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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuber et al. (US 2011/0126848) in view of Robinson et al. (US 2008/0092912).
Claims 1-4. Zuber et al. discloses an electrically heated smoking system for receiving an aerosol forming substrate (Abstract). The aerosol forming substrate 205 (tobacco section) is a solid or substantially solid substrate. The solid substrate may include, for example, one or more of: powder, granules, pellets, shreds, spaghettis, strips or sheets containing one or more of: herb leaf, tobacco leaf, fragments of tobacco ribs, reconstituted tobacco, homogenized tobacco, extruded tobacco and expanded tobacco ([0059]). Additionally, the smoking article may include a filter plug 207 (filter section), which may be located at the downstream end of the smoking article. Preferably, the filter plug may be a cellulose acetate filter plug. Also preferably, the filter plug is about 7 mm in length, but may have a length ranging from about 5 mm to about 10 mm ([0031]). The smoking article may have an external diameter ranging from about 5 mm to about 12 mm ([0030]). It is most preferable for the aerosol forming substrate to have a length of about 12 mm. Further, the diameter of the aerosol forming substrate may also range from about 5 mm to about 12 mm ([0032]).
Zuber et al. does not explicitly disclose that upon irradiation with microwaves having a frequency of 8 GHz, the microwaves having passed through the tobacco section exhibits a phase variation amount ranging from: -0.25 (rad) to 0.02 (rad) and wherein the weight of the reconstituted tobacco granules in the tobacco section and the phase variation amount have a linear relationship such that the phase variation amount linearly decreases from 0.02 (rad) to -0.25 (rad) as the weight of the reconstituted tobacco granules in the tobacco section increases from 0 to 400 mg; a phase shift ranging from -15.84 (deg) to -5.88 (deg), inclusive, wherein the weight of the reconstituted tobacco granules in the tobacco section and the phase shift have a linear relationship such that the phase shift linearly decreases from -5.88 (deg) to -15.84 (deg) as the weight of the reconstituted tobacco granules in the tobacco section increases from 0 to 250 mg; or a phase shift ranging from -15.84 (deg) to -7.32 (deg), inclusive, wherein the weight of the reconstituted tobacco granules in the tobacco section and the phase shift have a linear relationship such that the phase shift linearly decreases from -7.32 (deg) to -15.84 (deg) as the weight of the reconstituted tobacco granules in the tobacco section increases from 50 to 250 mg.
Zuber et al. does not explicitly teach an amount of tobacco to be included in the aerosol forming substrate. However, Robinson et al. discloses that the amount of tobacco included in smoking articles comprising reconstituted tobaccos can vary from at least about 20 mg to less than 400 mg ([0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the amount of tobacco included in the aerosol forming substrate of Zuber et al. would be between at least about 20 mg to less than 400 mg as disclosed by Robinson et al. ([0072]). The claimed phase variation is interpreted as an inherent property of articles containing 0 to 400mg of reconstituted tobacco granules.
Claims 5 and 9-11. Modified Zuber et al. discloses that the aerosol forming substrate 205 (tobacco section) and filter plug 207 (filter section) are arranged alternately in a longitudinal direction (Zuber Figure 1; [0083]).
Claims 6-8 and 12-20. Modified Zuber et al. discloses that the aerosol forming substrate 205 (tobacco section) is a solid or substantially solid substrate. The solid substrate may include, for example, one or more of: powder, granules, pellets, shreds, spaghettis, strips or sheets containing one or more of: herb leaf, tobacco leaf, fragments of tobacco ribs, reconstituted tobacco, homogenized tobacco, extruded tobacco and expanded tobacco (Zuber [0059]). While Zuber et al. teaches that the aerosol forming substrate 205 (tobacco section) may optionally include shreds or expanded tobacco, Zuber et al. states that the aerosol forming substrate 205 (tobacco section) comprises “one or more of” the listed forms of tobacco. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the aerosol forming substrate 205 (tobacco section) may comprise only one type of tobacco listed, such as reconstituted tobacco granules, and exclude shredded tobacco, expanded tobacco, and reprocessed tobacco.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/25/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arndt et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zuber et al. (US 2011/0126848) and Robinson et al. (US 2008/0092912).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine A Will whose telephone number is (571)270-0516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00AM-6:00PM(EST).
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 Wilson can be reached at (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.
/KATHERINE A WILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747