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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the Applicants’ arguments/remarks filed 2/04/2026.
No claims are amended.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-14, 17-18, 21, 23-26, 28, 29, 31, 33 remain pending in the application.
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 1-4, 10, 11, 14, 17-18, 23-24, 28, 29, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO2018235959A1), English machine translation relied upon, in view of Maiwald (US 20010032697 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Yamada teaches an article for use in a non-combustible aerosol provision system (page 3 paragraph 3, see also FIG 1), the article comprising
an aerosol generating material (page 3 paragraph 3, and FIG 2a and FIG 8 parts 1a and 1b),
a mouthpiece downstream of the aerosol generating material (see page 7 paragraph 4 and FIG 8a mouthpiece 22) and
a mouthpiece wrapper (e.g., mouthpiece wrapper 6, see also page 3 paragraph 1), comprising a sensate material (10) configured to be transferred to a user’s lips during use of the article, (see page 3 paragraph 1, the wrapper may be a paper wrapper or composed of the sensate material 10, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrive at the sheet as made from sensate material 10. From here forward, reference is made to the sensate material (10) components).
wherein the mouthpiece wrapper comprises an inwardly facing surface (10/6) and an outwardly facing surface (10/6),
wherein the sensate material (10) is present on at least a portion of the outwardly facing surface of the mouthpiece wrapper (p. 3 para. 1 discloses that the wrapper 6 can be made from the material of the sensate material 10. Accordingly, at least a portion of the outwardly facing surface of the mouth piece wrapper 6 will have the sensate material.) and
wherein the mouthpiece wrapper (6) is arranged to extend around at least a portion of the aerosol generating material and at least a portion of the mouthpiece (22) of the article. Please see FIG 8a below:
PNG
media_image1.png
296
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Yamada teaches the wrapper comprises sensate material as set forth above. However, Yamada fails to explicitly disclose that less than 90% of a surface area of the outwardly facing surface, so that a predetermined portion of the outwardly facing surface is free from sensate material,
However, Maiwald teaches adhesives used to coat the mouthpiece portion of the smoking device that include, and are mixed with, additives that can be applied or coated to the portion 53 of the mouthpiece surface (illustrated in FIG 5) that is used to alter the taste and/or aroma of the part of the mouthpiece that comes into actual contact with the lips of the smoker [0131]. Additives applied to portion 53 of the mouthpiece can include aroma flavoring agents such as vanilla, cocoa, etc. [0103] (See portion of Maiwald FIG 5 below). These flavoring agents are applied to the wrapper surface because they are likely to be pleasant to the smoker and are applied to parts of the finished cigarettes which enter the mouths of smokers of filter cigarettes, [0088].
PNG
media_image2.png
236
240
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Although Maiwald does not explicitly disclose that less than 90% of a surface area of the outwardly facing surface is covered with the sensate material, it would be obvious that about 1/3 of the surface is coated or applied with sensate material as illustrated in FIG 5 (part 53), so that a predetermined portion of the outwardly facing surface is free from sensate material (the non 53 parts) thus it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that less than 90% of the wrapper is coated or applied with the sensate material, e.g., about 1/3 as illustrated overlaps with less than 90% of the wrapper is coated or applied with the sensate material. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mouthpiece portion of the wrapper of Yamada with teachings of Maiwald to also include flavoring agents on less than 90% of a surface area of the outwardly facing surface of the wrapper as taught by Maiwald, so that a predetermined portion of the outwardly facing surface is free from sensate material, because they are likely to be pleasant to the smoker and are applied to parts of the (mouthpiece portion of) finished cigarettes which enter the mouths of smokers of filter cigarettes.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Yamada teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the wrapper is arranged to extend around the aerosol generating material (see FIG 8).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Yamada teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the sensate material is present on at least a portion of the inwardly facing surface and outwardly facing surface of the wrapper (see e.g., page 3 paragraph 3 and FIG 7 and FIG 8).
Although Yamada does not explicitly disclose that the wrapper discussed on page 3 would be the same part and wrapper material as the wrapper illustrated in FIG 8, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to have used the flavored wrapper material disclosed on page 3 for the wrapper illustrated in FIG 8.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Yamada teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the wrapper is impregnated with the sensate material (see e.g., page 3 paragraph 1., see also claim 1 above tobacco leaf, see also page 3 last paragraph)
Regarding Claim 11, modified Yamada teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the sensate material comprises a flavorant (see page 3 paragraph 1, see also claim 1 above, tobacco leaf has a flavor).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Yamada teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the aerosol generating material comprises a tobacco component (page 3 paragraph 3).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Yamada teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the article for use with an aerosol generation device comprises a body of material located between the aerosol generating substrate and the downstream end of the mouthpiece (see Yamada annotated FIG 8B below).
PNG
media_image3.png
550
812
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, modified Yamada teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the body of material comprises an aerosol modifying agent disposed therein (a filter is an aerosol modifying agent, see Yamada annotated FIG 8B).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Yamada teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the mouthpiece comprises a hollow tube (see Yamada annotated FIG 8B above). Note that although the drawing shows a rectangular design Yamada also envisioned and taught the design in a cylinder shape (see page 2, second to last paragraph.)
Regarding Claim 24, modified Yamada teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the hollow tube is formed from filamentary tow at the downstream end of the mouthpiece (see Yamada annotated FIG 8B above, tow such as cellulose acetate, see page 7 paragraph 5). Note that although the drawing shows a rectangular design Yamada also envisioned and taught the design in a cylinder shape (see page 2, second to last paragraph.)
Regarding Claim 28, modified Yamada teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the sensate material comprises an aerosol modifying additive (e.g., polyols, which modify aerosols, promotes generation of aerosol, see page 3 paragraph 3).
Regarding Claim 29, modified Yamada teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the aerosol modifying additive is configured to volatilize upon heating (see page 8 paragraph 2).
Regarding Claim 31, modified Yamada teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the article comprises an outer circumference of at least about 19 mm (5-20mm width, see page 3 paragraph 1 and page 7 paragraph 4). This width would correspond to a circumference range of (2pi*1/2*5) to (2pi*1/2*20) = 16 mm to 62 mm circumference. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed range of at least 19 mm from the disclosed range taught by Yamada of 16 mm to 62 mm. Since the range 16 mm to 62 mm overlaps the claimed range at least 19 mm, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding Claim 33, modified Yamada teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the wrapper comprises aluminum foil, optionally further comprising a paper backing material (see page 8 paragraph 1).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO2018235959A1), English machine translation relied upon, in view of Maiwald (US 20010032697 A1) as applied to claim 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Peters (GB2560175A)
Regarding Claim 5, modified Yamada teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the inwardly facing surface and/or the outwardly facing surface of the wrapper comprises the sensate material, e.g., tobacco leaf as set forth above. Yamada teaches that the flavor sheet is laminated with sensate material (flavor) (page 3 last two paragraphs). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that lamination of flavorant to the wrapper would involve the application of sensate material to the inwardly and/or outwardly facing surface of the wrapper. Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the inwardly facing surface and/or the outwardly facing surface of the wrapper comprises the sensate material in an amount of between about 0.02 g/m2 and about 0.2 g/m2.
However Peters teaches the sensate material in an amount of between about 0.02 g/m2 and about 0.2 g/m2 (page 8 lines 20-22). Although Peters does not explicitly disclose the concentration in units of g/m2, the instant disclosure describes the basis weight of the wrapper as “preferably between 20 gsm and 45 gsm (instant specification page 25 line 20)”. This calculates to a concentration of sensate material by mass of between 0.4% and 0.1% (0.2/45*100=0.4%) and (0.02/20*100=0.1%). Peters teaches a flavor content from between 0% to 5% (page 8 lines 20-22) and that typically the flavor concentration of around 1% is sufficient for most flavorings. Peters also teaches that Nicotine is colorless and tasteless but is also bitter. Peters goes on to each that flavors can be added to deliver “a more intense sensation by comparison to the administration of cigarettes and e-cigarettes”.
It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the article of Yamada with the sensate material of Peters and to select a concentration of 0.1% to 0.4%.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the article of Yamada with the sensate material of Peters, before the filing date of the claimed invention, in order to deliver a more enjoyable sensation to the consumer.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Yamada teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Peters teaches a portion of the wrapper closest to the aerosol generating material or the downstream end of the mouthpiece comprises the sensate material and a portion of the wrapper closest to the other of the aerosol generating material and the downstream end of the mouthpiece does not comprise the sensate material. Specifically, Peters teaches that the parts of the cigarette in which the sensate material might be applied “might be the length of the cigarette minus the length of the filter tip (page 6 line 30-31)”.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO2018235959A1), English machine translation relied upon, in view of Maiwald (US 20010032697 A1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bless (WO2016200815A2)
Regarding Claim 7, modified Yamada teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the article for use with an aerosol generation device is arranged such that, when the aerosol generating material is heated to above about 200 °C, a temperature of a portion of the wrapper closest to the aerosol generating material is at least about 60% higher than a temperature of a portion of the wrapper closest to the downstream end of the mouthpiece.
However, Bless teaches the article for use with an aerosol generation device is arranged such that, when the aerosol generating material is heated to above about 200 °C (page 12 line 26), a temperature of a portion of the wrapper closest to the aerosol generating material is at least about 60% higher than a temperature of a portion of the wrapper closest to the downstream end of the mouthpiece (about 120°C, page 12 lines 8-9, standby temperature). Bless also teaches multiple heating elements (page 29 line 8). Bless further teaches that it would be desirable to heat the aerosol generating material without generating pyrolysis products (See page 2 line 21).
Although Bless does not explicitly disclose that the downstream end of the mouthpiece would be at the standby temperature, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention that an aerosol forming device being held at a standby temperature between puffs would heat other parts of the device to the standby temperature (such as the downstream end of the mouthpiece), which would inherently cause the portion of the wrapper closes to the aerosol generating material to be at least about 60% higher than a temperate of a portion of the wrapper closest to the downstream end of the mouthpiece during a puff (e.g., about 200 °C is roughly 60% higher than about 120 °C). Further, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the temperature ranges of Bless.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the article of Yamada with the heater of Bless.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the article of Yamada with the heater of Bless to avoid generating pyrolysis products and avoid combusting the aerosol generating material to a significant degree (see page 2 lines 21 and 23-24).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Yamada teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Bless and Yamada do not explicitly disclose the temperature of the portion of the wrapper closest to the downstream end of the mouthpiece is between about 30 °C and about 45 °C, however it would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention for the temperature of the mouthpiece, which is in contact with the body during use, to approach body temperature which is known by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be about 37 °C.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Yamada teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Bless teaches the temperature of the portion of wrapper closest to the aerosol generating material is up to about 300 °C (see page 11 line 28).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO2018235959A1), English machine translation relied upon, in view of Maiwald (US 20010032697 A1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Snow (US20140103099A1).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Yamada teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the wrapper has a permeability of less than about 100 Coresta units.
However, Snow teaches the wrapper has a permeability of less than about 100 Coresta units. Specifically, Snow teaches the wrapper has a permeability of “50 CORESTA units to about 110 CORESTA units” and “less than about 120 CORESTA units [0054].” The claimed range overlaps with the disclosed ranges of Snow. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have selected less than about 100 Coresta units from less than about 120 Coresta units. Snow also teaches that carbon monoxide levels are reduced up to 50% with the disclosed wrapper configuration [0049].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the article of Yamada with the wrapper of snow.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the article of Yamada with the wrapper of Snow in order to reduce carbon monoxide production by up to 50%.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO2018235959A1), English machine translation relied upon, in view of Maiwald (US 20010032697 A1), as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of KIM (RU2674721C1), English machine translation relied upon.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Yamada discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches
the body of material is in the form of a cylinder (page 2 second to last paragraph) having a longitudinal axis, and wherein
the largest cross sectional area of the capsule measured perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis is less than 28% of the cross sectional area of the body of material measured perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis.
Yamada alone fails to explicitly disclose the largest cross sectional area of the capsule measured perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis is less than 28% of the cross sectional area of the body of material measured perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis.
However, Kim in combination with Yamada teaches the largest cross sectional area of the capsule measured perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis is less than 28% of the cross sectional area of the body of material (Yamada flavor generation segment, 5-20mm, Yamada page 3 paragraph 1) measured perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis. Kim teaches the capsule can have a range in size of 2.1mm to 4.5mm (see Kim Table 2 machine translation below, found in original Russian copy of Kim on page 16). This results in a percentage diameter range (capsule to body measurement) of from 4.5/5=0.9= 90% on the high end to 2.1/20=0.105= 10.5% on the low end. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the directly proportional relationship of diameter to cross sectional area.
PNG
media_image4.png
670
1181
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the combination of Kim and Yamada teaches the largest cross sectional area of the capsule measured perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis is 10.5% to 90% of the cross sectional area of the body of material measured perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis. Thus, the range claimed of 28% overlaps or lies inside the range taught by modified Yamada. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Yamada further fails to teach a capsule is embedded within the body of material such that the capsule is surrounded on all sides by the material forming the body, the capsule having a shell encapsulating a liquid aerosol modifying agent.
However, Kim teaches a capsule is embedded within the body of material (See FIG 4 and page 9 paragraph 4) such that the capsule is surrounded on all sides by the material forming the body (See FIG 4 and page 9 paragraph 4), the capsule having a shell encapsulating a liquid aerosol modifying agent (See FIG 4 and page 9 paragraph 4). Kim also teaches methods where “the aromatic capsule can be manufactured in such a way as to provide the desired adhesion of the shell to the flavoring fluid in order to prevent accidental rupture of the aromatic capsule, which ensures strength and stability (page 6 paragraph 1).”
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the article of Yamada with the capsule of Kim.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine the article of Yamada with the capsule of Kim to produce a smoking article with an aromatic capsule that would not accidentally rupture.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO2018235959A1), English machine translation relied upon, in view of Maiwald (US 20010032697 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaljura (RO201700023U2)
Regarding Claim 25, modified Yamada teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Yamada fails to teach a pressure drop across the mouthpiece is less than 32 mmH2O.
However, Kaljura teaches a pressure drop across the mouthpiece is less than 32 mmH2O. Specifically, Kalijura teaches a pressure drop of less than 1 mmH2O/mm (see page 6 last paragraph). Kalijura also teaches “the ventilation level is varied within a user-selectable range” and “This can give the user a greater sense of ventilation than the ventilation level has been varied (see page 6 last paragraph).”
The mouthpiece size is not claimed but the instant specification discloses a mouthpiece size of 30mm - 50mm. Therefore, Kalijura teaches a pressure drop of 32 mmH2O for a mouthpiece of 32mm and accordingly Kalijura anticipates the claim element.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the article of Yamada with the ventilation system of Kalijura.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine the article of Yamada with the ventilation system of Kalijura to give the user a selectable range of ventilation and to give the user a greater sense of ventilation.
Claims 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO2018235959A1), English machine translation relied upon, in view of Maiwald (US 20010032697 A1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Branton (BRPI0511589), English machine translation relied upon.
Regarding Claim 26, modified Yamada teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the mouthpiece is connected to the aerosol generating substrate, and wherein the mouthpiece comprises a cavity. However, Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the internal volume of that cavity is greater than 450 mm3.
Branton teaches, a mouthpiece with an internal volume greater than 450 mm3. Specifically, Branton teaches a volume of 665 mm3 (page 15 paragraph 9). Branton does not explicitly describe the door catalyst as a mouthpiece but it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the door catalyst is functionally a mouthpiece catalyst designed to accommodate a cigarette. Branton also teaches mouthpiece catalysts can reduce the delivery of carbon monoxide to a user.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the article of Yamada with the mouthpiece catalyst of Branton.
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the article of Yamada with the mouthpiece catalyst of Branton to reduce the delivery of carbon monoxide to a user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2-04-2026 regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant begins on the bottom of page 7 by arguing:
PNG
media_image5.png
150
562
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the sensate material is disposed on the outwardly facing surface of the mouthpiece wrapper) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim only requires that the sensate material is present on at least a portion of the outwardly facing surface of the mouthpiece and less than 90% of a surface area of the outwardly facing surface (emphasis added for clarity). In [0131] of Maiwald as cited above, Maiwald teaches the sections 53 of the web 10 can be coated with an adhesive which contains materials affecting the taste and aroma of the part of the mouthpiece coming into actual contact with the lips of the smoker. A person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that actual contact with the lips of the smoker requires the sensate material is present on at least a portion of the outwardly facing surface of the mouthpiece wrapper as claimed.
Applicant additionally similarly argues on page 9:
PNG
media_image6.png
170
566
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because in [0131] of Maiwald as cited above, Maiwald teaches the sections 53 of the web 10 can be coated with an adhesive which contains materials affecting the taste and aroma of the part of the mouthpiece coming into actual contact with the lips of the smoker. A person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that actual contact with the lips of the smoker requires the sensate material is present on at least a portion of the outwardly facing surface of the mouthpiece wrapper as claimed.
Applicant additionally argues on page 10:
PNG
media_image7.png
170
568
media_image7.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because the instant disclosure was only used to convert from units of g/m2 to % flavor content that could be compared to what is claimed and to what is known and currently used in the art, e.g., by Peters.
As explained above and repeated in part as follows for clarity: Although Peters does not explicitly disclose the concentration in units of g/m2, the instant disclosure describes the basis weight of the wrapper as “preferably between 20 gsm and 45 gsm (instant specification page 25 line 20)” which calculates to a concentration of sensate material by mass of between 0.4% and 0.1% (see rejection above for the math).
Peters teaches a flavor content from between 0% to 5% (page 8 lines 20-22) and that typically the flavor concentration of around 1% is sufficient for most flavorings. Peters also teaches that Nicotine is colorless and tasteless but is also bitter. Peters goes on to each that flavors can be added to deliver “a more intense sensation by comparison to the administration of cigarettes and e-cigarettes”.
Between 0% and 5% flavor content overlaps with the claimed equivalency of between 0.1% and 0.4% flavor content. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Applicant argues on page 10:
PNG
media_image8.png
126
577
media_image8.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because incomplete combustion (heating below “burn temperature” or auto ignition temperature (flashpoint) of hydrocarbons e.g., incomplete combustion) is well known to produce carbon monoxide (as evidenced by tobacco in Australia, including carbon monoxide, see 18B.5.1.1), and therefore an ordinary artisan would appreciate the teachings of Snow which help to decrease carbon monoxide generation, and would be motivated to apply the teachings of snow for the reasons set forth above in the rejection.
Applicant argues on page 11:
PNG
media_image9.png
191
562
media_image9.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because Kim also teaches methods where “the aromatic capsule can be manufactured in such a way as to provide the desired adhesion of the shell to the flavoring fluid in order to prevent accidental rupture of the aromatic capsule, which ensures strength and stability (page 6 paragraph 1).”
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine the article of Yamada with the capsule of Kim to produce a smoking article with an aromatic capsule that would not accidentally rupture. By combining these teaching an ordinary artisan would have arrived at the sizes set forth in the rejection above with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant argues on page 12:
PNG
media_image10.png
168
563
media_image10.png
Greyscale
And
PNG
media_image11.png
246
572
media_image11.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because as set forth above. Even non-combustion aerosol provision articles produce carbon monoxide as discussed above and therefore an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make the modification as set forth above in the claim rejection.
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 Michael T Fulton whose telephone number is (703)756-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 - 4:30 ET.
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 on 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.
/M.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights