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 Status
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 10/15/2025, (“Remarks”) were in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 07/16/2025 (“Non-Final Rejection”).
Claim(s) 1–5, 7–9, 14, 16, 18–19, 22–26, 29–30, and 34 is/are pending. Of the pending claims, claim(s) 25–26, 29, 30, and 34 is/are currently withdrawn because they encompass other invention(s) not elected by Applicant on 01/22/2025.
Therefore, claim(s) 1–5, 7–9, 14, 16, 18–19, and 22–24 is/are addressed below.
Priority
Attention is drawn to the appropriate priority for the pending claims set out in the Non-Final Rejection. Id. at 3–4. The relevant section is incorporated herein by reference.
Information Disclosure Statement
The foreign references identified in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 07/30/2025 were searched for corresponding US Patents, Publications, or other English equivalents. Please see below:
WO 2013178766 = US 20150150302; and
JP 2015517817= US 20150150302l.
US 20150150302 is being cited in the attached PTO-892 to ensure US 20150150302 is made of record.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8–9, 14, 18–19, 22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COLEMAN WO 2014083333 (of record) (“COLEMAN”) in view of CASEY U.S. Patent No. 5415186 (“CASEY”) and ZUCHUAT U.S. Pub. No.: 20180116274 (of record) (“ZUCHUAT”).
As to claim 1, COLEMAN discloses aerosol-generating material (p. 1, ll. 3–4) comprising a tobacco material blended with amorphous solid material (p. 8, ll. 30–32; p. 10, ll. 4–15) and that the amorphous solid material is shredded/cut into strips before being blended with the tobacco material (p. 31, ll. 1–27).
While COLEMAN fails to explicitly disclose the shape/structure of the tobacco material before it is blended with amorphous solid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to arrive at tobacco material being plurality of strands and/or strips for the benefit of enabling the tobacco material be easily replaced by the amorphous solid material (as taught by COLEMAN at p, 10, ll. 4–15 and p. 31, ll. 17–27) when the blend is used to produce the rod shaped smoking article (as taught by COLEMAN at p. 31, ll. 30–34).
Accordingly, COLEMAN arrives at a plurality of strands and/or strips of a tobacco material and a plurality of strips of amorphous solid material, wherein the plurality of strands and/or strips of tobacco material and the plurality of strips of amorphous solid material each have a length.
COLEMAN further discloses the use of gels as a binder to support and stabilize the smokeable material (p. 21 ll. 26–27 and p. 22 ll. 21–27).
However, COLEMAN fails to explicitly disclose wherein the amorphous solid material is a dried gel and the plurality of strands and/or strips of tobacco material and the plurality of strips of amorphous solid material each have a length of at least about 5 mm.
CASEY teaches an amorphous solid material is a dried gel that is consistent with Applicant’s Specification filed on 07/29/2022 (“Specification”). Compare CASEY, col. 24 ll. 1–20 (evidencing that ammonium alginate, glycerin, and other components are formed in an aqueous slurry before being cast and air dried) with Specification at 11 ll. 6–24 (describing similar gelling agents).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of CASEY into the generic disclosure of COLEMAN for the benefit of an amorphous solid material which could be manipulated using conventional cigarette making equip, which would provide aerosol over 10–12 puffs without the aerosol former/flavor migrating to other parts of the aerosol-generating material (as taught by CASEY at 2:20–31).
However, CASEY fails to disclose the plurality of strands and/or strips of tobacco material and the plurality of strips of amorphous solid material each have a length of at least about 5 mm.
ZUCHUAT teaches a plurality of strips of amorphous solid material (¶32) each have a length of at least about 5 mm (¶35) and that these strips of amorphous solid material are also blended with strips of tobacco material (¶¶ 33, 56, 62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of ZUCHUAT’s cut length into the generic disclosure of COLEMAN for the benefit of finely controlling the size and shape of the strips into which the amorphous solid material is cut or shredded and preserving the features of the tobacco material when blended (as taught by ZUCHUAT at ¶12).
The obvious combination above arrives at a plurality of strips of amorphous solid material each have a length of at least about 5 mm. (¶35)
When it comes to the length of the tobacco strips, ZUCHUAT teaches blending “such that at least one of cut width and cut length of the cut strips of the [] tobacco material differs from a corresponding one of cut width and cut length of the cut strips of the [amorphous solid material],” (¶62) (annotation added) which are taught as has having a length ranging from 5 mm to about 60 mm (¶35) and disclosed within explicit embodiments as having strip lengths of either 20 mm or 40 mm (Table 1).
Simply stated, ¶62 combined with Table 1 makes obvious modifying the cut width (CW1) an apparatus used to cut the tobacco material when making the blend (as taught by ZUCHUAT at ¶62). By making obvious only modifying the width of the tobacco material, ZUCHUAT makes obvious Cut specifications 1–8 with length (CL1) greater than 5mm but with different widths (CW1).
As to claim 5, COLEMAN, CASEY, and ZUCHUAT make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 1.
COLEMAN further teaches that the amorphous solid material may be blended with both traditional tobacco material or tobacco substitutes. (p. 31, ll. 16–21).
COLEMAN and CASEY fail to disclose to disclose the types of tobacco substitutes and, therefore, fails to dislcose wherein the tobacco material comprises a reconstituted tobacco material.
ZUCHUAT teaches blending with a reconstituted tobacco material (¶24) having different shapes (Figs. 1–12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of ZUCHUAT together with/in place of COLEMAN’s tobacco material (as motivated by COLEMAN’s teaching that the amorphous solid material may be blended with both traditional tobacco material or tobacco substitutes at p. 31, ll. 16–21) for the benefit of improved filling power within the aerosol-generating material (as taught by ZUCHUAT at ¶6).
As to claim 8, COLEMAN, CASEY, and ZUCHUAT make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 1.
ZUCHUAT further teaches wherein the plurality of strips of amorphous solid material have a non-uniform distribution of lengths (Figs. 1–12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of ZUCHUAT into COLEMAN’s amorphous solid material for the benefit of improved filling (as taught by ZUCHUAT at ¶6).
As to claim 9, COLEMAN, CASEY, and ZUCHUAT make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 8.
ZUCHUAT further disclose wherein the distribution of lengths of the plurality of strips of amorphous solid material is a multi-modal distribution (¶¶ 36 and 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to further incorporate ZUCHUAT’s multi-modal teachings into the disclosure of modified COLEMAN for the benefit of improved filling (as taught by ZUCHUAT at ¶6).
As to claim 14, COLEMAN, CASEY, and ZUCHUAT make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 1.
COLEMAN and CASEY fail to disclose wherein between 50% and 90% of the plurality of strips of amorphous solid have a length of between 35mm and 45mm.
ZUCHUAT teaches 100% of the of the plurality of strips of amorphous solid have a length of between 35mm and 45mm (Table 1, cut specification No. 8 with a Length of 40 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of ZUCHUAT’s cut length into the generic disclosure of COLEMAN for the benefit of an average filling power of 7.40 (as taught by ZUCHUAT at Table 2 and ¶25).
As to claim 18, COLEMAN, CASEY, and ZUCHUAT make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 1.
COLEMAN and CASEY fail to disclose wherein each of the plurality of strips of amorphous solid material has a length between about 10 mm and about 60 mm.
ZUCHUAT further teaches wherein each of the plurality of strips of amorphous solid material has a length between about 10 mm and about 60 mm (¶35 and Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of ZUCHUAT’s cut length into the generic disclosure of COLEMAN for the benefit of finely controlling the size and shape of the strips into which the amorphous solid material is cut or shredded and preserving the features of the tobacco material when blended (as taught by ZUCHUAT at ¶12).
As to claim 19, COLEMAN, CASEY, and ZUCHUAT make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 1.
COLEMAN further discloses wherein the strips of amorphous solid material have an average cut width of between 20–40 cuts/inch. (p. 31, ll. 4-9; 20 cuts). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that 20 cuts/inch arrives at an amorphous solid material with a width of 1.27 mm ( [25.4 mm/in]* [1 in/20 cuts] = 1.27 mm/ cut).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate these teachings for the benefit of providing the amorphous solid material with an appropriate width prior to blending with tobacco (as taught by COLEMAN at p. 31, ll. 1–27).
As to claim 22, COLEMAN, CASEY, and ZUCHUAT make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 1.
COLEMAN further discloses wherein the aerosol-generating material comprises an aerosol-former. (p. 33, Table 1)
As to claim 24, the recitation of “wherein the standard deviation between at least ten 10 gram samples in the aerosol-former content of the aerosol-generating material is less than 30% of the mean aerosol-former content in the aerosol- generating material” attempts to further narrow the structure of the composition of claim 22 by way of measuring certain characteristics of samples that are the result of process/quality control type steps. COLEMAN, CASEY, and ZUCHUAT make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 22, which appears to be the same or similar to the product claimed in claim 24 but without the process/quality control steps.
The Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith. Therefore, having provided a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced might by a different process, the burden shifts to Applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. MPEP 2113.
Claim(s) 1–3, 5, 7–9, 14, 18–19, 22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COLEMAN WO 2014083333 (of record) (“COLEMAN”) in view of MAEDA US 4109663 (of record) (“MAEDA”) and ZUCHUAT U.S. Pub. No.: 20180116274 (of record) (“ZUCHUAT”).
As to claim 1, COLEMAN discloses aerosol-generating material (p. 1, ll. 3–4) comprising a tobacco material blended with amorphous solid material (p. 8, ll. 30–32; p. 10, ll. 4–15) and that the amorphous solid material is shredded/cut into strips before being blended with the tobacco material (p. 31, ll. 1–27).
While COLEMAN fails to explicitly disclose the shape/structure of the tobacco material before it is blended with amorphous solid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to arrive at tobacco material being plurality of strands and/or strips for the benefit of enabling the tobacco material be easily replaced by the amorphous solid material (as taught by COLEMAN at p, 10, ll. 4–15 and p. 31, ll. 17–27) when the blend is used to produce the rod shaped smoking article (as taught by COLEMAN at p. 31, ll. 30–34).
Accordingly, COLEMAN arrives at a plurality of strands and/or strips of a tobacco material and a plurality of strips of amorphous solid material, wherein the plurality of strands and/or strips of tobacco material and the plurality of strips of amorphous solid material each have a length.
COLEMAN further discloses the use of gels as a binder to support and stabilize the smokeable material (p. 21 ll. 26–27 and p. 22 ll. 21–27).
However, COLEMAN fails to explicitly disclose wherein the amorphous solid material is a dried gel and the plurality of strands and/or strips of tobacco material and the plurality of strips of amorphous solid material each have a length of at least about 5 mm.
MAEDA teaches an amorphous solid material is a dried gel (12:19–34; 13:20–37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of MAEDA into the disclosure of COLEMAN for the benefit of an amorphous solid material with improved smoking characteristics and reduced nicotine/tar that is easy to manufacture (as taught by MAEDA at 3:13–65).
However, MAEDA fails to disclose the plurality of strands and/or strips of tobacco material and the plurality of strips of amorphous solid material each have a length of at least about 5 mm.
ZUCHUAT teaches a plurality of strips of amorphous solid material (¶32) each have a length of at least about 5 mm (¶35) and that these strips of amorphous solid material are also blended with strips of tobacco material (¶¶ 33, 56, 62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of ZUCHUAT’s cut length into the generic disclosure of COLEMAN for the benefit of finely controlling the size and shape of the strips into which the amorphous solid material is cut or shredded and preserving the features of the tobacco material when blended (as taught by ZUCHUAT at ¶12).
The obvious combination above arrives at a plurality of strips of amorphous solid material each have a length of at least about 5 mm. (¶35)
When it comes to the length of the tobacco strips, ZUCHUAT teaches blending “such that at least one of cut width and cut length of the cut strips of the [] tobacco material differs from a corresponding one of cut width and cut length of the cut strips of the [amorphous solid material],” (¶62) (annotation added) which are taught as has having a length ranging from 5 mm to about 60 mm (¶35) and disclosed within explicit embodiments as having strip lengths of either 20 mm or 40 mm (Table 1).
Simply stated, ¶62 combined with Table 1 makes obvious modifying the cut width (CW1) an apparatus used to cut the tobacco material when making the blend (as taught by ZUCHUAT at ¶62). By making obvious only modifying the width of the tobacco material, ZUCHUAT makes obvious Cut specifications 1–8 with length (CL1) greater than 5mm but with different widths (CW1).
As to claim 2, COLEMAN, MAEDA, and ZUCHUAT make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 1.
COLEMAN and ZUCHUAT fail to disclose wherein the plurality of strips of amorphous solid material have an area density between about 55 and about 135 grams per square meter.
MAEDA teaches an amorphous solid material have an area density between about 55 and about 135 grams per square meter (15:35–37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of MAEDA into the disclosure of modified COLEMAN for the benefit of a mild smoking flavor with reduced tar content (as taught by MAEDA at 15:57–60).
As to claim 3, COLEMAN, MAEDA, and ZUCHUAT make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 1.
COLEMAN further teaches that the amorphous solid material may be blended with both traditional tobacco material or tobacco substitutes. (p. 31, ll. 16–21).
COLEMAN fails to disclose the types of tobacco substitutes and, therefore, fails to dislcose wherein the tobacco material comprises aerosol-former in an amount less than 10 wt% of the tobacco material.
ZUCHUAT teaches blending with a reconstituted tobacco material (¶24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of ZUCHUAT together with/in place of COLEMAN’s tobacco material (as motivated by COLEMAN’s teaching that the amorphous solid material may be blended with both traditional tobacco material or tobacco substitutes at p. 31, ll. 16–21) for the benefit of improved filling power within the aerosol-generating material (as taught by ZUCHUAT at ¶6).
ZUCHUAT fails to disclose the actual composition of the reconstituted tobacco material, and, therefore, fails to disclose wherein the tobacco material comprises aerosol-former in an amount less than 10 wt% of the tobacco material.
MAEDA teaches the tobacco material comprises aerosol-former in an amount less than 10 wt% of the tobacco material (see 15:35–42 discusses 1 ml or tobacco extract and .3 ml of licorice extract. These will account for less than 10 wt% of the overall tobacco material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of MAEDA into modified COLEMAN for the benefit of of a mild smoking flavor with reduced tar content (as taught by MAEDA at 15:57–60).
This would arrive at wherein the tobacco material comprises aerosol-former in an amount less than 10 wt% of the tobacco material.
As to claim 5, COLEMAN, MAEDA, and ZUCHUAT make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 1.
COLEMAN further teaches that the amorphous solid material may be blended with both traditional tobacco material or tobacco substitutes. (p. 31, ll. 16–21).
COLEMAN and MAEDA fail to disclose to disclose the types of tobacco substitutes and, therefore, fails to dislcose wherein the tobacco material comprises a reconstituted tobacco material.
ZUCHUAT teaches blending with a reconstituted tobacco material (¶24) having different shapes (Figs. 1–12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of ZUCHUAT together with/in place of COLEMAN’s tobacco material (as motivated by COLEMAN’s teaching that the amorphous solid material may be blended with both traditional tobacco material or tobacco substitutes at p. 31, ll. 16–21) for the benefit of improved filling power within the aerosol-generating material (as taught by ZUCHUAT at ¶6).
As to claim 7, COLEMAN, MAEDA, and ZUCHUAT make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 5.
COLEMAN and ZUCHUAT fail to disclose wherein the reconstituted tobacco material has an area density between 80 grams per square meter and 120 grams per square meter.
MAEDA teaches a reconstituted tobacco material has an area density between 80 grams per square meter and 120 grams per square meter (15:35–37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of MAEDA into the disclosure of modified COLEMAN for the benefit of a mild smoking flavor with reduced tar content (as taught by MAEDA at 15:57–60).
As to claim 8, COLEMAN, MAEDA, and ZUCHUAT make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 1.
ZUCHUAT further teaches wherein the plurality of strips of amorphous solid material have a non-uniform distribution of lengths (Figs. 1–12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of ZUCHUAT into COLEMAN’s amorphous solid material for the benefit of improved filling (as taught by ZUCHUAT at ¶6).
As to claim 9, COLEMAN, MAEDA, and ZUCHUAT make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 8.
ZUCHUAT further disclose wherein the distribution of lengths of the plurality of strips of amorphous solid material is a multi-modal distribution (¶¶ 36 and 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to further incorporate ZUCHUAT’s multi-modal teachings into the disclosure of modified COLEMAN for the benefit of improved filling (as taught by ZUCHUAT at ¶6).
As to claim 14, COLEMAN, MAEDA, and ZUCHUAT make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 1.
COLEMAN and MAEDA fail to disclose wherein between 50% and 90% of the plurality of strips of amorphous solid have a length of between 35mm and 45mm.
ZUCHUAT teaches 100% of the of the plurality of strips of amorphous solid have a length of between 35mm and 45mm (Table 1, cut specification No. 8 with a Length of 40 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of ZUCHUAT’s cut length into the generic disclosure of COLEMAN for the benefit of an average filling power of 7.40 (as taught by ZUCHUAT at Table 2 and ¶25).
As to claim 18, COLEMAN, MAEDA, and ZUCHUAT make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 1.
COLEMAN and MAEDA fail to disclose wherein each of the plurality of strips of amorphous solid material has a length between about 10 mm and about 60 mm.
ZUCHUAT further teaches wherein each of the plurality of strips of amorphous solid material has a length between about 10 mm and about 60 mm (¶35 and Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of ZUCHUAT’s cut length into the generic disclosure of COLEMAN for the benefit of finely controlling the size and shape of the strips into which the amorphous solid material is cut or shredded and preserving the features of the tobacco material when blended (as taught by ZUCHUAT at ¶12).
As to claim 19, COLEMAN, MAEDA, and ZUCHUAT make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 1.
COLEMAN further discloses wherein the strips of amorphous solid material have an average cut width of between 20–40 cuts/inch. (p. 31, ll. 4-9; 20 cuts). One of ordinary skill in the art understands that 20 cuts/inch arrives at an amorphous solid material with a width of 1.27 mm ( [25.4 mm/in]* [1 in/20 cuts] = 1.27 mm/ cut).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate these teachings for the benefit of providing the amorphous solid material with an appropriate width prior to blending with tobacco (as taught by COLEMAN at p. 31, ll. 1–27).
As to claim 22, COLEMAN, MAEDA, and ZUCHUAT make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 1.
COLEMAN further discloses wherein the aerosol-generating material comprises an aerosol-former. (p. 33, Table 1)
As to claim 24, the recitation of “wherein the standard deviation between at least ten 10 gram samples in the aerosol-former content of the aerosol-generating material is less than 30% of the mean aerosol-former content in the aerosol- generating material” attempts to further narrow the structure of the composition of claim 22 by way of measuring certain characteristics of samples that are the result of process/quality control type steps. COLEMAN, MAEDA, and ZUCHUAT make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 22, which appears to be the same or similar to the product claimed in claim 24 but without the process/quality control steps.
The Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith. Therefore, having provided a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced might by a different process, the burden shifts to Applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. MPEP 2113.
Claim(s) 1–2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZUCHUAT U.S. Pub. No.: 20180116274 (of record) (“ZUCHUAT”) in view of MAEDA US 4109663 (of record) (“MAEDA”).
As to claim 1, ZUCHUAT teaches a plurality of strips of amorphous solid material (¶32) each have a length of at least about 5 mm (¶35) and that these strips of amorphous solid material are also blended with strips of tobacco material (¶¶ 33, 56, 62).
When it comes to the length of the tobacco strips, ZUCHUAT teaches blending “such that at least one of cut width and cut length of the cut strips of the [] tobacco material differs from a corresponding one of cut width and cut length of the cut strips of the [amorphous solid material],” (¶62) (annotation added) which are taught as has having a length ranging from 5 mm to about 60 mm (¶35) and disclosed within explicit embodiments as having strip lengths of either 20 mm or 40 mm (Table 1).
Simply stated, ¶62 combined with Table 1 makes obvious modifying the cut width (CW1) of an apparatus used to cut the tobacco material when making the blend (as taught by ZUCHUAT at ¶62). By making obvious only modifying the width of the tobacco material, ZUCHUAT makes obvious Cut specifications 1–8 with length (CL1) greater than 5mm but with different widths (CW1).
Accordingly, ZUCHUAT makes obvious a plurality of strands and/or strips of a tobacco material and a plurality of strips of amorphous solid material, wherein the plurality of strands and/or strips of tobacco material and the plurality of strips of amorphous solid material each have a length of at least about 5 mm.
However, ZUCHUAT fails to explicitly disclose wherein the amorphous solid material is a dried gel.
MAEDA teaches an amorphous solid material is a dried gel (12:19–34; 13:20–37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of MAEDA into the disclosure of ZUCHUAT for the benefit of an amorphous solid material with improved smoking characteristics and reduced nicotine/tar that is easy to manufacture (as taught by MAEDA at 3:13–65).
As to claim 2, ZUCHUAT and MAEDA make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 1.
ZUCHUAT fails to disclose wherein the plurality of strips of amorphous solid material have an area density between about 55 and about 135 grams per square meter.
MAEDA teaches an amorphous solid material have an area density between about 55 and about 135 grams per square meter (15:35–37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of MAEDA into the disclosure of modified ZUCHUAT for the benefit of a mild smoking flavor with reduced tar content (as taught by MAEDA at 15:57–60).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZUCHUAT U.S. Pub. No.: 20180116274 (of record) (“ZUCHUAT”) in view of MAEDA US 4109663 (of record) (“MAEDA”) and RENAUD US 20120006343 (of record) (“RENAUD”).
As to claim 4, ZUCHUAT and MAEDA make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 1.
ZUCHUAT fails to disclose wherein the area density of the plurality of strips of amorphous solid material is between 70% and 110% of the area density of the tobacco material.
MAEDA teaches an amorphous solid material have an area density between about 55 and about 135 grams per square meter (15:35–37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of MAEDA into the disclosure of modified ZUCHUAT for the benefit of a mild smoking flavor with reduced tar content (as taught by MAEDA at 15:57–60).
RENAUD teaches plurality of strands and/or strips of a tobacco material with a length between 5–15 mm (¶46) with an area density of 120 grams per square meter (¶32 “homogenized tobacco material according to the invention have a mass-to-surface-area ratio of at least about 0.12 mg/mm2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of RENAUD into the disclosure of modified ZUCHUAT for the benefit of an increased ability to assimilate energy per unit surface area and so advantageously delay the strands of tobacco material from reaching a temperature required for combustion or pyrolytic degradation (as taught by RENAUD at ¶34).
The above obvious combination of area densities arrives at wherein the area density of the plurality of strips of amorphous solid material is between 70% and 110% of the area density of the tobacco material.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COLEMAN WO 2014083333 (of record) (“COLEMAN”) in view of MAEDA US 4109663 (of record) (“MAEDA”) and ZUCHUAT U.S. Pub. No.: 20180116274 (of record) (“ZUCHUAT”), as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, and in further view of YANG CN 109349677 (“YANG”) (of record) (with reference being made to the machine translation made of record on 07/16/2025).
As to claim 23, COLEMAN, MAEDA, and ZUCHUAT make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 1.
COLEMAN, MAEDA, and ZUCHUAT fail to disclose wherein the tobacco material comprises water in an amount between 5 wt% and 10 wt.
COLEMAN further teaches that the amorphous solid material may be blended with both traditional tobacco material or tobacco substitutes. (p. 31, ll. 16–21).
COLEMAN fails to disclose the types of tobacco substitutes and, therefore, fails to dislcose wherein the tobacco material comprises water in an amount between 5 wt% and 10 wt.
ZUCHUAT teaches blending with a reconstituted tobacco material (¶24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of ZUCHUAT together with/in place of COLEMAN’s tobacco material (as motivated by COLEMAN’s teaching that the amorphous solid material may be blended with both traditional tobacco material or tobacco substitutes at p. 31, ll. 16–21) for the benefit of improved filling power within the aerosol-generating material (as taught by ZUCHUAT at ¶6).
ZUCHUAT fails to disclose the actual composition of the reconstituted tobacco material, and, therefore, fails to disclose wherein the tobacco material comprises water in an amount between 5 wt% and 10 wt.
YANG teaches wherein the tobacco material comprises water in an amount between 5 wt% and 10 wt (bottom of 7 and extending onto page 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of YANG’s water content into the disclosure of modified COLEMAN for the benefit of an ultra-micro tobacco powder reconstituted tobacco leaf that has the density and moisture content of a regular tobacco leaf but with lower tar (as taught by the YANG at the second full paragraph on page 2).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COLEMAN WO 2014083333 (of record) (“COLEMAN”) in view of CASEY U.S. Patent No. 5415186 (“CASEY”) and ZUCHUAT U.S. Pub. No.: 20180116274 (of record) (“ZUCHUAT”), as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, and in further view of YANG CN 109349677 (“YANG”) (of record) (with reference being made to the machine translation made of record on 07/16/2025).
As to claim 23, COLEMAN, CASEY, and ZUCHUAT make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 1.
COLEMAN, CASEY, and ZUCHUAT fail to disclose wherein the tobacco material comprises water in an amount between 5 wt% and 10 wt.
COLEMAN further teaches that the amorphous solid material may be blended with both traditional tobacco material or tobacco substitutes. (p. 31, ll. 16–21).
COLEMAN fails to disclose the types of tobacco substitutes and, therefore, fails to dislcose wherein the tobacco material comprises water in an amount between 5 wt% and 10 wt.
ZUCHUAT teaches blending with a reconstituted tobacco material (¶24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of ZUCHUAT together with/in place of COLEMAN’s tobacco material (as motivated by COLEMAN’s teaching that the amorphous solid material may be blended with both traditional tobacco material or tobacco substitutes at p. 31, ll. 16–21) for the benefit of improved filling power within the aerosol-generating material (as taught by ZUCHUAT at ¶6).
ZUCHUAT fails to disclose the actual composition of the reconstituted tobacco material, and, therefore, fails to disclose wherein the tobacco material comprises water in an amount between 5 wt% and 10 wt.
YANG teaches wherein the tobacco material comprises water in an amount between 5 wt% and 10 wt (bottom of 7 and extending onto page 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of YANG’s water content into the disclosure of modified COLEMAN for the benefit of an ultra-micro tobacco powder reconstituted tobacco leaf that has the density and moisture content of a regular tobacco leaf but with lower tar (as taught by the YANG at the second full paragraph on page 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reasons for indicating claim 16 allowable is that the prior art fails to provide any teachings, suggestions, motivations, or other rationales to arrive at “wherein at least 50% of the remaining plurality of strips of amorphous solid have a length of between 10mm and 30mm.”
COLEMAN and ZUCHUAT make obvious aerosol-generating material according to claim 14.
COLEMAN and ZUCHUAT fail to arrive at wherein at least 50% of the remaining plurality of strips of amorphous solid have a length of between 10mm and 30mm.
MAEDA, YANG, CASEY, and RENAUD fail to remedy the above deficiencies.
JP 2019118317 (of record) contains a good disclosure of the plurality of strips of amorphous solid material each have a length of at least about 5 mm but lacks a disclosure of a plurality of strands and/or strips of a tobacco material. That is, JP 2019118317 discloses using only strips of amorphous solid material made from non-tobacco material.
US 20200253274 (of record) generally teaches away from tobacco material as a base for forming strands (¶¶ 4–7) and instead uses non-tobacco strands with different concentrations of aerosol formers throughout the cross section of the rod to modify the aerosol former distribution across a cross-section of the rod of aerosol generating substrate (¶44) and different diameters to control porosity (¶47).
Therefore, claim 16 is allowable because the prior art fails to provide any teachings, suggestions, motivations, or other rationales to arrive at “wherein at least 50% of the remaining plurality of strips of amorphous solid have a length of between 10mm and 30mm.”
Response to Arguments
Specification Objection(s)
The Non-Final Rejection objected to Applicant’s disclosure because of various informalities.
Applicant’s Remarks, id. at 7–8, are persuasive. The previous objections to the Specification are moot and withdrawn.
Claim Objection(s)
The Non-Final Rejection objected to claim(s) 14, 16, and 23 because of various informalities.
Examiner would like to thank Applicant for amending the claim(s) to provide greater consistency. The objection(s) referenced above is/are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph
Claim(s) 22 and 24 was/were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Examiner would like to thank Applicant for amending the claim(s) at issue. The rejection(s) made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the Non-Final Rejection is/are moot and withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s Remarks, id. at 10–11, have been fully considered and are persuasive in part because COLEMAN and ZUCHUAT fail to explicitly disclose wherein the amorphous solid material is a dried gel.
However, CASEY U.S. Patent No. 5415186 and MAEDA US 4109663 (of record) remedy the alleged deficiencies for the reasons stated in the office action above.
Accordingly, claims 1–5, 7–9, 14, 18–19, and 22–24 are obvious in light of the prior art evidenced above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MANLEY L CUMMINS IV whose telephone number is (571)272-1060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. (CST).
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 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.
/MANLEY L CUMMINS IV/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights