DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 9- are pending. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10 of Remarks filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 40-43 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant's further arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amended claims 1 and 9 to require that the aerosol generating material comprise a tobacco material and at least 5% by weight of an aerosol-former material. Applicant argues that because 100% of the aerosol generating material is an aerosol-former material, it does not comprise both a tobacco material and at least 5% by weight of an aerosol-former material. This argument is not persuasive as the entire aerosol generating material of Bonici is an aerosol-former material that is a tobacco material (¶ 0060). Similarly, the entire aerosol generating material of Gambs is an aerosol-former material that is a tobacco material (¶ 0010). Further, the entire aerosol generating material of Case is an aerosol-former material that is a tobacco material (Col. 3, Line 52). As such, the aerosol generating materials of Bonici, Gambs, and Case each comprise a tobacco material and at least 5% by weight of an aerosol-former material.
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.
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, 9-12, 17-21, 25-29, 31, 32, 34-36, 38-43, 55, 59, 67, 69, and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonici et al. (US 2020/0329759 A1) in view of Sebastian et al. (US 2011/0180084 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bonici discloses an article for use in a non-combustible aerosol provision system (“aerosol-generating article 10”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0064, “’aerosol-generating article’ also includes articles in which an aerosol-forming substrate is not combusted”, ¶ 0060), the article comprising:
an aerosol generating material (“aerosol-forming substrate 20”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0064) comprising a tobacco material and at least 5% by weight of an aerosol-former material (the entire aerosol generating material is an aerosol-former material that is a tobacco material, “aerosol-forming substrate, such as a tobacco”, ¶ 0060, therefore the aerosol generating material comprises a tobacco material and at least 5% by weight of an aerosol-former material), and
a downstream portion (“filter 30”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0064) located downstream of the aerosol generating material (“filter 30 downstream of the aerosol-forming substrate 20”, ¶ 0064), wherein the downstream portion comprises a body of material (“filter 30”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0064, where “filter 30” comprises “filter material 32” and “plug wrap 60”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0064), having a volume of at least 115 mm3 (“filter length of 21 mm”, ¶ 0009; filter diameter “between about 7.7 mm and 7.8 mm”, ¶ 0054; yielding a volume of
π
(
7.7
m
m
)
2
4
(
21
m
m
)
to
π
(
7.8
m
m
)
2
4
(
21
m
m
)
= 977.89 mm3 to 1003.46 mm3; since the range 977.89 mm3 to 1003.46 mm3 falls within the claimed range of at least 115 mm3, the range is anticipated, MPEP § 2131.03) and wherein said body of material comprises cellulose (“cellulosic material”, ¶ 0033).
However, Bonici does not disclose wherein the body of material comprises a sheet of material arranged to form the body, and wherein the sheet material is crimped.
Sebastian, in the same field of endeavor, teaches forming bodies of material from a sheet of material arranged to form the body, wherein the sheet material is crimped (“crimping and/or embossing the sheet filter material”, ¶ 0044). Sebastian also teaches a benefit of using a sheet of material that is crimped in that it increases the effect provided by the body (¶ 0044). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the body of material taught by Bonici from a sheet of material arranged to form the body, wherein the sheet of material is crimped, as taught by Sebastian, in order to achieve this benefit.
Regarding claim 9, Bonici discloses an article for use in an aerosol provision system (“aerosol-generating article 10”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0064, 0060), the article comprising:
an aerosol generating material (“aerosol-forming substrate 20”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0064) comprising a tobacco material and at least 5% by weight of an aerosol-former material (the entire aerosol generating material is an aerosol-former material that is a tobacco material, “aerosol-forming substrate, such as a tobacco”, ¶ 0060, therefore the aerosol generating material comprises a tobacco material and at least 5% by weight of an aerosol-former material), and
a downstream portion (“filter 30”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0064) located downstream of the aerosol generating material (“filter 30 downstream of the aerosol-forming substrate 20”, ¶ 0064), wherein the downstream portion comprises a body of material (“filter 30”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0064, where “filter 30” comprises “filter material 32” and “plug wrap 60”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0064) comprising cellulose (“cellulosic material”, ¶ 0033), and wherein the downstream portion further comprises at least one aerosol modifying agent release component (“A filter of the present invention may include . . . capsules”, ¶ 0052) incorporated within the body of material (¶ 0052).
However, Bonici does not disclose wherein the body of material comprises a sheet of material arranged to form the body, and wherein the sheet material is crimped.
Sebastian, in the same field of endeavor, teaches forming bodies of material from a sheet of material arranged to form the body, wherein the sheet material is crimped (“crimping and/or embossing the sheet filter material”, ¶ 0044). Sebastian also teaches a benefit of using a sheet of material that is crimped in that it increases the effect provided by the body (¶ 0044). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the body of material taught by Bonici from a sheet of material arranged to form the body, wherein the sheet of material is crimped, as taught by Sebastian, in order to achieve this benefit.
Regarding claim 10, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 9 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that the body of material has a volume of at least 115 mm3 (“filter length of 21 mm”, ¶ 0009; filter diameter “between about 7.7 mm and 7.8 mm”, ¶ 0054; yielding a volume of
π
(
7.7
m
m
)
2
4
(
21
m
m
)
to
π
(
7.8
m
m
)
2
4
(
21
m
m
)
= 977.89 mm3 to 1003.46 mm3; since the range 977.89 mm3 to 1003.46 mm3 falls within the claimed range of at least 115 mm3, the range is anticipated, MPEP § 2131.03) and wherein said body of material comprises cellulose (“cellulosic material”, ¶ 0033).
Regarding claim 11, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 9 as stated above. Bonici also discloses that the article further comprises a second aerosol release component (Bonici discloses a plurality of “capsules” may be included in the filter, ¶ 0052) incorporated within the body of material (¶ 0052).
Regarding claim 12, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 9 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that the aerosol modifying agent release component comprises a capsule (¶ 0052).
Regarding claim 17, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that the sheet material has a basis weight of 100 gsm or less (“the plug wrap has a basis weight from . . . about 50 grams per square meter to about 100 grams per square meter”, ¶ 0046). Since the range about 50 gsm to about 100 gsm falls within the claimed range of 100 gsm or less, the range is anticipated (MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 18, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that the sheet material has a basis weight of at least 20 gsm (“the plug wrap has a basis weight from . . . about 50 grams per square meter to about 100 grams per square meter”, ¶ 0046). Since the range about 50 gsm to about 100 gsm falls within the claimed range of at least 20 gsm, the range is anticipated (MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 19, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that the sheet material has a width of at least 60 mm (as seen in Fig. 1, the width of “plug wrap 60” corresponds to the length of “filter 30”, which Bonici discloses may be “126 mm”, ¶ 0071, 0075). Since 126 mm falls within the claimed range of at least 60 mm, the range is anticipated (MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 20, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that the sheet material has a width of at most 240 mm (as seen in Fig. 1, the width of “plug wrap 60” corresponds to the length of “filter 30”, which Bonici discloses may be “126 mm”, ¶ 0071, 0075). Since 126 mm falls within the claimed range of at most 240 mm, the range is anticipated (MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 21, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that the sheet material is folded to form the body (the plug wrap sheet material wraps the filter, ¶ 0071).
Regarding claim 25, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that the body of material has a volume of at least 200 mm3 (“filter length of 21 mm”, ¶ 0009; filter diameter “between about 7.7 mm and 7.8 mm”, ¶ 0054; yielding a volume of
π
(
7.7
m
m
)
2
4
(
21
m
m
)
to
π
(
7.8
m
m
)
2
4
(
21
m
m
)
= 977.89 mm3 to 1003.46 mm3). Since the range 977.89 mm3 to 1003.46 mm3 falls within the claimed range of at least 200 mm3, the range is anticipated (MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 26, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that the body of material has a volume of at least 19 mm3 per mm axial length of the body of material (filter diameter “between about 7.7 mm and 7.8 mm”, ¶ 0054; yielding a volume per mm axial length of
π
(
7.7
m
m
)
2
4
(
1
m
m
)
to
π
(
7.8
m
m
)
2
4
(
1
m
m
)
= 46.57 mm3 to 47.78 mm3). Since the range 46.57 mm3 to 47.78 mm3 falls within the claimed range of at least 19 mm3, the range is anticipated (MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 27, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that the body of material has a weight of at least 2 mg per mm axial length of the body of material (Bonici discloses the filter to have a minimum density of “0.11 g/cm3”, ¶ 0036, and a minimum volume per mm axial length of 46.57 mm3, as discussed in the rejection of claim 26 above, which results in a minimum weight of 5.12 mg per mm axial length of the body of material). Since the range at least 5.12 mg falls within the claimed range of at least 2 mg, the range is anticipated (MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 28, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that the body of material is a solid cylindrical body of material (“cylindrically shaped”, ¶ 0022).
Regarding claim 29, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that the body of material comprises paper (“the plug wrap comprises . . . a paper plug wrap”, ¶ 0045).
Regarding claim 31, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that the body has a density of at least 0.05 mg/mm3 (Bonici discloses the filter to have a minimum density of “0.11 g/cm3”, ¶ 0036, which is equivalent to 0.11 mg/mm3). Since the range at least 0.11 mg/mm3 falls within the claimed range of at least 0.05 mg/mm3, the range is anticipated (MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 32, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that the pressure drop across the body of material is at least 2 mmWG (“filters of the present invention have an RTD from about 40 mm water gauge (mmWG)”, ¶ 0024). Since the range at least 40 mmWG falls within the claimed range of at least 2 mmWG, the range is anticipated (MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 34, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that the pressure drop across the body of material is at least 1 mmWG per mm axial length of the body of material (“an RTD per mm of about 2.02”, ¶ 0075). Since 2.02 mmWG per mm falls within the claimed range of at least 1 mmWG per mm, the range is anticipated (MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 35, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that the pressure drop across the body of material is less than 2.5 mmWG per mm axial length of the body of material (“an RTD per mm of about 2.02”, ¶ 0075). Since 2.02 mmWG per mm falls within the claimed range of less than 2.5 mmWG per mm, the range is anticipated (MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 36, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that the body of material has an axial length of at least 4 mm (“filter length of 21 mm”, ¶ 0009). Since 21 mm falls within the claimed range of at least 4 mm, the range is anticipated (MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 38, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that the body of material has a circumference of at least 16 mm (filter diameter “between about 7.7 mm and 7.8 mm”, ¶ 0054; yielding a circumference of 7.7
π
mm to 7.8π mm = 24.19 mm to 24.50 mm). Since the range 24.19 mm to 24.50 mm falls within the claimed range of at least 16 mm, the range is anticipated (MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 39, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that an aerosol-modifying agent is applied to the body of material (“A filter of the present invention may include . . . flavorants”, ¶ 0052).
Regarding claim 40, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that a second aerosol-former material is applied to the body of material (“triacetin”, ¶ 0038).
Regarding claim 41, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 40 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that the second aerosol-former material comprises triacetin (“triacetin”, ¶ 0038).
Regarding claim 42, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 40 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that at least 0.02 mg of the second aerosol-former material is applied to the body of material per 1 mm axial length of the body of material (“the filter material has a weight between about 5.5 mg/mm and about 6.5 mg/mm”, ¶ 0035; the aerosol-former material is “about 8% to about 10%” of the weight of the filter material, ¶ 0039; yielding a weight of aerosol-former material per 1 mm axial length of the body of material of 0.44 mg to 0.65 mg). Since the range 0.44 mg to 0.65 mg falls within the claimed range of at least 0.02 mg, the range is anticipated (MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 43, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 40 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that 0.44 mg to 0.65 mg of aerosol-former material is applied to the body of material per 1 mm axial length of the body of material (“the filter material has a weight between about 5.5 mg/mm and about 6.5 mg/mm”, ¶ 0035; the aerosol-former material is “about 8% to about 10%” of the weight of the filter material, ¶ 0039; yielding a weight of aerosol-former material per 1 mm axial length of the body of material of 0.44 mg to 0.65 mg). Since the range 0.44 mg to 0.65 mg overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 mg or less, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 55, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that the body of material circumscribed by a wrapper has a hardness in the range of about 80% to 95% (“The aerosol-generating article has an average radial hardness of 95% or greater when measured around the filter”, ¶ 0008). Since the range 95% or greater overlaps the claimed range of about 80% to 95%, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 59, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Further, as the article of Bonici is capable of being inserted into a non-combustible aerosol provision device such that the minimum distance between the heater of the non-combustible aerosol provision device and a tubular section of the article is at least about 3 mm (for example, a non-combustible aerosol provision device with a heater more than 3 mm away from the closest point of contact to the article), the article of Bonici satisfies all the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 67, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that the article is an article for a non-combustible aerosol provision system (“’aerosol-generating article’ also includes articles in which an aerosol-forming substrate is not combusted”, ¶ 0060).
Regarding claim 69, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Further, as the article can produce an aerosol (¶ 0060), it is itself considered an aerosol provision system.
Regarding claim 71, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 9 as stated above. Bonici further discloses that the aerosol generating material (“aerosol-forming substrate 20”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0064) comprises at least 5% by weight of an aerosol-former material (the entire aerosol generating material, i.e., 100% of the aerosol generating material, is an aerosol-former material; 100% is in the claimed range of at least 5%).
Claims 1, 33, 44-49, 60-61, and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambs et al. (US 2015/0289562 A1) in view of Sebastian et al. (US 2011/0180084 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gambs discloses an article for use in a non-combustible aerosol provision system (“smoking articles in which material is heated, rather than combusted”, ¶ 0010), the article comprising:
an aerosol generating material (“aerosol forming material”, ¶ 0010) comprising a tobacco material and at least 5% by weight of an aerosol-former material (the entire aerosol generating material is a tobacco material that is an aerosol-former material, “tobacco material” that is an “aerosol forming material”, ¶ 0010, therefore the aerosol generating material comprises a tobacco material and at least 5% by weight of an aerosol-former material), and
a downstream portion (“filter segment . . . wrapped in a filter plug wrap”, ¶ 0018) located downstream of the aerosol generating material (¶ 0041-0042), wherein the downstream portion comprises a body of material (“filter segment . . . wrapped in a filter plug wrap”, ¶ 0018) having a volume of at least 115 mm3 (length “about 15 mm”, ¶ 0043; diameter “about 7.9 mm”, ¶ 0034; yielding a volume of
π
(
7.9
m
m
)
2
4
(
15
m
m
)
= 735.25 mm3; since 735.25 mm3 falls within the claimed range of at least 115 mm3, the range is anticipated, MPEP § 2131.03) and wherein said body of material comprises cellulose (“pulp comprising a mixture of short and longer fibres”, ¶ 0022).
However, Gambs does not disclose wherein the body of material comprises a sheet of material arranged to form the body, and wherein the sheet material is crimped.
Sebastian, in the same field of endeavor, teaches forming bodies of material from a sheet of material arranged to form the body, wherein the sheet material is crimped (“crimping and/or embossing the sheet filter material”, ¶ 0044). Sebastian also teaches a benefit of using a sheet of material that is crimped in that it increases the effect provided by the body (¶ 0044). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the body of material taught by Gambs from a sheet of material arranged to form the body, wherein the sheet of material is crimped, as taught by Sebastian, in order to achieve this benefit.
Regarding claim 33, Gambs in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Gambs further discloses that the pressure drop across the body of material is less than 25 mmWG (“Preferably, the mouth end filter segment has a resistance to draw of about 20 mm WG or less”, ¶ 0050, 0042). Since the range about 20 mmWG or less falls within the claimed range of less than 25 mmWG, the range is anticipated (MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 44, Gambs in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Gambs also discloses that the article further comprises a tube (“tipping paper” is a tube which both forms a “hollow tube” and attaches the “filter” to the article, ¶ 0048).
Regarding claim 45, Gambs in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 44 as stated above. Gambs further teaches that the tube has an axial length of at least 20 mm (the “tipping paper” tube covers the length of the “filter segment” which is “between about 5 mm and about 22 mm”, ¶ 0043, and the tube also extends further downstream than the “filter segment” to form a “hollow tube” which is a “mouth end filter segment”, ¶ 0048, with a length of “between about 3 mm and about 12 mm”, ¶ 0049, yielding an overall length of the tube of at between about 8 mm and about 34 mm.) Since the range of between about 8 mm and about 34 mm overlaps the claimed range of at least 20 mm, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 46, Gambs in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 45 as stated above. Gambs further teaches that the tube is downstream of the body of material (the “tipping paper” tube comprises the “mouth end filter segment”, ¶ 0048, “mouth end filter segment may advantageously be included downstream of the filter segment”, ¶ 0051) and wherein the article comprises a mouthpiece (“mouth end filter segment”, ¶ 0051, is a “mouthpiece”, ¶ 0033) with a downstream end, and wherein the downstream end of the mouthpiece comprises an end of the tube (¶ 0048, 0051).
Regarding claim 47, Gambs in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 44 as stated above. Gambs further discloses that the body of material and the tube are adjacent (the “tipping paper” tube attaches the “filter” to the article by wrapping around the body of material, ¶ 0048).
Regarding claim 48, Gambs in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 44 as stated above. Gambs further discloses that the tube comprises one or more ventilation holes (“perforations at a location along the filter”, ¶ 0060).
Regarding claim 49, Gambs in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Gambs further discloses that the article comprises a tubular portion (“hollow tube” which is a “mouth end filter segment”, ¶ 0048) downstream of the body of material (“mouth end filter segment may advantageously be included downstream of the filter segment”, ¶ 0051).
Regarding claim 60, Gambs in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Gambs further discloses that a level of ventilation of the article is within the range of 45% to 65% of the volume of aerosol passing through the component (“between about 40% and about 80%”, ¶ 0062). Since the range of about 40% to about 80% overlaps the claimed range of 45% to 65%, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 61, Gambs in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Gambs further discloses that the article comprises a hollow tubular element (“hollow tube”, ¶ 0048) extending from a mouth end of the article (“located at the mouth end”, ¶ 0048), wherein the hollow tubular element comprises a length of greater than about 10mm (“the length of a mouth end filter segment is between about 3 mm and about 12 mm”, ¶ 0049). Since the range of between about 3 mm and about 12 mm overlaps the claimed range greater than about 10mm, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 69, Gambs in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Gambs further discloses an aerosol provision system comprising an article according to claim 1 (¶ 0010).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonici et al. (US 2020/0329759 A1) in view of Sebastian et al. (US 2011/0180084 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Jordil (US 2016/0037824 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Bonici in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 12 as stated above. However, Bonici does not disclose the burst strength of the capsules to determine if it is within the claimed range of 5 to 30 N.
Jordil, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a capsule with a burst strength in the range 5 to 30 N (“the capsule has a burst strength of between about 12 N (1.2 kgf) and about 16 N (1.6 kgf)”, ¶ 0033). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood there was a benefit to forming the capsule to have a burst strength in this range as a burst strength outside of this range may be too difficult for the user to burst or burst too easily and therefore burst unintendedly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the capsule taught by Bonici to have a burst strength between about 12 N and about 16 N, as taught by Jordil, in order to achieve this benefit. The range between about 12 N and about 16 N falls within the claimed range 5 to 30 N (MPEP § 2131.03).
Claims 1, 19-21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Case et al. (US 6,595,217 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Case discloses an article (“smoking article”, Col. 1, Line 19) comprising:
an aerosol generating material (“smoking material rod”, Col. 1, Line 20) comprising a tobacco material and at least 5% by weight of an aerosol-former material (the entire aerosol generating material is an aerosol-former material that is a tobacco material, “smoking material rod” that is a “tobacco rod”, Col. 3, Line 52, therefore the aerosol generating material comprises a tobacco material and at least 5% by weight of an aerosol-former material), and
a downstream portion (“filter”, Col. 1, Line 20) located downstream of the aerosol generating material, wherein the downstream portion comprises a body of material (“filter”, Col. 1, Line 20) having a volume of at least 115 mm3 (the filter has a length of 6 mm to 30 mm, Col. 2, Lines 20-21, and a circumference of 13 mm to 30 mm, Col. 2, Line 50; yielding a volume of
(
13
m
m
)
2
4
π
(
6
m
m
)
to
(
30
m
m
)
2
4
π
(
30
m
m
)
= 80.69 mm3 to 2148.59 mm3, which overlaps the claimed range of at least 115 mm3, MPEP § 2144.05(I)) and wherein said body of material comprises cellulose (“paper”, Col. 1, Line 22).
Since the range 80.69 mm3 to 2148.59 mm3 taught by Case overlaps the claimed range of at least 115 mm3, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Case further teaches that the body of material comprises a sheet of material (“web(s) of moisture disintegrative paper”, Col. 2, Line 51) arranged to form the body (Col. 2, Lines 51-52) and that the sheet material is crimped ("web(s) of moisture disintegrative paper used in making the filter rod is/are crimped", Col. 2, Lines 51-52).
It is noted that the recitation of “for use in a non-combustible aerosol provision system” is a recitation of intended use, where statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim (MPEP § 2111.02). Case teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 1; therefore, claim 1 is obvious over Case.
Regarding claim 19, Case teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Case further teaches that the sheet material has a width (“bobbin width (=web width)”, Col. 3, Lines 30-31) of at least 60 mm (Bobbin Width 130.00 mm, Table 2). Since 130 mm falls within the claimed range of at least 60 mm, the range is anticipated (MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 20, Case teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Case further teaches that the sheet material has a width (“bobbin width (=web width)”, Col. 3, Lines 30-31) of at most 240 mm (Bobbin Width 130.00 mm, Table 2). Since 130 mm falls within the claimed range of at most 240 mm, the range is anticipated (MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 21, Case teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Case further teaches that the sheet material is folded to form the body ("web(s) of moisture disintegrative paper used in making the filter rod is/are crimped", Col. 2, Lines 51-52).
Regarding claim 23, Case teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Case further teaches that the sheet material is crimped to a crimp depth of at least 0.2 mm (“A corrugation-type crimp may be of a depth in a range of, for example, 0.25 mm to 0.70 mm”, Col. 2, Lines 58-60). Since the range 0.25 mm to 0.70 mm falls within the claimed range of at least 0.2 mm, the range is anticipated (MPEP § 2131.03).
Regarding claim 24, Case teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Case further teaches that the sheet material is crimped to a crimp depth of at most 0.8 mm (“A corrugation-type crimp may be of a depth in a range of, for example, 0.25 mm to 0.70 mm”, Col. 2, Lines 58-60). Since the range 0.25 mm to 0.70 mm falls within the claimed range of at most 0.8 mm, the range is anticipated (MPEP § 2131.03).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambs et al. (US 2015/0289562 A1) in view of Sebastian et al. (US 2011/0180084 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oliveira (US 2011/0168195 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Gambs in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. However, Gambs does not explicitly disclose that the body of material comprises reconstituted tobacco comprising the cellulose. Gambs discloses that the body of material comprises plug wrap that comprises pulp (¶ 0018, 0020, see rejection of claim 1 in view of Gambs above).
Oliveira, in the same field of endeavor, teaches forming bodies of materials from plug wrap comprising reconstituted tobacco (“the plug wrap 220 may . . . comprise tobacco or reconstituted tobacco material . . . . such as a sheet of reconstituted tobacco paper”, ¶ 0048). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit to using reconstituted tobacco in that it recycles tobacco waste materials into usable materials, in this case plug wrap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use reconstituted tobacco for the plug wrap for the body of material, as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. (In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambs et al. (US 2015/0289562 A1) in view of Sebastian et al. (US 2011/0180084 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Melia et al. (US 2020/0397037 A1).
Regarding claim 57, Gambs in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Gambs further discloses that the aerosol generating material comprises a first aerosol generating material (“aerosol forming material”, ¶ 0010), and the article further comprises a component (“mouth end filter segment”, ¶ 0048, 0051) downstream of the first aerosol generating material (¶ 0048, 0051), wherein the component comprises a tubular portion (“hollow tube”, ¶ 0048) and wherein the tubular portion comprises a wall (wall of the “hollow tube” formed by the “tipping paper”, ¶ 0048). However, Gambs does not explicitly disclose that the wall comprises a second aerosol generating material.
Melia, in the same field of endeavor teaches a tubular portion (“longitudinally extending hollow tubular rod 2 of cellulose acetate filamentary tow”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0048) that comprises a wall (“wall”, ¶ 0048) comprising an aerosol generating material (“triacetin”, ¶ 0048). Melia also taught a benefit of including a wall comprising aerosol generating material in the tubular portion in that it increases rigidity and prevents deformation (¶ 0004, 0006). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a wall that comprises aerosol generating material, as taught by Melia, in the tubular portion taught by Gambs, in order to achieve this benefit. In the article of the combination, the wall would comprise a second aerosol generating material.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gambs et al. (US 2015/0289562 A1) in view of Sebastian et al. (US 2011/0180084 A1)as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gedevanishvili (US 2005/0211259 A1).
Regarding claim 58, Gambs in view of Sebastian teaches an article according to claim 1 as stated above. Gambs further discloses that the aerosol generating material is wrapped by a wrapper (“the rod of smokable material is wrapped in cigarette paper”, ¶ 0058) and that the downstream portion comprises at least one ventilation area (“perforations”, ¶ 0060). Gambs does not disclose the permeability of the wrapper to determine if it falls within the claimed range.
Gedevanishvili, in the same field of endeavor, discloses wrapping aerosol generating material in multiple wrappers and that the first wrapper has a level of permeability greater than about 2000 Coresta Units (“in multilayer wrappers, first layer can be up to 30,000 CORESTA units”, ¶ 0075). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit to using a multilayer wrapper in that it allows control of both the “total air permeability and total thickness for the smoking article” (¶ 0075). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use multiple wrappers to wrap the aerosol generating material, in which the first wrapper has a permeability of up to 30,000 Coresta Units, as taught by Gedevanishvili, in the article taught by Gambs in order to achieve this benefit. Since the range of up to 30,000 Coresta Units overlaps the claimed range of greater than about 2000 Coresta Units, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY G CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0874. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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.
/C.G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747