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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9-12-2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 15 line 4 word 3 recites “ImmWG/mm” Examiner believes this is a typographical error and that the intended limitation is “1 mmWG/mm” (the number “1” not the letter “I”). Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings are not numbered with the abbreviation “FIG.” as required by 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1), e.g., the drawings are numbered Figure 1, Figure 2, etc., instead of FIG 1, FIG 2… etc. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed 6-16-2022 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The incorporation by reference to the foreign priority document in the related applications section added to page 1 of the specification is improper because it was added subsequent to the 12-21-2020 international filing date of this national stage application and therefore it either has no effect (all subject matter already in the national stage application) or it adds new matter (MPEP § 217 (II)(G)) and § 608.01(p)(I)(B)) (delete “each of which is hereby fully incorporated herein by reference,” see specification page 1 lines 7-8). Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office action.
The use of the term Drambuie (see page 11 line 19), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: use of the term Drambuie (see page 11 line 19) without accompanying generic terminology and appropriate commerce symbol notation as set forth above (see MPEP 608.01(v)
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the Applicants’ arguments/remarks filed 9-12-2025.
Claim 1 and 11 are amended.
Claims 1-2, and 4-17 are presently examined and rejected with this office action.
Claim 3 is canceled, claims 18-23 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12-15, the claims recite the phrase "according to any one of claim" instead of “according to claim”. The claims are rejected accordingly as being indefinite.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation the broad recitation the pressure drop across the cylindrical body is between 0.3 and 5mmWG per mm of length of the cylindrical body, and the claim also recites between 0.5mmWG and 2mmWG per mm of length of the cylindrical body, or between 0.5 and ImmWG/mm (likely typographical error interpreted as between 0.5 and 1 mmWG/mm) of length of the cylindrical body, or between 1 and 1.5mmWG/mm of length of the cylindrical body, or between 1.5 and 2mmWG/mm of length of the cylindrical body which is/are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation the pressure drop across the cylindrical body is between 3mmWG and 8mWG, or between 4mmWG and 7mmWG which is/are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (CN109892707A), English machine translation relied upon in view of Brackmann (US5509429A) and Besso (US20180271143A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Xia teaches an article for use as or as part of a non-combustible aerosol provision system (See annotated FIG 1 below), the article comprising:
an aerosol generating material comprising at least one aerosol forming material ([0084], cigarette core segment element 10);
a first hollow tubular body (hollow part 40) disposed downstream of the aerosol generating material ((10), [0084], see also FIG 1),
the first hollow tubular body (40) comprising a wall thickness greater than about 0.5mm (the hollow tube wall thickness is 0.3-1.2 mm, [0013], which overlaps with the claimed range); 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);
a second hollow tubular body (20, [0084]) comprising a wall thickness greater than about 0.5mm ([0108], wall thickness of 2.16 mm, which is greater than 0.5mm); and
a cylindrical body (filter element 30, [0084]) disposed between the first hollow tubular body (20) and the second hollow tubular body (40), and
PNG
media_image1.png
534
939
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Xia teaches a first hollow tubular body as set forth above but fails to explicitly disclose the first tubular body having an average density between about 0.25 g/ cc and about 0.75g/cc. Xia is silent to suitable densities of hollow tubular bodies for smoking articles.
However, Brackmann teaches a similar aerosol provisioning system with hollow tubular bodies for use and teaches suitable densities for the hollow tubular body (26, see FIG 1) are preferably from 0.05 to 0.3 g/cc which overlaps with the claimed range of in a range of 0.2-0.6 g/cc, which Brackmann teaches produces the desired filtration (see column 2 lines 48-60) and results in a low resistance smoke flow passage to the smokers mouth e.g., low resistance to draw (RTD). 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).
Accordingly, 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 smoking article of Xia to have the suitable density as taught by Brackmann to produce a hollow tubular body with more suitable low resistance to draw as taught by Brackmann.
Additionally, it would be obvious to combine Xia with Brackmann because Xia is silent to suitable densities of hollow tubular bodies and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable hollow tubular body densities. Brackmann is directed to a similar smoking device with hollow tubular body sections/bodies and Brackmann teaches known hollow tubular body densities that are suitable for a similar product and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Xia teaches external air flows into the device through the primary intake but fails to explicitly disclose at least one ventilation area arranged to allow external air to flow into the article.
Besso teaches smoking articles with ventilation areas and teaches perforations should be provided in a ventilation area in smoking articles in order to produce a desired level of resistance to draw (RTD) [0048], which allows external air to flow into the article.
Thus it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the smoking article of Xia with a ventilation area as taught by Besso in order to produce a desired level of resistance to draw in the article.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Xia teaches an article for use as or as part of a non-combustible aerosol provision system (see FIG 1), the article comprising:
an aerosol generating material comprising at least one aerosol forming material ([0084], cigarette core segment element 10); and
a hollow tubular member (20) formed from cellulosic material (hollow paper tube, paper is cellulosic material [0017]) and disposed immediately downstream of the aerosol generating material; wherein,
the length of the hollow tubular member is between about 5mm and about 18mm (15mm, see [0108])
a first hollow tubular body (40) disposed downstream of the hollow tubular member (20, see annotated FIG 1 above).
Xia teaches a first hollow tubular body as set forth above but fails to explicitly disclose the first tubular body having an average density between about 0.25 g/ cc and about 0.75g/cc. Xia is silent to suitable densities of hollow tubular bodies for smoking articles.
However, Brackmann teaches a similar aerosol provisioning system with hollow tubular bodies for use and teaches suitable densities for the hollow tubular body (26, see FIG 1) are preferably from 0.05 to 0.3 g/cc which overlaps with the claimed range of in a range of 0.2-0.6 g/cc, which Brackmann teaches produces the desired filtration (see column 2 lines 48-60) and results in a low resistance smoke flow passage to the smokers mouth e.g., low resistance to draw (RTD). 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).
Accordingly, 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 smoking article of Xia to have the suitable density as taught by Brackmann to produce a hollow tubular body with more suitable low resistance to draw as taught by Brackmann.
Additionally, it would be obvious to combine Xia with Brackmann because Xia is silent to suitable densities of hollow tubular bodies and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable hollow tubular body densities. Brackmann is directed to a similar smoking device with hollow tubular body sections/bodies and Brackmann teaches known hollow tubular body densities that are suitable for a similar product and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Xia teaches external air flows into the device through the primary intake but fails to explicitly disclose at least one ventilation area arranged to allow external air to flow into the article
Besso teaches smoking articles with ventilation areas and teaches perforations should be provided in a ventilation area in smoking articles in order to produce a desired level of resistance to draw (RTD) [0048], which allows external air to flow into the article.
Thus it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the smoking article of Xia with a ventilation area as taught by Besso in order to produce a desired level of resistance to draw in the article.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Xia teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Xia teaches the first hollow tubular body comprises a wall thickness of greater than about 0.5 mm. Specifically, Xia teaches the suitable wall thickness of the hollow tube is 0.3 to 1.2 mm [0013], which overlaps with the claimed range. 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 5, modified Xia teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Xia teaches the article further comprises first hollow body (40) having a wall thickness of greater than about 0.5 mm. Specifically, Xia teaches the suitable wall thickness of the hollow tube is 0.3 to 1.2 mm [0013], which overlaps with the claimed range. 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).
It would be obvious to modify Xia and duplicate the hollow body (40) of Xia such that the mouth end is made up of a first and a second hollow body and the second hollow body having a thickness greater than about 0.5 mm like the first hollow body, because Xia teaches the hollow body provide a means for reducing the smoke temperature and avoid burns to the users mouth due to excessive smoke temperature [0025], thus it would be obvious apply the modification of duplicating the bodies to further reduce the smoke temperature and avoid burns. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI B.
Xia also teach a second hollow tubular body having a wall thickness of greater than about 0.5 mm, Specifically, Xia teaches the suitable wall thickness of the hollow tube is 0.3 to 1.2 mm [0013], which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Xia teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Xia teaches the article further comprises a cylindrical body disposed between the first hollow tubular body and the second hollow tubular body.
Specifically, although Xia does not explicitly disclose the cylindrical body (30) between the duplicate hollow parts as set forth in claim 5, it would be obvious to rearrange the two hollow parts and modify Xia to rearrange the cylindrical body 30 in between the duplicated hollow parts (40), because Xia teaches the hollow end portions provide a means for reducing the smoke temperature and avoid burns to the users mouth due to excessive smoke temperature [0025], and it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to make this modification to Xia, because by duplicating the hollow part 40, the temperature would be further reduced thereby accomplishing the intent of the invention, and thereby meeting the claim limitation: the article further comprises a cylindrical body disposed between the first hollow tubular body and the second hollow tubular body. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Xia teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, (as similarly explained in the rejection of claim 6, although Xia does not explicitly disclose the cylindrical body (30) between the duplicate hollow parts as set forth in claim 5, it would be obvious to rearrange the two duplicate hollow parts and modify Xia to rearrange the cylindrical body 30 in between the duplicated hollow parts (40), because Xia teaches the hollow end portions provide a means for reducing the smoke temperature and avoid burns to the users mouth due to excessive smoke temperature [0025], and it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to make this modification to Xia, because by duplicating the hollow part 40, the temperature would be further reduced thereby accomplishing the intent of the invention, and thereby meeting the claim limitation: the article further comprises a cylindrical body disposed between the first hollow tubular body and the second hollow tubular body. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C. Thus, via this obvious modification Xia teaches the cylindrical body is positioned immediately adjacent the first hollow tubular body and the second hollow tubular body.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Xia teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Xia teaches the cylindrical body is substantially continuous (See FIG 1, the cylindrical body (filter element 30) an acetate fiber filter rod is understood by an artisan to be a continuous filter [0143], e.g., the space occupied by filter element 30 is continuously filter element 30.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Xia teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Xia teaches a second hollow tubular body (20) as set forth above that follows the aerosol generating material. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the second hollow tubular body (20) of Xia which is disposed immediately downstream of the aerosol generating material (see FIG 1) with another hollow tubular body defined hereinafter as a hollow tubular member to be located between the aerosol generating material and the second hollow tubular body (20) such that the duplicate hollow tubular member is disposed immediately downstream of the aerosol generating material. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI B.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Xia teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Xia teaches the length of the hollow tubular member (duplicate of (20), see rejection of claim 9) is between about 5mm and about 18mm. Xia teaches the length of the hollow tubular member (20) is 15 mm which falls in the claimed range. (see e.g., [0108])
Regarding Claim 11, modified Xia teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Xia fails to explicitly disclose the second tubular body has an average density between about 0.25 g/ cc and about 0.75g/cc. Xia is silent to suitable densities of any portion of the smoking article.
Xia teaches a first hollow tubular body as set forth above but fails to explicitly disclose the first tubular body having an average density between about 0.25 g/ cc and about 0.75g/cc. Xia is silent to suitable densities of hollow tubular bodies for smoking articles.
However, Brackmann teaches a similar aerosol provisioning system with hollow tubular bodies for use and teaches suitable densities for the hollow tubular body (26, see FIG 1) are preferably from 0.05 to 0.3 g/cc which overlaps with the claimed range of in a range of 0.2-0.6 g/cc, which Brackmann teaches produces the desired filtration (see column 2 lines 48-60) and results in a low resistance smoke flow passage to the smokers mouth e.g., low resistance to draw (RTD). 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).
Accordingly, 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 smoking article of Xia to have the suitable density as taught by Brackmann to produce a hollow tubular body with more suitable low resistance to draw as taught by Brackmann.
Additionally, it would be obvious to combine Xia with Brackmann because Xia is silent to suitable densities of hollow tubular bodies and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable hollow tubular body densities. Brackmann is directed to a similar smoking device with hollow tubular body sections/bodies and Brackmann teaches known hollow tubular body densities that are suitable for a similar product and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Xia teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Xia teaches the first hollow tubular body is formed from paper (hollow paper tube (see [0013] and [0017]).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Xia teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Xia teaches the second hollow tubular body is formed from paper (see [0013] and [0017], Xia teaches hollow tubes taught are made from paper).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Xia teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Xia teaches the hollow tubular member is formed from paper or filamentary tow (see [0013] and [0017], Xia teaches the hollow tubes taught are made from paper).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Xia teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Xia teaches the first hollow tubular body and/or the second hollow tubular body comprise a wall thickness between 0.5 mm and 2.5 mm. (the hollow tube wall thickness is 0.3-1.2 mm, [0013], which overlaps with the claimed range). 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).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (CN109892707A), English machine translation relied, Brackmann (US5509429A), and Besso (US20180271143A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carpenter (US20110271968A1).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Xia teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Xia is silent to the pressure drop across the cylindrical body.
However, Carpenter teaches a similar smoking article with similar cylindrical body hollow sections and teaches a suitable pressure drop for the cylindrical body for use. Specifically Carpenter teaches an 8 mm hollow body with a pressure drop of 15 mm water (WG), [0017], which calculates to about 1.88mmWG/mm. Therefore, Carpenter teaches the pressure drop across the cylindrical body is between 0.3 and 5mmWG per mm of length of the cylindrical body, or between 0.5mmWG and 2mmWG per mm of length of the cylindrical body, or between 1.5 and 2mmWG/mm of length of the cylindrical body because Carpenters example 1.88mmWG/mm falls within these claimed ranges.
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 smoking device of Xia to have the pressure drop as taught by Carpenter, because both Xia and Carpenter are directed to smoking articles with hollow tube members, Xia is silent to suitable pressure drops for the hollow tube members for use, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable pressure drops for a similar smoking article. Carpenter teaches known pressure drops for a similar hollow tube, and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xia (CN109892707A), English machine translation relied, Brackmann (US5509429A), and Besso (US20180271143A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carpenter (US20110271968A1) and Minzoni (TW201703660A1) English machine translation relied upon.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Xia teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Xia is silent to the pressure drop across the cylindrical body.
However, Carpenter teaches a similar smoking article with similar cylindrical body hollow sections and teaches a suitable pressure drop for the cylindrical body for use. Specifically, as explained in claim 15 Carpenter teaches about 1.88mmWG/mm [0017].
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 smoking device of Xia to have the pressure drop as taught by Carpenter, because both Xia and Carpenter are directed to smoking articles with hollow tube members, Xia is silent to suitable pressure drops for the hollow tube members for use, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable pressure drops for a similar smoking article. Carpenter teaches known pressure drops for a similar hollow tube, and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
However, Carpenter fails to teach a cylindrical body short enough that would result in a pressure drop across the cylindrical body of between 3mmWG and 8mWG, or between 4mmWG and 7mmWG.
However, Minzoni teaches a cylindrical body between 3 to 8 mm, which, when combined with Carpenter who teaches a pressure drop per mm of 1.88, results in a pressure drop across the cylinder of 5.4 mmWG to 15.04 mmWG, which overlaps with the claimed range of a pressure drop across the cylindrical body of between 3mmWG and 8mWG, or between 4mmWG and 7mmWG.
Minzoni also teaches a similar smoking device that discloses hollow tubes and discloses that the disclosed lengths of the taught hollow tubes have been shown to enable good manufacture of the tubes and good handling of the tubes when assembling the aerosol generating articles. (page 5 second to last paragraph). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the smoking article of modified Xia with the disclosed lengths of hollow tubes of Minzoni to enable good manufacture of the tubes and good handling of the tubes when assembling the aerosol generating article.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 9-12-2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, and 4-17 under 35 USC 103 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 Xia (CN109892707A), Brackmann (US5509429A), and Besso (US20180271143A1) as set forth above.
Additionally Applicant argues starting on page 8 of the remarks:
PNG
media_image2.png
387
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner agrees that Chapman relates to a traditional cigarette and Xia relates to an aerosol provisioning system that does not require combustion. This is found persuasive because the density of Chapman makes combustion more efficient and Examiner agrees this is irrelevant to Xia since Xia’s tobacco isn’t combusted. Therefore, the rejection relying on Chapman has been withdrawn and a new rejection is set forth above.
Applicant additionally argues on page 9:
PNG
media_image3.png
357
588
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In response the arguments regarding Chapman are moot as the rejection relying on Chapman are withdrawn. Applicant argues that Carpenter is not highly relevant to the claims, however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Filters for traditional cigarettes are filtering aerosols in the same manner as electronic aerosol provisioning systems. In either case humans still inhale in similar manners regardless of which cigarette they’re using, properties that change how inhalation work can be carried between traditional and electronic cigarettes, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable pressure drops for a similar aerosol generating article. Chapman teaches known pressure drops for a similar hollow tube, and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
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
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755