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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 15-33 are pending.
Claim 33 has been amended.
Claims 15-20 and 25-28 remain withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argument A:
Applicant submits that one would not have modified Pijnenburg in view of Zappoli in the manner suggested by the Examiner in the Office Action. According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious for the skilled person to incorporate the flank angle of Zappoli into the crimping rollers of Pijnenburg (cf. Office Action page 6, first paragraph - page 7, first paragraph).
Applicant respectfully disagrees.
First, the skilled person would not combine the teachings of Pijnenburg and Zappoli. From Figure 2 (cf. Illustration 3 below) and paragraph [0098] of Pijnenburg, the skilled person learns that "[t]he pair of crimping rollers consists of an upper roller 31 and a lower roller 32. Each roller has a set of regularly spaced crimping teeth 33 [...]". As is apparent from Figure 2, these crimping teeth have a rectangular shape, i.e. the crimping teeth consist of three flanks, which are inclined to each other by an angle of 90 degrees. This corresponds to a flank angle of 0 degrees.
Zappoli, in turn, teaches a "first roller 300 [with] a plurality of corrugations 310 formed from alternating peaks 312 and troughs 314 joined by corrugation flanks 316" (cf. Zappoli: page 14, lines 16-18). The corrugation flanks 316 of each corrugation 310 are formed by two flanks inclined towards each other and converging at peak 312 (cf. Illustration 4 below). Thus, would have refrained from combining Pijnenburg and Zappoli.
Examiner Response A:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this instance, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the flank angle of the crimping rollers of Zappoli into the crimping rollers of Pijnenburg with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results, specifically to optimize the porosity of the rod shaped aerosol generating component.
Applicant Argument B:
Second, the skilled person would not have been motivated to replace the rectangular shape of the teeth 33 of Pijnenburg by the triangular shape of Zappoli, as this would be expected to impact on the size of channels through the rod of the gathered crimped sheet. To vary the channel size, Pijnenburg merely suggests varying the crimping depth 35, but not the flank angle of the crimping teeth 33 (cf. paragraph [0070]). To arrive at the claimed method, the skilled person would have had to fundamentally change the shape of the teeth. Without any expected advantage, the skilled person would not have done so.
Examiner Response B:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In this instance, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the flank angle of the crimping rollers of Zappoli into the crimping rollers of Pijnenburg with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results, specifically to optimize the porosity of the rod shaped aerosol generating component.
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) 21-24, 29-31 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016023965 (Pijnenburg hereinafter) in view of WO 2016071267 (Zappoli hereinafter).
US 20180177228 was applied for ease of citation. All references to ‘Pijnenburg’ refer to US 20180177228.
Regarding claims 21-24 and 29-31, Pijnenburg teaches a method of manufacturing an aerosol-generating article component (abstract), the method comprises the steps of: manufacturing a crimped sheet; gathering the crimped sheet to form a continuous rod; and cutting the continuous rod into a plurality of rod-shaped components ([0010]), each rod-shaped component having a gathered crimped sheet formed from a cut portion of the crimped sheet, the crimp corrugations of the crimped sheet defining a plurality of channels in the rod-shaped component ([0053],[0104]-[0105] and Fig. 4).
Pijnenburg teaches a method of manufacturing the crimped sheet comprises the steps of: feeding a substantially continuous sheet of material, specifically a homogenized tobacco sheet ([0097]), to a set of crimping rollers ([0097]), the set of crimping rollers comprising a first roller (upper roller, 31) and a second roller (lower roller, 32), wherein both the first and second roller includes a plurality of ridges (teeth, [0098]); and crimping the substantially continuous web to form the crimped web by feeding the substantially continuous sheet between the first and second rollers in a longitudinal direction of the sheet of material such that the ridges of the first or second rollers apply a plurality of crimp corrugations to the substantially continuous sheet of material ([0097]); and, wherein all the ridges are distanced one to the other with a constant pitch (“crimping period”) of 1 mm (34, [0098] and Fig. 2).
Pijnenburg does not expressly teach that the flank angle, as defined in the instant claims, formed by all ridges of the first or second roller is comprised between 4 degrees and 20 degrees.
Zappoli teaches a method of manufacturing a crimped sheet for an aerosol-generating article comprising the steps of: feeding a substantially continuous sheet of material to a set of crimping rollers, the set of crimping rollers comprising a first roller and a second roller, at least one of the first or second roller including a plurality of ridges; and crimping the substantially continuous web to form the crimped web by feeding the substantially continuous sheet between the first and second rollers in a longitudinal direction of the sheet of material such that the ridges of the first or second rollers apply a plurality of crimp corrugations to the substantially continuous sheet of material. Zappoli teaches that the ridges in the first or second roller define a first and a second flank and a tip, the first or the second flank forming a flank angle with a radial direction passing through the tip (3131,3133,3135 in Fig. 3, 4131-4136 in Fig. 4), wherein the flank angle is equal to half the corrugation angle (page 5, lines 28-30), wherein Zappoli teaches that the corrugation angle “may be of any suitable value” and for example is between 30 degrees to 90 degrees (col. 5, lines 22-25) thus the flank angle is between about 15 degrees and about 45 degrees. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the flank angle since it has been held that, where 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). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed flank angle is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the flank angle motivated by the desire to optimize porosity of the aerosol-generating article, particularly since Zappoli teaches that the corrugation angle “may be of any suitable value” (col. 5, line 22) and the corrugation angle of between 30 degrees to 90 degrees (col. 5, lines 22-25) is exemplary and non-limiting.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated the flank angle of the crimping rollers of Zappoli into the crimping rollers of Pijnenburg with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results, specifically to optimize the porosity of the rod shaped aerosol generating component.
Regarding claim 33, Pijnenburg teaches that the gathering comprises a folding process where two portions of the crimped sheet of material are put on top of each other by a folding-type operation along a straight line ([0069]).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pijnenburg in view of Zappoli as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Muller (US 3621764).
Regarding claim 32, modified Pijnenburg does not expressly teach the materials of the first or second roller.
Muller teaches crimping rollers for use in cigarette manufacture (abstract). Muller teaches crimping rollers that are metal (col. 2, lines 4-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art the time of filing to have made the crimping rollers of modified Pijnenburg out of metal, as suggested by Muller, with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights