CTNF 18/540,183 CTNF 91907 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. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites “from 30% to 60” which appears to be a typographical error and should be replaced with –from 30% to 60% --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 8 and 9 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. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 8 recites the limitation " the plant " in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites “the reconstituted plant sheet is in particulate form, in the form of crimped sheet, in the form of shredded tobacco”. It is unclear whether the reconstituted plant sheet included in the tube is meant to comprise reconstituted plant sheet in particulate form, in the form of crimped sheet, and in the form of shredded tobacco, or whether the tube is meant to comprise reconstituted plant sheet in at least one of particulate form, in the form of crimped sheet, or in the form of shredded tobacco. For purposes of examination, claim 9 will be interpreted as requiring reconstituted plant sheet in at least one of particulate form, in the form of crimped sheet, or in the form of shredded tobacco. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 8-9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Rinehart et al. (US 9180988) . Claim 1. Rinehart et al. discloses a method for formation of a tobacco pouch wherein ribbons of web 22 and, optionally, liner film 18 from which disposable backing 116 has been removed are both drawn from separate bobbins 120, 118, respectively, toward a forming shoulder 122, which folds the web 22 and optional liner film 18 about the apparatus 110, forming a pouch precursor 124. Edge portions 24, 26 (two sealed ends of the web) are brought into overlapping relation and the tubular formation 28 (tube made of paper) is established. A packet of pouched tobacco 10 is achieved by introduction of tobacco 20 into the tubular form 28, and also sealing and cutting the tubular formation 28 at locations A and B (sealing the two open ends) (Column 4, lines 21-48; Figures 3 and 5). The web 22 is constructed from cellulose fiber such as tea bag-type material (paper) (Column 8, lines 51-62). Exemplary tobacco materials 20 can be made of cut or ground tobacco and can include additives and/or humectants. Examples of suitable types of tobacco materials that may be used include reconstituted tobacco. The tobacco material 20 may be provided in any suitable form, including shreds and/or particles of tobacco lamina, processed tobacco materials, such as volume expanded or puffed tobacco, or ground tobacco, processed tobacco stems, such as cut-rolled or cut-puffed stems, reconstituted tobacco materials, blends thereof, and the like (plant extract). The tobacco material can also include a supplemental amount of vegetable or plant fibers (fibrous support) or particles such as particles or shreds of lettuce, cotton, flax, beet fiber, cellulosic fibers, blends thereof and the like. Humectants can also be added to the tobacco material 20 to help maintain the moisture levels in the pouched tobacco product. Examples of humectants that can be used with the tobacco material include glycerol and propylene glycol (aerosol-generating agent) (Column 8, lines 21-50). Claim 2. Rinehart et al. discloses that sealing may be accomplished by any suitable sealing method, such as adhesive (Column 13, lines 54-55). Claims 8 and 9. Rinehart et al. discloses that the tobacco material 20 may be provided in any suitable form, including shreds and/or particles of tobacco lamina, processed tobacco materials, such as volume expanded or puffed tobacco, or ground tobacco, processed tobacco stems, such as cut-rolled or cut-puffed stems, reconstituted tobacco materials, blends thereof, and the like (plant extract) (Column 8, lines 21-50). Claims 12 and 13. Rinehart et al. discloses a method of forming a pouched product wherein ribbons of web 22 and, optionally, liner film 18 from which disposable backing 116 has been removed are both drawn from separate bobbins (unrolling a bobbin of paper) 120, 118, respectively, toward a forming shoulder 122, which folds the web 22 and optional liner film 18 about the apparatus 110, forming a pouch precursor 124. The longitudinal edge portions 24, 26 are brought into an overlapping, web-to-web relation and sealed to form the longitudinal seam 12 (applying adhesive, forming hollow tube) (Column 4, lines 21-48). Sealing may be accomplished by any suitable sealing method, such as adhesive (Column 13, lines 54-55). A packet of pouched tobacco 10 is achieved by introduction of tobacco 20 into the tubular form 28, and also sealing and cutting the tubular formation 28 at locations A and B (Column 4, lines 21-48). Drive belts or drive wheels 128 located below forming shoulder 122 continuously pull web 22 through forming shoulder 122 and beyond. An upper pair of opposing heat-sealing elements 112, and a lower pair of heat-sealing elements 114 cooperate with a knife 126 to repetitively seal and sever. Discrete charges of tobacco 20 are fed through apparatus 110 in timing with operation of sealing elements 112, 114. The transverse sealing elements 112, 114 and knife 126 arrangement follow a motion cycle where sealing elements 112, 114 close together, whereupon tobacco 20 is fed into the apparatus 110. They then move down together in opposing relation with each other to a final lowered position whereupon the knife 126 operates to sever the web 22. The sealing elements apparatus 110 then retract and return to original starting position further up apparatus 110 (Column 4, lines 53-67) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinehart et al. (US 9180988) in view of Aspgren (US 2015/0122675) . Claim 3. Rinehart et al. discloses the method of claim 2 but does not explicitly disclose that the gluing is performed with a glue selected from a starch-based glue, a dextrin-based glue, a casein-based glue, a cellulose-based glue, an animal glue, a latex glue, acrylics, a dispersion of polyurethane, an ethylene vinyl acetate-based glue, a polyvinyl acetate-based glue, a polyvinyl alcohol-based glue or mixtures thereof. Aspgren discloses a container comprising portion packets of tobacco snuff (Abstract). The portion packets are individually wrapped in a cellulose based non-woven material, and held in place on an interior surface of the container by an adhesive permitting removable adhesion of the portion packets in the container ([0067]). The adhesive may be a hot-melt adhesives, such as adhesives based on polyesters of lactic acid, starch, cellulose, collagen or mixtures thereof ([0030]) or a natural adhesive made from organic sources such as vegetable matter, starch (dextrin), natural resins or from animals e.g. casein or animal glue ([0032]). Since Rinehart et al. teaches that sealing may be accomplished by any suitable sealing method, such as adhesive (Column 13, lines 54-55) but does not disclose a particular adhesive, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an adhesive known in the art, such as that of Aspgren. Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP §2144.07) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinehart et al. (US 9180988) in view of Garthaffner et al. (US 2012/0023874) . Claim 4. Rinehart et al. discloses the method of claim 2 but does not explicitly disclose that the crimping is performed using a toothed wheel. Garthaffner et al. discloses an apparatus and method for producing small pouches filled with tobacco (Abstract) wherein a pair of crimping rollers directly below the processing wheel functions to crimp and thereby to sealingly close the lower end of each tube and a second pair of crimping rollers is located above the processing wheel for crimping closed the top of each tube ([0018]-[0020]). Garthaffner et al. discloses that the crimping rollers may be heated to enhance sealing along the transverse seams of the tubes. Also, adhesive may be applied to the inside open edges of the tube to enhance closure, if desired ([0082]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the open ends of the tubes may be sealed by crimping rollers in addition to heat or adhesives in order to enhance the closure as taught by Garthaffner et al . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5-7, 10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinehart et al. (US 9180988) in view of Rigoulay et al. (WO 2021/165372) . Claim 5. Rinehart et al. discloses the method of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose that the paper of the tube is cigarette paper, tobacco wrapper, porous plug wrapper or combinations thereof. Rigoulay et al. discloses a reconstituted plant sheet which may be in particulate form in a sachet or in a capsule ([0136]). The container can comprise an external envelope which defines an internal volume wherein the reconstituted plant sheet according to the invention is received ([0132]). The external envelope may for example be made of cigarette paper, of cigarette rolling paper, of paper, of plant fiber paper, of metal such as aluminum, in particular of cigarette paper ([0134]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the web 22 of Rinehart et al. be made of cigarette paper, of cigarette rolling paper, of paper, of plant fiber paper, of metal such as alumium, in particular of cigarette paper as taught by Rigoulay et al. ([0134]) because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP §2144.07). Claim 6. Rinehart et al. discloses the method of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose that the total content by weight of solids of aerosol-generating agent is from 10% to 30%. Rigoulay et al. discloses a reconstituted plant sheet wherein the total content by weight of solids of the aerosol-generating agent included in the reconstituted plant sheet of the present invention may be between 10% and 30%, in particular between 12% and 25%, very particularly between 13% and 22%, even more particularly between 15% and 21.5% ([0043]). Rigoulay et al. teaches that compared to a conventional reconstituted plant sheet, i.e. of lower density and comprising a single fibrous support, the reconstituted plant sheet according to the invention makes it advantageously possible to increase the mass of tobacco introduced into the heating device so that the aerosol formed has improved organoleptic properties and so that the user's satisfaction is not degraded by an excessively high draw resistance. The reconstituted plant sheet according to the invention thus makes it possible to obtain an advantageous compromise between the draw resistance and the enhanced organoleptic properties of the aerosols, which is not possible with the conventional reconstituted plant sheet ([0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the total content by weight of solids of aerosol-generating agent in the tobacco material 20 of Rinehart et al. is 10% to 30% as taught by Rigoulay et al. in order to obtain an advantageous compromise between the draw resistance and the enhanced organoleptic properties of the aerosols (Rigoulay [0009]). Claim 7. Rinehart et al. discloses the method of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose that the total content by weight of solids of the plant extract is from 30% to 60%. Rigoulay et al. discloses a reconstituted plant sheet wherein the concentration of solids of plant extract in the plant extract composition may be greater than 45%, in particular between 50% and 70%, very particularly between 55% and 65%, even more particularly between 58% and 62% ([0036]). Rigoulay et al. teaches that compared to a conventional reconstituted plant sheet, i.e. of lower density and comprising a single fibrous support, the reconstituted plant sheet according to the invention makes it advantageously possible to increase the mass of tobacco introduced into the heating device so that the aerosol formed has improved organoleptic properties and so that the user's satisfaction is not degraded by an excessively high draw resistance. The reconstituted plant sheet according to the invention thus makes it possible to obtain an advantageous compromise between the draw resistance and the enhanced organoleptic properties of the aerosols, which is not possible with the conventional reconstituted plant sheet ([0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the plant extract in the tobacco material 20 of Rinehart et al. comprise 30% to 60% by weight solids as taught by Rigoulay et al. in order to obtain an advantageous compromise between the draw resistance and the enhanced organoleptic properties of the aerosols (Rigoulay [0009]). Claim 10. Rinehart et al. discloses the method of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the ratio of the mass of the reconstituted plant sheet to the inner volume of the pouch of the consumable is comprised of from 0.30 g.cm -3 to 1.5 g.cm -3 . Rigoulay et al. discloses a reconstituted plant sheet which may be in particulate form in a sachet or in a capsule ([0136]). Typically, the ratio between the mass of reconstituted plant sheet of the invention and the internal volume of the consumable may be, for example, of between 300 mg/ml (0.30 g.cm -3 ) and 500 mg/ml (0.50 g.cm -3 ), in particular between 355 mg/ml (0.355 g.cm -3 ) and 450 mg/ml (0.45 g.cm -3 ), more particularly between 375 mg/ml (0.375 g.cm -3 ) and 425 mg/ml (0.425 g.cm -3 ) ([0138]). Rigoulay et al. teaches that a ratio within these ranges of values makes it possible to generate an aerosol having satisfactory organoleptic properties. In particular, the aerosol does not have very pronounced organoleptic properties when the ratio is less than these ranges of values. In addition, when the ratio is greater than these ranges of values, the draw resistance is too great for smoking to be satisfactory ([0139]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the ratio of the mass of the reconstituted plant sheet to the inner volume of the pouch of the consumable is from 0.30 g.cm -3 to 1.5 g.cm -3 in order to generate an aerosol having satisfactory organoleptic properties as taught by Rigoulay et al. Claim 14. Rinehart et al. discloses the method of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose that the reconstituted plant sheet is manufactured according to the following steps: c1) passing plant fibers through a papermaking machine so as to produce a base web, c2) bringing a plant extract into contact on the fibrous support, and contacting at least two fibrous supports when the reconstituted plant sheet (3) comprises more than one fibrous supports, to obtain a wet reconstituted plant sheet, and c3) drying the wet reconstituted plant sheet to produce the reconstituted plant sheet (3),wherein an aerosol-generating agent is incorporated during step c2) and/or between steps c2) and c3). Rigoulay et al. discloses a reconstituted plant sheet comprising: two fibrous supports, each fibrous support comprising refined plant fibers and a plant extract; a plant extract composition between the two fibrous supports; and an aerosol-generating agent, characterized in that the density of the reconstituted plant sheet is greater than or equal to 0.60 g/cm3 ([0008]). Rigoulay et al. discloses a process for producing a reconstituted plant sheet according to the invention, comprising the following steps: a) passing the refined plant fibers through a papermaking machine so as to produce a base web, b) bringing a plant extract into contact on the base web to obtain a fibrous support, and c) bringing a plant extract composition into contact between two fibrous supports so as to obtain the wet reconstituted plant sheet, and d) drying the wet reconstituted plant sheet to produce the reconstituted plant sheet, wherein an aerosol-generating agent is incorporated during step b) and/or during step c) ([0010]). Rigoulay et al. teaches that compared to a conventional reconstituted plant sheet, i.e. of lower density and comprising a single fibrous support, the reconstituted plant sheet according to the invention makes it advantageously possible to increase the mass of tobacco introduced into the heating device so that the aerosol formed has improved organoleptic properties and so that the user's satisfaction is not degraded by an excessively high draw resistance. The reconstituted plant sheet according to the invention thus makes it possible to obtain an advantageous compromise between the draw resistance and the enhanced organoleptic properties of the aerosols, which is not possible with the conventional reconstituted plant sheet ([0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the tobacco material 20 of Rinehart et al. be manufactured by the method of Rigoulay et al. in order to obtain an advantageous compromise between the draw resistance and the enhanced organoleptic properties of the aerosols as taught by Rigoulay et al. ([0009]). Claim 15. Rinehart et al. discloses that the reconstituted plant sheet can be shaped so as to be adapted to the device for heating tobacco without burning it. For example, it may be in particulate form, in the form of crimped sheet, in the form of shredded tobacco, in particular in the form of shredded tobacco having a width of from 0.5 mm to 1 mm (Rigoulay [0131]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinehart et al. (US 9180988) in view of Zhuang et al. (US 2010/0218779) . Claim 11. Rinehart et al. discloses the method of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose that between the steps of filling the tube and sealing the tube, the tobacco material is compacted in the tube. Zhuang et al. discloses a method of making an oral tobacco pouch (Abstract) wherein the filling material can be compacted during the pouch making process ([0013]). Zhuang et al. teaches that the final filling material can have a range of characteristics including water holding capacities, adhesive properties, and packing densities. Such characteristics can impact the sensorial experience such as flavor immediacy, flavor release duration, moistness, salivation and burning sensation of the oral tobacco pouch product when placed in a user's mouth ([0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add a step of compacting the tobacco material in the method of Rinehart et al. in order to achieve a desired sensorial experience as taught by Zhuang et al. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine A Will whose telephone number is (571)270-0516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00AM-6:00PM(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, Michael Wilson can be reached at (571)270-3882. 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. /KATHERINE A WILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747 Application/Control Number: 18/540,183 Page 2 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 18/540,183 Page 3 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 18/540,183 Page 4 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 18/540,183 Page 5 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 18/540,183 Page 6 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 18/540,183 Page 7 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 18/540,183 Page 8 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 18/540,183 Page 9 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 18/540,183 Page 10 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 18/540,183 Page 11 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 18/540,183 Page 12 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 18/540,183 Page 13 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 18/540,183 Page 14 Art Unit: 1747 Application/Control Number: 18/540,183 Page 15 Art Unit: 1747