DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, the method of treating mainstream smoke in the reply filed on 8/18/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)).
Claims 6-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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(a) 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 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Woodson et al. (US 2004/0129280) in view of Wilson et al. (US 5,827,355).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Woodson et al. disclose a cigarette with a filter comprising a tubular composite (0045) composed of a molecular sieve adsorbent. Although a carbon fiber composite is not disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the carbon fiber composite molecular sieve filter such as the activated carbon of Wilson et al. Wilson et al. disclose an activated carbon structure that is activated at temperatures of 800-950 C, steam, and 0.1-0.9 atmospheres for 1-3 hours in order to burn off up to 60%. At 56% burn off the BET surface area was 1670 m2/g, with high micropore volume, a low mesopore volume and no macropores (col. 7, 1-15). Wilson go on to state:
Moreover, the mean micropore size is controllable through the activation process thus allowing for the carbon fiber composite to be tailored for adsorbing or sieving of specific gas molecules (col. 7, 36-42).
Wilson et al. go on to report that a composite can be produced with a mean pore width of 5-10 angstroms (col. 7, 26-30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the micropore activated carbon of Wilson to reduce harmful emissions from cigarette smoke. Furthermore, Wilson et al. disclose that such a filter that can be used to remove organic vapors, SOx and NOx from gasses and improve air quality, which are also harmful gases present in cigarette smoke (col. 6, 43-60; claim 1).
Woodson et al. does not disclose that a cigarette is used with the method steps of heating or lighting the cigarette to form smoke, drawing the smoke through the cigarette, and that the activated carbon sorbent removing nitric oxide from the mainstream smoke. However, the process steps for smoking a cigarette (i.e. lighting and drawing smoke through the cigarette to form mainstream smoke that then travels through the cigarette filter) is notoriously well known in the art as well as ordinary consumers.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, because the material of Wilson et al. is the same as that which is claimed (i.e. activated carbon having a pore size from 5-10 Angstrom and BET surface are from 1000 to 2000 m2/g) the interaction with mainstream smoke including sorption and catalysis of nitric oxide would be inherent. In addition, Wilson et al. expressly disclose the sorptive capacity of the activated carbon material (col. 1, 40-48).
Regarding claim 4, Wilson et al. do not expressly disclose that a majority of the pores are within 5-10 Angstrom in size. However, Wilson et al. disclose:
It has a very high Surface area, a narrow micropore distribution centered around mean pore widths of 5-10 A, a high micropore Volume, low mesopore Volume, a high gas adsorption/desorption rate, and a per meable macrostructure through which fluid can easily pass. (col. 7, 26-32)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, that the disclosure of a “narrow micropore distribution centered around mean pore widths of 5-10 A,” would make it obvious that a majority of pores were “about 5 A to about 10 A”.
Alternatively, the disclosure of the intention to center mean pore widths of 5-10 A combined with the teaching that, “the mean micropore size is controllable through the activation process thus allowing for the carbon fiber composite to be tailored for adsorption or sieving of specific gas molecules (col 7, 36-40) indicates that pore size is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to optimize the activation process to produce a majority of pores in the 5-10 Angstrom range because this range is disclosed as the effective size range for a high gas adsorption rate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4805. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday, Thursday-Friday 7:00-4:30, Wednesday 7:00-1:00.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael J Felton/
Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights