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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 6-9, and 11-15 are pending and subject to this Office Action. Claim 1 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed pages 6-9, filed 19 December 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the limitation: the density of the second materials is at least about 0.25 g/cc.
Applicant argues, pages 7-8, that Bonici is directed to a single filter segment with a typical density in the range of 0.12 to 0.19 g/cm3 which is less than the upper limit of 0.25g/cm3 as stated in claim 1. Applicant also asserts that Bonici teaches that increasing the density if the filter material increases the filtration efficiency not allowing certain aerosol constituents to pass through which constitutes teaching away.
Bonici is used to modify Blangy who teaches the use of a concentric filter in conjunction with a smoking article. Blangy teaches the concentric filter is comprised of a central core portion and an outer periphery layer. The central core portion of the filter is designed to have a lower resistance to draw, a lower density, or both than the periphery layer. [0004] Blangy repeatedly notes that the inner core portion has a density less than that of the periphery layer ([0009], [0013], [0031]) but only teaches the density relationship between the outer periphery layer and the central core portion. [0009]
Blangy is silent with respect to the possible density values of the central core portion. As such, Bonici is used to modify the teachings of Blangy.
Bonici, directed to the design of filter elements for aerosol generating articles, teaches a filter material that has a resistance to draw (RTD) of 70 mm WG or less and a density 0.12 g/cm3 or greater. (Abstract) The prior art teaches a specific range for the filter material that that is between 0.12 g/cm3 and 0.19 g/cm3 to achieve a low RTD. (p2 ln 13-15) The Examiner notes that the claim limitation requires the density of the inner body material to be in the range between 0.1 g/cc and 0.25 g/cc which Bonici explicitly teaches. "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). MPEP 2131.03 Bonici teaches this density would allow for the filter to have a desired hardness and low RTD. (p2 ln 3-6)
As for the teaching away, Bonici’s teaching that the increase in density would increase the filtration efficiency and the RTD. However, the Examiner notes that Bonici teaches that when the filter material density is increased the filter hardness is increased. The prior art also notes that when the filter material comprises a plasticizer, the density of the filter material may increase. (p2 ln 16-18) The increased amounts of plasticizer may increase resistance to draw. Use of higher density filaments may counteract the increase in resistance to draw associated with increased amounts of plasticizer. (p2 ln 22-24) Bonici teaches that the density of the filter material can be used to optimize the RTD when the filter material includes a plasticizer.
Applicant argues, pages 8-9, Bonici teaches away from the use of a filter material that has a density of at least about 0.25 g/cm3 thus a material with this density would not be considered for any portion of the concentric filter element.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The primary reference, Blangy, teaches that the outer periphery layer is made of a material that is more dense than the material used for the central core portion. The prior art teaches that the central core portion has a density “ less than about 90%, less than about 75%, or less than about 65% of the density of the periphery layer.” [0009] Bonici is used to teach the density for the central core portion of the concentric filter element.
Blangy, as modified by Bonici, teaches the density of the central core portion being 90% to 65% of the density of the periphery layer portion of the filter element discussed above. Given these parameters for the periphery layer portion in relation to the central core portion, the outer periphery layer would have a density that would be in the range of 111% -154% since the outer periphery being the inverse ratio of the density of the central core portion. Thus the outer periphery layer would have a density of 0.13 g/cm3 to 0.29 g/cm3. As such, the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments made to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6-9, 12-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Blangy et al. (US 2015/0144149) in view of Norman et al. (US 2011/0108044) and
Bonici et al. (WO 2019/130154).
Regarding claim 1, Blangy discloses a component (Figure 2, filter 11, [0027])
comprising: an inner body comprising a first material (Figure 2, core portion 23
including a sorbent material, [0031]); and an outer body comprising a second material (Figure 2, periphery layer 24
formed of cellulose acetate or nonwoven web of cellulosic material such as
paper, [0013] and [0031]),the outer body surrounding the inner body (Figure 2, periphery layer 24 surrounds core portion 23, [0031]), wherein a resistance to gaseous flow through the length of the inner body is less than a resistance to gaseous flow through the length of the outer body (resistance to draw (RTD) of the core portion is lower than the resistance to draw (RTD) of the
periphery layer, abstract).
Blangy fails to explicitly disclose wherein the resistance to gaseous flow through
the length of the inner body is less than about 30 mmH2O.
Norman teaches a similar filter element with an inner and outer body (see
Figures 2A-2B, first filter segment 32 and second filter segment 36, [0037])
wherein the pressure drop (same as resistance to gaseous flow) of the inner body is
about 17 mm of water (i.e. mmH2O) (exemplified as pressure drop in "second
region" in [0032]). Norman also teaches that having the pressure drop in the inner
region being much less than the pressure drop of the outer region makes the
mainstream smoke preferentially travel through the inner region and only have small,
desired amounts of the smoke interact with the outer region [0040].
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 modified Blangy to incorporate the
teachings of Norman to have made the pressure drop of the inner body to be about 17
mmH2O, because doing SO would allow the mainstream smoke to preferentially travel
through the inner region and only have small, desired amounts of the smoke interact
with the outer region, as recognized by Norman [0040].
Blangy also fails to disclose wherein the density of the first material forming the
inner body is between 0.1 g/cc and 0.25 g/cc.
Bonici teaches a similar filter for an aerosol-generating article made out of
cellulose acetate (same material as Blangy [0010] and Bonici page 7 lines 4-5)
wherein the density of the material is between 0.12 g/cc and 0.19 g/cc (page 2, lines
13-15). Bonici also teaches that this filter provides improved hardness while still
providing the desired resistance to draw (page 2, lines 3-6).
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 modified Blangy to incorporate the
teachings of Bonici to make the inner body material with a density of between 0.12 g/cc
and 0.19 g/cc because doing so would give the filter improved hardness while still
providing the desired resistance to draw, as recognized by Bonici (page 2, lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 6, modified Blangy teaches a component according to claim 1,
wherein the first material and/or the second material comprises paper (Blangy, central
core 23 and/or periphery layer 24 formed of nonwoven web of cellulosic material
such as paper, [0010] and [0013], also the abstract teaches that the RTD of the
central core is lower than the RTD of the periphery layer, and that this is true no
matter the material chosen for each section).
Regarding claim 7, modified Blangy teaches a component according to claim 1,
wherein the density of the first material is lower than the density of the second material
(Blangy, central core portion (which contains first material) has lower density
than the periphery layer (which contains second material), [0004]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Blangy teaches a component according to claim 1,
wherein the inner body is cylindrical and/or the outer body is tubular (Blangy, central
core portion 23 is cylindrical, [0010], and periphery layer 24 circumscribes the
core portion, making it tubular, [0004], also reference Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, modified Blangy teaches a component according to claim 1,
wherein the inner body and/or the outer body has a length in the range 5 mm to 15 mm
(Blangy, Example A exemplifies the segment containing the inner and outer body
("concentric sorbent segment") with a length of 12mm, [0033]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Blangy teaches a component according to claim 1,
further comprising a tubular body (Blangy, Figure 2, third filter segment 17, [0029]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Blangy teaches a component according to claim
12, wherein the tubular body defines a mouth end of the component (Blangy, Figure 2,
third filter segment 17 is at the mouth end of the filter 11, [0029]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Blangy teaches a component according to claim
12, as set forth above. Blangy fails to explicitly teach wherein the tubular body has a
length of at least about 10 mm or at least about 12 mm. However, Blangy teaches that
the third filter segment (i.e. the tubular body), is preferably between about 5 and 10 mm
in length [0021].
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 made a tubular body with a length
of 5 to 10 mm because it preferred by Blangy, which overlaps with the claimed range of
at least about 10 mm. See MPEP 2144.05.I Overlapping, Approaching, and Similar
Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
Regarding claim 15, modified Blangy teaches a component according to claim 1,
further comprising a wrapper surrounding the outer body (Blangy, Figure 2, tipping
paper 14 surrounds periphery layer 24, [0027]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blangy et
al. (US 2015/0144149) in view of Norman et al. (US 2011/0108044) and Bonici et al.
(WO 2019/130154) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamashita et al.
(US 2004/0097354).
Regarding claim 11, modified Blangy discloses a component according to claim
1, as set forth above. Modified Blangy fails to disclose that the component further
comprises an adhesive securing the inner body and the outer body to each other.
Yamashita teaches a similar cigarette containing a filter wherein the component
further comprises an adhesive securing the inner body and the outer body to each other
(Figures 2 and 3, adhesive region 20 is between the wrapping paper 16 and filter
material 14, [0048]). Yamashita also teaches that the adhesive prevents the filter
material from slipping out of the wrapping paper [0014].
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 modified Blangy to incorporate the
teachings of Yamashita to include an adhesive between the inner body and outer body
because doing so would prevent the inner and outer bodies from slipping away from
each other, as recognized by Yamashita [0014].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blangy et
al. (US 2015/0144149) in view of Norman et al. (US 2011/0108044) and Bonici et al.
(WO 2019/130154) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Houck, Jr. et al.
(US 3,911,932).
Regarding claim 16, modified Blangy discloses a component according to claim
15, as set forth above. Modified Blangy fails to disclose wherein the wrapper has a
citrate content of 2% by weight or less, or 1% by weight or less.
Houck, Jr. teaches a similar cigarette wherein the wrapper preferably has a
citrate content (specifically sodium-potassium citrate) in amount of about 0.6% to 5%
(col. 4 lines 3-10). Houck, Jr. also teaches that the sodium-potassium citrate is a burn-
promoting additive and is provided to offset a lower burn rate in the wrapper when using
a porosity reducing additive (col. 2 lines 17-19) (also, Blangy includes cellulose acetate (see at least [0010] and [0013] of Blangy), which is a porosity-reducing additive according to Houck, Jr., col. 2 lines 23-30).
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 modified Blangy to incorporate the
teachings of Houck, Jr. to incorporate a citrate with a content of between about 0.6% to
5% (which reads over the claimed range of less than 2%) because doing SO would
provide a burn-promoting additive (which the citrate is) and potentially offset a lower
burn rate in the wrapper when using a porosity reducing additive, as recognized by
Houck, Jr. (col. 2 lines 17-19).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights