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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 is considered to be indefinite in that the claim does not define what properties, with respect to physical strength, are encompassed. The instant specification does not define what properties, with respect to physical strength, are encompassed. For example, the instant specification does not provide (a) a measure of or (b) criteria for --- reinforced physical strength.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Newns (WO 2020/169440 A1).
Claims 1 and 5: Newns teaches an aromatic cartridge 1 (“that is mounted in an inhalation implement having an electric heating means”: this claim limitation refers to a method of use of the claimed aromatic cartridge and is not considered to provide a structural feature to the claimed structure) and that generates an aerosol through being heated (pg9, L9-10; pg10 L13-15; Figs1-2) (“by the electric heating means”: this claim limitation refers to a method of use of the claimed aromatic cartridge and is not considered to provide a structural feature to the claimed structure), characterized by having:
●a tubular cover (comprising at last layer 3, tube 6, layer 7) (pg9 L18-20; pg10 L7; Figs1-2)
●an aromatic base material (comprising at least aerosol-forming substrate 2) that is accommodated in one end of the cover and that generates an aromatic-component-containing aerosol through being heated (pg10 L17-21; Figs1-2)
●a filter that is accommodated in the other end of the cover (pg6 L22; Figs1-2)
●a cannabinoid-containing substance (pg2 L13 to pg4 L22; Figs1-2: claim 5 --- cannabidiol).
The aromatic cartridge 1 containing the cannabinoid-containing substance in one location as a solid (pg5 L4-7; Figs1-2). Other locations within reference may be included in the above recited locations (paragraphs, drawing, abstract, claims) to demonstrate further the features in the reference as claimed in the instant claims.
Claim 2: Newns teaches that the aromatic base material includes (“a pulverized and dried”: this claim limitation is a method limitation which is not considered an active part of claim 2 since claim 2 is a structural claim. See “Note” hereafter.) plant matter (comprising at least pellets/granules/chips of plant material) (pg5 L1-7) (Note: pulverized plant matter provides smaller pieces of the plant matter and it is submitted that that pellets/granules/chips are smaller pieces of the plant material --- also, the plant material of Newns is considered dry in that “dried” as claimed encompasses any level of moisture), an aerosol former (i.e. polylactic acid or poly (lactic acid) or PLA) (pg7 L21-25), and a sorbent (comprising at least the binding agent as a carrier comprising at least gum) (pg5 L1-7) that necessarily allows sorption of the cannabinoid-containing substance onto the binding agent of aromatic base material (pg5 L1-7); and the cannabinoid-containing substance is contained mixed in a raw material (comprising at least a binding agent) of the aromatic base material (pg5 L1-7).
Claim 8: Newns teaches that the aromatic base material includes a molding agent (binding agent) (pg5 L1-7) for connecting the cannabinoid-containing substance (i.e. providing physical strength by way of the binding).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newns as applied to claims 1-2, 5, and 8 above, and further in view of Hazani (WO 2019/215719 A1).
Claim 3: Newns does not teach that the sorbent also includes at least one of crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone.
Hazani teaches that a carrier of polyvinylpyrrolidone (which is necessarily crosslinked) is a conventional material, just as gum (which Newns teaches), for an aerosol generation material of a nebulizer which delivers an aerosol generated material to a patient (pg1 L1-11; pg12 L21 to pg13 L3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provided in Newns that the sorbent includes crosslinked polyvinylpyrrolidone in that Hazani teaches that a carrier of polyvinylpyrrolidone crosslinked is a conventional material, just as gum, for an aerosol generation material of a nebulizer which delivers an aerosol generated material to a patient.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newns as applied to claims 1-2, 5, and 8 above, and further in view of Nelson (WO 2020/169957 A1).
Claim 7: Newns does not teach that the aromatic cartridge 1 also contains, in addition to the cannabinoid-containing substance, at least one selected from menthol or caffeine or catechins or perfumes.
Nelson teaches adding menthol to an aerosol generating material for flavoring purposes wherein the aerosol generating material also comprises cannabis. Nelson’s invention relates to aerosol provision systems such as electronic cigarettes (pg1 L3-4; pg5 L22 to pg6 L9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provided in Newns that the aromatic cartridge1 also contains menthol in that Nelson teaches adding menthol to an aerosol generating material for the purpose of flavoring --- wherein the aerosol generating material also comprises cannabis.
Prior Art of Record
The following prior art is made of record: Skoda teaches cannabis with caffeine as part of an inhalation apparatus. Johnson teaches caffeine with catechins. Rado (CN 10348014 A) teaches cannabis with perfumes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Claim 4, the closest prior art of record to Newns teaches that the aromatic cartridge 1 includes the tubular cover, the aromatic base material, the filter, and a support member 4 disposed between the aromatic base material and the filter. Newns, alone or in combination with the other prior art of record, does not teach or fairly suggest that the cannabinoid-containing substance is disposed in an encapsulated form in at least one location selected from among (a) inside the aromatic base material, (b) between the aromatic base material and the support member, (c) inside the support member, (d) between the support member and the filter, and (e) inside the filter.
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Claim 6, the closest prior art of record to Newns, alone or in combination with the other prior art of record, does not teach or fairly suggest that the cannabinoid-containing substance is contained dissolved in a solvent selected from oils and fats and alcohol-based solvents.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA GRAY whose telephone number is (571) 272-5778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, Phil Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/LINDA L GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745