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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 9, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-5, 11-12, 14-16, 22, 24-26, 32, and 34-36 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 6-10, 13, 17-21, 23, 27-31, and 33 are cancelled.
Response to Amendments
The amendments to the claims filed on June 9, 2026 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pgs 8-13, filed June 9, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-5, 11-12, 14-16, 22, 24-26, 32, and 34-36 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are moot because a new grounds of rejection is provided on the present Action, which relies upon a new combination of references.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogan (US 2021/0337874 A1) in view of Batista (WO 2019/197417 A1) as evidenced by Minzoni (US 2018/0177235 A1) and Godleski (US 5,189,199 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Rogan, directed to aerosol generating articles ([0001]), teaches a cigarette subjected to smoke enhancement ([0047], Fig. 1; Vapour generating article 24 (cigarette) comprises vapour generating material 26; and [0034]-[0036], The vapour generating material may comprise plant derived material and in particular, may comprise tobacco. The vapour generating material may comprise an aerosol-former content of approximately 15% on a dry weight basis. Examples of aerosol-formers (smoke emhancement agents) include polyhydric alcohols and mixtures thereof such as glycerine or propylene glycol. Polyhdric alcohols include erythritol; see Minzoni, [0043]. Erythritol is also known as butantetrol; see Godleski, col 4, ln 22-23. Butantetrol is a smoke enhancement agent; see instant specification, pg 7, ln 9-24), comprising
cigarette paper ([0047], Fig. 1; Vapour generating article 24 (cigarette) comprises a paper wrapper 30 (cigarette paper)),
a filter tip ([0047], Fig. 1; Vapour generating article 24 (cigarette) comprises filter 32 at its tip), and
an aerosol generating substrate, wherein the aerosol generating substrate comprises tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement ([0034]-[0036], The vapour generating material may comprise plant derived material and in particular, may comprise tobacco. The vapour generating material may be any type of solid material. Example types of vapour generating solids include shreds or sheets. The vapour generating material may comprise an aerosol-former content of approximately 15% on a dry weight basis. Examples of aerosol-formers include polyhydric alcohols and mixtures thereof such as glycerine or propylene glycol (smoke enhancement agents)); and
wherein the tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement consist of tobacco shreds and a first smoke enhancing agent, and presents at a mass percentage of 15% in the tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement ([0034]-[0036], The vapour generating material may comprise tobacco shreds. The vapour generating material may comprise an aerosol-former content of approximately 15% on a dry weight basis. The cited paragraphs list optional additives to the vapour generating material. There must be embodiments of the tobacco shreds taught by Rogan wherein the sheet consists of the aerosol former (first smoke enhancing agent) and tobacco shreds)
but does not teach the cigarette wherein the first smoke enhancing agent is at least one of butantetrol, pentitol or hexanehexol.
Batista, directed to aerosol generating articles (pg 1, ln 3-5), teaches a cigarette subjected to smoke enhancement (pg 15, ln 34-37, Fig. 1; Aerosol generating article 10 comprises an aerosol-generating substrate 20, a mouthpiece 50, wherein the aerosol-generating substrate 20 is circumscribed by a wrapper 60; and pg 10, ln 28-29, pg 11, ln 36 - pg 12, ln 7, Aerosol-generating substrate 20 may comprise a homogenized sheet of tobacco including an aerosol former such as erythritol; and pg 10, ln 25-27, The wrapper may be a cigarette paper. It is reasonably understood that aerosol-generating article 10 is a cigarette. Erythritol is also known as butantetrol; see Godleski, col 4, ln 22-23. Butantetrol is a smoke enhancement agent; see instant specification, pg 7, ln 9-24), comprising
an aerosol generating substrate comprising tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement (pg 15, ln 34-37, Fig. 1; Aerosol generating article 10 comprises an aerosol-generating substrate 20; and pg 10, ln 28-29, pg 11, ln 36 - pg 12, ln 7, pg 13, ln 12-17, Fig. 1; Aerosol-generating substrate 20 may comprise a homogenized sheet of tobacco including an aerosol former such as erythritol. Alternatively, the homogenized sheet of tobacco may be shredded. Erythritol is also known as butantetrol; see Godleski, col 4, ln 22-23. Butantetrol is a smoke enhancement agent; see instant specification, pg 7, ln 9-24),
wherein the tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement consist of tobacco shreds and a first smoke enhancing agent, wherein the first smoke enhancing agent is at least one of butantetrol, pentitol or hexanehexol (pg 11, ln 36 - pg 12, ln 7, pg 13, ln 9-35, The homogenized tobacco sheet is formed by casting a slurry of particulate tobacco. The homogenized tobacco sheet and slurry may further comprise erythritol as an aerosol former. Erythritol is also known as butantetrol; see Godleski, col 4, ln 22-23. Erythritol (butantetrol) is a smoke enhancing agent (see instant specification, pg 18, ln 9-12)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cigarette of Rogan wherein the first smoke enhancing agent is at least one of butantetrol as taught by Batista because Rogan and Batista are directed to aerosol generating articles, Rogan states that polyhydric alcohols may be used as the first smoke enhancing agents (Rogan, [0036]), and Batista demonstrates that butantetrol is a suitable polyhydric alcohol smoke enhancing agent (Batista, pg 11, ln 36 - pg 12, ln 7), and this involves replacing one smoke enhancing agent for another to yield predictable results.
Claims 2-5, 8-12, 14-16, 22, 24-26, 32, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogan (US 2021/0337874 A1) in view of Batista (WO 2019/197417 A1) as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Iadanza (US 2021/0244079 A1), as evidenced by Godleski (US 5,189,199 A) and Taylor (US 2007/0259090 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Rogan further teaches the cigarette wherein the aerosol generating substrate may comprise either the tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement or a tobacco sheet subject to smoke enhancement, the tobacco sheet comprising a second smoke enhancing agent ([0034]-[0036], The vapour generating material may comprise tobacco. The vapour generating material may be any type of solid material. Example types of vapour generating solids include shreds or sheets. The vapour generating material may comprise an aerosol-former content of approximately 15% on a dry weight basis. Examples of aerosol-formers include polyhydric alcohols (smoke enhancement agent). Rogan has been modified in view of Batista such that butantetrol is used as the polyhydric alcohol smoke enhancement agent; therefore, butantetrol is both the first and second smoke enhancement agent), and
wherein raw materials for manufacturing the tobacco sheet subjected to smoke enhancement comprise tobacco sheet slurry and the second smoke enhancing agent ([0034]-[0036], The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product, and the product of Rogan in view of Batista is capable of being made from tobacco sheet slurry and the second smoke enhancing agent as claimed),
but does not teach the cigarette wherein the aerosol generating substrate further comprises the tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement and the tobacco sheet subject to smoke enhancement.
Iadanza, directed to aerosol generating articles ([0001]), teaches a cigarette ([0153]-[0155], [0159], Fig. 2; Aerosol-generating article 10 comprises an aerosol forming substrate 20, a wrapper 3, and a mouthpiece 50, wherein the wrapper 3 may comprise a cigarette paper. Aerosol generating article 10 is a cigarette), comprising
cigarette paper ([0153]-[0155], [0159], Fig. 2; Aerosol-generating article 10 comprises a wrapper 3, wherein the wrapper 3 may comprise a cigarette paper),
a filter tip ([0153]-[0155], [0158], Fig. 2; Aerosol-generating article 10 comprises a mouthpiece 50 at its tip, wherein the mouthpiece 50 is a conventional cellulose acetate tow filter), and
an aerosol generating substrate ([0153]-[0155], Fig. 2; Aerosol-generating article 10 comprises an aerosol forming substrate 20),
wherein the aerosol generating substrate comprises both a tobacco sheet and tobacco shreds ([0090], [0153]-[0155], [0159], Fig. 2; Aerosol-generating article 10 comprises an aerosol forming substrate 20, wherein the aerosol forming substrate 20 may comprise both a tobacco sheet and tobacco shreds).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cigarette taught by Rogan in view of Batista comprising both the tobacco sheet subjected to smoke enhancement and the tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement, similarly taught by Iadanza because Rogan, Batista, and Iadanza are directed to aerosol generating articles, Iadanza states that an aerosol generating article comprising a tobacco sheet may have a more uniform density of tobacco material than an aerosol generating article comprising tobacco shreds, and therefore including both tobacco shreds and a tobacco sheet may be used to vary the density of the tobacco material in the aerosol generating article (Iadanza, [0090], [0100]-[0101]), and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 3-5, Rogan in view of Batista and Iadanza teaches the cigarette subjected to smoke enhancement according to claim 2. Because Rogan teaches further teaches the cigarette wherein the second smoke enhancing agent has a mass percentage of 15% in the tobacco sheet subjected to smoke enhancement as claimed in Claims 1 (Rogan, [0036], The vapour generating material may comprise an aerosol-former (smoke enhancement agent) content of approximately 15% on a dry weight basis), and Batista further teaches the cigarette wherein the second smoke enhancing agent is butantetrol as claimed in Claim 35 (Batista, pg 11, ln 36 - pg 12, ln 7, Aerosol-generating substrate 20 may comprise a homogenized sheet of tobacco including an aerosol former such as erythritol (butantetrol)), one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the tobacco sheet directly manufactured from the tobacco sheet slurry to have a cigarette tar emission of less than or equal to 6 mg/cig, less than or equal to 3 mg/cig, and less than or equal to 1 mg/cig as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary, since the tobacco sheet of the prior art is equivalent to the claimed tobacco sheet.
Claim 11 is considered a product-by-process claim. The determination of patentability is based upon the product structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even if the prior product was made by a different process. In this instance, Rogan in view of Batista and Iadanza discloses a structurally and compositionally equivalent product.
Regarding Claim 12, Rogan in view of Batista and Iadanza teaches the cigarette subjected to smoke enhancement according to claim 2. Rogan further teaches the cigarette wherein the second smoke enhancing agent is attached to a surface of the tobacco sheet subjected to smoke enhancement ([0034]-[0036], The vapour generating material may comprise tobacco. The vapour generating material may be any type of solid material. Example types of vapour generating solids include shreds or sheets. The vapour generating material may comprise an aerosol-former content of approximately 15% on a dry weight basis. Examples of aerosol-formers include polyhydric alcohols (smoke enhancement agent). It is reasonably understood that the smoke enhancing agent is attached to at least one surface of the tobacco sheet subjected to smoke enhancement).
Regarding Claim 14-16, Rogan in view of Batista and Iadanza teaches the cigarette subjected to smoke enhancement according to claim 1. Because Rogan teaches further teaches the cigarette wherein the first smoke enhancing agent has a mass percentage of 15% in the tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement as claimed in Claims 1 (Rogan, [0036], The vapour generating material may comprise an aerosol-former (smoke enhancement agent) content of approximately 15% on a dry weight basis), and Batista further teaches the cigarette wherein the first smoke enhancing agent is butantetrol as claimed in Claim 1 (Batista, pg 11, ln 36 - pg 12, ln 7, Aerosol-generating substrate 20 may comprise a homogenized sheet of tobacco including an aerosol former such as erythritol (butantetrol)), one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the tobacco shreds to have a cigarette tar emission of less than or equal to 6 mg/cig, less than or equal to 3 mg/cig, and less than or equal to 1 mg/cig as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary, since the tobacco shreds of the prior art is equivalent to the claimed tobacco shreds.
Regarding Claim 22, Rogan in view of Batista and Iadanza teaches the cigarette subjected to smoke enhancement according to claim 1. Rogan further teaches the cigarette wherein the first smoke enhancing agent at least partially permeates into the tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement ([0034]-[0036], The vapour generating material may comprise tobacco. The vapour generating material may be any type of solid material. Example types of vapour generating solids include shreds or sheets. The vapour generating material may comprise an aerosol-former content of approximately 15% on a dry weight basis. Examples of aerosol-formers include polyhydric alcohols (smoke enhancement agent). Tobacco is a porous material as would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is reasonably understood that the aerosol former (smoke enhancing agent) would permeate into the tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement).
Regarding Claim 24, Rogan in view of Batista and Iadanza teaches the cigarette subjected to smoke enhancement according to claim 2. Batista further teaches the cigarette wherein the first smoke enhancing agent has a melting point of greater than or equal to 30°C (pg 11, ln 36 - pg 12, ln 7, Aerosol-generating substrate 20 may comprise a homogenized sheet of tobacco including an aerosol former such as erythritol. Erythritol has a melting point of 121°C; see Taylor, [0045]).
Regarding Claim 25, Rogan in view of Batista and Iadanza teaches the cigarette subjected to smoke enhancement according to claim 2. Because Rogan teaches further teaches the cigarette wherein the first smoke enhancing agent has a mass percentage of 15% in the tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement as claimed in Claims 1 and 15 (Rogan, [0036], The vapour generating material may comprise an aerosol-former (smoke enhancement agent) content of approximately 15% on a dry weight basis), and Batista further teaches the cigarette wherein the first and second smoke enhancing agent is butantetrol as claimed in Claims 1 and 35 (Batista, pg 11, ln 36 - pg 12, ln 7, Aerosol-generating substrate 20 may comprise a homogenized sheet of tobacco including an aerosol former such as erythritol. Erythritol is also known as butantetrol; see Godleski, col 4, ln 22-23), one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the second smoke enhancing agent to have low deliquescence, so that a yellow spot projection area of the cigarette subjected to smoke enhancement after placed continuously in an environment of 40°C and 80% RH for 25 hours is less than 50 mm2/cig as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary, since the cigarette of the prior art is equivalent to the claimed cigarette.
Regarding Claim 26, Rogan in view of Batista and Iadanza teaches the cigarette subjected to smoke enhancement according to claim 2. Batista teaches the cigarette wherein the first and second smoke enhancing agent is composed of one or more organic compounds (pg 11, ln 36 - pg 12, ln 7, Aerosol-generating substrate 20 may comprise a homogenized sheet of tobacco including an aerosol former such as erythritol (butantetrol); Butantetrol is an organic compound; see instant specification, pg 7, ln 20-22).
Because Rogan teaches further teaches the cigarette wherein the first smoke enhancing agent has a mass percentage of 15% in the tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement as claimed in Claims 1 and 15 (Rogan, [0036], The vapour generating material may comprise an aerosol-former (smoke enhancement agent) content of approximately 15% on a dry weight basis), and Batista further teaches the cigarette wherein the first and second smoke enhancing agent is butantetrol as claimed in Claims 1 and 35 (Batista, pg 11, ln 36 - pg 12, ln 7, Aerosol-generating substrate 20 may comprise a homogenized sheet of tobacco including an aerosol former such as erythritol. Erythritol is also known as butantetrol; see Godleski, col 4, ln 22-23), one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the cigarette subjected to smoke enhancement added with an organic compound to have a unit tar H value of less than or equal to 0.6, or less than or equal to 0.55, or less than or equal to 0.5, or less than or equal to 0.45, or a XHCN value of less than or equal to 60 µg/cig, or a XNNK value of less than or equal to 3.0 µg/cig, or a XNH3 value of less than or equal to 6.5 µg/cig, or a XB[a]P value of less than or equal to 8.2 µg/cig, or a Xphenol value of less than or equal to 25 µg/cig, or a Xcrotonaldehyde value of less than or equal to 12.5 µg/cig as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary, since the cigarette of the prior art is equivalent to the claimed cigarette.
Regarding Claim 32, Rogan in view of Batista and Iadanza does not teach the cigarette subjected to smoke enhancement wherein a mass ratio of the tobacco sheet subjected to smoke enhancement to the tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement is between 1:9 and 9:1.
The precise mass ratio of the tobacco sheet subjected to smoke enhancement to the tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement would have been considered a result effective variable by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention because the uniformity of the density of the tobacco material is a variable which can be modified by the mass ratio of the tobacco sheet subjected to smoke enhancement to the tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement (Iadanza, [0090], [0100]-[0101]). As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed mass ratio cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized the mass ratio by routine experimentation to obtain the desired density uniformity, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.05, II).
Regarding Claim 34, Rogan in view of Batista and Iadanza teaches the cigarette subjected to smoke enhancement according to claim 32. Because Rogan teaches further teaches the cigarette wherein the first smoke enhancing agent has a mass percentage of 15% in the tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement as claimed in Claims 1 and 15 (Rogan, [0036], The vapour generating material may comprise an aerosol-former (smoke enhancement agent) content of approximately 15% on a dry weight basis), and Batista further teaches the cigarette wherein the first and second smoke enhancing agent is butantetrol as claimed in Claims 1 and 35 (Batista, pg 11, ln 36 - pg 12, ln 7, Aerosol-generating substrate 20 may comprise a homogenized sheet of tobacco including an aerosol former such as erythritol. Erythritol is also known as butantetrol; see Godleski, col 4, ln 22-23), one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect a total particulate material produced by the cigarette subjected to smoke enhancement heated by a heating cigarette utensil at 200°C to be greater than or equal to 14.0 mg as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary, since the cigarette of the prior art is equivalent to the claimed cigarette.
Regarding Claim 35, Rogan in view of Batista and Iadanza teaches the cigarette subjected to smoke enhancement according to claim 2. Batista further teaches the cigarette wherein the second smoke enhancing agent is at least one of butantetrol, pentitol or hexanehexol (pg 11, ln 36 - pg 12, ln 7, Aerosol-generating substrate 20 may comprise a homogenized sheet of tobacco including an aerosol former such as erythritol. Erythritol is also known as butantetrol; see Godleski, col 4, ln 22-23).
Regarding Claim 36, Rogan in view of Batista and Iadanza teaches the cigarette subjected to smoke enhancement according to claim 2, does not teach the cigarette wherein a target tar equivalent of the cigarette subjected to smoke enhancement is Ttarget mg/cig, a mass percentage of the tobacco sheet subjected to smoke enhancement in the aerosol generating substrate is Msheet, a mass percentage of the tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement in the aerosol generating substrate is Mtobacco, a raw materials for manufacturing the tobacco sheet subjected to smoke enhancement comprise tobacco sheet slurry and the first smoke enhancing agent, a cigarette tar emission corresponding to the tobacco sheet directly manufactured from the tobacco sheet slurry is Tsheet mg/cig, a mass percentage of the first smoke enhancing agent in the tobacco sheet subjected to smoke enhancement is Msmoke1, a smoke enhancing coefficient of the first smoke enhancing agent is S1, a limit smoke enhancing tar equivalent of the first smoke enhancing agent is Tlimit1, a smoke enhancing agent content corresponding to the limit smoke enhancing tar equivalent of the first smoke enhancing agent is Msmoke1, the tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement comprise tobacco shreds and the second smoke enhancing agent, a cigarette tar emission corresponding to the tobacco shreds is Ttobacco mg/cig, a mass percentage of the second smoke enhancing agent in the tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement is Msmoke2, a smoke enhancing coefficient of the second smoke enhancing agent is S2, a limit smoke enhancing tar equivalent of the second smoke enhancing agent is Tlimit2, a smoke enhancing agent content corresponding to the limit smoke enhancing tar equivalent of the second smoke enhancing agent is Msmoke2, and the following relationship is satisfied within an error of ±5%: Ttarget= Msheet×( Tsheet+ Tlimit1- S1×( Mlimit1- Msmoke1)2)+ Mtobacco×( Ttobacco+ Tlimit2)- S2×(Mlimit2-Msmoke2)2).
Because Rogan teaches further teaches the cigarette wherein the first smoke enhancing agent has a mass percentage of 15% in the tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement as claimed in Claims 1 and 15 (Rogan, [0036], The vapour generating material may comprise an aerosol-former (smoke enhancement agent) content of approximately 15% on a dry weight basis), and Batista further teaches the cigarette wherein the first and second smoke enhancing agent is butantetrol as claimed in Claims 1 and 35 (Batista, pg 11, ln 36 - pg 12, ln 7, Aerosol-generating substrate 20 may comprise a homogenized sheet of tobacco including an aerosol former such as erythritol. Erythritol is also known as butantetrol; see Godleski, col 4, ln 22-23), one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the cigarette subjected to smoke enhancement to satisfy the relationship: Ttarget= Msheet×( Tsheet+ Tlimit1- S1×( Mlimit1- Msmoke1)2)+ Mtobacco×( Ttobacco+ Tlimit2)- S2×(Mlimit2-Msmoke2)2) within an error of 5%, wherein a target tar equivalent of the cigarette subjected to smoke enhancement is Ttarget mg/cig, a mass percentage of the tobacco sheet subjected to smoke enhancement in the aerosol generating substrate is Msheet, a mass percentage of the tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement in the aerosol generating substrate is Mtobacco, a cigarette tar emission corresponding to the tobacco sheet directly manufactured from the tobacco sheet slurry is Tsheet mg/cig, a mass percentage of the first smoke enhancing agent in the tobacco sheet subjected to smoke enhancement is Msmoke1, a smoke enhancing coefficient of the first smoke enhancing agent is S1, a limit smoke enhancing tar equivalent of the first smoke enhancing agent is Tlimit1, a smoke enhancing agent content corresponding to the limit smoke enhancing tar equivalent of the first smoke enhancing agent is Mlimit1, a tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement comprise tobacco shreds and a second smoke enhancing agent, a cigarette tar emission corresponding to the tobacco shreds is Ttobacco mg/cig, a mass percentage of the second smoke enhancing agent in the tobacco shreds subjected to smoke enhancement is Msmoke2, a smoke enhancing coefficient of the second smoke enhancing agent is S2, a limit smoke enhancing tar equivalent of the second smoke enhancing agent is Tlimit2, a smoke enhancing agent content corresponding to the limit smoke enhancing tar equivalent of the second smoke enhancing agent is Mlimit2, as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary, since the cigarette of the prior art is equivalent to the claimed cigarette.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M. MARTIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Philip Louie can be reached on (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.
/J.M.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights