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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/26/25 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending and are subject to this office action. This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 6/3/25.
Claims 1 and 11 are amended.
Claims 16 and 17 are new.
Claims 11-15 remain withdrawn. New Claim 17 is withdrawn since claim 17 depends from withdrawn claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 6/26/25, pages 8-9) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues: neither Aoun nor Moloney teach or suggest dispensing at least 10 percent more gel mass by weight to the central region than to each lateral region as claimed in amended Claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed below in further detail (See “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112” and “Claim Interpretation/Examiner’s Note”), under the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claims 1 and/or 16, the limitation of dispensing at least 10 percent more gel mass by weight to the central region than to each lateral region does not substantially limit amended Claim 1 over the prior version of Claim 1. Moreover, where the amended claim is broadly interpreted and the regions are not defined by physical limitations or in relation to the underlying carrier, the width of a central region in Moloney may be delineated by one of ordinary skill in the art such that a central region comprises at least 10 percent more gel mass by weight disposed to the central region than to each of a lateral region. Therefore, the amended limitation of Claim 1 does not differentiate the claim over Moloney.
The previous rejections are maintained and presented in full below.
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 1-10 and 16 are 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite for reciting “dispensing at least 10 percent more gel mass by weight to the central region than to a first lateral region abutting the central region… and a second lateral region” because the limitation utilizes a relative term/phrase which renders the claim unclear. Specifically, it is unclear whether the limitation refers to dispensing at least 10 percent more gel mass by weight to the central region as compared to each of the lateral regions or dispensing at least 10 percent more gel mass by weight to the central region as compared to the combination of the lateral regions. The specification states: “the step of dispensing at least 10 percent more gel mass to the central region proximal to the longitudinal axis of a first continuous sheet of carrier material relative to the mass dispensed to a lateral region distal to the longitudinal axis of the first continuous sheet of carrier material.” ([0027]). This appears to suggest the claim should be interpreted to mean dispensing at least 10 percent more gel mass by weight to the central region as compared to each of the lateral regions. Therefore, for purposes of examination, the claim or phrase will be interpreted as: reciting “dispensing at least 10 percent more gel mass by weight to the central region than to a first lateral region abutting the central region… and dispensing at least 10 percent more gel mass by weight to the central region than to a second lateral region.” Claims 2-10 and 16 are indefinite for their dependency upon Claim 1.
Claim Interpretation/Examiner’s Note
Regarding Claims 1 and 16, Claim 1 recites the limitation “dispensing at least 10 percent more gel mass by weight to the central region than to a first lateral region abutting the central region… and a second lateral region.” The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, the widths of the regions are not defined by any physical limitation or defined relative to the width of the carrier. Claim 16 aims to further limit the width of the central region but only does so relative to the undefined lateral regions. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that a similar aerosol-generating material (such as those disclosed in the prior art) may have regions similarly arbitrarily defined which thereby contain at least 10 percent more gel mass by weight to the central region than to a lateral region. Thus, where the claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language, the added limitations of amended Claims 1 and 16 do not substantially limit the scope of the claims over the prior version of Claim 1.
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 1-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoun (US 20210161201 A1) in view of Moloney (US 20210289833 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Aoun discloses a method of manufacturing a composite aerosol-generating material ([0004]), comprising the steps of:
providing a first continuous sheet of carrier material (A slurry is applied to a carrier. [0087]. The carrier may be formed from a sheet such as paper-backed foil. [0098]);
dispensing gel to a surface of the first continuous sheet of carrier material (The slurry may be applied to a carrier layer and allowed to dry to form an amorphous solid/gel. [0084]-[0087]. To the extent that Aoun does not explicitly state that the process may be continuous, converting a batch process into a continuous process would have been obvious in light of the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(E). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to dispense gel onto the surface of a continuous carrier sheet.);
providing a second continuous sheet of carrier material and positioning the second continuous sheet of carrier material to the gel to form a composite material with gel interposed between the first continuous sheet of carrier material and the second continuous sheet of carrier material (The aerosolizable material may be included as a bunched or gathered sheet, or a rolled sheet, such that a single carrier sheet forms a first and second carrier sheet after the material has been bunched, gathered, or rolled respectively. [0060]. Moreover, aerosolizable material 14 may be positioned between two distinct carrier sheets such as outer cover 12 and carrier 16. [0160]; [0189]-[0192], Figs 5 & 6); and,
further comprising the step of: dispensing a greater amount of gel to a central region proximal to the longitudinal axis of the first continuous sheet of carrier material relative to the amount of gel dispensed to a lateral region, distal to the longitudinal axis of the first continuous sheet of carrier material (Aoun does not explicitly disclose "a greater amount of gel to a central region proximal to the longitudinal axis of the first continuous sheet of carrier." However, wherein the carrier and gelled aerosolizable material are rolled, a greater amount of aerosolizable material is placed along the central axis of the pre-rolled material as evidenced by the smaller circumference, and thus correlated surface areas of the pre-rolled configuration, of the aerosolizable material 14 relative to the outer cover 12. [0060]; [0189]-[0192], Figs 5 & 6. Moreover, wherein small changes in shape of a component, such as the gelled/amorphous layer, is a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to dispense a greater amount of gel to the central region of a sheet of carrier material relative to the amount of gel dispensed to a lateral region.).
To the extent Aoun does not explicitly disclose dispensing a greater amount of gel to a central region proximal to the longitudinal axis of the first continuous sheet of carrier material relative to the amount of gel dispensed to a lateral region; Moloney discloses a method of manufacturing a composite aerosol-generating material comprising:
dispensing a greater amount of gel to a central region proximal to the longitudinal axis of the first continuous sheet of carrier material relative to the amount of gel dispensed to a lateral region, distal to the longitudinal axis of the first continuous sheet of carrier material (Depicted in Fig. 1 is a known prior method of dispensing a gel aerosol-forming material 1 on a carrier and Fig. 2 teaches a preferred improvement to the method in Fig. 1; both methods of dispensing gel aerosol-forming material 1 on carrier 2 depict a decreased quantity of gel aerosol-forming material deposited on the edges of the carrier distal to axial center, thus resulting in a greater amount of gel deposited on the central region proximal to the longitudinal axis. [0032]-[0033], Figs 1-2; [0042]-[0043]).
wherein at least 10 percent more gel mass by weight is disposed to the central region than to a first lateral region abutting the central region along one longitudinal side and dispensing at least 10 percent more gel mass by weight to the central region than to a second lateral region abutting the central region along another longitudinal side (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation, the width of the regions are not defined by any physical limitations. While Moloney does not explicitly disclose central and lateral regions, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that regions could be identified/labeled in which yield at least 10 percent more gel mass by weight disposed to the central region than to each lateral region. See annotated Moloney Figure 2 below. In this depiction of a potential delineation of regions of the carrier and gel, it is clear that the central region, Region 1, comprises at least 10 percent more gel than either of the lateral regions, Region 2(a) or 2(b).)
PNG
media_image1.png
325
563
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Moloney Figure 2
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the deposition of gel of Aoun such that the gel is dispensed in a greater amount of at least 10% in a central region proximal to the longitudinal axis of the first continuous sheet of carrier material relative to the amount of gel dispensed to a lateral region as taught by Moloney because Aoun and Moloney are both directed to gel aerosol generating materials, Moloney teaches the use of gel dispensed in a greater amount in a central region, and this merely involves applying a known method of application to a similar method of production to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Aoun discloses a method further comprising the step of: crimping, at least one of; the first continuous sheet of carrier material and the second continuous sheet of carrier material ("the aerosolizable material may be included as a planar sheet, as a bunched or gathered sheet, as a crimped sheet, or as a rolled sheet" [0060]).
Regarding Claim 3, Aoun discloses a method further comprising the step of: providing the first continuous sheet of carrier material and the second continuous sheet of carrier material from different respective sources of carrier material (Aerosolizable material 14 may be positioned between two distinct carrier sheets such as outer cover 12 and carrier 16. [0160]; [0189]-[0192], Figs 5 & 6).
Regarding Claim 4, Aoun discloses a method further comprising the step of: providing both the first continuous sheet of carrier material and the second continuous sheet of carrier material from a single source of carrier material (The aerosolizable material may be included as a bunched or gathered sheet, or a rolled sheet, such that a single carrier sheet forms a first and second carrier sheet after the material has been bunched, gathered, or rolled respectively. [0060]).
Regarding Claim 5, Aoun discloses a method further comprising the step of: folding a continuous sheet of the single source of carrier material to form both the first continuous sheet of carrier material and the second continuous sheet of carrier material such that the first continuous sheet of carrier material and the second continuous sheet of carrier are integral with each other via a folding line (Wherein the aerosolizable material comprises a bunched or gathered sheet, the sheet is gathered and/or bunched about an axis, such as a folding line, in order to bunch or gather two portions of the carrier into a single sheet. [0060]).
Regarding Claim 6, Aoun discloses a method further comprising the step of: cutting a continuous sheet of the single source of carrier material to form both the first continuous sheet of carrier material and the second continuous sheet of carrier material ("the second layer 20 may also comprise heating material that may be the same as or different to the heating material of the first layer 18" [0172]. [0176]. Wherein multiple layers comprise the same material, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the material may be provided from a single source and cut into first and second sheets for use in the method of manufacturing; moreover, rearrangement or shifting of the cutting step closer in distance and/or time to the application of the gelled/amorphous layer is an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C)).
Regarding Claim 7, Aoun discloses a method further comprising the step of providing a continuous band of susceptor material and positioning the continuous band of susceptor material on the gel after the gel is dispensed onto the first continuous sheet of carrier material (A foil layer may be applied to the amorphous solid which may act as a conductor or as a susceptor in an induction heating system. [0101]. At least one of the layers may be in sheet and/or strip form and comprise a susceptor. [0205]; [0220]).
Regarding Claim 8, Aoun discloses a method further comprising the step of pressing the composite aerosol-generating material in a direction perpendicular to its planar surface (Wherein the aerosolizable material is bunched, gathered, or rolled, pressure is necessarily applied to the carrier and gelled/amorphous material in order to change the shape of the sheet of material. [0060]).
Regarding Claim 9, Aoun discloses a method wherein the gel comprises a flavour or an active agent or a plasticizer or a humectant or nicotine or glycerine or propylene glycol or any combination thereof ("the amorphous solid may comprise a flavor" [0067]).
Regarding Claim 10, Aoun discloses a method wherein the composite aerosol-generating material comprises tobacco material ("the amorphous solid comprises a tobacco material" [0068]).
Regarding Claim 16, while Moloney not explicitly disclose wherein the width of the central region is equal to or greater than the width of each of the lateral regions, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the regions could identified/labeled such that a central region comprises a width equal to or greater than the width of each of the lateral regions. See annotated Moloney Figure 2 above. In this depiction, it is clear that the central most region, Region 1, comprises a width greater than either of the lateral regions, Region 2(a) or 2(b).)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Buckman whose telephone number is (571)270-0888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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 at (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.
/JEFFREY A. BUCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755