DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending. Claims 2 and 12-16 are withdrawn. Claims 18 and 20 have been amended.
Response to Amendments
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant's response filed on 1/2/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of Remarks filed 1/2/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's further arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant maps slitter 611 in Fig. 7 of Rosado to the non-rotating slit-forming portion and argues that “[b]oth the slitter of Rosado and Anderson extend completely through the substrate so that the cutting edge extends from both sides of the web being cut.” Regarding Rosado, this argument is not persuasive as the slitter 611 of Rosado does not correspond to the non-rotating slit-forming portion (slitter 611 in Rosado is for subdividing the sheet into multiple end-products whereas the non-rotating slit-forming portion in the apparatus of the combination is for trimming the edges of the sheet). Regarding Anderson, this argument is not persuasive as Anderson does not disclose a substrate (as the sheet is distinct from the substrate in claim 1) and, therefore, does not disclose a slitter extending completely through the substrate.
Applicant further argues that for the slit-forming portion “the blade must not extend through the sheet”. This argument is not persuasive as claim 1 explicitly states that the slits have “a depth corresponding to an entirety or part of a thickness of the flavorant-containing sheet” (emphasis added).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-9, 11, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosado (US 2018/0368465 A1) in view of Anderson et al. (US 6,089,367).
Regarding claim 1, Rosado discloses a flavorant-containing sheet manufacturing apparatus (“casting and drying apparatus 600”, Fig. 7, ¶ 0137) comprising:
a feeding apparatus (unlabeled roller in Fig. 7, denoted by white circle) to feed a flavorant-containing (“Homogenized tobacco material may comprise . . . flavourants”, ¶ 0012) sheet (“continuous web of homogenized tobacco material”, ¶ 0137) that is gelled (“some gel may form”, ¶ 0058);
a drier (“drying station 608”, Fig. 7, ¶ 0139) configured to dry the flavorant-containing sheet; and
a sheet-like substrate (“stainless steel movable belt”, ¶ 0022) on which the flavorant-containing sheet is placed (¶ 0022).
However, Rosado does not disclose a non-rotating slit-forming portion as claimed.
Anderson, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a non-rotating slit-forming portion (“blades 64”, Fig. 7, Col. 5, Line 9) configured to continuously form one or more slits extending in a feed direction of a sheet (see Fig. 7), the slits having a depth corresponding to an entirety or part of a thickness of the sheet along a feed direction of the sheet (see Fig. 7).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit to using a slit-forming portion as taught by Anderson in that it allows for precise control over the width of the sheet by trimming off excess portions along the edge. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used a non-rotating slit-forming portion as taught by Anderson in the apparatus taught by Rosado in order to obtain this benefit.
With regards to the placement of the non-rotating slit-forming portion, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to place the portion upstream of the drier in order to minimize the amount of material to be dried and, hence, minimize the amount of energy required for drying. With the slit-forming portion positioned upstream of the drier, the drier will be configured to dry the flavorant-containing sheet in which the one or more slits are formed.
In the device of the combination, the flavorant-containing sheet is placed on the sheet-like substrate, so the slit-forming portion is configured to cut the flavorant-containing sheet on the sheet-like substrate. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art not to cut the sheet-like substrate as cutting the sheet-like substrate (i.e., the stainless steel movable belt) would damage the sheet-like substrate.
Regarding claim 3, Rosado in view of Anderson teaches the flavorant-containing sheet manufacturing apparatus of claim 1, as stated above. Anderson further discloses wherein:
the one or more slits are two slits (see Fig. 7),
the slit-forming portion includes two slit-forming parts (“blades 64”, Fig. 7, Col. 5, Line 9) configured to form the two slits (see Fig. 7),
one of the two slit-forming parts is provided at a position that allows the one of the two slits to be formed in a vicinity of one end in a width direction of the sheet (see Fig. 7), and
the other of the two slit-forming parts is provided at a position that allows the other of the two slits to be formed in a vicinity of another end in the width direction (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Rosado in view of Anderson teaches the flavorant-containing sheet manufacturing apparatus of claim 1, as stated above. Anderson further discloses wherein:
the one or more slits are a plurality of slits (see Fig. 7),
the slit-forming portion includes a plurality of slit-forming parts (“blades 64”, Fig. 7, Col. 5, Line 9) configured to form the plurality of slits (see Fig. 7),
the plurality of slit-forming parts are provided to be spaced apart from each other in the width direction of the sheet (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Rosado in view of Anderson teaches the flavorant-containing sheet manufacturing apparatus of claim 4, as stated above. Anderson further discloses the sheet includes a plurality of belt-like portions (“strips 18”, Col. 5, Line 11) separated by the plurality of slits (see Fig. 7), and
the plurality of slit-forming parts are provided at positions that allow the plurality of slits to be formed so that lengths in the width direction of the plurality of belt-like portions of the sheet are substantially equal to each other (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Rosado in view of Anderson teaches the flavorant-containing sheet manufacturing apparatus of claim 1, as stated above. Rosado further discloses a shaping portion (“casting blade 604”, Fig. 7, ¶ 0137) configured to shape a slurry containing a flavorant into a sheet shape (“a casting blade 604 for the casting of the slurry into a continuous web of homogenized tobacco material”, ¶ 0137).
Regarding claim 7, Rosado in view of Anderson teaches the flavorant-containing sheet manufacturing apparatus of claim 6, as stated above. Rosado further discloses wherein the shaping portion includes:
a first gap region (see Fig. 7 below, annotated by examiner) defining a thickness of a flavorant-containing sheet that is formed by the slurry and that becomes the flavorant-containing sheet that is gelled which passes through the first gap region; and
a second gap region (see Fig. 7 below, annotated by examiner) provided as one end in a width direction of the flavorant-containing sheet that is formed by the slurry and having a gap dimension smaller than that of the first gap region (see Fig. 7 below, annotated by examiner), the second gap region defining a thickness of the flavorant-containing sheet that is formed by the slurry and that becomes the flavorant-containing sheet that is gelled which passes through the second gap region.
PNG
media_image1.png
519
857
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 7, Annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 8, Rosado in view of Anderson teaches the flavorant-containing sheet manufacturing apparatus of claim 6, as stated above. Rosado further discloses a gelling apparatus (“stainless steel belt conveyor 606”, Fig. 7, ¶ 0138; this component is considered a “gelling apparatus” as Rosado discloses that, after being mixed, the slurry is continuously undergoing gelling due to the presence of water, ¶ 0058, and, therefore, will continue to gel until the final drying step) provided at a position between the shaping portion and the slit-forming portion (see Fig. 7), the gelling apparatus being configured to gel the flavorant-containing sheet that is formed by the slurry and that becomes the flavorant-containing sheet that is gelled (¶ 0058).
Regarding claim 9, Rosado in view of Anderson teaches the flavorant-containing sheet manufacturing apparatus of claim 7, as stated above. Anderson further discloses wherein:
the slit-forming portion includes one or more slit-forming parts (“blades 64”, Fig. 7, Col. 5, Line 9) configured to form the one or more slits (see Fig. 7); and
in the apparatus of the combination in which the slit-forming parts are downstream of the shaping portion, the slit-forming parts are provided at a position configured to form the slits in the flavorant-containing sheet formed by the second gap region (compare Fig. 7 of Anderson and Fig. 7 of Rosado).
Regarding claim 11, Rosado in view of Anderson teaches the flavorant-containing sheet manufacturing apparatus of claim 1, as stated above. Anderson further discloses wherein the slit-forming portion includes one or more slit-forming parts (“blades 64”, Fig. 7, Col. 5, Line 9) configured to form the one or more slits. However, Anderson does not explicitly disclose one or more holding portions attached to the drier and configured to hold the one or more slit-forming parts.
Rosado discloses using a holding portion (see Fig. 7 below, annotated by examiner) to hold a component of the apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit to using a holding portion in that the height of the component being held can be precisely controlled, and the component can be securely attached to the apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used one or more holding portions attached to the apparatus as taught by Rosado and configured to hold the one or more slit-forming parts taught by Anderson so that a weight of the slit-forming parts acts on the flavorant-containing sheet in order to obtain these benefits. In the device of the combination, the apparatus also includes the drier, so the holding portions attached to the apparatus are also attached to the drier.
PNG
media_image2.png
519
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 7, Annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 17, Rosado in view of Anderson teaches the flavorant-containing sheet manufacturing apparatus of claim 1, as stated above. Anderson further discloses wherein the slit-forming portion includes one or more slit-forming parts (“blades 64”, Fig. 7, Col. 5, Line 9). However, Anderson does not explicitly disclose the slit-forming portion comprises one or more holding portions.
Rosado discloses using a holding portion (see Fig. 7 in the rejection of claim 11 above, annotated by examiner) to hold a component of the apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit to using a holding portion in that the height of the component being held can be precisely controlled. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used one or more holding portions as taught by Rosado to hold the one or more slit-forming parts taught by Anderson in order to obtain this benefit. In the apparatus of the combination, the one or more holding portions are connected to the drier as the components are all part of the same apparatus.
Regarding claim 19, Rosado in view of Anderson teaches the flavorant-containing sheet manufacturing apparatus of claim 1, as stated above. Anderson further discloses wherein the one or more slits being formed at one or more width-direction ends of the sheet and along a longitudinal direction of the sheet (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 20, Rosado in view of Anderson teaches the flavorant-containing sheet manufacturing apparatus of claim 1, in which the one or more slits are formed before the flavorant-containing sheet is dried with the drier, as stated above. Anderson further discloses wherein the one or more width-direction ends of the flavorant-containing sheet are separated off (see Fig. 7). In the apparatus of the combination, the flavorant-containing sheet is prevented from cracking or breaking due to drying the flavorant-containing sheet (the “stainless steel belt conveyor 606” in Fig. 7 of Rosado, ¶ 0138, provides physical support to the flavorant-containing sheet which prevents cracking and breaking during the drying process), to keep a constant quality of the flavorant-containing sheet (constant width). With regards to combining Rosado and Anderson such that the step of separating the width-direction ends occurs during the manufacturing stage where the drying step of Anderson occurs, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have the separation step occur at the same time as the drying step as it has been held that the order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP § 2144(IV)C)).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosado (US 2018/0368465 A1) in view of Anderson et al. (US 6,089,367) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boult et al. (US 4,503,866).
Regarding claim 18, Rosado in view of Anderson teaches the flavorant-containing sheet manufacturing apparatus of claim 1, as stated above. Anderson further discloses
wherein the slit-forming portion includes two slit-forming parts (“blades 64”, Fig. 7, Col. 5, Line 9) configured to form two slits (see Fig. 7),
wherein at least one of the slit-forming parts has a pair of surfaces (lateral side surfaces parallel to the feed direction in Fig. 7 of Anderson) along the feed direction of the sheet, and
wherein at least one of the slit-forming parts has a tip configured to contact the sheet-like substance (see Fig. 7).
However, Anderson does not disclose that the tip is round.
Boult, in the same field on endeavor, discloses forming blades to have round tips (round tip 12 in Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used round tips, as taught by Boult, for the blades of the slit-forming parts taught by Anderson, as this amounts to a matter of choice regarding the shape of the component (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 COURTNEY G CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0874. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at (571)270-3882. 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.
/C.G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights