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 Applicants’ arguments/remarks file 8-1-2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently examined.
No claims are amended or canceled.
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- 5, and 13, 16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordil (EP2497382A1) in view of Ricketts (US20080314399A1) and Luan (US20120048286A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Jordil discloses a smoking article comprising:
a tobacco rod (Abstract, Fig 1 – reference number 12)
a filter in axial alignment with the tobacco rod (Abstract, Fig 1 – reference number 14)
a filter wrapper that connects the filter to the tobacco rod (Abstract, Fig 1 -reference number 28) the filter wrapper of Jordil reads on the claimed tipping paper; and
a plug wrap circumscribes the filter and is disposed between the filter wrapper and the filter ([0046]; Fig.1 – reference number 26) the plug wrap of Jordil reads on the claimed filter wrapper.
Jordil discloses that the filter may comprise a filter segment with a hollow cavity, however, does not appear to explicitly disclose that a hollow tubular cavity be positioned adjacent to the tobacco rod.
Luan teaches a hollow tubular cavity be positioned adjacent to the tobacco rod. (See e.g., FIG 5, the tubular segment 152 is a hollow tube and is adjacent to the tobacco rod 20, see [0044].) Luan also teaches in [0057] that this configuration which in includes the tubular segment 152 provides the necessary amount of resistance to draw while advantageously maintaining the desired degree of high ventilation and the ventilation from the hollow tubular segment of Luan assures the mixing of air with mainstream smoke, drawn through the tubular segment 152, to be drawn from the smoking article.
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the smoking device of Jordil with a hollow tubular cavity positioned adjacent to the tobacco rod as taught by Luan to provide the necessary amount of resistance to draw while advantageously maintaining the desired degree of high ventilation and to assure the mixing of air with the mainstream smoke from the tobacco rod, to be drawn from the smoking article.
Jordil teaches a mouth end at the downstream end of the filter ([0044]; [0045]; Fig. 1 - Reference number 16), and teaches the mouth end has a filler tow but fails to explicitly disclose a cavity at the mouth end.
Ricketts teaches a recess or cavity at the mouth end (recess 24 at the mouth end thereof, see [0058] and FIG 3). Ricketts also teaches that having a recess at the mouth end of the filter advantageously facilitates grasping the mouth end of the tear ribbon 16 by the consumer, which allows the filter of the cigarette to be detached after smoking to advantageously accelerate environmental degradation of the filter [0007].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mouth end of the smoking device of Jordil to include a recess or cavity as taught by Ricketts to advantageously facilitate grasping the mouth end to facilitate the removal of the filter of the cigarette after smoking to accelerate environmental degradation of the filter.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Jordil teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Luan teaches the hollow tubular element as set forth above, however Luan is silent to the thickness perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the smoking article and therefore fails to explicitly disclose the hollow tubular element has a thickness (t) perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the smoking article of at least 100 micrometers.
However it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of Luan FIG 5 and [0058] that the hollow tubular element has a thickness (t) perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the smoking article of at least 100 micrometers.
Specifically, Luan teaches a smaller diameter flow restricting segment besides the hollow tubular element that has a tube with an inner diameter of 1 mm. This flow restricting element has a smaller diameter than the hollow tubular element as shown in FIG 5 and as described throughout Luan. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the hollow tubular element has a thickness (t) perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the smoking article of at least 1mm which falls within the claimed range of at least 100 micrometers. 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).
Regarding Claims 3 and 19, modified Jordil teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Additionally, Luan teaches the hollow tubular element has a length greater than about 4 millimeters. Specifically, Luan teaches the hollow tubular element has a length of about 30 mm [0060] which falls in the claimed range of greater than about 4 millimeters. 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).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Jordil teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Luan teaches the hollow tubular element has a length equal to the length of the tobacco rod, (see [0060] length of tobacco rod is about 30 mm and length of hollow tubular segment is about 30 mm.)
Regarding Claim 5, modified Jordil teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Jordil teaches the tipping wrapper comprises a line of weakness, and the line of weakness comprises a plurality of perforation holes. (see [0048], “two rows of perforations 30a and 30b”)
Regarding Claim 13, modified Jordil teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Jordil discloses the filter further comprises one or more segments of filtration material downstream from the first segment of filtration material [0028]-[0029].
Regarding Claims 16 and 20, modified Jordil teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Luan teaches the hollow tubular element has a length of about 30 mm. However, A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the tobacco rod and the hollow tubular element which are taught by Luan as being the same size, to a smaller size such as about 20 mm, which would overlap with the claimed range of from about 3 millimetres (mm) to about 20 millimetres (mm).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 11, 14-15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordil (EP2497382A1) in view of Ricketts (US20080314399A1) and Luan (US20120048286A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kadiric (TW201412254A), English machine translation relied upon.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Jordil teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Modified Jordil fails to explicitly disclose a flavour delivery mechanism is provided on the inner surface of the hollow tubular element, and configured to release flavourant when a consumer extinguishes the smoking article.
However, Kadiric teaches a flavour delivery mechanism (page 5 paragraph 8) is provided on the inner surface of the hollow tubular element (page 5 paragraph 5), and configured to release flavourant when a consumer extinguishes the smoking article (page 5 paragraph 8). Kadiric teaches at least one filter segment can be the first filter segment or an additional filter segment that can be included in the filter or a combination thereof (page 5 paragraph 5). Although not explicitly recited in combination by Kadiric, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the hollow tubular element (page 5 paragraph 5) is an additional filter segment that can be included in combination with the flavor containing filter segment with breakable capsules that are configured to release flavourant when a consumer extinguishes the smoking article (activated by applying a crushing force (page 5 paragraph 8)).
Kadiric does not explicitly recite that the flavour delivery mechanism is provided on the inner surface of the hollow tubular element, however it would have been obvious when combining the hollow tubular element with the filter section that the flavor delivery mechanism would need to be provided on the inner surface of the hollow tubular element because it being hollow and the only location obvious location that the flavor delivery mechanism could be affixed without being damaged by the wrapper would be the inner surface.
Kadiric also teaches an impermeable insert package that inhibits the transfer of the additive to the consumers fingers and prevents the appearance of tarnished fingers and smoking article (page 5 paragraph 7).
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 smoking article of modified Jordil with the teachings of Kadiric.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine the smoking article of modified Jordil with the teachings of Kadiric to inhibit the transfer of the additive to the consumers fingers and prevents the appearance of tarnished fingers and smoking article.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Jordil teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Kadiric teaches extinguishment initiates one or more trigger events that result in the flavour delivery mechanism releasing flavourant, the one or more trigger events being selected from the group consisting of the application of frictional force (see page 5 paragraph 8, crushing force). Although Kadiric does not explicitly recite frictional force, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that crushing force on a cigarette could include a frictional force on a cigarette.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Jordil teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Jordil fails to explicitly disclose the hollow tubular element has a thickness (t) perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the smoking article, and a diameter (D) perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the smoking article, and wherein the diameter (D) to thickness (t) ratio is less than about 80.
The instant specification teaches that the diameter (D) to thickness (t) ratio is less than about 80 corresponds to a tubular element thickness of 100 micrometers to about 700 micrometers (page 6 paragraph 5).
Kadiric teaches a hollow tubular section filter with a thickness of about 100 microns to 500 microns (page 5 paragraph 2 and 3). Kadiric also teaches an impermeable insert package that inhibits the transfer of the additive to the consumers fingers and prevents the appearance of tarnished fingers and smoking article (page 5 paragraph 7).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the disclosed range of Kadiric of 100-500 microns. 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hollow tube of Jordil, to have a thickness of about 100 microns to 500 microns as taught by Kadiric, because both Jordil and Kadiric are directed to smoking articles comprising hollow tube members, Jordil is silent in regards to explicit suitable thicknesses for use and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable thicknesses for a similar smoking article, Kadiric teaches known thicknesses for a similar hollow tube, and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Jordil teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Jordil fails to explicitly disclose that the axial stiffness of the hollow tubular element is greater than or equal to the axial stiffness of the tobacco rod.
However, Kadiric teaches increasing the resistance of the hollow tubular section to crushing and deformation and having enough compressive strength for the hollow tubular section to not crush before the filter section. (see page 5 paragraph 2 and paragraph 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tobacco rod of Jordil to not crush before the hollow tubular element, following the teachings of Kadiric, with a reasonable expectation of success. Jordil is silent in regards to the resistance of the hollow tubular section to crushing and deformation, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable compressive strengths for a similar smoking article. Kadiric teaches increasing the resistance of the hollow tubular section to crushing and deformation and having enough compressive strength for the hollow tubular section to not crush before the filter section, and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Jordil teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kadiric teaches the hollow tubular element has a thickness (t) perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the smoking article of from about 100 micrometers to about 700 micrometers.
Specifically, Kadiric teaches a hollow tubular section filter with a thickness of about 100 microns to 500 microns (micrometers) (page 5 paragraph 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the disclosed range of Kadiric of 100-500 microns (micrometers), with a reasonable expectation of success which overlaps or lies inside the claimed range of 100-700 micrometers. 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hollow tube of Jordil, to have a thickness of about 100 microns to 500 microns as taught by Kadiric, because both Jordil and Kadiric are directed to smoking articles comprising hollow tube members, Jordil is silent in regards to suitable thicknesses for use and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable thicknesses for a similar smoking article, Kadiric teaches known thicknesses for a similar hollow tube, and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Jordil teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Jordil is silent to the grammage of the hollow tubular element and thus Jordil fails to disclose that the hollow tubular element is formed from a material with a grammage of from about 50 grams per square metre to about 250 grams per square metre.
Additionally, although Kadiric does not explicitly disclose that the hollow tubular element is formed from a material with a grammage of from about 50 grams per square metre to about 250 grams per square metre. Kadiric discloses “a plug wrap circumscribes the first filter segment and the hollow tube segment wherein the plug wrap has a basis weight of less than 90 grams per square meter (see abstract)”. Kadiric also discloses “hollow tube section 22 can be formed from a plurality of spirally wound paper layers (page 7 last paragraph and page 8 first paragraph)”. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a material with a basis weight of less than 90 grams per square meter from which to engineer the hollow tubular element. Less than 90 grams per square meter overlaps or lies inside the ranges claimed of 50 grams per square meter to about 250 grams per square meter. 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hollow tube of Jordil, to have a basis weight of less than 90 grams per square meter and to form it of spirally wound paper layers with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Jordil and Kadiric are directed to smoking articles comprising hollow tube members, Jordil is silent in regards to suitable basis weights for use and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable basis weights for a similar smoking article, Kadiric teaches known basis weights for a similar hollow tube, and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordil (EP2497382A1) in view of Ricketts (US20080314399A1) and Luan (US20120048286A1), as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Hufnagel (WO2015075650).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Jordil teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However modified Jordil fails to explicitly disclose the tobacco rod comprises a crimped tobacco cast leaf at the downstream end of the tobacco rod. However, Hufnagel teaches the tobacco rod comprises a crimped tobacco cast leaf at the downstream end of the tobacco rod (page 15 lines 11-13).
Hufnagel teaches that cast leaf tobacco in addition to glycerine is advantageous because the combination as an aerosol former allows volatile the substances including the flavor compound and tobacco substances to be passed along the rod to the users mouth (page 15 lines 12-20.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine modified Jordil with the tobacco product in Hufnagel to provide a desirable and flavorful smoking experience.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Jordil teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Hufnagel teaches the tobacco rod comprises tobacco material (tobacco cut filler, page 9 line 7) circumscribed by a tobacco rod wrapper (page 9 line 9) and the tobacco material comprises tobacco cut filler (page 9 line 7).
Hufnagel teaches the composition disclosed allows volatile substances including the flavor compound and tobacco substances to be passed along the rod to the users mouth to provide a desirable and flavorful smoking experience. (page 15 lines 12-20.) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine modified Jordil with the tobacco product in Hufnagel to provide a desirable and flavorful smoking experience.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordil (EP2497382A1) in view of Ricketts (US20080314399A1) and Luan (US20120048286A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brookbank (WO2014096291), and as evidenced by Heydari (internet excerpt from papyruspapers.com).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Jordil teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, modified Jordil is silent to the hollow tubular element comprising specifically paper therefore modified Jordil does not explicitly recite that the hollow tubular element comprises at least two paper layers.
However, Brookbank teaches a similar hollow tubular element and teaches that the structure of the hollow tubular element is made of spirally wound cardboard tube or rigid card-like material (see page 4 lines 33 to page 5 line 2).
Brookbank does not explicitly disclose how cardboard is organized/manufactured from paper, however, as evidenced by Heydari, “all cardboards contain at least one layer of… [flute paper]…the middle layer in the cardboard sheet.” (see page 2 paragraph 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the cardboard hollow tubular element comprises at least two paper layers, which meets the claim limitation.
Brookbank teaches that the filtration material and hollow tubular element is advantageous because it may be designed to complement the shape of the insertable filter to ensure a secure fit when inserted into the recess of the filter which would improve filtration. (see page 4 paragraph 1) and to remove smoke constituents from the smoke stream passing through the filter (page 1 line 16-17).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine the smoking article of modified Jordil with the hollow tube and filter of Brookbank to improve filtration (see page 4 paragraph 1) and to remove smoke constituents from the smoke stream passing through the filter (page 1 line 16-17).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Jordil teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Brookbank teaches the hollow tubular element is formed from cardboard at set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
Brookbank does not explicitly disclose how cardboard is organized/manufactured from paper, however, as evidenced by Heydari, “all cardboards contain at least one layer of… [flute paper]…the middle layer in the cardboard sheet.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the cardboard hollow tubular element comprises at least two paper layers, which meets the claim limitation. (see page 2 paragraph 1).
Modified Jordil fails to explicitly disclose that the wound paper layers are spirally wound. However, when cardboard is wound into a tube it is common in the art for the cardboard to be spirally wound. Spirally wound cardboard tubes are known in the art as taught by Brookbank “the rigid card-like material may be a spirally wound cardboard tube (page 4 line 34).” Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art selecting cardboard to design a tube, to have wound spirally wound the cardboard to create the tube as taught by Brookbank with a reasonable expectation of success and it merely involves applying a known design of cardboard to a known article.
Brookbank teaches that the filtration material and hollow tubular element is advantageous because it may be designed to complement the shape of the insertable filter to ensure a secure fit when inserted into the recess of the filter which would improve filtration. (see page 4 paragraph 1) and to remove smoke constituents from the smoke stream passing through the filter (page 1 line 16-17).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine the smoking article of modified Jordil with the hollow tube and filter of Brookbank to improve filtration (see page 4 paragraph 1) and to remove smoke constituents from the smoke stream passing through the filter (page 1 line 16-17).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Jordil teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Jordil fails to teach that the hollow tubular element is formed from an annular shaped segment of filtration material.
However, Brookbank teaches how to create a hollow tubular element and how it is formed from a segment of filtration material (see page 4 lines 30-34.) and rolled into an annular shape (see FIG 3). Brookbank teaches that the filtration material and hollow tubular element is advantageous because it may be designed to complement the shape of the insertable filter to ensure a secure fit when inserted into the recess of the filter which would improve filtration. (see page 4 paragraph 1) and to remove smoke constituents from the smoke stream passing through the filter (page 1 line 16-17).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine the smoking article of modified Jordil with the hollow tube and filter of Brookbank to improve filtration (see page 4 paragraph 1) and to remove smoke constituents from the smoke stream passing through the filter (page 1 line 16-17).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11154088. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are an obvious variation over at least claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11154088.
The rejected claims and conflicting claims both are directed to a smoking article comprising a tobacco rod; a filter in axial alignment with the tobacco rod; and a tipping wrapper circumscribing at least a portion of the filter and at least a portion of the tobacco rod to secure the filter in axial alignment with the tobacco rod, wherein the filter comprises: a hollow tubular element at an upstream end of the filter adjacent to the tobacco rod; and a first segment of filtration material downstream from and adjacent to the hollow tubular element, and wherein the tipping wrapper comprises a line of weakness.
The sets of claims are different because claim 1 of the conflicting claims includes additional limitations not recited in the rejected claims.
However, the differences between the two sets of claims are obvious because conflicting claim 1 comprises each and every limitation of the rejected claims and therefore makes obvious the smoking article of the rejected claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 08/01/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jordil (EP2497382A1) in view of Ricketts (US20080314399A1) and Luan (US20120048286A1) as set forth above.
Specifically, Applicant submits Tritz and Mironov are not prior art on pages 1 and 2 of the remarks. This is found persuasive and the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Jordil (EP2497382A1) in view of Ricketts (US20080314399A1) and Luan (US20120048286A1) as set forth above.
The remaining arguments rely on the patentability of claim 1 to which the other claims depend. This is not found persuasive for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
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