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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-9, 11, 13-15, and 21-23 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 10, 12, and 16-20 are cancelled. Claims 21-23 are withdrawn.
Response to Amendments
The amendments to the claims filed on September 19, 2025 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pgs 1-3, filed September 19, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-9, 11, and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to require a limitation that the previously applied prior art does not disclose: “wherein the density of the hollow tubular section is between 0.25 and 0.75 g/cc.” Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art references in combination with previously applied prior art.
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments made to the claims.
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 1-9, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seitert (US 2008/0029114 A1, cited on the IDS dated 2/8/2022) in view of Bonici (WO 2019/130155 A1, cited on the IDS dated 2/8/2022), Arndt (US 2022/0218016 A1) and Nappi (US 2019/0045838 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Seitert, directed to filters ([0002]), teaches a mouthpiece for an article for use in an aerosol provision system ([0006]-[0008], [0065], Fig. 1; Multi-component filter 4 for use in cigarette 10. The filter is a mouthpiece because the user draws smoke through the filter using their mouth. A cigarette is an article for use in an aerosol provision system, wherein the smoke is the aerosol), the mouthpiece comprising
a body of material at the mouth end of the mouthpiece ([0006]-[0008], [0065], Fig. 1; Mouth end segment 12 comprising a plug of cellulose acetate tow at the mouth end of filter 4),
wherein the body has a longitudinal axis and a cross sectional area measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis ([0065], Fig. 1; Mouth end segment 12 has a longitudinal axis from left to right, as depicted in Fig. 1. The cross-sectional area is measured through the circular cross-section, which is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis) and
comprises fibrous material ([0065], Fig. 1; Mouth end segment 12 comprises a plug of cellulose acetate tow) and
a plasticizer ([0065], [0080], [0083], Figs. 1 and 4, Table 1; Fig. 4 illustrates a process of forming the multi-component filter 4 of Fig. 1. Table 1 shows the properties of each filter component in the filter 4 formed by the process of Fig. 4. Mouth end segment 12 comprises triacetin (a plasticizer) at a level of 7% by weight of the body of material),
wherein the total denier of fibrous material per cross sectional mm2 of the body is less than about 720 grams/9000m and at least 400g/9000m ([0065], [0080], [0083], Figs. 1 and 4, Table 1; Fig. 4 illustrates a process of forming the multi-component filter 4 of Fig. 1. Table 1 shows the properties of each filter component in the filter 4 formed by the process of Fig. 4. Mouth end segment 12 has a total denier of 28000. If the diameter of mouth end segment 12 is 7.6 mm, the cross-sectional area is 45.4 mm2. The total denier of fibrous material per cross sectional mm2 is equal to [28,000 grams/9000m]/45.4 mm2, or 617 grams/9000m), and
the pressure drop across the length of the body is from about 1.05 to about 1.70 mm water per mm length of the body ([0065], [0080], [0083], Figs. 1 and 4, Table 1; Mouth end segment 12 has a pressure drop of 10 mm WG, and a total length of 7 mm. The pressure drop across the length of the body is therefore 1.43 mm water per mm length of the body), and
wherein the mouthpiece comprises at least one further section upstream of the body of material ([0065], Fig. 1; Multi-component filter 4 comprises a first flavour release segment 14, a second flavour release segment 16, and a rod end segment 18 upstream of mouth end segment 12 (body of material)),
but does not teach the mouthpiece i) wherein the level of plasticizer is from 8% to 13% by weight of the body of material, ii) wherein the at least one further section comprises a hollow tubular section, iii) wherein the density of the hollow tubular section is between 0.25 and 0.75 g/cc.
With respect to i), Bonici, directed to filters (pg 1, ln 3-4), teaches a mouthpiece for an article for use in an aerosol provision system (pg 11, ln 13-26, pg 12, ln 16-22, Fig. 1; Filter 30 is positioned at the mouth end of aerosol generating article 10, and therefore filter 30 is a mouthpiece. Article 10 may be used with a heat-not-burn device to form an aerosol provision system), the mouthpiece comprising
a body of material at a mouth end of the mouthpiece (pg 12, ln 16-22, Fig. 1; Filter 30 is positioned at the mouth end of aerosol generating article 10 and comprises of a body of filter material 32),
wherein the body comprises fibrous material (pg 8, ln 28, pg 12, ln 16-22, Fig. 1; The filter material 32 is preferably cellulose acetate, a fibrous material), and
a plasticizer (pg 8, ln 1-32, The filter material 32 comprises a plasticizer such as triacetin at 7.5% to 11.5%),
wherein the level of plasticizer is from 8% to 13% by weight of the body of material (pg 8, ln 1-32, The filter material 32 comprises a plasticizer such as triacetin at 7.5% to 11.5%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the mouthpiece taught by Seitert having a level of plasticizer is from 8% to 13% by weight of the body of material as taught by Bonici because Seitert and Bonici are directed to filter, Bonici demonstrates that providing a filter material having a level of plasticizer of between 7.5% and 11.5% may have improved filter characteristics such as hardness, RTD and filtration efficiency (Bonici, pg 8, ln 1-32), and this involves substituting one plasticizer amount for another to yield predictable results.
The range for the level of plasticizer disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range, and therefore the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
Seitert in view of Bonici does not teach the mouthpiece ii) wherein the at least one further section comprises a hollow tubular section, iii) wherein the density of the hollow tubular section is between 0.25 and 0.75 g/cc.
With respect to ii), Arndt, directed to filters ([0198]), teaches a mouthpiece for an article for use in an aerosol provision system ([0258], Fig. 1; Aerosol-generating article 1000 includes a hollow cellulose acetate tube 1030, a spacer element 1040, and a mouthpiece filter 1050. Elements 1030, 1040, and 1050 form the mouthpiece. Aerosol-generating article 1000 can be heated in an aerosol provision system), the mouthpiece comprising
a body of material at a mouth end of the mouthpiece ([0258], Fig. 1; Aerosol-generating article 1000 includes mouthpiece filter 1050 (body of material) at a mouth end of the mouthpiece),
wherein the mouthpiece comprises at least one further section upstream of the body of material ([0258], Fig. 1; Aerosol-generating article 1000 includes a hollow cellulose acetate tube 1030 and a spacer element 1040 upstream of mouthpiece filter 1050 (body of material)),
wherein the at least one further section comprises a hollow tubular section ([0258], Fig. 1; Hollow cellulose acetate tube 1030 and a spacer element 1040 are hollow tubular sections).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the mouthpiece taught by Seitert in view of Bonici with a hollow tubular section upstream of the body of material as taught by Arndt because Seitert, Bonici, and Arndt are directed to filters, Arndt demonstrates that the hollow tubular section is an aerosol-cooling element which cools an aerosol released from an aerosol-generating substrate before being inhaled by a user (Arndt, [0201], [0258], Fig. 1), and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Seitert in view of Bonici and Arndt does not teach the mouthpiece iii) wherein the density of the hollow tubular section is between 0.25 and 0.75 g/cc.
Nappi, directed to filters ([0008]), teaches a mouthpiece for an article for use in an aerosol provision system ([0073]-[0074], Figs. 2-3; Smoking article 10 comprises a filter 14 at its mouth end. Filter 14 forms a mouthpiece comprising filter segments 18, 20 and hollow tube segment 22. [0003], The smoking article 10 may be heated not combusted) comprising:
a hollow tubular section ([0073]-[0074], Figs. 2-3; Filter 14 (mouthpiece) comprises hollow tube segment 22),
wherein the density of the hollow tubular section is between 0.25 and 0.75 g/cc ([0019], The density of the fibrous filtration material in the hollow tube segment is at least about 0.6 grams per cubic centimetre).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the mouthpiece taught by Seitert in view of Bonici wherein the density of the hollow tubular section is between 0.25 and 0.75 g/cc as taught by Nappi because Seitert, Bonici, Arndt, and Nappi are directed to filters, Arndt states that the hollow tubular section may be made of a fibrous filtration material (Arndt, [0201], [0258], Fig. 1; Spacer element 1040 may be formed from cellulose acetate), Nappi demonstrates that providing the hollow tubular section having an increased density compared to conventional fibrous filtration segments advantageously increases the rigidity and moisture resistance of the hollow tubular segment (Brown, [0040]-[0041], Fig. 3-4), and the disclosure in Nappi would have motivated one of ordinary skill to provide the hollow tubular section having the claimed density.
The range for the density of the hollow tubular section disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range, and therefore the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding Claim 2, Seitert in view of Bonici, Arndt, and Nappi teaches a mouthpiece according to claim 1. Seitert further teaches the mouthpiece wherein the fibrous material has a weight of from about 0.09mg to about 0.13mg per mm3 of said body ([0065], [0080], [0083], Figs. 1 and 4, Table 1; Fig. 4 illustrates a process of forming the multi-component filter 4 of Fig. 1. Table 1 shows the properties of each filter component in the filter 4 formed by the process of Fig. 4. Mouth end segment 12 has a length of 7 mm, and a cellulose acetate weight of 31.76 mg. If the diameter of mouth end segment 12 is 7.6 mm, the cross-sectional area is 45.4 mm2 and the volume of 317.55 mm3. The weight of fibrous material per mm3 of said body is 0.010 mg/mm3).
Regarding Claim 3, Seitert in view of Bonici, Arndt, and Nappi teaches a mouthpiece according to claim 1. Seitert further teaches the mouthpiece wherein the fibrous material has a weight of from about 4mg to about 6mg per mm of length of said body ([0065], [0080], [0083], Figs. 1 and 4, Table 1; Fig. 4 illustrates a process of forming the multi-component filter 4 of Fig. 1. Table 1 shows the properties of each filter component in the filter 4 formed by the process of Fig. 4. Mouth end segment 12 has a length of 7 mm, and a cellulose acetate weight of 31.76 mg. The fibrous material has a weight of 4.54 mg per mm of length of said body).
Regarding Claim 4, Seitert in view of Bonici, Arndt, and Nappi teaches a mouthpiece according to claim 1. Seitert further teaches the mouthpiece wherein the total denier of fibrous material per cross sectional mm2 of the body is less than about 700 g/9000m, or less than about 675 g/9000m, or less than about 650 g/9000m ([0065], [0080], [0083], Figs. 1 and 4, Table 1; Fig. 4 illustrates a process of forming the multi-component filter 4 of Fig. 1. Table 1 shows the properties of each filter component in the filter 4 formed by the process of Fig. 4. Mouth end segment 12 has a total denier of 28000. If the diameter of mouth end segment 12 is 7.6 mm, the cross-sectional area is 45.4 mm2. The total denier of fibrous material per cross sectional mm2 is equal to [28,000 grams/9000m]/45.4 mm2, or 617 grams/9000m).
Regarding Claim 5, Seitert in view of Bonici, Arndt, and Nappi teaches a mouthpiece according to claim 1. Seitert further teaches the mouthpiece wherein the fibrous material comprises a denier per filament of about 6 to about 12 denier per filament, or about 7 to about 10 denier per filament, or about 7.5 to about 9 denier per filament ([0065], [0080], [0083], Figs. 1 and 4, Table 1; Fig. 4 illustrates a process of forming the multi-component filter 4 of Fig. 1. Table 1 shows the properties of each filter component in the filter 4 formed by the process of Fig. 4. Mouth end segment 12 has a denier per filament of 8.0).
Regarding Claim 6, Seitert in view of Bonici, Arndt, and Nappi teaches a mouthpiece according to claim 1. Seitert further teaches the mouthpiece wherein the total denier of the fibrous filtration material is from about 25000 to about 35000 g/9000m, or about 28000 to about 32000 g/9000m, or about 29000 to about 31000 g/9000m ([0065], [0080], [0083], Figs. 1 and 4, Table 1; Fig. 4 illustrates a process of forming the multi-component filter 4 of Fig. 1. Table 1 shows the properties of each filter component in the filter 4 formed by the process of Fig. 4. Mouth end segment 12 has a total denier of 28000 g/9000m).
Regarding Claim 7, Seitert in view of Bonici, Arndt, and Nappi teaches a mouthpiece according to claim 1. Bonici further teaches the mouthpiece wherein the level of plasticizer is from about 10% to about 12% by weight of the body of material (pg 8, ln 1-32, The filter material 32 comprises a plasticizer such as triacetin at 7.5% to 11.5%).
The range for the level of plasticizer disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range, and therefore the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding Claim 8, Seitert in view of Bonici, Arndt, and Nappi teaches a mouthpiece according to claim 1. Seitert further teaches a mouthpiece wherein the body of material is circumscribed by a plug wrap ([0065], [0080], Figs. 1 and 4; Fig. 4 illustrates a process of forming the multi-component filter 4 of Fig. 1. Mouth segment 12 is circumscribed by a first porous plug wrap),
but does not teach the mouthpiece wherein the plug wrap comprises a basis weight of about 20 to about 65 grams per square meter, or about 45 to about 65 grams per square meter, or about 50 to about 60 grams per square meter.
Bonici, directed to filters (pg 1, ln 3-4), teaches a mouthpiece for an article for use in an aerosol provision system (pg 11, ln 13-26, pg 12, ln 16-22, Fig. 1; Filter 30 is positioned at the mouth end of aerosol generating article 10, and therefore filter 30 is a mouthpiece. Article 10 may be used with a heat-not-burn device to form an aerosol provision system), the mouthpiece comprising
a body of material at a mouth end of the mouthpiece (pg 12, ln 16-22, Fig. 1; Filter 30 is positioned at the mouth end of aerosol generating article 10 and comprises of a body of filter material 32),
wherein the body has a longitudinal axis and a cross sectional area measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (pg 12, ln 16-22, Fig. 1; Filter material 32 has a longitudinal axis from left to right, as depicted in Fig. 1. The cross-sectional area is measured through the circular cross-section, which is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis) and
comprises fibrous material (pg 8, ln 28, pg 12, ln 16-22, Fig. 1; The filter material 32 is preferably cellulose acetate, a fibrous material),
wherein the body of material is circumscribed by a plug wrap (pg 9, ln 1, pg 12, ln 16-24 Fig. 1; Filter 30 is circumscribed by plug wrap 60),
wherein the plug wrap comprises a basis weight of about 20 to about 65 grams per square meter (pg 9, ln 20-24, pg 12, ln 16-24, Fig. 1; Plug wrap has a basis weight between 20 and 180 grams per square meter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the plug wrap taught by Seitert having a basis weight of about 20 to about 65 grams per square meter as taught by Bonici because Seitert and Bonici are directed to filters, Bonici demonstrates that a basis weight of about 20 to about 65 grams per square meter is suitable for a plug wrap (Bonici, pg 9, ln 20-24), and the teaching in Bonici would have motivated one of ordinary skill to provide the plug wrap having the claimed basis weight.
The range for the basis weight disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range, and therefore the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding Claim 9, Seitert in view of Bonici, Arndt, and Nappi teaches a mouthpiece according to claim 1. Seitert further teaches the mouthpiece wherein the mouthpiece has a circumference in the range 16mm to 23mm or in the range 23 mm to 25 mm ([0065], [0080], [0083], Figs. 1 and 4, Table 1; Fig. 4 illustrates a process of forming the multi-component filter 4 of Fig. 1. Table 1 shows the properties of each filter component in the filter 4 formed by the process of Fig. 4. If the diameter of mouth end segment 12 is 7.6 mm, the circumference is 23.9 mm2).
Regarding Claim 11, Seitert in view of Bonici, Arndt, and Nappi teaches a mouthpiece according to claim 1. Seitert further teaches the mouthpiece wherein the mouthpiece comprises at least one further section upstream of the body of material ([0065], Fig. 1; Multi-component filter 4 comprises a first flavour release segment 14, a second flavour release segment 16, and a rod end segment 18 upstream of mouth end segment 12 (body of material)),
wherein the at least one further section comprises a section formed from cellulose acetate tow ([0065], [0068]-[0069], Fig. 1; Second flavour release segment 16 and rod end segment 18 may be formed from cellulose acetate tow).
Regarding Claim 13, Seitert in view of Bonici, Arndt, and Nappi teaches a mouthpiece according to claim 1. Seitert further teaches the mouthpiece wherein the mouthpiece comprises at least one further section upstream of the body of material ([0065], Fig. 1; Multi-component filter 4 comprises a first flavour release segment 14, a second flavour release segment 16, and a rod end segment 18 upstream of mouth end segment 12 (body of material)),
wherein the at least one further section comprises particulate adsorbent material ([0040], [0065], [0069]-[0071], Fig. 1; Rod end segment 18 may be formed from cellulose acetate tow loaded with an activated carbon sorbent. It is reasonably understood that the activated carbon sorbent is a particulate adsorbent material).
Regarding Claim 14, Seitert in view of Bonici, Arndt, and Nappi does not teach a mouthpiece wherein the hardness of the mouthpiece at a position 3mm from the mouth end of the mouthpiece is in the range 90% to 99 %.
Bonici, directed to filters (pg 1, ln 3-4), teaches a mouthpiece for an article for use in an aerosol provision system (pg 11, ln 13-26, pg 12, ln 16-22, Fig. 1; Filter 30 is positioned at the mouth end of aerosol generating article 10, and therefore filter 30 is a mouthpiece. Article 10 may be used with a heat-not-burn device to form an aerosol provision system), the mouthpiece comprising
a body of material at a mouth end of the mouthpiece (pg 12, ln 16-22, Fig. 1; Filter 30 is positioned at the mouth end of aerosol generating article 10 and comprises of a body of filter material 32),
wherein the body has a longitudinal axis and a cross sectional area measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (pg 12, ln 16-22, Fig. 1; Filter material 32 has a longitudinal axis from left to right, as depicted in Fig. 1. The cross-sectional area is measured through the circular cross-section, which is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis) and
comprises fibrous material (pg 8, ln 28, pg 12, ln 16-22, Fig. 1; The filter material 32 is preferably cellulose acetate, a fibrous material),
wherein the hardness of the mouthpiece at a position 3mm from the mouth end of the mouthpiece is in the range 90% to 99% (pg 12, ln 16-22, pg 13, ln 15 – pg Fig. 1, Tables 1 and 2; Tables 1 and 2 show properties of sample filters. The filters 30 of samples 1-2, 4-5, 12-13, and 15 have a length of 126 mm, and a radial hardness is in the range 90% to 99%. It is reasonably understood that the hardness of filters 30 at a position 3mm from the mouth end is within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the mouthpiece taught by Seitert wherein the hardness of the mouthpiece at a position 3mm from the mouth end of the mouthpiece is in the range 90% to 99% as taught by Bonici because Seitert and Bonici are directed to filters, Bonici demonstrates that filters with enhanced hardness are perceived as being higher quality and are advantageous when stubbing out a combustible aerosol-generating article including the filter (Bonici, pg 2, ln 15-21), Bonici demonstrates that the hardness of a filter component can be improved by increasing the content of a plasticizer within a filter material to 10.5% or more (Bonici, pg 8, ln 20-23), and the body of material taught by Seitert comprises cellulose acetate with a triacetin plasticizer content of 7% (Seitert, [0065], [0080], [0083], Figs. 1 and 4, Table 1; Fig. 4 illustrates a process of forming the multi-component filter 4 of Fig. 1. Table 1 shows the properties of each filter component in the filter 4 formed by the process of Fig. 4. Mouth end segment 12 comprises triacetin at a level of 7% by weight of the body of material). Therefore, the teaching in Bonici would have motivated one of ordinary skill to increase the content of triacetin to achieve the claimed hardness range.
The range for the mouthpiece hardness disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range, and therefore the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding Claim 15, Seitert in view of Bonici, Arndt, and Nappi teaches a mouthpiece according to claim 1. Seitert further teaches wherein the mouthpiece is circumscribed by a filter wrapper ([0065], [0080], Figs. 1 and 4; Fig. 4 illustrates a process of forming the multi-component filter 4 of Fig. 1. Mouth segment 12 is circumscribed by a first porous plug wrap. Mouth segment 12 is combined with first flavour release segments 14, second flavour release segments 16, and rod end segment 18. The entirety of multi-component filter 4 is wrapped in a third porous plug wrap. The third porous plug wrap is the filter wrapper), but does not teach the mouthpiece wherein the filter wrapper comprises a basis weight in the range 20 to 35 grams per square meter.
Bonici, directed to filters (pg 1, ln 3-4), teaches a mouthpiece for an article for use in an aerosol provision system (pg 11, ln 13-26, pg 12, ln 16-22, Fig. 1; Filter 30 is positioned at the mouth end of aerosol generating article 10, and therefore filter 30 is a mouthpiece. Article 10 may be used with a heat-not-burn device to form an aerosol provision system), the mouthpiece comprising
a body of material at a mouth end of the mouthpiece (pg 12, ln 16-22, Fig. 1; Filter 30 is positioned at the mouth end of aerosol generating article 10 and comprises of a body of filter material 32),
wherein the body has a longitudinal axis and a cross sectional area measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (pg 12, ln 16-22, Fig. 1; Filter material 32 has a longitudinal axis from left to right, as depicted in Fig. 1. The cross-sectional area is measured through the circular cross-section, which is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis) and
comprises fibrous material (pg 8, ln 28, pg 12, ln 16-22, Fig. 1; The filter material 32 is preferably cellulose acetate, a fibrous material),
wherein the mouthpiece is circumscribed is circumscribed by a plug wrap (pg 9, ln 1, pg 12, ln 16-24 Fig. 1; Filter 30 is circumscribed by plug wrap 60),
wherein the plug wrap comprises a basis weight in the range 20 to 35 grams per square meter (pg 9, ln 20-24, pg 12, ln 16-24, Fig. 1; Plug wrap has a basis weight between 20 and 180 grams per square meter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the filter wrapper taught by Seitert having a basis weight of about 20 to about 65 grams per square meter as taught by Bonici because Seitert and Bonici are directed to filters, the filter wrapper taught by Seitert is a plug wrap (Seitert, [0065], [0080], Figs. 1 and 4; The entirety of multi-component filter 4 is wrapped in a third porous plug wrap. The third porous plug wrap is the filter wrapper), Bonici demonstrates that a basis weight of about 20 to about 65 grams per square meter is suitable for a plug wrap (Bonici, pg 9, ln 20-24), and the teaching in Bonici would have motivated one of ordinary skill to provide the plug wrap having the claimed basis weight.
The range for the basis weight disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range, and therefore the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
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 JOHN M. MARTIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Philip Louie can be reached on (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.
/J.M.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755