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. Response to Amendment This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 3/2/2026. Claims 1, 14, and 17-18 are amended. Claims 2-6 and 19-20 are cancelled. Claims 21-27 are newly added. Claims 1, 7-18, and 21-27 are pending. Claim 18 has been withdrawn. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 3/2/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the combined search and examination of the separate inventions would not be a serious burden. This is not found persuasive. First, Applicant’s argument is wholly conclusory without any explanation why there would not be a serious search burden. Second, the Examiner maintains that there is a serious search burden because group I and group II have different classifications (CPC A24B 15/281 and CPC B01F 23/00 respectively) and would at least require a different search strategy. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim 18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/2/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim s 1 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 1 , the claim limitation “ micropores with an average pore size of greater than 500 nm” lacks written support in the instant specification. Specifically, the instant specification describes the porous alumina having macro pores exhibit a size of greater than 500 nm (p. 7, first full paragraph). However, the instant specification contains no description of micropores, let alone micropores with an average pore size of greater than 500 nm. Regarding claim 22 , the claim limitation “micropores with an average pore size of greater than 800 nm “ similarly lacks written support in the instant specification. Specifically, the instant specification describes the porous alumina having macro pores exhibit a size of greater than 800 nm (p. 7, first full paragraph). However, the instant specification contains no description of micropores, let alone micropores with an average pore size of greater than 800 nm. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1, 7-17, and 21-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1 , the claim limitation “micropores with an average pore size of greater than 500 nm” is indefinite. Particularly, the term “micropore” would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to have a pore size of up to 2 nm as opposed to the having “an average pore size of greater than 500 nm.” Rather, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand an average pore size of greater than 500 nm to be classified as a “macropore” (see also instant specification at p. 7, first full paragraph). Therefore, the limitation is contradictory, as the alumina cannot comprise both micropores and have an average pore size of greater than 500 nm at the same time. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “pores with an average pore size of greater than 500 nm.” Therefore, claims 7-17, and 21-27 are rejected for their dependencies. Regarding claim 22 , the claim limitation “micropores with an average pore size of greater than 800 nm” is similarly indefinite. Particularly, the term “micropore” would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to have a pore size of up to 2 nm as opposed to the having “an average pore size of greater than 800 nm.” Rather, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand an average pore size of greater than 800 nm to be classified as a “macropore” (see also instant specification at p. 7, first full paragraph). Therefore, the limitation is contradictory, as the alumina cannot comprise both micropores and have an average pore size of greater than 800 nm at the same time. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “pores with an average pore size of greater than 800 nm.” 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. 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 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 , 7-9, 1 2 -17, 21-24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman (US 2016/0157515; of record) in view of Wiesmuller (US 2007/0082101; of record ; see also application no. 10/567190 ) as evidenced by Kumar et al. (US 2009/0293889; of record) . Regarding claim s 1 , 17, and 22 , Chapman discloses a pouched product adapted for the release of a releasable component therefrom (abstract; “product configured for oral use”) comprising: a composition (315) including one or more releasable components ( [0035] ; “ releasable material”) and particulate tobacco material ([0026]); a release modifying agent (325; [0062] ), such as alumina ( [0080] ) adapted for adhering the releasable component on a surface thereof ([0080]; “at least a portion of the releasable material [is] retained by the…alumina”), which is released from the composition under mouth conditions ([0035] ; at least a particulate non-tobacco material (such as microcrystalline cellulose) ( [0035] ; one of the “particulate filler”) , wherein the releasable components may include flavor components ([0052]). However, Chapman is silent as to wherein the alumina is porous, wherein the porous alumina comprises alpha alumina, wherein the alpha alumina has an average particle size of about 0.5 µm to about 500 µm and comprises micropores with an average pore size of greater than 500 nm. Particularly, while Chapman discloses the use of adsorbent alumina as the release modifying agent, Chapman does not disclose the properties of such alumina. Wiesmuller teaches a particulate carrier material loaded with flavoring agents having a large specific surface (abstract) wherein one known suitable carrier material is alumina oxide (alumina) which is subdivided into three classes including the α modification ([0016]; see [0016] in App. No. 10/567190; “alpha alumina” ) , the carrier material having a pore size between 0.3 and 5000 nm, preferably between 1 and 1000 nm ([0018]; overlapping the claimed “average pore size of greater than 500 nm”), and a particle size of ≥10 µm, more preferably ≥ 50 µm ([0018] ; overlaps the range of “0.5 µm to about 500 µm” ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried using Wiesmuller’s α alumina oxide having a pore size of preferably 1-1000 nm and particle size of ≥ 10 µm as the Chapman’s release modifying agent in the form of alumina because (a) it is known in the art that there are a 3 of identified forms of alumina including α -alumina ( Wiesmuller ; [0016] ), and (b) such a modification would provide the beneficial result of constantly and stably releasing the flavors over long er period s of time into aqueous environments ( Wiesmuller ; [0012] , [0026] ) and do not adulterate the typical aroma of the flavor ( Wiesmuller ; [0012]) . Regarding the claim limitations “average particle size of about 0.5 µm to about 500 µm ,” “average particle size is about 50 µm to about 500 µm,” “pores with an average pore size of greater than 500 nm,” and “pores with an average pore size of greater than 800 nm,” modified Chapman’s α-alumina having a pore size preferably between 1 and 1000 nm and particle size of more preferably ≥ 50 µm overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Kumar evidences a phenomenon of agglomeration constituents in a consumable tobacco product (abstract) wherein one or more binders agglomerate smaller particles of tobacco together, and which may hold fillers, flavorants , and other additives, which adhere to the tobacco particles ([0048]), wherein the binder includes microcrystalline cellulose ([0051]), and the filler includes aluminum oxide ([0071]). Since Chapman similarly discloses the composition (315) includes particulate tobacco material [0026]), binders in the form of microcrystalline cellulose ([0035]), and modified α- alumina ([0080]), which is identical to the composition as disclosed in Kumar, one of skill in the art would expect the microcrystalline cellulose to agglomerate the particulate tobacco material together and adhere the α- alumina to the tobacco particles (Kumar; [0048]; “ form of agglomerates”) . "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." MPEP 2112.01(II). The Examiner suggests amending the claim in a way that specifies that the alumina particles are agglomerated to other alumina particles (e.g., “an agglomerate of porous alumina;” see p. 9, last paragraph) to overcome the current rejection. Regarding claims 7-8 , modified Chapman discloses the releasable material may be nicotine ([0035]; “one or more active ingredients”). Regarding claim 9 , modified Chapman discloses the releasable material may be flavoring agents ([0035]). Regarding claim 12 , modified Chapman discloses the flavoring agent includes mint ([0051]; “other mint plant species”). Regarding claim 13 , modified Chapman discloses that the composition may include particulate non-tobacco material treated with nicotine (claim 17). Regarding claim s 14 and 21 ¸ modified Chapman discloses a composition (315; see Fig. 3; “mixture”) including the release modifying agent (325), the releasable component, and filler ([0035], [0062]) positioned within water permeable fabric (320; “pouch”) to form a pouched product (300; [0062]). Regarding claim 15 , 23-24, and 27 , modified Chapman discloses at least a particulate non-tobacco material (such as microcrystalline cellulose) ([0035]; “cellulose material”). Regarding claim 16 , modified Chapman discloses the composition may include both particulate tobacco material and flavoring agents ([0035]). Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman i n view of Wiesmuller as evidenced by Kumar et al. , as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Grossman (US 2013/0287704). Regarding claims 10-11 , modified Chapman discloses the product as discussed above with respect to claim 1, comprising the flavoring agent ([0035]), wherein the flavor agent can be cinnamon ([0051]). However, modified Chapman does not explicitly teach the one or more flavoring agents comprises a compound having a carbon-carbon double bond, a carbon-oxygen double bond, or both; or that the one or more flavoring agents comprises one or more aldehydes, ketones, ester, terpenes, terpenoids, trigeminal sensates , or a combination thereof. Grossman teaches an article for the oral administration of nicotine (title) wherein it is known that cinnamaldehyde is the phenolic compound that imparts much of the organoleptic bite in cinnamon ([0035]). One of skill in the art would appreciate that cinnamaldehyde includes both a carbon-carbon double bond and carbon-oxygen double bond and includes an aldehyde group. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used cinnamaldehyde as in Grossman as the flavoring agent in Chapman because Chapman suggests a cinnamon flavor ([0051]) and such a modification would impart the organoleptic bite of cinnamon without the plant material which is enjoyable to tobacco users (Grossman; [0034]-[0035]). Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman i n view of Wiesmuller as evidenced by Kumar et al. , as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kumar et al. Regarding claims 25-26 , modified Chapman discloses the product as discussed above with respect to claim 1, wherein the composition (315) includes particulate tobacco material [0026]), binders in the form of microcrystalline cellulose ([0035]), and modified α-alumina ([0080]). However, modified Chapman is silent as to wherein the particulate filler is in an amount of 30 to 75 percent by weight based on the weight of the mixture, wherein the porous alumina and one or more other particulate fillers are present in a ratio of 0.5 to 5, and wherein the porous alumina is in the form of agglomerates. Particularly, Chapman does not disclose the amounts and/or ratios of tobacco material, microcrystalline cellulose, and alumina. Kumar teaches a consumable tobacco product (abstract) comprising at least one tobacco component, at least one flavorant , at least on sweetener, at least one filler-binder, at least one lubricant, at least one desiccant, and at least one glidant (para. 43) , the filler-binder may comprise micro-crystalline cellulose (para. 51) and be present in an amount of 3-35% by weight of the tobacco product (para. 75) to achieve a target performance of increasing disintegration time, maintaining integrity of the compressed tobacco product and/or achieve appropriate hardness and friability characteristics (para. 51), and an additional filler can be used to control the tobacco product’s physical properties e.g., texture, weight) including aluminum oxide (i.e. “alumina”) wherein the additional filler can be used in an amount of 0.1 to about 2.0% (para. 71). Moreover, Kumar teaches that tobacco particles that may also include one or more binders, which agglomerate smaller particles of tobacco together, and which may also hold fillers, flavorants , lipids and other additives, which adhere to the tobacco particles, wherein binders suitable for agglomerating tobacco particles together include those described herein as suitable for use in forming the compressed tobacco product ([0048]). Therefore, Kumar teaches the total amount of filler-binder and additional filler is in the range of 3.1-37% (overlapping the claimed range of “the particulate filler is in an amount of 30 to 75 percent by weight based on the weight of the mixture”). Moreover, Kumar teaches the additional filler:filler-binder ratio is 0.0029 to 0.67 (overlapping the claimed range of “the porous alumina and one or more other particulate fillers are present in a ratio of 0.5 to 10 ”). 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 composition of Chapman to include 3-35% micro-crystalline cellulose in order to achieve the predictable result of controlling the tobacco product’s disintegration time, maintaining integrity of the tobacco product, and/or achieving an appropriate hardness and friability at a desirable level (Chapman; para. 51) and include the 0.1-2% aluminum oxide as in Kumar to control the compressed tobacco product’s texture and weight (Kumar; para. 71). Moreover, such a modification would involve routine optimization within prior art conditions and/or through routine experimentation. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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)(A). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kirsch (US 2008/0022940) teaches a composite adsorbent wherein the bulk density of the particles can be adjusted by manipulating the agglomeration process to increase or decrease pore size, pore volume, and surface area of the particle ([0074]). Hwang (KR 100809390) teaches a method of preparing tobacco leaves using porous alumina in alpha-form and having a size of 50-5000 nm. Miura (US 2007/0128273) teaches a composition containing a medicine and porous alumina ([0013]) having an average pore diameter of 1-1000 nm and particle size of 1 µm or more ([0030]). Tobyn (US 2006/0127480) teaches a pharmaceutical excipient comprising inorganic particles in the form of an aggregation of inorganic particles defining a plurality of pores having a mean width of 0.01-500 µm ([0015]) and mean particle size from about 10-500 µm ([0100]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SONNY V NGUYEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8294 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday; 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Philip Y Louie can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /SONNY V NGUYEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755