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. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference number 112 , directed to a backing material in Fig. 3b , is not shown in the drawings . The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference number 14 in Fig. 1 is not mentioned in the description . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: The values “5 SR” and “90 SR” should be amended to read “5º SR” and “ 90 º SR” . Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 8 and 16 are 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 recites the limitation “a gum” in Claim 7. It is not clear if the gum is intended to be the gum recited in claim 7 or a different gum. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation “less than about 20 Coresta”, and the claim also recites “ less than about 20 Coresta” , which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Rousseau et al (US 11,388,925 and US 11,963,547 ), which w ere initially published as US 2020/0253268 on 8/13/2020, more than one year prior to the earliest filing date of the claimed invention. Both US 11,388,925 and US 11,963,547 are in the same patent family, thus have the same disclosures. Citations used herein are from US 11,388,925 . Claim s 1 - 6 and 12 : In disclosed embodiments, Rousseau et al discloses a wrapping material for a smoking article formed from a web that includes extracted pieces of cannabis fibers (plant material) including cannabis leaves, cannabis stems , cannabis buds, cannabis flowers, residues from cannabis extraction, or mixtures thereof , c ombined with web building fibers (Abs; col 2, lines 57-62; col 7, lines 30-38 ; claim s 1 and 17 ) . Additionally or alternatively, in one embodiment, the web is treated with a gum. In one embodiment, the gum includes guar gum, alginate, cellulose, cellulose derivatives such as carboxymethyl cellulose, Arabic gum, or mixtures thereof (col 4, lines 27-30) . Rousseau et al does not disclose the median particle size of the plant material. However, Rousseau et al discloses refining the insoluble extracted cannabis fraction (col 10, line 61 to col 11, line 3). The extracted cannabis material is combined with water and web building fibers to form a slurry and fed to a papermaking process to form a continuous sheet on a Fourdrinier table (col 11, lines 7-20). In an example, cannabis hurds were ground to a particle size between 250 and 500 μm, pulped in water and processed to separate the soluble portion (cannabis water solubles) from the insoluble portion. The insoluble portion was mixed with bleached hemp pulp, used as web building fibers from hemp, in a ratio of the insoluble portion to hemp pulp of 3:1 (dry weight:dry weight) and the mixed slurry was then refined through disk refiners. After refining, a base sheet was formed from the refined slurry (cols 24-25, Example 1). While the final particle size of the extracted cannabis material after refining is not specifically disclosed, conventional cigarette paper has thickness of 0.1 mm (100 μm) (see Zhao, [0071] for evidence) . Absent convincing evidence of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain a refined extracted cannabis material having a median particle size of smaller than the thickness of the paper comprising the extracted cannabis material , or less than about 100 μm , which is within the claimed ranges. Absent convincing evidence of unexpected results, it would further have been obvious to obtain a D90 particle size within the claimed range. From the disclosure of Rousseau et al, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to form a wrapping material for a smoking article comprising the claimed ingredients with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a suitable smoking article wrapper. Claim 7: Rousseau et al discloses applying the gum as an adhesive to one side of the wrapper (web) or to one side and also to an opposing side of the wrapper (web) (col 19, lines 1-7, 45-54). Claim 8: in an embodiment, the gum is used in addition to adhesive agents or as the adhesive agent, and is provided as part of the web instead of being applied to an exterior of the wrapping material (col 23, lines 50-52 and 65-67; col 24, lines 1-2). Adding the gum to the furnish would have been obvious as a commonly practiced way to incorporate an additive such as the gum into the web during formation. Claim 9: In an embodiment, the web is treated with a gum and a humectant (col 4, lines 24-25; col 28, lines 47-49). A humectant can be used for various different reasons in order to provide different benefits and advantages (col 22, lines 43-46). Applying the humectant by the same methods as the gum, e.g.-to at least one side of the web, would have been obvious . Clam 10: The web has a basis weight of from about 20 gsm to about 80 gsm (col 2, lines 62-64). Claim 11: In an embodiment, the web building fibers include delignified cellulosic fibers (col 2 , lines 66-67 ; Claim 2 ). Claim 13: T he we b includes web building fibers in an amount from about 1% to about 50% by weight (col 3, lines 5-7). Claim 14: In a further embodiment, the web is formed from a Cannabis plant material containing less than 0.3% by weight tetrahydrocannabinol (col 3, lines 7-10 ; Claim 4 ). Claim 15: As discussed above, refining the extracted cannabis material to a median particle size within the claimed range would have been obvious from the disclosure. R efining the extracted cannabis material to a SR⁰ value in the claimed range would further have been obvious to obtain the desired median particle size. Claim 16: The web has a permeability of about 10 Coresta to about 100 Coresta ( col 2, lines 64-65 ; Claim 1 ), which overlaps the claimed range. Absent convincing evidence of unexpected results, obtaining a claimed permeability would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Claims 17-19: In another embodiment, the wrapping material includes an aerosol delivery composition that includes an aerosol delivery agent. Suitable aerosol delivery agent s include a cannabinoid, tetrahydrocannabinol, or cannabidiol (col 3, lines 36-44) . In some embodiments, t he extract of solubles obtained from the cannabis fibers is optionally reapplied to the sheet (col 5, lines 31-33 ; Claims 8, 11 and 12 ). Absent convincing evidence of unexpected results , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include any of the claimed aerosol delivery agent s in the wrapping material for a smoking article with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a suitable smoking article wrapper. Claim 20: In one embodiment, the web according to the present disclosure may be calendared to increase the smoothness and runnability of the material. (col 3, lines 34-35; col 24, lines 43-47 ) . One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the pressure applied during calendaring would at least partially impregnate surface applied gum into the web. Claim 21: Rousseau et al discloses a booklet of wrapping materials comprising: a stack of individual sheets of the inventive wrapping material with an adhesive is present between adjacent sheets of wrapping material for affixing the individual sheets together in a releasable manner (col 18, line 53 to col 19, line 12; Figs. 3A and 3B) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DENNIS R CORDRAY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8244 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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 Abbas Rashid can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-7457 . 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. /DENNIS R CORDRAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748