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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12-18 and 20-27 are pending.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 15-18 and 20-27 remain withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, filed 2/20/2026, with respect to Metrangolo in view of Greim, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 1 to include limitations that were not previously presented, specifically the first sheet is not bonded to the second sheet. The prior art of record does not appear to disclose the new limitations. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art Wilkes in combination with previously applied prior art.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2013178768 (Metrangolo hereinafter) in view of US 20170055575 (Wilke hereinafter).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10 and 12, Metrangolo teaches an aerosolizable structure, specifically a rod, for use in an article for use with an apparatus for heating aerosolizable material to volatilize at least one component of the aerosolizable material (abstract), the aerosolizable structure comprising: a gathered layered structure comprising: a first sheet of aerosol-generating material and a second sheet of thermally-conductive material (page 2, lines 14-18), wherein the second sheet comprises thermally-conductive material comprised of aluminum foil (page 2, lines 22-23).
Metrangolo does not expressly teach that the aerosol-generating material of the first sheet is a gel.
Wilke teaches an aerosolizable structure for use in an article for use with an apparatus for heating aerosolizable material to volatilize at least one component of the aerosolizable material (abstract). Wilke teaches that possible aerosol-generating materials are gel or gelled sheet or reconstituted tobacco or homogenized tobacco ([0051]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have substituted the aerosol-generating material of the first sheet in Metrangolo with the gel or gelled sheet as taught by Wilke because it has been held that the substitution of one known element (i.e. reconstituted tobacco or homogenized tobacco sheet) for another (i.e. gelled sheet) yielding predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, specifically providing volatilized components upon heating, typically in the form of vapor or an aerosol (Wilke, [0051]), would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP § 2143 B).
The structure formed by modified Metrangolo, specifically a first sheet of aerosol-generating material which is a gelled sheet, and a second sheet of thermally-conductive material, which is aluminum foil, are not bonded, as both are separate sheet materials.
Regarding claim 5, modified Metrangolo teaches that multiple sheets of aerosol-generating material can be included in the gathered layered structure (Metrangolo, page 4, lines 29-30).
While modified Metrangolo does not expressly state that the second sheet, or thermally-conductive material, is located between two layers of aerosol-forming material (the first and third sheets, respectively), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have positioned the layer of thermally-conductive material between the two layers of aerosol-forming material so that both aerosol-forming material layers are in intimate contact with the layer of thermally-conductive material, with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results, namely efficient heating of the aerosol-forming material layers.
Regarding claim 7, modified Metrangolo teaches that the gathered layered structure is crimped (Metrangolo, page 3, lines 33-35).
Regarding claim 13, modified Metrangolo teaches a wrapper wrapped around the gathered layered structure (Metrangolo, page 2, lines 14-16).
Regarding claim 14, modified Metrangolo teaches that the aerosolizable structure is a rod (Metrangolo, page 2, lines 14-16), which is substantially cylindrical.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3480018 teaches gelled tobacco sheets and the method of making them.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANA B KRINKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
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.
YANA B. KRINKER
Examiner
Art Unit 1755
/YANA B KRINKER/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755