CTNF 18/571,324 CTNF 93522 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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of group I and species B in the reply filed on 5/15/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 2, 22, 27, 30 and 32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/15/2026. Specification 06-14 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is fewer than 50 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The use of the term Drambuie (page 17, line 11), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. 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 Claim 9 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. Regarding claim 9 , it is unclear what is required by the limitation “closed circuit.” The term “closed circuit” has a known meaning in the art of electrical circuitry, but it is has no art accepted meaning when referring to a material itself. The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the instant claim will not be considered to further limit the claim upon which it depends. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim 10 , the claim fails to further limit claim 1 since the group of possible binders includes all types of binders . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-6, 9-10, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wagner (US 12,514,284) . Regarding claims 1 and 9-10 , Wagner discloses an aerosol forming substrate (figure 8, reference numeral 10) that has adhesive applied to it and set (figure 8, reference numeral 47) so that susceptor patches are attached to it (column 14, lines 29-38, figure 8, reference numeral 28). The aerosol generating substrate is then cut into strips (column 6, lines 29-39, figure 1b, reference numeral 15) that surround an inductively heatable susceptor (column 6, lines 40-48, figure 1b, reference numeral 13), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a susceptor partially embedded in an aerosol forming substrate. The aerosol generating substrate comprises an aerosol former (column 5, lines 5-14). Regarding claim 3 , Wagner discloses that the aerosol generating substrate is in the form of a sheet that is then cut into strips (column 6, lines 29-39, figure 1b, reference numeral 15), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a cut sheet. Regarding claim 4 , Wagner discloses that susceptors generate heat when an alternating magnetic field is applied to them (column 1, lines 40-53). Regarding claim 5 , Wagner discloses that the susceptors patches have a width of 0.1 mm to 7 mm and a length of 5 mm to 50 mm (column 13, lines 64-67, column 14, lines 1-7), which are considered to be the dimensions that would form a strip. Regarding claim 6 , Wagner discloses that the susceptor material is a web (column 5, lines 52-57). Regarding claims 14 and 16 , Wagner discloses that the aerosol generating material is reconstituted tobacco (column 4, lines 31-40) . 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ajithkumar (US 12,588,699) . Regarding claims 18 and 21 , Ajithkumar discloses an aerosol generating substrate having tobacco particles, which are considered to meet the claim limitation of a second aerosol generating material, cellulose ether, and additional cellulose not derived from tobacco (column 2, lines 37-50), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first aerosol generating material. The cellulose ether provides binding properties (column 5, lines 11-18). The aerosol generating substrate also has an aerosol former (column 8, lines 4-20). Regarding claim 19 , Ajithkumar discloses that the additional cellulose is derived from a plant (column 3, lines 52-67), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a botanical material. Regarding claim 20 , Ajithkumar discloses that the aerosol generating substrate is homogenized (abstract) and formed into a sheet (column 3, lines 11-19), which is considered to indicate that the tobacco in the aerosol generating substrate is reconstituted . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 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 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US 12,514,284) in view of Rojo-Calderon (US 11,632,978) . Regarding claim 8 , Wagner discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Wagner does not explicitly disclose the susceptor being an embedded fibrous sheet. Rojo-Calderon teaches an aerosol generating article having a susceptor material (abstract) in which fibers of susceptor material is embedded into an aerosol forming substrate to provide a large interface and good heat contact (column 6, lines 63-67, column 7, lines 1-4). The susceptor material is sheet-like (column 6, lines 43-47), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a sheet. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the embedded susceptor fibers of Rojo-Calderon as the susceptor of Wagner. One would have been motivated to do so since Wagner teaches that embedding fibers of susceptor material into an aerosol forming substrate provides a large interface and good heat contact . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US 12,514,284) in view of Ajithkumar (US 12,588,699) . Regarding claim 17 , Wagner discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Wagner does not explicitly disclose the aerosol generating substrate made from a non-tobacco material. Ajithkumar teaches an aerosol generating article having an aerosol forming substrate made from non-tobacco plant particles (abstract) that provides improved aerosol delivery (column 4, lines 65-67, column 5, lines 1-10). It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the non-tobacco plant material of Ajithkumar as the aerosol generating substrate of Wagner. One would have been motivated to do so since Ajithkumar teaches an aerosol generating material that provides improved aerosol delivery. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 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, 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. /RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/571,324 Page 2 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/571,324 Page 3 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/571,324 Page 4 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/571,324 Page 5 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/571,324 Page 6 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/571,324 Page 7 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/571,324 Page 8 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/571,324 Page 9 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/571,324 Page 10 Art Unit: 1755
Prosecution Insights