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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hampl Jr et al. (WO 2005013733) in view of Morales et al. (WO 2012093166).
Regarding claim 1, Hampl discloses a cigarillo comprising: a rod of smokable material (12, fig. 1) wrapped in a wrapper comprising reconstituted tobacco material (14, fig. 1 and claim 9); a filter plug adjacent to, and in axial alignment with, the wrapped rod of smokable material (16, fig. 1); and a band of tipping paper circumscribing the filter (18, fig. 11), wherein the wrapper has a porosity overlapping with the claimed range of 3-65 CORESTA units (page 4, line 20-22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed ranges. Hampl also the rod of smokable material is wrapped in a single wrapper which is a single layered wrapper (page 2, line30 to page 3, line 2 and page 4, lines 13-16)
Hampl does not expressly discloses the circumference of the cigarillo. Morales discloses the cigarillo has a circumference overlapping with the claimed range of 16-18mm (page 8, lines 17-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed ranges.
Hampl discloses the single layer paper wrapper may be made from pulp fibers and in another embodiment the inner wrapper may be made from pulp fibers or a web of reconstituted tobacco (page 4, lines 13-28). Therefore, Hampl discloses that a web of reconstituted tobacco can be used interchangeable with pulp fibers and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute reconstituted tobacco for pulp fibers in the single layer paper wrapper of Hampl.
Regarding claim 2, Morales discloses the tipping paper is perforated to provide filter ventilation at a level overlapping with the claimed range of about or at least 40% (page 5, lines 1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Hampl discloses the wrapper has a porosity overlapping with the claimed range of 25-65 CORESTA units (page 4, line 20-22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Morales discloses the wrapper has a MD tensile strength overlapping with the claimed range of 1900-2200 g/in (table 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Hampl discloses wrapper with moisture content overlapping with the claimed range of 9-12% (page 20, lines 20-28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Hampl discloses the wrapper has a dry basis weight overlapping with the claimed range of 42-45 g/m2 (page 4, line 20-22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Morales discloses the wrapper comprises inorganic filler material in an amount overlapping with the claimed range of 11.5-15.5% (page 7, lines 4-13).
Regarding claim 9, Morales discloses the level of filter ventilation is overlapping with the claimed range of 40-65% (page 5, lines 2-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range.
Regarding claims 10-11, since Morales discloses the level of filter ventilation is overlapping with the claimed range of 40-46%, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the pressure drop of the cigarillo would be overlapping with the claimed range of 140-160 mmWG.
Regarding claim 12, since Morales discloses the level of filter ventilation is overlapping with the claimed range of 60-62% (page 5, lines 2-4), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the pressure drop of the cigarillo would be overlapping with the claimed range of 120-130 mmWG.
Regarding claim 14, Morales discloses the wrapper has a longitudinal seam which extends in a direction substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the cigarillo (figs. 1-2). Hampl discloses the wrapper has a longitudinal seam which extends in a direction substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the cigarillo (figs. 2 and 4).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hampl Jr et al. (WO 2005013733) in view Morales et al. (WO 2012093166) and further in view of Becker et al. (US 20080017206). Hampl does not expressly disclose the filter plug is mentholated. Becker discloses the filter plug is mentholated [0007-0008]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the filter of Morales mentholated for flavor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant essentially argues that Hampl discloses a preferred embodiment wherein the inner wrapper comprising reconstituted tobacco material but does not expressly disclose the single layer wrapper comprising reconstituted tobacco; therefore the skilled person would not have contemplated a smoking article comprising a rod of smokable material wrapped in a single wrapper consisting of a single layer comprising reconstituted tobacco material as claimed. This argument is not persuasive because Hampl discloses the single layer paper wrapper may be made from pulp fibers in an embodiment and in another embodiment, the inner wrapper may be made from pulp fibers or a web of reconstituted tobacco (page 4, lines 13-28). Therefore, Hampl discloses that a web of reconstituted tobacco can be used interchangeable with pulp fibers and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute reconstituted tobacco for pulp fibers in the single layer paper wrapper of Hampl
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHU H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5931. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 5712703882. 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.
/PHU H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights