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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 7/1/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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)(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.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by USPAP 2016/0073689 to Sebastian or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2016/0073689 to Sebastian in view of USPAP 2020/0297024 to Bodin and/or USPAP 2024/0024230 to Furukoshi.
Claims 1 and 10, Sebastian discloses a packaging material for a nicotine pouch, the packaging material comprising: a cellulose fiber; and a thermoplastic material fiber, wherein a content of the cellulose fiber is 40 to 80 wt % with respect to a total weight of the packaging material for the nicotine pouch, and wherein a content of the thermoplastic material fiber is 20 to 60 wt % with respect to the total weight of the packaging material for the nicotine pouch (see entire document including [0009]-[0015] and [0043]-[0047]). In the event that it is shown that the applied prior art does not disclose the claimed embodiment with sufficient specificity, the invention is obvious because the prior art references specifically disclose the claimed constituents and percentages.
Claim 2, the content of the cellulose fiber is 55 to 65 wt % with respect to the total weight of the packaging material for the nicotine pouch, and the content of the thermoplastic material fiber is 35 to 45 wt % with respect to the total weight of the packaging material for the nicotine pouch [0011].
Claim 3, a weight ratio of the cellulose fiber to the thermoplastic material fiber is 4:6 to 8:2 [0011].
Claim 4, the cellulose fiber comprises at least one or more selected from a group consisting of cellulose, viscose, rayon, and pulp [0047].
Claim 5, the cellulose fiber is pulp [0047]. Sebastian does not appear to specifically mention the pulp being beaten but “beating” simply means making the fibers finer. Since Sebastian discloses that the cellulose fibers are to be staple (short) fibers that can be nano, sub-micron or micro-sized [0052], Sebastian appears to inherently teach the claimed fiber structure. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 6, the thermoplastic material fiber comprises at least one or more selected from a group consisting of nylon, polylactic acid, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyethylene/polypropylene, polyethersulfone, polyethylene terephthalate, and low-melting-point polyethylene terephthalate [0045].
Claim 7, the thermoplastic material fiber may be a dual component fiber comprising two selected from a group consisting of polypropylene, polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, and polylactic acid, and the thermoplastic material fiber forms a core-shell structure ([0012], [0015] and [0045]). Plus, Bodin discloses additional thermoplastic bicomponent fiber material that may be used to make nicotine patches (see entire document including [0064]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the bicomponent fibers from any suitable combination of materials, such as claimed, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 8, Sebastian discloses that the packaging material may have a thickness of 50 µm to 150 µm [0059]. Sebastian does not appear to specifically mention the packaging material having the claimed basis weight but Furukoshi discloses that it is known in the art to construct nicotine pouch packaging with a basis weight of about 10 g/m2 and a thickness of about 100 µm (see entire document including [0061]-[0064]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the packaging material with any suitable weight and thickness, such as claimed, because it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a product weight and thickness on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 9, Sebastian does not appear to specifically mention the packaging material airtightness, tensile strength or seal strength but considering that the applied prior art discloses a substantially identical packaging material in terms of structure and materials, the claimed properties appear to be inherent. Plus, Sebastian discloses that it is known in the art to vary tensile strength, air permeability, and seal strength ([0059], [0066] and [0078]) and the examiner takes official notice that the claimed property values are conventional in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to vary the material airtightness, tensile strength and seal strength based, such as claimed, based on the intended application and desired/required product properties.
Claim 10, Sebastian discloses a nicotine pouch comprising: a nicotine pouch filler and the packaging material [0009].
Claim 11, the nicotine pouch filler comprises: nicotine; a release control excipient comprising at least one or more selected from a group consisting of cellulose and sugar alcohol; a binder; a pH adjuster; and a flavoring agent [0009].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights