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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10 July 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-23 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claim 9 has been withdrawn. Claims 21-23 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 5-11, filed 10 July 2025, with respect to claims 1-8 and 10-20 under U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodcock, et al (US20110259352A1) and further in view of Gindrat (US20140166032A1), Sashide, et al (US20130019884A) , and Greig, et al (US4416295, from IDS dated 11/16/2021).
Regarding claim 1, Woodcock teaches a smoking article comprised of a smokable material that comprises a core of smokable material, fully wrapped along its length, that is wrapped with an annular rod of smoking material. [0038] The core of smokable material is wrapped in a first sheet of material (container). [0038] The annular rod has an opening that allows the core to be located inside the annular layer of smokable material (Fig 6, 7, 8, and 11)
Woodcock teaches that the smokable material can be any smokable material considered appropriate in the art noting specifically that the material can be a tobacco containing material. [0039] However Woodcock is silent as to the form of the smokable material.
Gindrat, directed to smoking articles, teaches that a smoking article can be comprised of a gathered sheet of tobacco material that is circumscribed by a wrapper (container). (Abstract) The gathered sheet is continuous transversely to the longitudinal axis of the rod. (Abstract) This allows air to flow through the rod in the spaces between the layers of the gathered sheet.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Woodcock by using a gathered sheet of material for the core portion of the cigarette as taught by Gindrat because both Woodcock and Gindrat are directed to cigarettes, Gindrat teaches the aerosol-generating substrate comprising a rod comprising a gathered sheet of homogenised tobacco material advantageously does not result in dislodgement of tobacco material [0052] when removed from a heating element and the rod exhibits more uniform densities than the rods comprising shreds of homogenised tobacco material. [0138], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar product in the same way.
Sashide, directed to the design of cigarettes with a volatile flavor delivery, teaches a tobacco rod that is comprise of a distal end portion, central portion, and a proximal end portion. (Abstract) Sashide teaches that the tobacco rod can have multiple segments with multiple flavor profiles. ([0062-0063], Figures 5 and 6)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Woodcock by using a smoking article with multiple sections as taught by Sashide because Woodcock, Gindrat, and Sashide are all directed to cigarettes, Sashide teaches the user can enjoy the taste of the volatile flavor after the portion containing the portion containing the flavor has burned out [0052] as the tobacco portion in the subsequent portions will have absorbed the flavor to a degree, and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar product in the same way.
Greig, directed to the design of smoking rods, teaches a cigarette made of a plurality of sections, the sections having passageways through the sections, and the use of offset passageways between the sections. Greig teaches “a rod of smoking-material for use as or for constituting part of a smoking article, which rod is formed by a multiplicity of laminiform smoking-material elements, which extend transversely of the rod and are located in face-to-face contact with each other. Preferably the elements are fixed together.” (cl 1 ln 31-37) Greig teaches “the holes 8, 8' are only partially aligned. Thus the smoke passageway defined by a pair of holes 8, 8' is of a lesser cross-sectional area than that of each of the individual holes.” (cl 3-4 ln 66-2)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Woodcock, Gindrat, and Sashide by using offset sections for the flavor rods in the cigarette as taught by Greig because Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, and Greig are directed to cigarettes, Greig teaches “The passages in each element … may be so distributed that they occupy an identical relative distribution from one element to the next, in which case adjacent elements may be so relatively angularly oriented as to provide a predetermined form of smoke passage through the smoking material rod.” (cl 1 ln 59 – 66) and that this helps reduce the smoking material usage in the rod (cl 2 ln 1-2; 6-9) and this involves the use of a known known technique to reduce materials of manufacture while ensuring an acceptable pressure drop along the cigarette rod.
Regarding claim 2, Woodcock teaches that the rod of material is a smokable material that is for use with a combustion source. (Abstract) The use of combustion would read on a direct heating type tobacco rod.
Regarding claim 3, Gindrat teaches that the surface of the sheet can be crimped or otherwise textured. (Abstract) The crimping or use of texture on the sheet of tobacco is considered to read on the surface treatment of the instant claim.
Regarding, claim 4 and 13 Woodcock discloses that the core material is circumscribed with a first sheet material can be any web material known in the art and specifically denotes the material being cellulosic paper web or reconstituted tobacco sheet materials. [0027]
Regarding claims 5, 14 and 15, Woodcock teaches that the central core of smokable material is fully wrapped along its length. The central core can be wrapped in a first sheet of material and a third sheet of material that is located either inside or outside the first sheet of material. [0038] Woodcock teaches that the core of smokable material can be wrapped by two different layers of material and that the composition of these materials can be the same or different from one another. The paper wrapper is considered to be the container and thus the multilayer configuration reads on a multilayer structure.
Regarding claim 8, Woodcock teaches that the sheet material that wraps around the core material can be treated with one or more diluents that are used to generate an aerosol including polyhydric alcohols, esters, or a combination. [0032-0033]
Regarding claim 10, a modified Woodcock discloses a smoking article where the smokable material for the core and the annular rod are attached to filter rod and wrapped in a plug wrap and tipping paper to form a smoking article. ([0045], [0054] , Fig 12) The smoking article disclosed by Woodcock is considered to read on the flavor inhaler of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, Woodcock discloses that the core material is circumscribed with a first sheet material can be any web material known in the art and specifically denotes the material being cellulosic paper web or reconstituted tobacco sheet materials. [0027]
Regarding claim 21, Gindrat teaches that additives can be added to the sheet of homogenized tobacco material [0109] and that the additives can include flavorants. [0111]
Regarding claim 22, Woodcock teaches that the smokable material that can be used in the solid rod or annular rod can be a tobacco containing material that is comprised of one or more of stem, lamina, and tobacco dust and provides examples of various tobacco materials. [0039] The stem, lamina, and tobacco dust along with the examples of tobacco such as flue cured tobacco are considered to read on the tobacco raw material.
Regarding claim 23, as discussed in claim 1, Gindrat teaches that the sheets of tobacco would be gathered transversely to the longitudinal axis of the aerosol generating article such that the gathered sheet allows air to flow through the openings in the gathered sheet along the rod.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodcock, et al (US20110259352A1) and further in view of Gindrat (US20140166032A1), Sashide, et al (US20130019884A), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Besso (US20180271143A1).
Regarding claim 6, Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, and Greig fail to teach the side surface of the cylindrical container has a permeability of less than 1 coresta unit.
Besso, directed to the design of smoking articles, teaches “, the wrapper has an air permeability of less than about 5 Coresta units. In other words, the wrapper is preferably substantially air impermeable.” (p2 [0022]) The range, as taught by Besso, overlaps the range of the instant claim, and therefore the instant claim is prima facie obvious. See MPEPE 2144.05.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, and Greig by selecting a wrapper with the permeability as taught by Besso because Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, Greig, and Besso are directed to smoking articles, Besso teaches “As a result of the use of low-air permeability cigarette wrapper paper, sustained, smouldering combustion of the tobacco rod between puffs is reduced, or substantially inhibited. In turn, the formation of sidestream smoke is significantly decreased” (p1 [0014], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodcock, et al (US20110259352A1) and further in view of Gindrat (US20140166032A1), Sashide, et al (US20130019884A) , and Greig, et al (US4416295, from IDS dated 11/16/2021), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Pryor, et al (US4889143A) .
Regarding claim 7, Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, and Greig fail to teach the flavor source comprises a plurality of strip-shaped flavor generating sheets, and a longitudinal direction of the sheets is substantially parallel to the longitudinal direction of the cylindrical container.
Pryor, directed to the design of cigarette rods, teaches cigarette rods that are comprised of longitudinal strips of tobacco material. Pryor teaches “The resulting rods have a plurality of substantially longitudinally extending strands provided from shredded sheet-like material.” (Abstract) Pryor teaches the use of strands is a method of controlling pressure drop of such a rod “involves producing strands having a crimped character and positioning the individual strands in a longitudinally extending manner such that air can flow longitudinally through the rod in the spaces between the strands.”(cl 8 ln 47-51).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, and Greig by making the tobacco rod out of tobacco strands as taught by Pryor because Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, Greig, and Pryor are directed to cigarette rods, Prior teaches such a design “exhibit an enhanced tobacco taste to the user thereof.” (cl 12 ln 48-49), and this involves applying a known technique to a known product ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Woodcock, et al (US20110259352A1) and further in view of Gindrat (US20140166032A1), Sashide, et al (US20130019884A) , and Greig, et al (US4416295, from IDS dated 11/16/2021), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Yanez (WO2018189195A1) .
Regarding claim 11, Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, and Greig fail to teach a flavor inhaler comprising an aerosol source that generates aerosol on an upstream side of the tobacco rod.
Yanez, directed to devices for smokable materials, teaches an aerosol generating device for use with a tobacco rod. Yanez discloses a device that has a liquid storage container located in the housing that “has a heater 442 for heating liquid 445 contained in the fluid container 440.” (p [0046]) Yanez teaches “The vaporized liquid then passes into and through the tube 460 and out of the one or more exit apertures 462 to pass into the smokable material contained in use in the housing 420.” (p [0046]) Yanez teaches a liquid storage section that is vaporized (aerosolized) upstream of the tobacco source.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, and Greig by adding a flavor source upstream of the tobacco rod as taught by Yanez because Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, Greig, and Yanez are directed to smokable materials, Yanez teaches “The fluid that passes into the smokable material volatilizes or extracts at least one component of the smokable material.” (Abstract), and this involves using a known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodcock, et al (US20110259352A1) and further in view of Gindrat (US20140166032A1), Sashide, et al (US20130019884A), Greig, et al (US4416295, from IDS dated 11/16/2021), and Yanez (WO2018189195A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Matsumoto, et al (US20170238605A1) .
Regarding claim 12, Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, Greig, and Yanez fail to teach a ultrasonic vibration type flavor inhaler, comprising the tobacco rod according to claim 1.
A modified Woodcock teaches the tobacco rod as discussed in claim 1.
Matsumoto, directed to aerosol generating articles, teaches “The atomization unit 22 may atomize the aerosol source 21A using ultrasonic waves.” (p15 [0225]) Matsumo teaches the heating wire can be replaced by ultrasonic waves for atomizing a flavor source in a reservoir.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, Greig, and Yanez by using an ultrasonic means of aerosolizing the liquid housed in the liquid storage chamber as taught by Matsumoto because Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, Greig, Yanez, and Matsumoto are directed to aerosol generating articles, Matsumoto teaches the use of ultrasonic waves is an alternative to the use of a heating wire for generating an aerosol, and this involves a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodcock, et al (US20110259352A1) and further in view of Gindrat (US20140166032A1), Sashide, et al (US20130019884A) , and Greig, et al (US4416295, from IDS dated 11/16/2021), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Besso (US20180271143A1).
Regarding claim 16, Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, and Greig fail to teach the side surface of the cylindrical container has a permeability of less than 1 coresta unit.
Besso, directed to the design of smoking articles, teaches “the wrapper has an air permeability of less than about 5 Coresta units. In other words, the wrapper is preferably substantially air impermeable.” (p2 [0022]) The range, as taught by Besso, overlaps the range of the instant claim, and therefore the instant claim is prima facie obvious. See MPEPE 2144.05.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, and Greig by selecting a wrapper with the permeability as taught by Besso because Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, Greig, and Besso are directed to smoking articles, Besso teaches “As a result of the use of low-air permeability cigarette wrapper paper, sustained, smouldering combustion of the tobacco rod between puffs is reduced, or substantially inhibited. In turn, the formation of sidestream smoke is significantly decreased” (p1 [0014], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodcock, et al (US20110259352A1) and further in view of Gindrat (US20140166032A1), Sashide, et al (US20130019884A) , and Greig, et al (US4416295, from IDS dated 11/16/2021), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Pryor, et al (US4889143A).
Regarding claim 19, Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, and Greig fail to teach the flavor source comprises a plurality of strip-shaped flavor generating sheets, and a longitudinal direction of the sheets is substantially parallel to the longitudinal direction of the cylindrical container.
Pryor, directed to the design of cigarette rods, teaches cigarette rods that are comprised of longitudinal strips of tobacco material. Pryor teaches “The resulting rods have a plurality of substantially longitudinally extending strands provided from shredded sheet-like material.” (Abstract) Pryor teaches the use of strands is a method of controlling pressure drop of such a rod “involves producing strands having a crimped character and positioning the individual strands in a longitudinally extending manner such that air can flow longitudinally through the rod in the spaces between the strands.”(cl 8 ln 47-51).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, and Greig by making the tobacco rod out of tobacco strands as taught by Pryor because Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, Greig, and Pryor are directed to cigarette rods, Prior teaches such a design “exhibit an enhanced tobacco taste to the user thereof.” (cl 12 ln 48-49), and this involves applying a known technique to a known product ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodcock, et al (US20110259352A1) and further in view of Gindrat (US20140166032A1), Sashide, et al (US20130019884A) , and Greig, et al (US4416295, from IDS dated 11/16/2021), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Besso (US20180271143A1).
Regarding claim 17, Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, and Greig fail to teach the side surface of the cylindrical container has a permeability of less than 1 coresta unit.
Besso, directed to the design of smoking articles, teaches “the wrapper has an air permeability of less than about 5 Coresta units. In other words, the wrapper is preferably substantially air impermeable.” (p2 [0022]) The range, as taught by Besso, overlaps the range of the instant claim, and therefore the instant claim is prima facie obvious. See MPEPE 2144.05.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, and Greig by selecting a wrapper with the permeability as taught by Besso because B Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, Greig, and Besso are directed to smoking articles, Besso teaches “As a result of the use of low-air permeability cigarette wrapper paper, sustained, smouldering combustion of the tobacco rod between puffs is reduced, or substantially inhibited. In turn, the formation of sidestream smoke is significantly decreased” (p1 [0014], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodcock, et al (US20110259352A1) and further in view of Gindrat (US20140166032A1), Sashide, et al (US20130019884A) , and Greig, et al (US4416295, from IDS dated 11/16/2021), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Pryor, et al (US4889143A) .
Regarding claim 20, Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, and Greig fail to teach the flavor source comprises a plurality of strip-shaped flavor generating sheets, and a longitudinal direction of the sheets is substantially parallel to the longitudinal direction of the cylindrical container.
Pryor, directed to the design of cigarette rods, teaches cigarette rods that are comprised of longitudinal strips of tobacco material. Pryor teaches “The resulting rods have a plurality of substantially longitudinally extending strands provided from shredded sheet-like material.” (Abstract) Pryor teaches the use of strands is a method of controlling pressure drop of such a rod “involves producing strands having a crimped character and positioning the individual strands in a longitudinally extending manner such that air can flow longitudinally through the rod in the spaces between the strands.”(cl 8 ln 47-51).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, and Greig by making the tobacco rod out of tobacco strands as taught by Pryor because Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, Greig, and Pryor are directed to cigarette rods, Prior teaches such a design “exhibit an enhanced tobacco taste to the user thereof.” (cl 12 ln 48-49), and this involves applying a known technique to a known product ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodcock, et al (US20110259352A1) and further in view of Gindrat (US20140166032A1), Sashide, et al (US20130019884A) , and Greig, et al (US4416295, from IDS dated 11/16/2021), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Besso (US20180271143A1).
Regarding claim 18, Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, and Greig fail to teach the side surface of the cylindrical container has a permeability of less than 1 coresta unit.
Besso, directed to the design of smoking articles, teaches “the wrapper has an air permeability of less than about 5 Coresta units. In other words, the wrapper is preferably substantially air impermeable.” (p2 [0022]) The range, as taught by Besso, overlaps the range of the instant claim, and therefore the instant claim is prima facie obvious. See MPEPE 2144.05.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, and Greig by selecting a wrapper with the permeability as taught by Besso because Woodcock, Gindrat, Sashide, Greig, and Besso are directed to smoking articles, Besso teaches “As a result of the use of low-air permeability cigarette wrapper paper, sustained, smouldering combustion of the tobacco rod between puffs is reduced, or substantially inhibited. In turn, the formation of sidestream smoke is significantly decreased” (p1 [0014], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRGINIA R BIEGER whose telephone number is (703)756-1014. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7:30-4:30.
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, Phillip 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.
/V.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755