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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 12/15/23 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. No copies of foreign patent documents 1-5 and non-patent literature documents 3-7 have been received. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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)(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 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Webski (US 2021/0161206) . Claim s 1 , 2, and 5 . Webski discloses a portable vaporizer that includes a primary cartridge into which a first vaporizing liquid may be inserted ([0008]). V aporizable material inserted in the primary and/or secondary cartridges may comprise nicotine solutions (e.g., nicotine salt in an aqueous solution) ([0009]). The vaporizable material can contain botanicals and/or nutraceuticals such as tea (polyphenols, flavonoids, green tea catechins,); horehound (phenol flavonoid glycosides, labdane diterpenoids, yohimbe, cranberry/grape (proanthocyanidins), black cohosh (terpene glycoside fraction (actine/ cimifugoside ), flax seed (omega fatty acids), echinacea ( echinacoside ), valerian (alkaloids, gabapentin, isovaleric acid, terpenes), senna (senna cglycosides ), cinnamon (cinnamaldehyde, phenols, terpenes), vitamin D, saw palmetto (fatty acids), or caffeine (second alkaloid) . In certain embodiments, the vaporizable material may be soluble to at least fifty percent by weight in any suitable carrier solvent such as glycols (such as propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin), ethylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, trimethylene glycol, ethanol, and combinations thereof. The medicinal compound may be terpinolene, THC, nicotine, Linalool, phytol, beta myrcene, citronellol, caryophyllene oxide, alpha pinene, limonene, beta caryophyllene, humulene ([0010]). While Webski does not explicitly disclose the steps of adding the first alkaloid, the second alkaloid, and the phenol to a reaction vessel as a first mixture , and heating the first mixture up and continuously heating and stirring for between 0.1 minutes and 6000 minutes at a temperature between 40°C and 300°C , the claim is directed toward an e-liquid not a method of making an e-liquid. Thus, the claim is being interpreted as a product-by-process claim. The method limitations are not germane to patentability pursuant to MPEP §211 3 , since it has been held tha t “[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (See MPEP §2113 (I)). Claim 6. Webski discloses that the vaporizing liquid can be vaporized in an electronic cigarette or portable vaporizer (electronic atomizer) ([0003]). 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. 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. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webski (US 2021/0161206). Claim s 3 and 4 . Webski discloses the e-liquid of claim 1 wherein the vaporizable material may be soluble to at least fifty percent by weight in any suitable carrier solvent such as glycols such as propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin . The vaporizable material can contain botanicals and/or nutraceuticals such as cranberry/grape ( fruit essence ) ([0010]). While Webski does not explicitly disclose the steps of prepare the reaction compound of the first alkaloid and the second alkaloid reacting together with phenol in a reaction vessel; and then mix the prepared reaction compound of the first alkaloid and the second alkaloid reacting together with phenol, with solvent and essence to form the e-liquid , the claim is directed toward an e-liquid not a method of making an e-liquid. Thus, the claim is being interpreted as a product-by-process claim. The method limitations are not germane to patentability pursuant to MPEP §211 3 , since it has been held tha t “[E] ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (See MPEP §2113 (I)). Webski also does not explicitly disclose that the weight ratio of the reaction compound of the first alkaloid and the second alkaloid reacting together with phenol in the e-liquid is between 0.001% and 96% , and the weight ratio of the essence in the e-liquid is between 1% and 30% . However, 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the reaction compound in the e-liquid between 0.001% and 96% , and the weight ratio of the essence in the e-liquid between 1% and 30% through routine experimentation. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Katherine A Will whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0516 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Wilson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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