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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending and are subject to this office action.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed on 01/26/2026 containing remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 requires an inhalable substance and a wrapper that have the same combustion properties where the combustion properties include a combustion temperature and vaporization temperature. A combustion temperature is interpreted as the minimum temperature at which a material ignites and burns. A vaporization is interpreted as the minimum temperature at which a material converts to a vapor.
Claim 1 does not recite any structural features or composition of the inhalable substance or the wrapper and therefore the terms inhalable substance and wrapper cover a broad range of materials.
The combination of prior arts of record teaches a cartridge that comprises a cannabis wrapper and a cannabis inhalable substance. Since the wrapper is made of cannabis and the inhalable substance is cannabis, the Examiner has taken the position that the wrapper and inhalable substance would be expected to have the same combustion properties (i.e. combustion temperature and vaporization temperature), absent evidence to the contrary.
On pg. 7-8, Applicant argues that Ostrander discloses a paper created by subjecting cannabis to a chemical process that results in a material that will not have the same combustion properties as the smokable material disclosed by Bowen. The Examiner disagrees.
First, Ostrander does not require that the cannabis derived pulp is subject to a sodium carbonate bath to produce the wrapper. Ostrander discloses the cannabis derived pulp may be mechanically refined or refined by a water based process of soaking the cannabis derived pulp in a heated sodium carbonate bath ([0028-0030]). Ostrander does not require that the cannabis derived pulp is “chemically treated.” Mechanically refining is considered to be mechanically/physically separating the cellulose fibers from the lignin the cannabis derived pulp. Ostrander does not disclose that the mechanical refining causes the cellulose to undergo a transformation that would change the combustion properties of the remaining cannabis cellulose.
Second, Ostrander discloses the cannabis derived pulp may be subject to a sodium carbonate bath to separate cellulose from lignin ([0028-0030]). Ostrander does not disclose that the cellulose undergoes a chemical reaction that changes the chemical structure of the cellulose in such a way that would change the combustion properties of the cellulose.
The smokable material (31) disclosed by Bowen comprises cannabis in several forms including loose leaf, chopped, or other processed forms ([0051]), wherein the cannabis is considered to at least contain cannabis cellulose. Ostrander discloses a paper formed of cellulose fibers derived from cannabis ([0026]). The cannabis disclosed by Bowen and the paper disclosed by Ostrander both comprise cannabis derived cellulose which is expected to have the same combustion temperature and vaporization temperature. Therefore, the cannabis disclosed by Bowen contains an inhalable substance that is considered to have the same combustion properties as the paper disclosed by Ostrander because the paper is formed of cannabis derived cellulose and the cannabis has cannabis cellulose.
The Applicant has not shown why one of ordinary skill would not reasonably consider the combustion properties to be the same when both the wrapper and inhalable substance are cannabis. Furthermore, the Applicant has not provided evidence that a cannabis/marijuana inhalable substance would have different combustion properties then a cannabis/marijuana wrapper. The Examiner further notes that the rejection relies on the same inhalable substances and biodegradable substances as claimed, specifically marijuana and cannabis paper, both of which are claimed in claims 2-4 and 10-12, and are made of cannabis.
On pg. 8, Applicant argues that the Examiner has not met the prima facie burden to demonstrate obviousness. The Examiner disagrees. The prior office action (see Final Rejection dated 11/24/2025) outlined the relevant teachings of the prior art, a modification of the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention, and the motivation to modify the prior art.
The claims filed with the RCE on 01/26/2026 are identical to the claims previously filed in response to the Non-Final office action (see claims dated 10/30/2025). As such, the following rejection is maintained and made final.
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.
Claims 1-7, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen (US 20170181468 A1, as cited on IDS dated 08/01/2023) in view of Ostrander (US 20170112188 A1, as cited on IDS dated 08/01/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Bowen discloses a cartridge (30, Fig. 5-8), comprising:
A smokeable material (31) enclosed in a wrapper (32, Fig. 5-8, [0061])
The wrapper (32) is made of paper and is capable of withstanding the operating temperatures of a device while remaining intact ([0064, 0072]).
The smokeable material (31) includes tobacco or cannabis ([0051]).
Bowen does not explicitly disclose the smokeable material and wrapper have the same combustion temperature and vaporization temperature such that heat can vaporize the smokeable material and the wrapper without burning the wrapper.
However, Ostrander, directed to a wrapper for enclosing smokeable substances ([0002]), discloses:
A pliable sheet (1) comprising a marijuana based rolling paper (Fig. 3, [0018])
Rolling papers derived from different plants impart flavoring ([0005-0006])
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bowen by using a marijuana based rolling paper as taught by Ostrander because both Bowen and Ostrander are directed to smoking articles, Ostrander teaches a marijuana based rolling paper imparts flavoring, and this involves applying a known wrapping material to smokeable substance in a similar cartridge to yield predictable results.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a cartridge comprising cannabis wrapped in a cannabis rolling paper would have the same combustion properties, as both the smokeable substance and the wrapper comprise cannabis. Therefore, heat from a vaporizer heat source applied below the combustion temperature would be expected to transfer through the wrapper at a substantially similar temperature that does not burn the wrapper.
Regarding claim 2, Bowen discloses the smokeable material (31) includes tobacco or cannabis ([0052]).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Ostrander discloses the sheet (1) of a marijuana based rolling paper (“cannabis paper”) which comprises cellulose fibers (2) derived from a cannabis plant (31, Fig. 3, [0018]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that plant material is biodegradable.
Regarding claim 5, Bowen discloses the cartridge (30) is substantially cylindrical (Fig. 6, [0063-0064]).
Regarding claim 6, Bowen discloses the cartridge (30) may be wrapped on the sides but leaving the top open (Fig. 7, [0066]).
Regarding claim 7, Bowen does not explicitly disclose the smokeable substance is inserted into a wrapper by a user.
However, the Examiner notes that claim 7 is directed to a cartridge and is limited to the structure of the cartridge and not the method of making the cartridge. Inserting the inhalable substance in the wrapper by a user as claimed is merely a product by process limitation. So long as the prior art discloses a product that is structurally and compositionally equivalent to the claimed cartridge then the prior art meets the claim, so long as the manner of manufacturing the cartridge does not impart some structural feature to the product. In this instance case, the smokeable material (31) disclosed by Bowen is considered equivalent to the claimed cartridge and the step of inserting the substance into the wrapper does not impart any additional structural or compositional limitation to the cartridge.
Regarding claim 9, Bowen discloses a vaporization device (900, Fig. 9), comprising:
A pouch (906) comprising a smokeable material received in a vaporization chamber (907), where it is heated by the heater (905) to generate a vapor of the smokeable material (Fig. 9, [0074]).
Active ingredients in the smokeable material vaporize at different temperatures and the device is calibrated to a temperature intended to vaporize the smokeable material ([0053]). Calibrating the device to an appropriate temperature for vaporizing the smokeable material is considered to meet the claim limitation of “heat from the heating element is applied at a temperature lower than the combustion temperature of the wrapper”.
The pouch comprises a smokeable material (31) enclosed in a wrapper (32, Fig. 5-8, [0061])
The wrapper (32) is made of paper and is capable of withstanding the operating temperatures of a device while remaining intact ([0064, 0072])
The smokeable material (31) includes tobacco or cannabis ([0052]).
Bowen does not explicitly disclose the smokeable material and wrapper have the combustion temperature and vaporization temperature such that the heating element can vaporize the smokeable material and the wrapper without burning the wrapper.
However, Ostrander, directed to a wrapper for enclosing smokeable substances, ([0002]), discloses:
A pliable sheet (1) comprising a marijuana based rolling paper (Fig. 3, [0018])
Rolling papers derived from different plants impart flavoring ([0005-0006])
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bowen by using a marijuana based rolling paper as taught by Ostrander because both Bowen and Ostrander are directed to smoking articles, Ostrander teaches a marijuana based rolling paper imparts flavoring, and this involves applying a known wrapping material to smokeable substance in a similar cartridge to yield predictable results.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a cartridge comprising cannabis wrapped in a cannabis based rolling paper would have the same combustion properties, as both the smokeable substance and the wrapper comprise cannabis. Therefore, heat from a vaporizer heat source applied below the combustion temperature would be expected to transfer through the wrapper at a substantially similar temperature that does not burn the wrapper.
Regarding claim 10, Bowen discloses the smokeable material (31) includes tobacco or cannabis ([0052]).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Ostrander discloses the sheet (1) of a marijuana based rolling paper (“cannabis paper”) which comprises cellulose fibers (2) derived from a cannabis plant (31, Fig. 3, [0018]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that plant material is biodegradable.
Regarding claim 13, Bowen discloses the cartridge (30) is substantially cylindrical (Fig. 6, [0063-0064])
Regarding claim 14, Bowen discloses the cartridge (30) may be wrapped on the sides but leaving the top open (Fig. 7, [0066]).
Regarding claim 15, Bowen does not explicitly disclose the smokeable substance is inserted into a wrapper by a user.
However, the Examiner notes that claim 15 is directed to a cartridge and is limited to the structure of the cartridge and not the method of making the cartridge. Inserting the inhalable substance in the wrapper by a user as claimed is merely a product by process limitation. So long as the prior art discloses a product that is structurally and compositionally equivalent to the claimed cartridge then the prior art meets the claim, so long as the manner of manufacturing the cartridge does not impart some structural feature to the product. In this instance case, the smokeable material (31) disclosed by Bowen is considered equivalent to the claimed cartridge and the step of inserting the substance into the wrapper does not impart any additional structural or compositional limitation to the cartridge.
Claim 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen (US 20170181468 A1, as cited on IDS dated 08/01/2023) in view of Ostrander (US 20170112188 A1, as cited on IDS dated 08/01/2023) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Viriyapanthu (WO 2016171997 A2, as cited on IDS dated 08/01/2023), Ashworth (US 20080267540 A1), and Garrett (US 20210345666 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Bowen is silent to how the edges of the wrapper are held together.
Bowen does not explicitly disclose the wrapper material is fabric joined together by sewing, sonically sealing, or compressing two circular pieces of fabric.
However, Viriyapanthu, directed to an electronic vaporizer (Fig. 4A), discloses:
A pouch for holding a tobacco composition for use in a vaporizing apparatus (Fig. 2, [0043])
The pouch is constructed of woven cloth such as cotton or rayon and the edges of the cloth are held together by sewing ([0044])
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bowen, in view of Ostrander, by sewing edges of the wrapper together as taught by Viriyapanthu because both Bowen and Viriyapanthu are directed to smoking devices, Bowen is silent to how the edges of the wrapper are held together and Viriyapanthu teaches a pouch for holding a smokeable composition held together by sewn edges, and this involves apply a known connection means to a similar cartridge to yield predictable results.
Further regarding claim 8, Bowen discloses any material can be used for the wrapper that does not produce significant amounts of harmful gases at operating temperatures ([0064]). Viriyapanthu discloses the pouch can be constructed of cotton cloth ([0044]).
Bowen, Ostrander, or Viriyapanthu do not explicitly disclose enclosing the inhalable substance with a fabric having the same combustion properties as the inhalable substance.
However, Ashworth, directed to a reusable bag container (abstract), discloses:
A container (102) constructed of natural textiles including hemp which is environmentally sound and biodegradable (Fig. 1, [0004, 0020]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bowen, in view of Ostrander and Viriyapanthu, by substituting the paper wrapper with hemp fabric as taught by Ashworth because both Bowen and Ashworth are directed to packaging containers, Bowen discloses any material can be used for the wrapper that does not off-gas at operating temperatures and Ashworth discloses a reusable bag made of environmentally sound and biodegradable hemp fabric, and this involves applying a known biodegradable fabric to similar packaging to yield predictable results.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a cartridge comprising cannabis wrapped in a hemp fabric would have the same combustion properties, as both the smokeable substance and the wrapper comprise cannabis. Therefore, heat from a vaporizer heat source applied below the combustion temperature would be expected to transfer through the wrapper at a substantially similar temperature that does not burn the wrapper.
Further regarding claim 8, Bowen discloses the cartridge (30) is substantially cylindrical (Fig. 6, [0063-0064]) and that the cartridge is shaped to fill the chamber to maximize surface contact ([0012, 0030]).
Viriyapanthu discloses a cloth pouch where the edges are held together by sewing (Fig. 2, [0043-0044]).
Ashworth discloses using hemp fabric which is environmentally sound and biodegradable ([0004, 0020]).
Bowen, Viriyapanthu, or Ashworth do not explicitly disclose the cartridge comprise two circular pieces.
However, Garrett, directed to a pod (105) for use with a smoking device ([0024], Fig. 1C), discloses:
A pod (105) comprising a circular cover (120) and a hemisphere shaped insert (110) which is considered to be a circular piece (Fig. 1C, [0024]).
The shape of the insert is designed for placement into the receptacle (605) of a smoking pipe (Fig. 6, [0021, 0024, 0032])
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bowen, in view of Ostrander, Viriyapanthu, and Ashworth, by forming the cartridge of two circular pieces as taught by Garrett because both Bowen and Garrett are directed to smoking pods/cartridges, Bowen discloses the cartridge is shaped to maximize surface contact and Ashworth discloses a pod formed of two circular pieces that is designed to fit in a smoking pipe, and this involves applying a known shape to a similar cartridge to yield predictable results.
------
Regarding claim 16, Bowen is silent to how the edges of the wrapper are held together.
Bowen does not explicitly disclose the wrapper material is fabric joined together by sewing, sonically sealing, or compressing two circular pieces of fabric.
However, Viriyapanthu, directed to an electronic vaporizer (Fig. 4A), discloses:
A pouch for holding a tobacco composition for use in a vaporizing apparatus (Fig. 2, [0043])
The pouch is constructed of woven cloth such as cotton or rayon and the edges of the cloth are held together by sewing ([0044])
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bowen, in view of Ostrander, by sewing edges of the wrapper together as taught by Viriyapanthu because both Bowen and Viriyapanthu are directed to smoking devices, Bowen is silent to how the edges of the wrapper are held together and Viriyapanthu teaches a pouch for holding a smokeable composition held together by sewn edges, and this involves apply a known connection means to a similar cartridge to yield predictable results.
Further regarding claim 16, Bowen discloses any material can be used for the wrapper that does not produce significant amounts of harmful gases at operating temperatures ([0064]). Viriyapanthu discloses the pouch can be constructed of cotton cloth ([0044]).
Bowen, Ostrander, or Viriyapanthu do not explicitly disclose enclosing the inhalable substance with a fabric having the same combustion properties as the inhalable substance.
However, Ashworth, directed to a reusable bag container (abstract), discloses:
A container (102) constructed of natural textiles including hemp which is environmentally sound and biodegradable (Fig. 1, [0004, 0020]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bowen, in view of Ostrander and Viriyapanthu, by substituting the paper wrapper with hemp fabric as taught by Ashworth because both Bowen and Ashworth are directed to packaging containers, Bowen discloses any material can be used for the wrapper that does not off-gas at operating temperatures and Ashworth discloses a reusable bag made of environmentally sound and biodegradable hemp fabric, and this involves applying a known biodegradable fabric to similar packaging to yield predictable results.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a cartridge comprising cannabis wrapped in a hemp fabric would have the same combustion properties, as both the smokeable substance and the wrapper comprise cannabis. Therefore, heat from a vaporizer heat source applied below the combustion temperature would be expected to transfer through the wrapper at a substantially similar temperature that does not burn the wrapper.
Further regarding claim 16, Bowen discloses the cartridge (30) is substantially cylindrical (Fig. 6, [0063-0064]) and that the cartridge is shaped to fill the chamber to maximize surface contact ([0012, 0030]).
Viriyapanthu discloses a cloth pouch where the edges are held together by sewing (Fig. 2, [0043-0044]).
Ashworth discloses using hemp fabric which is environmentally sound and biodegradable ([0004, 0020]).
Bowen, Viriyapanthu, or Ashworth do not explicitly disclose the cartridge comprise two circular pieces.
However, Garrett, directed to a pod (105) for use with a smoking device ([0024], Fig. 1C), discloses:
A pod (105) comprising a circular cover (120) and a hemisphere shaped insert (110) which is considered to be a circular piece (Fig. 1C, [0024]).
The shape of the insert is designed for placement into the receptacle (605) of a smoking pipe (Fig. 6, [0021, 0024, 0032])
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bowen, in view of Ostrander, Viriyapanthu, and Ashworth, by forming the cartridge of two circular pieces as taught by Garrett because both Bowen and Garrett are directed to smoking pods/cartridges, Bowen discloses the cartridge is shaped to maximize surface contact and Ashworth discloses a pod formed of two circular pieces that is designed to fit in a smoking pipe, and this involves applying a known shape to a similar cartridge to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Drabner (US 20070199570 A1) discloses a cigarillo (50) comprising threshed tobacco (i.e. tobacco leaf with the stem removed) circumscribed by a wrapper (54), where the wrapper (54) is made of portions of tobacco leaves (Fig. 1, Fig. 2a, Fig. 5, [0069, 0071, 0080]).
Dula (US 1365969 A) discloses a plug of tobacco comprising compressed tobacco wrapped with a tobacco leaf wrapper (Fig. 1, pg. 2 lines 104-123).
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 MORGAN FAITH DEZENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-0155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-430pm 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.
/M.F.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755