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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 26, 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment as overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection set forth in the Final Office Action mailed October 24, 2025. Therefore, those rejections are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 4-8, 12-14, 17-21, 23, and 25-27 remain pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 26 and 27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups 2 and 3, respectively, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 21, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Iwanaga et al. (WO 2020/115897, reference to US 2021/0235747).
Regarding claim 1, Iwanaga teaches an article configured for use with a non-combustible aerosol provision device comprising a heater (Figure 1, rod 14 (non-combustible heating-type smoking article) for smoking system 11 which includes heater 21, [0013]-[0014]),
the article comprising: an aerosol generating material comprising at least one aerosol forming material selected from glycerol, propylene glycol or a mixture thereof (Figure 2, tobacco filler 23 contains aerosol generating base material which could be glycerin, propylene glycol, others, or mixtures thereof, [0032]);
a first hollow tubular body disposed downstream of the aerosol generating material (Figure 2, first segment 31 (may be hollow), [0021]),
the first hollow tubular body comprising filamentary tow (first segment filled with acetyl cellulose acetate fibers (which is filamentary tow), [0021]);
and a mouth end section disposed downstream of the first hollow tubular body (Figure 2, second segment 32, [0021]),
a second hollow tubular body disposed between the aerosol generating material and the first hollow tubular body (Figure 2, paper tube 35, [0028]),
wherein the second hollow tubular body is formed from paper (Figure 2, paper tube 35 obtained by forming thick paper into cylindrical shape, [0028]),
wherein the length of the second hollow tubular body is such that it extends away from the heater of the non-combustible aerosol provision device by at least about 3 mm when the article is inserted into the non- combustible aerosol provision device (Figures 1-2, heater 21 may be blade inserted to tobacco part 24 [0018], and length of connecting part 27 (same as paper tube 35 length) is 10-30mm, so must “extend away” from heater at least 3mm, [0022]);
wherein the article is configured such that when the article is inserted into the non-combustible aerosol provision device, the minimum distance between the heater of the non-combustible aerosol provision device and the first hollow tubular body is at least about 3 mm (Figures 1-2, heater 21 may be blade inserted to tobacco part 24 [0018], and length of first segment 31 (“first hollow tubular body”) is 10-30mm, so must “extend away” from heater at least 3mm, [0022]).
Regarding claim 5, Iwanaga teaches an article according to claim 1, wherein the length of the aerosol generating material is such that it extends away from the heater of the non-combustible aerosol provision device by at least about 3 mm when the article is inserted into the non-combustible aerosol provision device (Figure 1, if the rod 14 is barely inserted into the insertion part 13, the length of the tobacco part 24 being 20-70 mm ([0029]), the tobacco part would “extend away” from the heater at least 3mm, [0014]).
Regarding claim 6, Iwanaga teaches an article according to claim 1, further comprising a wrapper at least partially surrounding the aerosol generating material and the first hollow tubular body (Figure 2, lining paper 36 surrounds some of tobacco part 24 and first segment 31, [0028]).
Regarding claim 7, Iwanaga teaches an article according to claim 6, wherein the wrapper defines a cavity between the aerosol generating material and the first hollow tubular body (Figure 2, lining paper 36 defines at least part containing paper tube 35, which is a cavity between tobacco part 24 and first segment 31, [0028]),
wherein the length of the cavity is such that it extends away from the heater of the non-combustible aerosol provision device by at least about 3 mm when the article is inserted into the non-combustible aerosol provision device (Figures 1-2, heater 21 may be blade inserted to tobacco part 24 [0018], and length of connecting part 27 (same as cavity length) is 10-30mm, so must “extend away” from heater at least 3mm, [0022]).
Regarding claim 12, Iwanaga teaches an article according to claim 1, further comprising at least one ventilation area arranged to allow external air to flow into the article (Figure 2, air vent part 28 allows outside air to be taken into mainstream smoke, [0020]).
Regarding claim 13, Iwanaga teaches an article according to claim 12, wherein said at least one ventilation area is arranged to provide external air into the aerosol generating material (air vent part takes in external air to mix with aerosol emitted from tobacco filler, [0065]).
Regarding claim 14, Iwanaga teaches an article according to claim 12, wherein said at least one ventilation area is arranged to provide external air into a cavity of the first hollow tubular body (Figure 2, air is taken into connecting part 27 and flows to first segment 31 (“first hollow tubular body) (in addition or alternatively, the air vent part 28 may be in the filter part 26 which includes first segment 31), [0020]-[0021]).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwanaga et al. (WO 2020/115897, reference to US 2021/0235747) in view of Shinozaki et al. (US 2014/0366901).
Regarding claim 4, Iwanaga discloses an article according to claim 1, as set forth above. Iwanaga fails to disclose wherein the second hollow tubular body has a wall thickness of at least 300 microns.
Shinozaki teaches a similar flavor inhaler article which can be used like a cigarette ([0003]) wherein the second hollow tubular body has a wall thickness of at least 300 microns (paper tube formed into a cylindrical hollow body like Iwanaga with a thickness of 150 to 500 microns, [0010]). Shinozaki also teaches that this paper tube provides the ability to reduce the amount of adhesive used as well as improve the flexibility of the tube, and can also reduce manufacturing cost and the influence for a flavor from the adhesive [0019]-[0020].
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 Iwanaga to incorporate the teachings of Shinozaki to make the second hollow tubular body with a thickness of 150-500 microns (which overlaps with the claimed range) because doing so provides the ability to reduce the amount of adhesive used as well as improve the flexibility of the tube, and can also reduce manufacturing cost and the influence for a flavor from the adhesive, as recognized by Shinozaki [0019]-[0020].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwanaga et al. (WO 2020/115897, reference to US 2021/0235747) in view of Hooper (US 2011/0155156).
Regarding claim 8, Iwanaga discloses an article according to claim 6, as set forth above. Iwanaga fails to disclose wherein the wrapper has a citrate content of 1% by weight or less.
Hooper teaches a similar wrapper for smoking material rods wherein the wrapper has a citrate content of 1% by weight or less (citrate (as a burn additive) present at least 0.5% and up to 1%, but may be omitted altogether in a two-ply wrapper, [0082]). Hooper also teaches that additives such as citrate can control sparking issues ([0044]) and that if a wrapper is two-ply (or more, like Iwanaga’s wrapper is), the citrate may be avoided all together (meaning 0%, which is less than the claimed 1%), [0082].
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 Iwanaga to incorporate the teachings of Hooper to have the wrapper include a citrate content of between 0-1% because doing so can control sparking issues (Hooper, [0044]), or if using a multiple-ply wrapper, citrate can be omitted altogether, as recognized by Hooper [0082].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwanaga et al. (WO 2020/115897, reference to US 2021/0235747) in view of Li et al. (US 2007/0235050).
Regarding claim 17, Iwanaga discloses an article according to claim 12, as set forth above. Iwanaga fails to disclose wherein the level of ventilation provided by said at least one ventilation area is within the range of 45% to 65% of the volume of aerosol generated by said non-combustible aerosol provision device passing through the article, or between 40% and 60% of the volume of aerosol generated by said non-combustible aerosol provision device passing through the article.
Li teaches a similar smoking article comprising at least one ventilation area arranged to allow external air to flow into the article (Figure 1, ventilating zone 140 allows drawn air to enter article, [0035]) wherein the level of ventilation provided by said at least one ventilation area is within the range of 45% to 65% of the volume of aerosol generated by said non-combustible aerosol provision device passing through the article, or between 40% and 60% of the volume of aerosol generated by said non-combustible aerosol provision device passing through the article (Li, Figure 1, ventilation zone 140 help achieve a ventilation level of at least 25% ([0037]), which overlaps with the claimed ranges of 45-65% or 40-60%). Li also teaches that ventilation has a desirable attribute that reduces the particulate phase and the gas phase constituencies of the mainstream smoke, and also that too much ventilation does have the drawback of low resistance to draw [0003].
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 Iwanaga to incorporate the teachings of Li to provide a ventilating zone with a ventilation level of at least 25% because doing so would give the desirable attribute that reduces the particulate phase and the gas phase constituencies of the mainstream smoke, and also that too much ventilation does have the drawback of low resistance to draw, as recognized by Li [0003].
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwanaga et al. (WO 2020/115897, reference to US 2021/0235747) in view of Lecoultre et al. (US 7,243,659).
Regarding claims 18-20, Iwanaga discloses an article according to claim 1, as set forth above. Iwanaga fails to disclose wherein the mouth end section comprises a third tubular body, the third tubular body defines the mouth end of the article, and wherein the third tubular body comprises a length of greater than about 10mm or greater than about 12mm.
Lecoultre teaches a similar smokable article wherein the mouth end section comprises a third tubular body defining the mouth end section of the article (Figure 1, cavity 26 is at the mouth end, col. 6 lines 42-45) and wherein the third tubular body comprises a length of greater than about 10mm or greater than about 12mm (length of cavity is 10mm or less (col. 2, line 44), which overlaps the claimed range of about 10mm or greater). Lecoultre also teaches that the cavity and the air-impermeable cavity wall provides the necessary ventilation without a large degree of variation (col. 6 lines 45-50).
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 Iwanaga to incorporate the teachings of Lecoultre to provide a third tubular body at the mouth end with a length 10 mm or less because doing so would provide the necessary ventilation without a large degree of variation, as recognized by Lecoultre (col. 6 lines 45-50).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwanaga et al. (WO 2020/115897, reference to US 2021/0235747) in view of Blangy et al. (US 2015/0144149).
Regarding claim 21, Iwanaga discloses an article according to claim 1, as set forth above. Iwanaga fails to disclose wherein the mouth end section comprises an inner body and an outer body, 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.
Blangy teaches a similar smoking article wherein the mouth end section comprises an inner body and an outer body (Figure 1, central core portion 23 and outer periphery layer 24 are at the mouth end), 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 (Figure 1, RTD central core portion 23 has a lower RTD (resistance to draw) than outer periphery layer 24, abstract). Blangy also teaches that the construction concentrates mainstream smoke flow through the central core portion of the concentric sorbent segment, increasing the efficiency of the sorbent material which also allows for the use of less sorbent material (and associated cost) to achieve the desired level of smoke constituent capture and also minimize the sorbent material’s effect on the taste of the article [0005].
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 Iwanaga to incorporate the teachings of Blangy to provide an inner body and outer body at the mouth end section where the RTD of the inner body is lower than the outer body because doing so would concentrate mainstream smoke flow through the central core portion of the concentric sorbent segment, increasing the efficiency of the sorbent material which also allows for the use of less sorbent material (and associated cost) to achieve the desired level of smoke constituent capture and also minimize the sorbent material’s effect on the taste of the article, as recognized by Blangy [0005].
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwanaga et al. (WO 2020/115897, reference to US 2021/0235747) in view of Kadiric (US 2015/0208720).
Regarding claim 23, Iwanaga discloses an article according to claim 1, as set forth above. Iwanaga fails to disclose wherein the first tubular body comprises a second aerosol generating material.
Kadiric teaches a similar smoking article with mouth end cavities wherein the first tubular body comprises a second aerosol generating material (plurality of filter segments contain flavorants, [0050]). Kadiric also teaches that providing a flavorant in a filter (or filters) can allow for the consumer to manually release the flavorant immediate prior to smoking the article, [0013].
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 Iwanaga to incorporate the teachings of Kadiric to have provided a flavorant in the mouth end filter because doing so can allow for the consumer to manually release the flavorant immediate prior to smoking the article, as recognized by Kadiric [0013].
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwanaga et al. (WO 2020/115897, reference to US 2021/0235747) in view of Reed et al. (US 2016/0219930).
Regarding claim 25, Iwanaga discloses an article according to claim 1, as set forth above. Iwanaga fails to disclose wherein the mouth end section comprises a body of filamentary tow, wherein said filamentary tow of the body of filamentary tow comprises a weight per mm of length of the body which is between about 10% and about 30% of the range between the minimum and maximum weights of a tow capability curve generated for the filamentary tow.
Reed teaches a similar smoking article containing a filter wherein the mouth end section comprises a body of filamentary tow (Figure 1, core 2 is filtering material made of filamentary tow), wherein said filamentary tow of the body of filamentary tow comprises a weight per mm of length of the body which is between about 10% and about 30% of the range between the minimum and maximum weights of a tow capability curve generated for the filamentary tow (Table 1 and Figure 3 shows exemplified results for tow capability % in the range of -1% to 36%, which overlaps the claimed range). Reed also teaches that using tows with the above capability % allows for the tow to have an acceptable pressure drop even when used in superslim or microslim products [0003].
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 Iwanaga to incorporate the teachings of Reed to include a tow with a capability % in the range of -1% to 36% because doing so would allow for the tow to have an acceptable pressure drop even when used in superslim or microslim products, as recognized by Reed [0003].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (see pages 8-9 of Remarks) that Iwanaga does not disclose filamentary tow. However, according to the as-filed specification for the instant application, page 15 mentions cellulose acetate fibers or any other materials that can form fibers. At this time, there does not appear to be any specific separation between a group of cellulose acetate fibers (as in the rejection above in Iwanaga) and cellulose acetate tow. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (see pages 9-10 of Remarks) that Iwanaga does not disclose that the that second hollow tubular body extends at least 3mm away from the heater when the article is inserted. While this feature is not explicitly disclosed in Iwanaga in the same way as the instant application, Iwanaga still meets this limitation as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above at least because there is not a defined amount of how far the article needs to be inserted into aerosol generating device. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues (see pages 10-11 of Remarks) that Iwanaga does not disclose the new limitation of claim 1 “an aerosol generating material comprising at least one aerosol forming material selected from glycerol, propylene glycol or a mixture thereof”. First, examiner disagrees with the assessment in the Remarks (page 10) that “Amended claim 1 defines that the aerosol forming material is "selected from glycerol, propylene glycol or a mixture thereof.”” Amended claim 1 only requires “an aerosol generating material comprising at least one aerosol forming material selected from glycerol, propylene glycol or a mixture thereof”. Given the “comprising” language, this does not exclude other components. Iwanaga does disclose (see at least [0032] and rejection of claim 1 above) that the tobacco filler material may include glycerin, propylene glycol, or combinations along with the tobacco. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Z. Baratz whose telephone number is (703)756-1613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30 - 4:30 CT.
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 on 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.
/A.Z.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/KATHERINE A WILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747