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 1, 2, 5-7, 9-12, 15, 16, 18-29 and 32-40 are pending.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 15, 16, 21-23, 29 and 32-38 remain withdrawn.
Claims 8 and 17 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argument A:
The Examiner alleges that Renaud teaches inner channels in Figures 2 and 3. (Office Action, page 6). Figures 2 and 3 show strands of homogenized tobacco material. The strands are discrete and not connected, meaning that each stand is analogous to a tobacco constituent releasing component. There is no disclosure that each strand has inner channels. Even if a plurality of strands is considered to be analogous to the tobacco constituent releasing component, the tobacco constituent releasing component still does not have an agglomerated structure with inner channels formed by extrusion from a precursor composition.
Renaud teaches away from the material including a cross-sectional shape to increase the surface area. As explained in paragraph [0031], the mass-to-surface-area ratio is calculated by dividing the mass of the strand of homogenized tobacco material by the geometric surface area of the strand of homogenized tobacco material. Thus, a higher surface area would reduce the ratio, contrary to the purpose of the invention. Renaud teaches that a high ratio is desirable because this provides increased ability to assimilate energy per unit surface area and restricts the availability of oxygen within the strands required for combustion thereof (see paragraphs [0034] and [0035]). Renaud explicitly teaches that localized heat transfer is prevented in paragraph [0027].
Therefore, increasing the surface area, which increases heat transfer, is the opposite of the intention of the teaching of Renaud, and there is nothing in Renaud to direct the skilled person to contradict this teaching and that the surface area of the material would or should be increased.
Examiner Response A:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Renaud teaches that the agglomerated structure formed by extrusion from a precursor composition has inner channels (Renaud, Figs. 2 and 3). The precursor composition is extruded to form strands, and the strands are fused to one another to form the agglomerated structure ([0024];[0062]). The agglomerated structure has inner channels (Renaud, Figs. 2 and 3).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-12, 18-20 and 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120006343 (Renaud hereinafter) in view of WO 2015025158 (Bell hereinafter).
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 12, Renaud teaches a tobacco constituent releasing component (14) for inclusion in an aerosol provision device (Fig. 1),
the tobacco constituent releasing component having an agglomerated structure formed by extrusion from a precursor composition ([0062] and [0069]), the precursor composition comprising tobacco particles, an aerosol forming agent and a flavorant ([0062] and [0075]), the tobacco constituent releasing component comprising a mass of multiple particles, specifically strands, of the precursor composition fused to one another and impregnated with the one or more aerosol forming agent ([0024];[0062]). Renaud teaches that the agglomerated structure formed by extrusion from a precursor composition has inner channels (Renaud, Figs. 2 and 3).
Renaud does not expressly teach that the pH of the precursor composition is a basic pH.
Bell teaches a tobacco constituent releasing component capable of inclusion in an aerosol provision device (page 1, lines 5-8), the tobacco constituent releasing component comprising tobacco particles, wherein the pH is a basic pH of at least 9.5 (page 6, lines 18-23). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have made the pH in the precursor composition of Renaud so that it is a basic pH as taught by Bell because this will result in more of the nicotine present in the tobacco being in the form of nicotine free base and more readily released upon heating the tobacco (page 4, lines 1-2).
Regarding claims 2 and 5, modified Renaud teaches that the pH is increased by the addition of sodium hydroxide or sodium carbonate (Bell, page 10, lines 29-36).
Regarding claim 7, modified Renaud teaches that the tobacco particles have an average diameter of about 1 mm to about 3 mm (Bell, page 7, lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 9, modified Renaud teaches that the aerosol forming agent is propylene glycol (Renaud, [0057]).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, modified Renaud teaches a tobacco constituent releasing component (14) in an aerosol provision device (Fig. 1) which comprises binders such as polysaccharides (Renaud, [0072]).
Regarding claims 18, 19, 24 and 25, modified Renaud teaches an aerosol provision device (Fig. 1) comprising a tobacco segment (14) which comprises tobacco constituent releasing components (Renaud, [0097]) which are heated to volatilize constituents (Renaud, [0025]).
Regarding claims 20 and 26, modified Renaud teaches a device (Fig. 1) which is a hybrid product comprising a tobacco segment (14) which is to be heated to volatilize constituents (Renaud, [0025]), and a liquid, air, which is to be heated to form a vapor (Renaud, [0028]). Modified Renaud teaches that one or more tobacco constituent releasing components are located in the tobacco segment (Renaud, [0024]) and the tobacco segment is heated by the vapor (Renaud, [0025]).
Regarding claim 27, modified Renaud teaches that the liquid is a nicotine-free liquid, specifically hot air (Renaud, [0028]).
Regarding claim 28, modified Renaud teaches that the device includes a means for heating the liquid to form a vapor, but does not include a separate means for heating the tobacco segment (Renaud, [0028], [0098] and [0099]).
Claims 39 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renaud in view of Bell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2017055584 (Hepworth hereinafter).
Regarding claims 39 and 40, modified Renaud does not expressly teach that the device includes filters.
Hepworth teaches a tobacco constituent releasing component (124) capable of inclusion in an aerosol provision device (1), the tobacco constituent releasing component having an agglomerated structure (124) formed from a precursor composition comprising tobacco particles, included extruded tobacco (page 23, lines 10-18). Hepworth teaches that the device includes a filter (page 22, lines 15-18). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included a filter in modified Renaud, as suggested by Hepworth, because the filter serves to filter the vapor or aerosol before it reaches the user (Hepworth, page 22, lines 15-18).
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