027]). The amount of either the flavoring agent and/or aerosol-forming material in the aerogel is more often about 1 to about 20 wt. % ([0054]). As such, the silica aerogel is considered to consist of silica (i.e. absorbent), a gelling agent (i.e. binder), and an aerosol-forming material and/or flavorant. Nordskog is silent to the amount of silica and gelling agent in the silica aerogel. Duc, directed to an aerosol-generating article that comprises an aerogel, teaches: A silica aerogel that may comprise between about 30 percent by weight and about 40 percent by weight of synthetic amorphous silica ([0036]- [0037]). As Nordskog is silent to the amount of silica in the silica aerogel, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to look to other known teachings of silica aerogels that one of ordinary skill could apply to Nordskog with a reasonable expectation of success in the silica amount being suitable for use in the silica aerogel. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate to Nordskog the silica aerogel comprising between 30 and 40 wt.% of synthetic amorphous silica as taught by Duc, because both Nordskog and Duc are directed to smoking articles that comprise silica aerogel, and this merely involves incorporating a known amount of silica to a similar aerogel to yield predicable results. The amount of gelling agent (i.e. binder) would be the remainder weight percent of the silica aerogel after taking into account the amount of silica and the flavoring and/or aerosol-forming material. Therefore, the amount of gelling agent in the silica aerosol is considered to be between 10 and 69.5 wt.%, yielding a weight ratio of absorbent to binder being about 0.43:1 to 4:1. The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of between about 1.3:1 to about 1.9:1 and is therefore prima facie obvious. In regard to (III), Nordskog silent to the Hausner ratio and/or the tap density of the population of particles. However, Kim, directed to a method for preparing spherical silica aerogel granules, teaches: Silica aerogel with a spherical shape as granules having a uniform size and a low tap density has the silica aerogel exhibit a high working property and excellent flowability ([0076]). The tap density of the spherical silica aerogel granules is shown in Table 2 ([0092]), which shows tap densities between 0.09 and 0.34 g/cm3 (see Table 2). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the population of particles of Nordskog to have a low tap density such as between 0.09 g/cm3 and 0.34 g/cm3, because both Nordskog and Kim are directed to spherical silica aerogel granules, Kim teaches this has the aerogel exhibit excellent flowability, and this merely involves to discovering optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. As evidenced by Hausner Ratio, the Hausner ratio is the tapped density divided by the bulk density (Pg. 4, section 4.15 Hausner Ratio). Therefore, modified Nordskog would yield the population of particles to have a Hausner ratio between 0.18 and 34. The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of than 1.25 and is therefore prima facie obvious . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordskog (US2017/0238607) in view of Duc (US2019/0274350) and Kim (US2018/0134568) and as evidenced by Hausner Ratio (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378517323001199) as applied to claim 1 above, and further as evidenced by Total Porosity (3.1 Total Porosity – Hydrogeologic Properties of Earth Materials and Principles of Groundwater Flow) and Engineering ToolBox (Air Density, Specific Weight, and Thermal Expansion Coefficients at Varying Temperatures and Pressures) . Regarding claim 17, Nordskog is silent to the mean particle weight of the population of particles. However, Nordskog further teaches the bulk density of the population of particles is between about 0.5 to about 0.01 g/cm3 ([0010]), the porosity of the population of particles is between 90 to 99.8% ([0021]), and the average particle size ranges from about 1 um to about 250 um ([0010]). As evidenced by Total Porosity, the particle density can be calculated from the bulk density of the material, the porosity of the material, and the air density (see equation 3). As evidenced by Engineering ToolBox, the density of air at room temperature and atmospheric pressure is 1.204 kg/m3. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to calculate the particle density to be between about 0.089 and 24.4 g/cm3. From the particle density and the average particle size, one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the mean particle weight of the population of particle to be between about 4.7*10^-11 and 0.2 mg. The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of from about 0.2 mg to about 6 mg and is therefore prima facie obvious. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicole A Szumigalski whose telephone number is (703)756-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 4:30 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. /N.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755 Application/Control Number: 17/787,892 Page 2 Art Unit: 1755
Prosecution Insights