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 2/10/2026.
No claims are amended.
Claims 18-21 are new.
Claims 1-8 and 11-21 are presently examined.
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, 6-8, 11, 12, 14-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gellatly (EP0565360A2) in view of Osborne (US3145717A)
Regarding Claim 1, Gellatly teaches a reconstituted plant sheet comprising:
a fibrous support comprising refined plant fibers (ground tobacco feedstock, see FIG 2 which shows dry tobacco feedstock being refined into ground tobacco which teaches a refining process of the tobacco feedstock biomass which is interpreted to include tobacco that includes tobacco plant fibers and refining these tobacco plant fibers (via grinding), it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention that this refined tobacco feedstock includes tobacco fibers that are ground into a dust, similar to how paper is made from ground up tree biomass and generates a fibrous support (paper), it would also be expected that ground plant fibers are still plant fibers even if they are shortened via grinding to 400 mesh.
an aerosol-generating agent (e.g., propylene glycol or glycerine page 8, well known in the art to be aerosol generating agents as well as tobacco slurry solids which are interpreted to also be an aerosol generating agent, see also example 3 on page 12), and
the density of the reconstituted plant sheet is greater than or equal to 0.6 g/cm3 (ex 3 shows a sheet density of 1.16g/ml or 1.16g/cm3 (page 12 line 44) which falls in the range claimed),
the total content by weight of solids of aerosol-generating agent is between 10% and 29%, (e.g., see claim 22, the slurry has a total solids content of from 17% to 25%, which falls inside the claimed range of 10-29%).
Additionally, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the slurry solids are solids of aerosol generating agent,
Gellatly teaches a tobacco plant slurry but fails to explicitly disclose a plant extract.
However, Osborne teaches a plant extract (column 2 lines 29-54). Osborne also similarly teaches reconstituted plant sheets or tobacco webs (column 1 lines 11-25). Osborne teaches the papers historically used in wrappers for cigarettes have been paper and teaches the combustion products from paper have been claimed to be the cause of harmful effects such as lung cancer (column 1 lines 20-25).
Osborne teaches that reconstituted plant sheets (tobacco webs) can be used as wrapping paper replacement and have the natural desirable benefits of natural tobacco leaf but with many added advantages such as improved taste, strength, uniformity, burning characteristics, aroma, etc. (column 1 lines 53-56) Osborne teaches first separating the water soluble material from the insoluable material (column 1 line 67-68) and then later reunited the reconstituted sheet with the extract in the final sheet (column 1 line 69).
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reconstituted tobacco sheets of Gellatly with the reconstituted tobacco sheets and extract of Osborne to have a reconstituted sheet with an extract that has improved taste, strength, uniformity, burning characteristics, aroma, etc.
the fibrous support having been produced by a papermaking process; as explained above, Gellatly teaches ground tobacco fiber is wet cast as a slurry and used to form a reconstituted plant sheet, see e.g., ex 3-4, page 12, which explains a refining process of the tobacco plant fibers, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention that refining plant fibers, such as the refined tobacco plant fibers wet cast as a slurry as described by Gellatly is a paper making process. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the fibrous tobacco plant fiber support described by Gellatly is fibrous and is a type of paper and is thus produced by a papermaking process,
Furthermore, this claim limitation (the fibrous support having been produced by a papermaking process) requires that the product be produced by a certain process, but the determination of patentability is based upon the product itself, patentability does not depend on the method or process of the formation of a product. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. See MPEP § 2113 II.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Gellatly teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Gellatly teaches the density of which is between 0.62 g/cm3 and 1.50 g/cm3, (ex 3 shows a sheet density of 1.16g/ml or 1.16g/cm3 which falls in the range claimed).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Gellatly teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Gellatly teaches in which the plant is the tobacco plant (see page 12, example 3, tobacco).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Gellatly teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Gellatly teaches in which the total content by weight of solids of the plant extract is between 20% and 45%, see claim 22.
Gellatly teaches a solids content in the range of 17 to 25%. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a solids content from the range taught by Gellatly of 20% to 25%, which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Gellatly teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Gellatly teaches the thickness of which is between 100 μm and 450 μm.
Specifically, Gellatly teaches the thickness is e.g., 140 μm in examples 3 and 4 and 330 μm in example 2 (page 12), which fall within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Gellatly teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, modified Gellatly teaches the basis weight of which is between 60 g/m2 and 300 g/m2.
Specifically, Gellatly teaches the basis weight of which is 142 g/m2 (See Ex. 4, page 12).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Gellatly teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Gellatly teaches in which the aerosol-generating agent is glycerol, propylene glycol, or a mixture thereof. (See claim 3)
Regarding Claim 11, modified Gellatly teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Gellatly teaches the thickness (of the reconstituted plant sheet) of which is between 140 μm and 325 μm.
Specifically, Gellatly teaches the thickness is e.g., 140 μm in examples 3 and 4 and 330 μm in example 2 (page 12). Gellatly teaches the endpoint of the lower end of the range (140 μm) which meets the claimed range, and additionally, Gellatly teaches 330 μm which is close to the upper end of the range 325 μm. The Courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Gallatly teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Gallatly teaches the basis weight of which is between 90 g/m2 and 200 g/m2.
Specifically, Gellatly teaches the basis weight of which is 142 g/m2 (See Ex. 4, page 12) which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Gallatly teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Gallatly teaches the reconstituted plant sheet has a density of less than 1 g/cm3. (See Example 2 on page 12, sheet density of 0.56 g/ml (g/cm3), which falls within the claimed range)
Regarding Claim 15, modified Gallatly teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Gallatly teaches the total content by weight of solids of aerosol-generating agent in the reconstituted plant sheet is between 14% and 27%. (see claim 22, Gellatly teaches a solids content in the reconstituted plant sheet is in the range of 17 to 25%.) 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 18, modified Gallatly teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Gallatly teaches the total content by weight of solids of aerosol-generating agent is between 14% and 27% and the plant is the tobacco plant. (see page 8 line 8-9 and claim 22) which overlaps with the claim limitation the total content by weight of solids of aerosol-generating agent is between 16% and 27% and the plant is the tobacco plant. 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 19, modified Gallatly teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Gallatly teaches the basis weight of the reconstituted tobacco sheet is 142 g/m2 (See Ex. 4, page 12, line 56). Which falls within the claimed range of the basis weight of the reconstituted plant sheet is between 140 g/m2 and 190 g/m2.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gellatly (EP0565360A2) in view of Osborne (US3145717A) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Aoun (US20180279666A1).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Gellatly teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Gellatly fails to explicitly disclose the sum of the total content by weight of solids of plant extract and of the total content by weight of solids of aerosol-generating agent is between 40% and 70%.
However, Aoun teaches the sum of the total content by weight of solids of plant extract and of the total content by weight of solids of aerosol-generating agent is between 40% and 70%.
Specifically, Aoun teaches a similar reconstructed tobacco aerosol generating material [0064], and teaches the solid content of the tobacco extract may be at least about 40%, 45%, 50%, 60%, which falls in the claimed range of 40%-70% [0038].
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a range of 40%-70% for the sum of the total content of the weight of solids of plant extra and of the total content by weight of solids of aerosol generating agent from the ranges taught by Aoun.
Aoun also teaches that there are many advantages to generating aerosol without using combustion [0074] and avoids the generation of physio-chemical processes which include oxidative degradation, pyrolysis, pyrosynthesis, etc. [0074]. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the reconstituted aerosol generating sheet of Gellatly with the reconstituted tobacco of Aoun to create a reconstituted tobacco that avoids the generation of physio-chemical processes which include oxidative degradation, pyrolysis, pyrosynthesis etc.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Gellatly teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Gellatly fails to explicitly disclose the ratio between the total content by weight of solids of the plant extract and the total content by weight of solids of the aerosol-generating agent is between 1.0 and 2.0.
However, Aoun teaches the sum of the total content by weight of solids of plant extract and of the total content by weight of solids of plant extact in the aerosol-generating agent is between 2% and 95% [0038] and therefore teaches the ratio between the total content by weight of solids of the plant extract and the total content by weight of solids of the aerosol-generating agent is between 1.0 and 2.0.
For example, a person of ordinary skill in the art selecting from Aoun a solids of plant extract of 60% (resulting in 40% other solids) would result in a ratio of 1.5 of total content by weight of solids of the plant extract and the total content by weight of solids of the aerosol-generating agent, which falls within the claimed range of 1.0 to 2.0.
Aoun also teaches that there are many advantages to generating aerosol without using combustion [0074] and avoids the generation of physio-chemical processes which include oxidative degradation, pyrolysis, pyrosynthesis, etc. [0074]. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the reconstituted aerosol generating sheet of Gellatly with the reconstituted tobacco of Aoun to create a reconstituted tobacco that avoids the generation of physio-chemical processes which include oxidative degradation, pyrolysis, pyrosynthesis etc.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gellatly (EP0565360A2) in view of Osborne (US3145717A) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Yang (CN106455674A) English machine translation relied upon.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Gallatly teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Gallatly is silent to a suitable Schopper-Riegler degree (freeness pulping degree calculated via the Schopper-Riegler method).
However, Yang teaches similar reconstituted tobacco sheets and teaches a suitable freeness or pulping degree via the Schopper-Riegler method and teaches the refined plant fibers have a Schopper-Riegler degree of from 20 °SR to 65 °SR. (see freeness definition on page 4 paragraph 2, page 6 paragraph 2 teaches an example of 30 SR and paragraph 6 on the same page teaches an example of 50 SR. ) Yang also teaches the method and freeness taught therein advantageously reduces the total energy consumption associated with the invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivation to modify the reconstituted tobacco sheets of Gallatly with the teachings of Yang to reduce the total energy consumption associated with the invention.
Additionally, as Gallatly is silent to suitable freeness, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to search the related art for suitable freeness. 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 reconstituted tobacco sheet of Gallatly to have an SR of 30 or 50 as taught by Yang, because both Gallatly and Yang are directed to reconstituted tobacco sheets and their manufacture and use. Gallatly is silent in regards to suitable freeness values for use and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable freeness values for a similar reconstituted tobacco sheet. Yang teaches known SR values for reconstituted tobacco sheets, and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gellatly (EP0565360A2) in view of Osborne (US3145717A) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Yang (CN106455674A) English machine translation relied upon, and Aoun (US20180279666A1).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Gallatly teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Gallatly teaches density of the reconstituted plant sheet is between 0.62 g/cm3 and 1.50 g/cm3; (ex 3 shows a sheet density of 1.16g/ml or 1.16g/cm3 which falls in the range claimed).
the thickness of the reconstituted plant sheet is between 140 μm and 325 μm;
Specifically, Gellatly teaches the thickness is e.g., 140 μm in examples 3 and 4 and 330 μm in example 2 (page 12). Gellatly teaches the endpoint of the lower end of the range (140 μm) which meets the claimed range, and additionally Gellatly teaches 330 μm which is close to the upper end of the range 325 μm. The Courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
the basis weight of the reconstituted plant sheet is between 90 g/m2 and 200 g/m2;
Specifically, Gellatly teaches the basis weight of which is 142 g/m2 (See Ex. 4, page 12) which falls within the claimed range.
Gallatly is silent to a suitable Schopper-Riegler degree (freeness pulping degree calculated via the Schopper-Riegler method).
However, Yang teaches similar reconstituted tobacco sheets and teaches a suitable freeness or pulping degree via the Schopper-Riegler method and teaches the refined plant fibers have a Schopper-Riegler degree of from 20 °SR to 65 °SR. (see freeness definition on page 4 paragraph 2, page 6 paragraph 2 teaches an example of 30 SR and paragraph 6 on the same page teaches an example of 50 SR. ) Yang also teaches the method and freeness taught therein advantageously reduces the total energy consumption associated with the invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivation to modify the reconstituted tobacco sheets of Gallatly with the teachings of Yang to reduce the total energy consumption associated with the invention.
Additionally, as Gallatly is silent to suitable freeness, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to search the related art for suitable freeness. 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 reconstituted tobacco sheet of Gallatly to have an SR of 30 or 50 as taught by Yang, because both Gallatly and Yang are directed to reconstituted tobacco sheets and their manufacture and use. Gallatly is silent in regards to suitable freeness values for use and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable freeness values for a similar reconstituted tobacco sheet. Yang teaches known SR values for reconstituted tobacco sheets, and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Gallatly fails to explicitly disclose the total content by weight of solids of the plant extract is between 20% and 45%; the sum of the total content by weight of solids of plant extract and of the total content by weight of solids of aerosol-generating agent is between 40% and 70%;
However, Aoun teaches the total content by weight of solids of the plant extract is between 20% and 45%; the sum of the total content by weight of solids of plant extract and of the total content by weight of solids of aerosol-generating agent is between 40% and 70%.
Specifically, Aoun teaches the sum of the total content by weight of solids of plant extract and of the total content by weight of solids of plant extract in the aerosol-generating agent is between 2% and 95% [0038], with many specific representative percentages in that range in [0038].
Aoun also teaches that there are many advantages to generating aerosol without using combustion [0074] and avoids the generation of physio-chemical processes which include oxidative degradation, pyrolysis, pyrosynthesis, etc. [0074]. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the reconstituted aerosol generating sheet of Gellatly with the reconstituted tobacco of Aoun to create a reconstituted tobacco that avoids the generation of physio-chemical processes which include oxidative degradation, pyrolysis, pyrosynthesis etc.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gellatly (EP0565360A2) in view of Osborne (US3145717A) as applied to claim 18 above, further in view of Aoun (US20180279666A1).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Gallatly teaches the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Gellatly fails to explicitly disclose the sum of the total content by weight of solids of plant extract and of the total content by weight of solids of aerosol-generating agent is between 45% and 65%.
However, Aoun teaches a similar reconstructed tobacco aerosol generating material [0064], and teaches the solid content of the tobacco extract may be at least about 45%, 50%, 60%, which overlaps in the claimed range of 45%-65% [0038]. 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).
Aoun also teaches that there are many advantages to generating aerosol without using combustion [0074] and avoids the generation of physio-chemical processes which include oxidative degradation, pyrolysis, pyrosynthesis, etc. [0074]. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the reconstituted aerosol generating sheet of Gellatly with the reconstituted tobacco of Aoun to create a reconstituted tobacco that avoids the generation of physio-chemical processes which include oxidative degradation, pyrolysis, pyrosynthesis etc.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Gallatly teaches the claim limiations as set forth above. However, Gellatly fails to explicitly disclose the ratio between the total content by weight of solids of the plant extract and the total content by weight of solids of the aerosol-generating agent is between 1.0 and 2.0.
However, Aoun teaches the sum of the total content by weight of solids of plant extract and of the total content by weight of solids of plant extract in the aerosol-generating agent is between 2% and 95% [0038] and therefore teaches the ratio between the total content by weight of solids of the plant extract and the total content by weight of solids of the aerosol-generating agent is between 1.0 and 2.0.
For example, a person of ordinary skill in the art selecting from Aoun a solids of plant extract of 60% (resulting in 40% other solids) would result in a ratio of 1.5 of total content by weight of solids of the plant extract and the total content by weight of solids of the aerosol-generating agent, which falls within the claimed range of 1.0 to 2.0.
Aoun also teaches that there are many advantages to generating aerosol without using combustion [0074] and avoids the generation of physio-chemical processes which include oxidative degradation, pyrolysis, pyrosynthesis, etc. [0074]. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the reconstituted aerosol generating sheet of Gellatly with the reconstituted tobacco of Aoun to create a reconstituted tobacco that avoids the generation of physio-chemical processes which include oxidative degradation, pyrolysis, pyrosynthesis etc.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 2-10-2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims, based upon Gellatly and Osborne as set forth in the last Office action because: the declaration merely argues that the papermaking process recited in claim 1 is fundamentally different than the papermaking process used by Gellatly. (see paragraph 6 on page 2).
This is not found persuasive because (1) Gallatly discloses a support that is also made by a papermaking process.
(2) This is additionally not found persuasive because applicant is claiming a paper product (plant sheet) and not the papermaking process that created the plant sheet. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted), see MPEP 2113(I).
Additionally, the declaration argues that the cast structure of Gallatly is not a true fibrous web but rather an agglomerated matrix of particles. 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., a true fibrous web) 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).
Additionally, the declaration submits that a papermaking process produces a fibrous web having distinct properties and characteristics including fiber orientation, fiber to fiber bonding, and fiber integrity, porosity, and degree of homogenous distribution of the aerosol generating agent within the sheet. 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., a fibrous web having distinct properties and characteristics including fiber orientation, fiber to fiber bonding, and fiber integrity, porosity, and degree of homogenous distribution of the aerosol generating agent within the sheet.) 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).
Applicant argues with respect to claim 1 on pages 5 and 6 of the remarks:
PNG
media_image1.png
293
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because as explained regarding the declaration above:
(1) the claims are claiming a product and not a process as suggested and determination of patentability depends on the product and not on the process. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted), see MPEP 2113(I).
(2) 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., fiber orientation, fiber agglomeration, density of fibers per unit area, fiber bonding, and fiber integrity) 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).
Applicant additionally argues on pages 6 and 7:
PNG
media_image2.png
152
577
media_image2.png
Greyscale
And continues by explaining there would not be a reasonable expectation of success for arriving at the required combination in claim 17 because:
PNG
media_image3.png
167
562
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus is not found persuasive because similar to Gellatly, Yang teaches reconstituted tobacco sheets and teaches a suitable freeness or pulping degree via the Schopper-Riegler method and teaches the refined plant fibers have a Schopper-Riegler degree of from 20 °SR to 65 °SR. (see freeness definition on page 4 paragraph 2, page 6 paragraph 2 teaches an example of 30 SR and paragraph 6 on the same page teaches an example of 50 SR. ) Yang also teaches the method and freeness taught therein advantageously reduces the total energy consumption associated with the invention. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivation to modify the reconstituted tobacco sheets of Gallatly with the teachings of Yang to reduce the total energy consumption associated with the invention. (see rejection of claim 17 above, emphasis added for clarity).
Aoun teaches a similar tobacco paper product and teaches the total content by weight of solids of the plant extract is between 20% and 45%; the sum of the total content by weight of solids of plant extract and of the total content by weight of solids of aerosol-generating agent is between 40% and 70%.
Specifically, Aoun teaches the sum of the total content by weight of solids of plant extract and of the total content by weight of solids of plant extact in the aerosol-generating agent is between 2% and 95% [0038], with many specific representative percentages in that range in [0038].
Aoun also teaches that there are many advantages to generating aerosol without using combustion [0074] and avoids the generation of physio-chemical processes which include oxidative degradation, pyrolysis, pyrosynthesis, etc. [0074]. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the reconstituted aerosol generating sheet of Gellatly with the reconstituted tobacco of Aoun to create a reconstituted tobacco that avoids the generation of physio-chemical processes which include oxidative degradation, pyrolysis, pyrosynthesis etc. (see rejection of claim 17 above, emphasis added for clarity)
Thus, the argument that the resulting combination would be improbable is not persuasive.
Therefore, it would be reasonably obvious to modify the primary reference Gallately with the secondary references Yang and Aoun with a reasonable expectation of success as set forth above (see rejection of claim 17 above) and the argument that there would not be a reasonable expectation of success to combine Gallately with Yang and Aoun is not found persuasive.
The newly added claims are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
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 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