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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 28 November 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 15-27 are pending and subject to this Office Action. Claim 15 has been amended. Claims 21 and 28 have been cancelled. Claims 29-31 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-13, filed 11 November 2025 with respect to the rejections of claims 15-27 under USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Claim 15 has been amended to add the limitations: wherein a resistance to draw (RTD) of the at least one filter segment is between 10 millimeters H2O to about 40 millimeters H2O (previously claim 21): and wherein the filter provides a controlled level of water absorption during use of the aerosol-generating article.
Claims 29-31 have been added
Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of previously applied art and newly found prior art.
On pages 7-9, applicant argues that Sebastian does not disclose: the fibres provide a total external surface area within the filter segment of between 0.12 square metres per gram and 0.28 square metres per gram and further argues that the argument of routine optimization is insufficient to combine the teachings of Sebastian and Yang.
The Examiner disagrees with this assertion. Sebastian specifically teaches that the fiber selection can be used to improve fundamental characteristics of the filter element which include filtration efficiency and that the fibers used in the filter element can be adjusted to obtain a desired level of filtration efficiency.([0063], [0073]) These teachings of Sebastian would lead a person of ordinary skill to look to other art to determine the means by which these adjustments would be made. Yang is used to teach that is known in the art that adjustments to the fiber surface area would be considered when trying to optimize the filter section resistance to draw.
On pages 10-13, the Applicant argues that the Examiner bears the initial burden to establish prima facie obviousness of the claims and that the claims are enabled.
The Examiner notes that the Examiner never rejected the claims under an enablement rejection and merely mentioned that if the prior art filter, which is compositionally and structurally equivalent to the claimed filter, was to be argued as incapable of said claimed function, then the claims are most likely not enabled or omit essential subject matter that allows the claimed filter to capture and retain water whereas the prior art filter would not be. It would appear that the ability of the filter to have a controlled level of water absorption from the aerosol would be based on the composition of the filter since it would be assumed that an equivalent filter segment made of cellulose acetate tow is structurally equivalent to the claimed filter segment.
The Examiner agrees that the Examiner bears the initial burden to establish prima facie obviousness of the claims and in doing so the Examiner presented a combination of references that resulted in a filter that was compositionally and structurally equivalent to the claimed filter (see rejection below). Given the showing of equivalence, the Examiner may take the position that one of ordinary skill would reasonably conclude that the prior art filter would function in a similar manner ass the claimed filter, specifically provide a controlled level of water absorption during use, absent evidence to the contrary. Then, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art product does not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of the Applicant’s claimed product, thus shifting the burden to the Applicant to show that the product of the prior art is not equivalent to the structure or material claimed. See MPEP 2112.01.
Therefore, the Examiner has provided a prima facie case of obviousness that the prior art filter segment is equivalent to the claimed filter segment both structurally and compositionally as claimed, and thus it would follow the prior art filter would have similar functions/properties to capture and retain water as claimed. The Examiner did not and does not reject the claims under 112(a) at this time, but notes that if the Applicant were to argue that the prior art filter that is compositionally and structurally equivalent to the claimed filter is unable to provide a controlled level of water absorption similarly as claimed, then a rejection under 112(a) may be warranted as one would not know, without undue experimentations, which embodiments of the claimed filter would result in the claimed ability to control the level of water absorbed during use.
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 15-20, 24, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian, et al (US20140096783A1) and further in view of Wang (US20190343170A1), Yang (Filtration efficiency of a cigarette filter with X- or Y-shaped fibers, 2019), Guyard, et al (US-20190297937-A1), and Seitert, et al (US20080029114A1).
Regarding claim 15, Sebastian teaches An aerosol-generating article, comprising:
• an aerosol-generating substrate; “smoking article comprising a tobacco rod” (Abstract)
• and a filter in axial alignment with the aerosol-generating substrate, the filter comprising at least one filter segment of filtration material formed of a plurality of fibres comprising a polyhydroxyalkanoate compound,
Sebastian teaches a smoking article such as a cigarette that has a rod-shapes structure that contains a smokable material that is aligned in an end-to-end relationship with a filter element. [0004] The prior art teaches that a degradable filter comprised of a mixed fiber tow [0008] that is a combination of a first plurality of fibers combined with a second plurality of fibers.[0009] The first plurality of fibers are cellulose acetate fibers [0010] and the second plurality of fibers can be selected from a list degradable polymeric material which includes aliphatic polyesters (e.g., polylactic acid or a polyhydroxyalkanoate and regenerated cellulose material). [0011]
• wherein the fibres have a denier per filament (dpf) of between 5.0 dpf and 12.0 dpf, The prior art teaches that the mixed fiber tow typically has a denier per filament of about 3 to 5 [0012]; however, Sebastian goes on to teach a range of possible denier per filament being in the range of 1 to 15 in order to achieve the desired pressure drop across the filter element made from the fibers. [0030] The claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05
wherein the at least one filter segment comprises at least 20 percent by weight of the polyhydroxyalkanoate compound,
Sebastian teaches the proportions of the first plurality of fibers and the second plurality of fibers. The prior art discloses that the ratios or proportions are calculated by weight and that the first fibers (cellulose acetate) and the second fibers (regenerated cellulose fibers or polyhydroxyalkanoate) can have a ratio of 30:70 all the way to 70:30. [0031] A person having ordinary skill would recognize that the sum of the ratios as taught by Sebastian equal 100 and as such the ratios could also be considered percentages. As such, the range, as taught by Sebastian, overlaps the range of the instant claim, and therefore the instant claim is prima facie obvious. See MPEPE 2144.05.
Sebastian is silent with respect to the aerosol generating substrate comprising at least 10 percent by weight of an aerosol former.
The prior fails to teach the specifics of the smokable rod only teaching the rod can include tobacco materials and other smokable materials. [0051]
Wang, directed to the design of cigarettes, teaches a dual-use cigarette that is comprised of raw tobacco materials combined with propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin and that the percent by weight of the tobacco material is between 5% and 50%. (Abstract, [0005]-[0007])
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sebastian by using a tobacco rod with an aerosol forming content as taught by Wang because both Sebastian and Wang are directed to the smoking articles comprised of tobacco rods, Wang teaches using a tobacco composition prevents the sour odor that can be imparted by water in the tobacco [0003] and provide a smoking experience close to that of a traditional cigarette [0002],and this involves combining prior art elements of the tobacco formulation according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Sebastian fails to teach: a total external surface area within the filter segment of between 0.12 square meters per gram and 0.28 square meters per gram.
Yang, directed to the study of cigarette filtration efficiency, teaches “Filtration efficiency of nicotine depends upon two factors, one is the fiber’s surface area, and the other is the intake rate” (p2520 ln 1-2)
Sebastian fails to teach the total external surface area within the filter segment, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the total external surface area within the filter segment since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed total internal surface area within the filter is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the total external surface area within the filter segment motivated by the desire to optimize the filtration efficiency.
Sebastian fails to teach the filter comprises a support element in the form of a hollow tubular element downstream of the aerosol generating substrate.
Guyard, directed to the design smoking articles, teaches a support element that is located immediately downstream of the aerosol generating material and that the support element is a hollow cellulose acetate tube. [0076]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sebastian and Wang by adding a hollow tubular section as taught by Guyard because Sebastian, Wang and Guyard are directed to the smoking articles comprised of tobacco rods, Guyard teaches this support element acts as a spacer between the substrate and the rest of the filter [0076]],and this involves combining prior art elements of the tobacco formulation according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Sebastian teaches an exemplary resistance to draw/pressure drop of between 50mm of water and 200 mm of water. [0062] The prior art also teaches that the denier per filament can be altered to achieve the desired pressure drop across the filter element.[0030]
Seitert, directed to the design of smoking article filters, teaches “the mouth end segment has a resistance to draw of about 20 mm WG or less .” (p1 [0013])
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sebastian to have a resistance to draw of a mouth end segment (filter element) as taught by Seitert because both Sebastian and Seitert are directed to the design of smoking article filters, Seitert teaches “The mouth end segment is used to balance the overall resistance to draw of the multi-component filter of the present invention in order to achieve a desired overall resistance to draw for a smoking article comprising the multi-component filter.”(p1 [0016]), and this involves applying a known technique of configuring a filter resistance to draw to a known product ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
The prior art of Sebastian, Yang, Guyard, and Seitert do not explicitly teach that the filter element provides a controlled level of water absorption during use of the aerosol-generating article.
Sebastian does teach that the selection of fibers for the filter material can be selected to improve biodegradability, improved particulate filtration, improved vapor absorption, and/or any other beneficial aspect associated with the fibers. [0073]
The ability to provide a controlled level of water absorption during use would be based on the materials of which the filter element is comprised. Sebastian in view of yang, Guyard, and Seitert teaches an aerosol generating article with a filter segment containing at least 20% polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), having a denier per filament between 5 and 12 dpf, and a resistance to draw (RTD) of 10 to 40 mm H2O.
Merely claiming a result of a filter in use does not distinguish the article or filter segment from the prior art. One of ordinary skill would reasonably conclude that a filter segment having similar features, including the amount of PHA and an overlapping RTD, would reasonably function in a similar manner as the claimed filter segment and would have a similar level of water absorption that would occur in a similar controlled manner, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 16, Sebastian teaches that the plurality of fibres have a round cross-sectional shape
Sebastian teaches that the shape of the individual filament cross-section can include a circular shape which is considered to read on the round cross-sectional shape [0030]
Sebastian fail to teach: a total external surface area within the filter segment of between 0.08 square meters per gram and 0.12 square meters per gram.
Yang, directed to the study of cigarette filtration efficiency, teaches “Filtration efficiency of nicotine depends upon two factors, one is the fiber’s surface area, and the other is the intake rate” (p2520 ln 1-2)
Though Sebastian fails to teach the total external surface area within the filter segment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the total external surface area within the filter segment since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed total internal surface area within the filter is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the total external surface area within the filter segment motivated by the desire to increase the filtration efficiency.
Regarding claim 17, , Sebastian teaches that the plurality of fibres have a Y-shaped cross-sectional shape
Sebastian, directed to the design of a biodegradable cigarette filter, teaches the filament shapes can be multilobal which includes a filament that would have a y-shaped cross-section. [0030]
Sebastian fails to teach a total external surface area within the filter segment of between 0.15 square meters per gram and 0.21 square meters per gram.
Yang, directed to the study of cigarette filtration efficiency, teaches “Filtration efficiency of nicotine depends upon two factors, one is the fiber’s surface area, and the other is the intake rate” (p2520 ln 1-2)
Though Sebastian fails to teach the total external surface area within the filter segment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the total external surface area within the filter segment since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed total internal surface area within the filter is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the total external surface area within the filter segment motivated by the desire to increase the filtration efficiency.
Regarding claim 18, Sebastian discloses wherein the fibres have a denier per filament (dpf) of between 3.2 dpf and 5.0 dpf,
The prior art teaches that the mixed fiber tow typically has a denier per filament of about 3 to 5 [0012]; however, Sebastian goes on to teach a range of possible denier per filament being in the range of 1 to 15 in order to achieve the desired pressure drop across the filter element made from the fibers. [0030] The claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 19, the prior art teaches wherein a total denier of the fibres is between 25,000 and 40,000.
Sebastian teaches that the fiber tow typically has a total denier in the range of about 20,000 denier to about 80,000 denier. [0012] This range, as taught by Sebastian, overlaps the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 20, Sebastian teaches the filtration material further comprises a plurality of fibres of at least one additional, biodegradable polymer.
As discussed in claim 15, Sebastian teaches that the filtration material is a mixed fiber tow comprised of a first plurality of fibers that are cellulose acetate and a second plurality of fibers that are selected from a list of degradable fibers, including biodegradable polymers. [0011]
Regarding claim 24, Sebastian teaches where the at least one filter segment has an average radial hardness of at least 80 percent.
Sebastian teaches that the hardness of the filter element will be at least about 90% [0014] and provides exemplary data from testing of tested filters having a hardness ranging from 86.9% to 95% (Table2) The claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 29, the prior art of Sebastian, Yang, Seitert, and Guyard do not explicitly teach that the filter element absorbs less than half the amount of the water that is absorbed under the same conditions by an equivalent filter segment formed of cellulose acetate fibres.
Sebastian does teach that the selection of fibers for the filter material can be selected to improve biodegradability, improved particulate filtration, improved vapor absorption, and/or any other beneficial aspect associated with the fibers. [0073]
The ability to provide a controlled level of water absorption during use would be based on the materials of which the filter element is comprised. Sebastian in view of Seitert, and Guyard teaches an aerosol generating article with a filter segment containing at least 20% polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), having a denier per filament between 5 and 12 dpf, a resistance to draw (RTD) of 10 to 40 mm H2O.
Merely claiming a result of a filter in use does not distinguish the article or filter segment from the prior art. One of ordinary skill would reasonably conclude that a filter segment having a similar features, including the amount of PHA and an overlapping RTD, would reasonably function in a similar manner as the claimed filter segment and would absorb a similar amount of water compared to a filter segment made purely of cellulose acetate tow, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claims 30 and 31, the prior art is silent with respect to the aerosol created during use of the generating article comprising an amount of water that is at least 10 percent higher than the amount of water in the aerosol created during use of an equivalent aerosol-generating article comprising a filter segment formed of cellulose acetate fibres.
Wang teaches that the tobacco raw material has a water content of 5%-10% (Abstract) and is combined with aerosol formers propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin in the range of 5% to 50%. (Abstract, [0005-0007])
The moisture content of the aerosol created by the aerosol generating substrate would be a function of the composition of the substrate material and the filter composition. A person having ordinary skill would reasonably conclude that the prior art article used with a heat not burn device and having a similar composition including the additional aerosol former in the aerosol generating substate and a similar filter with the same composition would function similarly as the claimed aerosol generating article and filter when used and thus generate similar amounts of water in the aerosol when compared to a cellulose acetate fiber filter.
Merely claiming a result of a filter in use does not distinguish the article or filter segment from the prior art. One of ordinary skill would reasonably conclude that a filter segment having similar features, including the amount of PHA and an overlapping RTD, would reasonably function in a similar manner as the claimed filter segment and would absorb a similar amount of water compared to a filter segment made purely of cellulose acetate tow, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian, et al (US20140096783A1), Wang (US20190343170A1), Yang (Filtration efficiency of a cigarette filter with X- or Y-shaped fibers, 2019), Guyard, et al (US-20190297937-A1), and Seitert, et al (US20080029114A1) as applied to claim 15, and further in view of Schwier (Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) Bioplastic Packaging Materials, 2010).
Sebastian teaches that the biodegradability of polymers and gives exemplary weight loss when the material is buried in soil or in a municipal composter. Sebastian goes on to teach that the degradability of plastic materials can be obtained by the following ASTM test methods: D5338, D5526, D5988, D6400, and D7081. Other degradability testing methods include ISO Method 9408 and Biochemical Methane Potential (BMP) testing. ([0063]-[0065]
Regarding claim 22, however Sebastian fails to specifically teach wherein the at least one filter segment has a biodegradability in an aqueous medium of at least 50 percent when tested according to ISO 14851.
Schwier, directed to the study of polyhydroxyalkanoate, teaches “When tested via ASTM D5271 protocols, all the PHA formulations showed a biodegradation percentage above 90% within a period of six months.”(p25 Biodegradation Testing) Schwier teaches the polyhydroxyalkanoate has a biodegradability greater than 50% using ASTM D5271 protocols. ASTM states that “1.7 This test method is equivalent to ISO 1485” (p1) and as such it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the results of Schwier, 90% biodegradation, using ASTM D5271 would produce an equivalent result for the biodegradation of polyhydroxyalkanoate using the ISO 14851 testing protocol.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to reasonably conclude that the biodegradable polyhydroxyalkanoate as taught by Sebastian will have a biodegradability of greater than 50% in an aqueous solution as taught by Schwier because Sebastian and Schwier are directed to the use of polyhydroxyalkanoate materials, Schwier teaches “PHAs represent the best candidates for broad replacement of current plastic packaging materials due to their durability in use and wide spectrum of properties.” (p5) and have biodegradability percentages above 50%.
Additionally, it follows that with the same composition and materials used for the filter segment, the prior art filter segment would have a similar biodegradability as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary. In this instance, the prior art discloses a filter comprising similar polyhydroxyalkanoate compounds as the Applicant and thus it follows that the filter made up of the same material as the applicant would have similar biodegradable properties.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian, et al (US20140096783A1), Wang (US20190343170A1), Yang (Filtration efficiency of a cigarette filter with X- or Y-shaped fibers, 2019), Guyard, et al (US-20190297937-A1), and Seitert, et al (US20080029114A1) as applied to claim 15 and further in view of Nappi (US20160270437A1) .
Regarding claim 23, Sebastian does not teach wherein the at least one filter segment further comprises at least 5 percent by weight of polyethylene glycol.
Sebastian teaches cellulose acetate tow is generally plasticized with an appropriate plasticizer; however, the prior art only discusses the use of triacetin and does not discuss other possible plasticizers.
Nappi, directed to the design of cigarettes with degradable filters, teaches “Suitable plasticizers for use in the present invention would be well known to the skilled person and may be selected from the plasticizers that are conventionally used for cellulose acetate tow. Examples of suitable plasticizers include triacetin, triethyl citrate and polyethylene glycol.” (p2 [0027]) and “Preferably, the fibrous filter segment includes between about 1 percent and about 15 percent by weight of the plasticizer, more preferably between about 5 percent and about 10 percent, based on the total weight of the fibrous filtration material.” (p2 [0028]) Nappi teaches that use of plasticizers is well known in the art. Nappi also teaches that the amount of plasticizer that is used in the filter segment is between 5 and 10 percent. The claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kuersteiner and Sebastian by using polyethylene glycol in the range as taught by Nappi because Kuersteiner, Sebastian, and Nappi are directed to the design of a degradable cigarette filters, Nappi teaches that the use of the plasticizers “ensures that the inclusion of the degradable polymer into the fibres does not adversely impact the firmness of the fibrous filter segment compared to a traditional cellulose acetate tow”(p2 [0026]), and this involves the use of known technique using plasticizers in filter elements to maintain the firmness to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian, et al (US20140096783A1), Wang (US20190343170A1), Yang (Filtration efficiency of a cigarette filter with X- or Y-shaped fibers, 2019), Guyard, et al (US-20190297937-A1), and Seitert, et al (US20080029114A1) as applied to claim 15 and further in view of Besso, et al (US20170231269A1).
Regarding claim 25, Sebastian teaches that filter element is circumscribed by a tipping material but is silent to the specifics of the at least one filter segment is circumscribed by a wrapper having a basis weight of at least 100 grams per square metre (gsm).
Besso, directed to the design of filters for smoking articles, teaches the plug wrap can have a weigh basis in the range of about 10 to 150grams per square meter.[0028] The claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sebastian by using the filter wrapping material as taught by Besso because both Sebastian and Besso are directed to filters for smoking articles, Besso teaches using a useful amount or basis weight to create a hydrophobic plug wrap (tipping paper) [0043], and this involves a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian, et al (US20140096783A1), Wang (US20190343170A1), Yang (Filtration efficiency of a cigarette filter with X- or Y-shaped fibers, 2019), Guyard, et al (US-20190297937-A1), and Seitert, et al (US20080029114A1) as applied to claim 15 and further in view of Dube, et al (US20110232658A1).
Regarding claim 26, Sebastian is silent with respect to at least one filter segment is in the form of a hollow tubular element.
Dube, directed to the design of cigarette filters, teaches a filter element with a hollow region or cavity for a rupturable capsule.[0014] the prior are describes the inner hollow cavity as being a generally cylindrical cavity. ([0045], Fig 2)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sebastian by adding a hollow tube for at least part of a filter element as taught by Dube because both Sebastian and Dube are directed to filters for smoking articles, Dube teaches this hollow portion allows for the passage/insertion for the flavor capsule [0045], and this involves the use of known technique of having a hollow portion of a filter for a capsule to improve similar products in the same way.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian, et al (US20140096783A1), Wang (US20190343170A1), Yang (Filtration efficiency of a cigarette filter with X- or Y-shaped fibers, 2019), Guyard, et al (US-20190297937-A1), and Seitert, et al (US20080029114A1) as applied to claim 15 and further in view of Malgat, et al (US20160331032A1).
Regarding claim 27, Sebastian does not teach wherein the aerosol- generating substrate has a length of between 5 millimetres and 15 millimetres.
Sebastian teaches that the tobacco rod can have a length from 35mm to 85 mm and that short rod can be employed when smoking blends has a high packing density. [0053]
Malgat, directed to the design of aerosol generating articles with filter elements, teaches “In a preferred embodiment, the aerosol-forming substrate has a length of approximately 12 millimetres.” [0067] Malgat teaches that increasing the length of the aerosol forming substrate will increase the resistance to draw through the aerosol forming substrate [0147] and as such a person having ordinary skill would look to have the shortest length possible when trying to maintain a low resistance to draw through the aerosol generating article.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sebastian and Wang by using the aerosol generating article length as taught by Malgat because Sebastian, Wang, and Malgat are directed to the design of aerosol generating articles with filter elements, Malgat teaches that increasing the length of the aerosol forming substrate will increase the resistance to draw through the aerosol forming substrate [0147], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar product in the same way.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRGINIA R BIEGER whose telephone number is (703)756-1014. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7:30-4:30.
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, Phillip 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.
/V.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755