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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 3/11/2026.
Claims 16 and 24 are amended.
Claims 1-15 and 26-29 are cancelled.
Claims 16-25 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 3/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16, 21, and 26-27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renaud in view of Lavanant ‘182, Iodice as evidenced by National Interagency Fire Center have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 16 to include the limitation “wherein the one or more sheets of homogenized plant material have a density from 0.3 g/cm3 to 1.0 g/cm3.” The prior art of record fails to disclose such a limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly cited prior art.
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.
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.
Claims 16, 21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaljura et al. (US 2021/0315267) in view of Iodice et al. (US 2008/0199574; of record) as evidenced by National Interagency Fire Center (‘”Weed Washer” What is a Micron? (Micron v/s Mesh);’ of record), and alternatively in view of Lavanant et al. (WO 2014/132182; hereby Lavanant ‘182; of record).
Regarding claim 16, Kaljura discloses an aerosol generating article (101; Fig. 2-3) comprising:
a body of aerosol generating material (103) in the form of a rod ([0086]; “rod of an aerosol-generating substrate”), the aerosol generating material comprises the laminate aerosol generating material that has been incorporated as a rolled sheet, flat sheet, bunched or gathered sheet, or as a crimped sheet ([0086]; “one or more sheets”) made from a sheet of aerosol-forming amorphous solid ([0027]; [0137]-[0138]; see Fig. 1; “homogenized”) including an active substance, for example tobacco material ([0055]; “plant material”) and one or more botanicals, including material derived from plants including stems and flowers (“bud and/or stems”) in the form of powder, dust, granules, pellets, or crushed particles (“particles”) of clove ([0171]), 10-50 wt% of an aerosol generating agent including propylene glycol and glycerol ([0053]; overlaps the claimed range of “between 10 percent and 25 percent by weight of an aerosol former”), and a gelling agent comprising alginates, pectins, starches (and derivatives), celluloses (and derivatives), and gums ([0050]; “binder” as described on p. 21 ll. 1-9 of the instant application),
wherein the amorphous solid may have a thickness of about 0.015 mm to about 1.0 mm with 0.2 mm as being particularly suitable ([0043]) and an area density such as 30 g/m2 to 120 g/m2 ([0070]).
Regarding the claim limitation “between 10 percent and 25 percent by weight of an aerosol former, Kaljura’s disclosed range of 10-50 wt% overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding the claim limitation “wherein the one or more sheets of homogenized plant material have a density of from 0.3 g/cm3 to 1.0 g/cm3, a 0.2 mm thick amorphous solid sheet with an area density of 30 g/m2 to 120 g/m2 would result in a sheet with a density of 0.15 g/cm3 to 0.6 g/cm3, which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
However, Kaljura is silent as to the clove particles having a D95 value of between 20 microns and 300 microns.
Iodice teaches a procedure for reconstituting powders of vegetal origin (title) comprising films of tobacco, clove, and mixtures thereof ([0083]) comprising the step of milling vegetal material with a final granulometry in the range of 10 to 200 mesh depending on the level of desired visual homogeneity for the final film ([0058]).
Thus, Iodice teaches the size of the vegetal powder to be a result-effective variable that affects the level of visual homogeneity of the final product.
As evidenced by the National Interagency Fire Center, a granulometry to 10 mesh equates to 2000 microns, and 200 mesh corresponds to 74 micron (See Table on p. 1). Thus, the powder clove taught by Iodice would range from about 74-2000 microns, depending on the specific mesh used. Such a range would overlap the claimed range of a D95 value of between 20 microns and 300 microns. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the clove powder or particles in Kaljura to be a powder in the range of 74-2000 microns as in Iodice by changing the mesh used because (a) such a modification would allow for similarly sized ground clove particles and particulate tobacco material, and (b) such a modification would allow one of skill in the art to optimize the desired visual homogeneity of the final homogenized tobacco material having both tobacco particles and clove particles (Iodice; [0058]). Discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B).
Regarding the claim limitation “the clove particles provide: at least 125 micrograms of eugenol per gram of the aerosol-generating substrate, on a dry weight basis, at least 125 micrograms of eugenol-acetate per gram of the aerosol-generating substrate, on a dry weight basis, and at least 1 microgram of beta-caryophyllene per gram of the aerosol-generating substrate, on a dry weight basis,” modified Kaljura’s clove particles are expected to exhibit the claimed property.
“Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” MPEP 2112.01(I).
The instant specification describes that “[a]s a result of the inclusion of the clove particles, the aerosol-generating substrate comprises certain proportions of the "characteristic compounds" of clove, as described above. In particular, the aerosol-generating substrate comprises at least about 125 micrograms of eugenol per gram of the substrate, at least about 125 micrograms of eugenol-acetate per gram of the substrate and at least about 1 microgram of beta-caryophyllene per gram of the substrate, on a dry weight basis” (p. 9; emphasis added). Moreover, the instant specification defines that “the term "clove particles" encompasses particles derived from Syzgium aromaticum buds and stems and may include whole cloves, ground or crushed cloves, or cloves that have been otherwise physically processed to reduce the particle size” (p. 5).This description in the instant specification is further evidence to show that an aerosol-generating substrate having clove particles as defined by the instant specification should exhibit the claimed characteristic compounds as claimed.
Here, modified Kaljura’s clove particles are identical in structure to the clove particles as claimed since the clove particles are made from stems and flowers ([0171]) and have a particle size of 74-2000 microns (Iodice, [0058]). Moreover, Kaljura discloses the aerosol generating substrate is identical in composition to the aerosol-generating substrate as claimed since Kaljura’s aerosol generating substrate comprises an aerosol former content of 10-50 wt% ([0053]), a binder ([0050]) and active substance and flavorant, including clove ([0171] and [0174]) may be at least about 0.1 wt %, 1 wt %, 5 wt %, 10 wt %, 20 wt %, 25 wt % or 30 wt % and less than about 80 wt %, 70 wt %, 60 wt %, 50 wt % or 40 wt % ([0058]; see also claim 21, reciting “wherein the homogenized plant material comprises at least 2.5 percent by weight clove particles, on a dry weight basis”). Thus, Kaljura’s clove particles are expected to provide the claimed flavor characteristics.
Alternatively, if modified Kaljura is considered to not exhibit the claimed flavor characteristics, Lavanant ‘182 teaches a smoking article including a botanical material (abstract) wherein it is known that flavorants are provided to enhance the flavor of mainstream smoke (p. 1, ll. 11-12), wherein the botanical material includes crushed particles comprising one or more of stems and flowers (i.e., “buds”) (p. 4, ll. 25-29) and includes spices such as clove (p. 4, ll. 29-31), wherein the botanical material includes flavorants such as eugenol, eugenol acetate, and beta-caryophyllene (p. 5, ll. 12-14; p. 6, ll. 5-15) wherein less botanical material may be needed in the smoking article for a certain level of flavor delivery to be obtained (p. 2, ll. 11-12).
Therefore, Lavanant ‘182 suggests that the amount of botanical material, such as clove, is a result effective variable that affects the level of flavor delivery of flavorants, such as eugenol, eugenol acetate, and beta-caryophyllene.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have changed the amount of clove particles to obtain various amounts eugenol/gram of aerosol-generating substrate, eugenol acetate/gram of aerosol-generating substrate, and beta-caryophyllene/gram of aerosol-generating substrate because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 II(B)), and such a modification would allow for adjusting the amount of flavorants delivered when heated to the user to better conform to a user’s flavor preferences.
Regarding claim 21, modified Kaljura discloses that the active substance and flavorant, including clove ([0171] and [0174]) may be at least about 0.1 wt %, 1 wt %, 5 wt %, 10 wt %, 20 wt %, 25 wt % or 30 wt % and less than about 80 wt %, 70 wt %, 60 wt %, 50 wt % or 40 wt % ([0058]; overlapping the claimed “at least 2.5 percent by weight clove particles, on a dry weight basis”). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 23, modified Kaljura discloses wherein the amorphous solid may have a thickness of 0.2 mm as being particularly suitable ([0043]; “thickness between 100 µm and 600 µm”) and an area density such as 30 g/m2 to 120 g/m2 ([0070]; overlaps the claimed range of “100 g/m2 and about 300 g/m2). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 24, modified Kaljura discloses an embedded heating means, such as an inductive heating element, in the amorphous solid layer ([0033]; “susceptor”).
Claims 17-18, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaljura et al. in view of Iodice et al. and alternatively in view of Lavanant ‘182 as applied to claims 16 and 26 above and alternatively in further view of Wand (US 2016/0309774; of record) and Rabenhorst et al. (US 2007/0218016; of record).
Regarding claim 17, modified Kaljura discloses the aerosol-generating article as discussed above with respect to claim 16, wherein the aerosol-generating substrate of modified Kaljura is expected to exhibit “an amount of eugenol per gram of aerosol-generating substrate is no more than 3 times an amount of eugenol-acetate per gram of the aerosol-generating substrate, and wherein an amount of eugenol per gram of the aerosol-generating substrate is at least 50 times an amount of beta-caryophyllene per gram of the aerosol-generating substrate.”
“Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” MPEP 2112.01(I).
The instant specification describes that “[p]referably, the ratio of the characteristic compounds in the aerosol-generating substrate is such that the amount of eugenol per gram of the substrate is no more than 3 times the amount of eugenol-acetate per gram of the substrate, more preferably no more than twice the amount of eugenol-acetate per gram of the substrate, on a dry weight basis. Alternatively or in addition, the amount of eugenol per gram of the substrate is at least 50 times the amount of beta- caryophyllene per gram of the substrate, on a dry weight basis. These ratios of eugenol to eugenol acetate and beta-caryophyllene are characteristic of the inclusion of clove particles” (p. 9; emphasis added). Moreover, the instant specification defines that “the term "clove particles" encompasses particles derived from Syzgium aromaticum buds and stems and may include whole cloves, ground or crushed cloves, or cloves that have been otherwise physically processed to reduce the particle size” (p. 5).This description in the instant specification is further evidence to show that an aerosol-generating substrate having clove particles as defined by the instant specification should exhibit the claimed characteristic compounds as claimed.
Here, modified Kaljura’s clove particles are identical in structure to the clove particles as claimed since the clove particles are made from stems and flowers ([0171]) and have a particle size of 74-2000 microns (Iodice, [0058]). Moreover, Kaljura discloses the aerosol generating substrate is identical in composition to the aerosol-generating substrate as claimed since Kaljura’s aerosol generating substrate comprises an aerosol former content of 10-50 wt% ([0053]), and a binder ([0050]) and active substance and flavorant, including clove ([0171] and [0174]) may be at least about 0.1 wt %, 1 wt %, 5 wt %, 10 wt %, 20 wt %, 25 wt % or 30 wt % and less than about 80 wt %, 70 wt %, 60 wt %, 50 wt % or 40 wt % ([0058]; see also claim 21, reciting “wherein the homogenized plant material comprises at least 2.5 percent by weight clove particles, on a dry weight basis”). Thus, Kaljura’s aerosol-generating substrate containing clove particles will exhibit the same properties as claimed.
Alternatively, if modified Kaljura is considered to not exhibit the claimed flavor characteristics, then:
(A) Rabenhorst teaches an aroma substance mixture (title) wherein it is well known in the art that eugenol acetate can be described as a clove-like, sweet and balsamic-fruity ([0015]) that clove oils obtained from clove plant contain different amounts of the main components eugenol, eugenol acetate, and caryophyllene ([0016]), that the taste of eugenols is very clove-like and phenolic and is often found to be unpleasant and medicinal ([0064]), and eugenol acetate is significantly less clove-like and medicinal than that of eugenol ([0066]) the mixture contains eugenol and a weight ratio of eugenol acetate to eugenol is greater than 1.3 and preferably greater than 2:1 or 10:1 is particularly preferred ([0063]).
Therefore, the ratio of eugenol-acetate to eugenol is considered a result effective variable that affects the overall taste, specifically the clove-like and/or medicinal taste, of the mixture.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the ratio of eugenol-acetate to eugenol, for example in a ratio of greater than 2:1, to obtain various amounts of clove-like and/or medicinal taste because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 II(B)).
(B) Wand teaches delivery of active ingredients by administration of an individual vapor or aerosol (abstract), wherein beta-caryophyllene is a preferred terpene for use in the invention ([0049]) which has a weak aromatic taste and is the primary terpene that contributes to the spiciness of black pepper and also a major terpene in cloves, hops, rosemary and cannabis ([0049]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill would reasonably conclude that the amount of beta-caryophyllene is a result effective variable that will affect the taste, specifically the spiciness, of the vapor/aerosol.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of beta-caryophyllene to obtain various amounts of aromatic taste and/or spiciness because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 II(B)). Such a modification would affect the ratio of beta-caryophyllene to eugenol per gram of substrate.
Regarding claims 18 and 25, modified Kaljura’s aerosol-generating substrate is expected to exhibit “wherein an amount of eugenol-acetate per gram of aerosol-generating substrate is at least 1.5 times an amount of eugenol per gram of the aerosol-generating substrate, and wherein an amount of the eugenol per gram of the aerosol-generating substrate is no more than 5 times an amount of beta-caryophyllene per gram of the aerosol-generating substrate.”
“Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” MPEP 2112.01(I).
Here, modified Kaljura’s clove particles are identical in structure to the clove particles as claimed since the clove particles are made from stems and flowers ([0171]) and have a particle size of 74-2000 microns (Iodice, [0058]). Moreover, Kaljura discloses the aerosol generating substrate is identical in composition to the aerosol-generating substrate as claimed since Kaljura’s aerosol generating substrate comprises an aerosol former content of 10-50 wt% ([0053]), and a binder ([0050]) and active substance and flavorant, including clove ([0171] and [0174]) may be at least about 0.1 wt %, 1 wt %, 5 wt %, 10 wt %, 20 wt %, 25 wt % or 30 wt % and less than about 80 wt %, 70 wt %, 60 wt %, 50 wt % or 40 wt % ([0058]; see also claim 21, reciting “wherein the homogenized plant material comprises at least 2.5 percent by weight clove particles, on a dry weight basis”). Thus, Kaljura’s aerosol-generating substrate containing clove particles will exhibit the same properties as claimed.
Alternatively, if modified Kaljura is considered to not exhibit the claimed flavor characteristics of the substrate, then:
(A) Rabenhorst teaches an aroma substance mixture (title) wherein it is well known in the art that eugenol acetate can be described as a clove-like, sweet and balsamic-fruity ([0015]) that clove oils obtained from clove plant contain different amounts of the main components eugenol, eugenol acetate, and caryophyllene ([0016]), that the taste of eugenols is very clove-like and phenolic and is often found to be unpleasant and medicinal ([0064]), and eugenol acetate is significantly less clove-like and medicinal than that of eugenol ([0066]) the mixture contains eugenol and a weight ratio of eugenol acetate to eugenol is greater than 1.3 and preferably greater than 2:1 or 10:1 is particularly preferred ([0063]).
Therefore, the ratio of eugenol-acetate to eugenol is considered a result effective variable that affects the overall taste, specifically the clove-like and/or medicinal taste, of the mixture.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the ratio of eugenol-acetate to eugenol, for example in a ratio of greater than 2:1, to obtain various amounts of clove-like and/or medicinal taste because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 II(B)).
(B) Wand teaches delivery of active ingredients by administration of an individual vapor or aerosol (abstract), wherein beta-caryophyllene is a preferred terpene for use in the invention ([0049]) which has a weak aromatic taste and is the primary terpene that contributes to the spiciness of black pepper and also a major terpene in cloves, hops, rosemary and cannabis ([0049]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill would reasonably conclude that the amount of beta-caryophyllene is a result effective variable that will affect the taste, specifically the spiciness, of the vapor/aerosol.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of beta-caryophyllene to obtain various amounts of aromatic taste and/or spiciness because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 II(B)). Such a modification would affect the ratio of beta-caryophyllene to eugenol in the substrate.
Regarding the claim limitation “ wherein upon heating of the aerosol-generating substrate according to Test Method A, an aerosol is generated comprising: at least 20 micrograms of eugenol per gram of the aerosol-generating substrate, on a dry weight basis, at least 50 micrograms of eugenol-acetate per gram of the aerosol-generating substrate, on a dry weight basis, and at least 5 micrograms of beta-caryophyllene per gram of the aerosol- generating substrate, on a dry weight basis,” and “wherein upon heating of the aerosol-generating substrate according to Test Method A, an aerosol is generated from the aerosol-generating substrate comprising: eugenol in an amount of at least 0.5 micrograms per puff of the aerosol, eugenol-acetate in an amount of at least 1 microgram per puff of the aerosol, and beta-caryophyllene in an amount of at least 0.2 micrograms per puff of the aerosol, where a puff of the aerosol has a volume of 55 milliliters as generated by a smoking machine,” since modified Kaljura discloses a composition that is identical to the claimed invention (see above with respect to claim 16 and 18 and 26), modified Kaljura’s composition is expected to exhibit the same properties of aerosol generated according to Test Method A. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 20, modified Kaljura discloses wherein a weight ratio of eugenol acetate to eugenol is preferably greater than 2:1 or 10:1 (Rabenhorst; [0063]) and the amount of beta-caryophyllene is optimized (see above), which affects the ratio of beta-caryophyllene to eugenol in the substrate. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaljura et al. in view of, Iodice et al., and alternatively Lavanant ‘182, Wand, and Rabenhorst et al. as applied to claim 18 above and alternatively further view of De Roos et al. (EP 1252830; of record).
Regarding claim 19, modified Kaljura discloses the aerosol-generating article as discussed above with respect to claim 18, comprising 1-20 wt% or 2-5wt% of nicotine ([0057]). Kaljura further teaches that the active substance may additionally comprise tobacco material or nicotine ([0055]).
Regarding the claim limitation “the aerosol generated upon heating the aerosol-generating substrate further comprises at least 0.1 milligrams of nicotine per gram of the aerosol-generating substrate,” since modified Kaljura discloses a composition that is identical to the claimed invention (see above with respect to claim 16 and 18), modified Kaljura’s composition is expected to exhibit the same properties of aerosol generated according to Test Method A. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. See MPEP 2112.01.
If modified Kaljura is not considered to generate nicotine as claimed, then De Roos teaches a tobacco product (abstract) comprising 60-95% by weight tobacco, and 5 to 40% by weight particles having special flavor and crackling effect ([0019]). In one example, De Roos discloses a cigarette comprising 62.5% tobacco blend and 37.5% clove and another cigarette comprising 62.5% tobacco blend and 37.5 clove replacer ([0030]) producing 4.8 and 5.0 mg of nicotine per gram of cigarette (see table in [0031]).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the amount of tobacco and nicotine in modified Kaljura to produce an aerosol having 4.8 and 5 mg of nicotine per gram of cigarette because such a modification involves optimization within prior art conditions. “[W]here 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." MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaljura et al. in view of Iodice et al. and alternatively Lavanant ‘182 as applied to claim 21 above and further view of White (US 5119836; of record).
Regarding claim 22, modified Kaljura discloses the aerosol-generating article as discussed above with respect to claim 21, wherein the amorphous solid may comprise tobacco material in an amount of from about 1 wt %, 5 wt %, 10 wt %, 15 wt %, 20 wt % or 25 wt % to about 70 wt %, 50 wt %, 45 wt % or 40 wt % (calculated on a dry weight basis) of active substance ([0055]; “up to 97% by weight of tobacco particles, on a dry weight basis”).
However, modified Kaljura is silent as to a weight ratio of the clove particles to the tobacco particles is 1:4.
White teaches a method of preparing a cigarette filling comprising a partly fibrous herbal or spice additive (abstract), wherein a sheet material is made from typically blending 20-40% clove with the remainder being tobacco material (col. 4, ll. 20-26; overlaps the claimed range of 1:4).
It would have been obvious to one have modified the amount of clove and tobacco as in modified Kaljura to be 20-40% clove and the remainder tobacco material as typically done as in White in order to obtain the predictable result of forming a sheet material with the benefit of forming a sheet material that is thinner and more pliable than in current Kretek cigarettes (White; col. 4, ll. 34-42).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONNY V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8294. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM EST.
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 Y 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.
/SONNY V NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights