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 1-13, 15, and 18-23 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claims 11-13 are withdrawn.
Claims 10 is amended.
Claim 20-23 are newly added.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 4/27/2026 containing
amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-6 the Applicant argues the disclosure of Abi describing a laminate layer such as paper or reconstituted tobacco attached to the top and bottom surfaces of the amorphous solid is merely directed to generic carrier layers for a laminate, and this does not disclose that each outer layer is itself a paper made support made of refined plant fibers and already comprising a plant extract, as stated in claim 1.
The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive. Abi teaches the reconstituted tobacco material may comprise tobacco fibers and may be formed by casting, a Fourdrinier-based paper making-type approach with back addition of tobacco extract (page 42, second paragraph). As such, Abi teaches each outer layer of reconstituted tobacco material is a paper made support (i.e. paper making-type approach) comprising refined plant fibers (i.e. tobacco fibers) and a plant extract (i.e. tobacco extract), as claimed.
On page 6, the Applicant argues that the present specification confirms that this feature is not merely a process detail, but a structural and material feature of each support, and further argues the specification defines a fibrous support as a “base web made of refined fibers of the plant and comprising a plant extract” with the base web “typically obtained by a paper making process” and the “plant extract composition” forms a layer between the two fibrous supports.
The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive. First, it is unclear how this “feature” is any different than what is taught in Abi, as Abi teaches a fibrous support as a base web (i.e. reconstituted tobacco layer) made of refined fibers of the plant (i.e. tobacco fibers) comprising a plant extract (i.e. tobacco extract) typically obtained by a paper making process (i.e. paper making-type approach) and the plant extract composition (i.e. amorphous solid) forms a layer between the two fibrous supports (i.e. as the reconstituted tobacco is on a top and bottom surface of the amorphous solid).
Second, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e. refined plant fibers are first passed through a papermaking machine to produce a base web, then a plant extract is brought into contact with that base web "to obtain a fibrous support," and only thereafter is a plant extract composition brought into contact between two fibrous supports) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Third, even if the features were recited in the rejected claims, the determination of patentability is based upon the product or apparatus structure itself. Patentability 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 though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP § 2113. The Applicant has not shown how the fibrous support of Abi is structurally different from a fibrous support made from the production process the Applicant recites.
On page 6, the Applicant argues that Abi’s separate statement that reconstituted tobacco material may be formed by a fourdrinier-based paper making-type approach with back addition of tobacco extract does not connect to the particular top and bottom laminate layers relied upon in the Office Action. The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive.
The Examiner acknowledges Abi does not explicitly teach the particular top and bottom laminate layers made from a fourdrinier-based paper making-type approach with back addition of tobacco extract. However, Abi teaches the carrier sheet abutting the amorphous solid may be reconstituted tobacco (page 8, first paragraph), and further teaches a method of making a sheet of reconstituted tobacco (Fourdrinier-based paper making-type approach with back addition of tobacco extract, page 42, second paragraph). Therefore as Abi is silent to how to produce the top and bottom layers of reconstituted tobacco, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to the art for known ways to make a reconstituted sheet of tobacco, such as the method taught within the same prior art, Abi. Further, this is merely a known way to produce a sheet reconstituted tobacco to yield the predictable result of producing a sheet of reconstituted tobacco.
On page 7, In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Therefore as Abi is silent to the density of the reconstituted tobacco sheet, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to look to other known teachings of reconstituted tobacco sheets that one could apply with a reasonable expectation of success in the reconstituted tobacco sheet having a suitable density, such as the reconstituted tobacco sheet density as taught by Gellatly. Further, Hanada teaches fibrillating tobacco fibers to give a fluffy texture so they can easily couple with one another. Therefore it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to make the plant fibers of Abi be fibrillated as taught by Hanada as this allow the fibers to easily couple with one another.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 4/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended the claim to include wherein the calendering of the reconstituted plant sheet includes passing the reconstituted plant sheet between two contra-rotating cylinders, whereas previously this was not required. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously applied art.
Applicant's arguments, on page 9, with respect to new claim 20, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Abi does not disclose, suggest, or imply that the fibrous supports are obtained by a process bringing the plant extract into contact with a respective base web. The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive as Abi teaches forming the fibrous support includes the back addition of tobacco extract (page 42, third paragraph) and thus the plant extract (i.e. tobacco extract) comes into contact with some respective base web.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, with respect to new claim 21, have been fully considered and are persuasive. However a new ground of rejection is made in view of previously applied art and newly found art.
Applicant's arguments, on pages 9-10, with respect to new claims 22-23, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Abi does not disclose where the plant extract composition is brought into contact with at least one fibrous support, or with the two fibrous supports, by spraying or coating, as the plant extract composition is applied to the fibrous support as opposed to being a sheet or one of the laminate paper layers of Abi. The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive.
Abi teaches the amorphous solid may be provided on the carrier (page 7, last paragraph), and the amorphous solid may be formed by drying a gel and it is thought that the slurry from which the gel is formed partially impregnates the porous layer, so that when the gel sets and forms cross-links, the porous layer is partially bound into the gel (page 8, first paragraph). As such, the amorphous solid drying on the carrier and partially impregnating the porous layer of the carrier defines bringing the plant extract into contact by coating as recited in claims 22-23.
Further, the determination of patentability is based upon the product or apparatus structure itself. Patentability 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 though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP § 2113. As Abi teaches the amorphous solid partially impregnates the carrier sheet, the end product would the same which is a reconstituted plant sheet comprising two fibrous support with a plant extract composition between the two fibrous supports, and therefore the claim is unpatentable. The Applicant has not shown how the fibrous support of Abi is structurally different from a fibrous support made from the production process the Applicant recites.
The following is a modified rejection made 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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 15, 18-20 and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abi (WO2020/025730), Gellatly (US 5,724,998) and Hanada (US2022/0071275).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 19, Abi teaches:
A tubular substrate that may be an amorphous solid sheet which has been rolled to form a tube…the substrate may comprise…a carrier on which the amorphous solid is provided…such as a sheet of reconstituted tobacco (page 7, third paragraph). The amorphous solid sheet defines a reconstituted plant sheet.
The amorphous solid may be included as a sheet (which may be part of the tubular substrate). In one embodiment, the sheet forms part of a laminate material with a layer (preferably comprising paper) attached to a top and bottom surface of the sheet (page 35, fourth and fifth paragraphs). The layers attached to a top and bottom surface of the sheet define two fibrous supports.
The amorphous solid typically comprises an active substance such as nicotine and/or a tobacco extract (pages 3-4, last paragraph). Therefore the amorphous solid reads on a plant extract composition between the two fibrous supports.
The amorphous solid may contain aerosol generating agents (pages 3-4, last paragraph).
The amorphous solid having an area density between 30 g/m2 and 120 g/m2 (page 31, last paragraph) and a thickness of about 0.015 mm to about 1 mm (page 26, second paragraph). As such the amorphous solid has a density between 0.03 g/cm3 and 8 g/cm3.
Abi does not appear to explicitly disclose (I) the two fibrous supports comprising refined plant fibers and a plant extract and how the two fibrous supports are produced, (II) the density of the reconstituted plant sheet, and (III) wherein the refined plant fibers are fibrillated.
In regard to (I), Abi further teaches:
It may be preferable that a surface of the carrier sheet abutting the amorphous solid be formed from a porous material such as paper or reconstituted tobacco. This allows for a strong bond to form between the amorphous solid and porous carrier surface (page 8, first paragraph).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the layers attached to the top and bottom surface of the sheet to be formed from reconstituted tobacco as taught by Abi, because Abi teaches this allows a strong bond to form between the amorphous solid and carrier surface, and this merely involves substituting one known type of carrier sheet for another with a reasonable expectation of success in forming a laminate reconstituted plant sheet. The two fibrous supports being a sheet of reconstituted tobacco reads on wherein the plant fibers are tobacco fibers as recited in claim 3.
Abi further teaches:
The reconstituted tobacco material may comprise tobacco fibers, and may be formed by casting, a Fourdrinier-based paper making-type approach with back addition of tobacco extract (page 42, second paragraph).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make to the carrier sheet of reconstituted tobacco formed by a Fourdrinier-based paper making-type approach with back addition of tobacco extract as taught by Abi, as the carrier sheet of Abi is reconstituted tobacco, and this is merely a known way to produce reconstituted tobacco. The sheet of reconstituted tobacco defines a fibrous support comprising refined plant fibers (i.e. tobacco fibers) and a plant extract (i.e. tobacco extract), and produced by a papermaking process (i.e. Fourdrinier-based paper making-type approach).
In regard to (II), Gellatly, directed to reconstituted tobacco sheets, teaches:
A reconstituted tobacco sheet with a sheet density of 0.98 g/cm3 (Col. 13-14, example 4).
As Abi is silent to the material property of density of the reconstituted tobacco sheet, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to look to other known teachings of reconstituted tobacco sheets that one could apply with a reasonable expectation of success in the reconstituted tobacco sheet having a suitable density. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make to the fibrous supports of Abi have a density of 0.98 g/cm3 as taught by Gellatly, as both Abi and Gellatly are directed to reconstituted tobacco sheets, and this merely involves discovering the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
As the amorphous solid has a density of between 0.03 g/cm3 and 8 g/m3 which overlaps the claimed range, and the reconstituted tobacco sheets have a density of 0.98 g/cm3 that falls within the claimed range, then the laminate as a whole would also have a density that overlaps the claim 1 range of greater than or equal to 0.60 g/cm3 and the claim 2 range of between 0.62 g/cm3 and 1.50 g/cm3, and the claim 19 range of between 0.70 g/cm3 and 1 g/cm3 and is therefore prima facie obvious.
In regard to (III) Abi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the refined plant fibers are fibrillated.
Hanada, directed to a tobacco sheet, teaches:
A refiner that cuts the fine pieces of leaf tobacco into even shorter fibers and gives these fibers a fluffy texture (fibrillation) so they can be easily coupled with one another [0038].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to make the plant fibers of Abi be fibrillated as taught by Hanada, because both Abi and Hanada are directed to sheets of material comprising tobacco fibers, Hanada teaches fibrillation allows the fibers to easily couple with one another, and this merely involves incorporating a known type of tobacco fiber (i.e. fibrillated) to a similar material comprising tobacco fibers to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Abi further teaches:
Aerosol-forming materials described herein may, in some cases, comprise an amorphous solid in an amount from 70 wt.% to about 90 wt.% (page 3, first paragraph under Detailed Description).
The amorphous solid may comprise 20 to 35 wt.% of an aerosol generating agent on a dry weight basis (page 28, first paragraph). As the amorphous solid is 70 to 90% of the aerosol-forming material, the aerosol generating agent is therefore 14 to 31.5 wt.% of the reconstituted plant sheet.
The Applicant’s specification teaches that the total content by weight of solids is calculated using the dry weight of the sample (see [0050]-[0052]). Therefore dry weight basis is considered to be equivalent to total content by weight of solids.
The range of 14 to 31.5 % taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of between 10% and 30% and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 5, Abi further teaches:
Aerosol-forming materials described herein may, in some cases, comprise an amorphous solid in an amount from 70 wt.% to about 90 wt.% (page 3, first paragraph under Detailed Description).
The amorphous solid may comprise 5-60 wt.% (calculated on a dry weight basis) of tobacco extract (page 29, first paragraph). The Applicant’s specification teaches that the total content by weight of solids is calculated using the dry weight of the sample (see [0050]-[0052]). Therefore dry weight basis is considered to be equivalent to total content by weight of solids.
As the amorphous solid is 70 to 90% of the aerosol-forming material, the tobacco extract of the plant extract composition is therefore 3.5 to 54 wt.% of the reconstituted plant sheet. Abi is silent to the amount of tobacco extract in the remainder of the aerosol-forming material. However, the remainder comprising 0% tobacco extract would maintain the 3.5 to 54 wt.% of the reconstituted plant sheet, which overlaps the claimed range of between 30% and 60%, and if the remainder comprises 100% of tobacco extract, this would result in the total tobacco extract in the reconstituted plant sheet being between 14.5 and 72 wt.%, which overlaps the claimed range of between 30% and 60%. As such, no matter the amount of tobacco extract in the remainder of the aerosol-forming material, the prior art teaches a range that overlaps the claimed range of between 30% and 60% and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 6, Abi further teaches:
Aerosol-forming materials described herein may, in some cases, comprise an amorphous solid in an amount from 70 wt.% to about 90 wt.% (page 3, first paragraph under Detailed Description).
The amorphous solid may comprise 20 to 35 wt.% of an aerosol generating agent on a dry weight basis (page 28, first paragraph). As the amorphous solid is 70 to 90% of the aerosol-forming material, the aerosol generating agent is therefore 14 to 31.5 wt.% of the reconstituted plant sheet.
The amorphous solid may comprise 5-60 wt.% (calculated on a dry weight basis) of tobacco extract (page 29, first paragraph). As the amorphous solid is 70 to 90% of the aerosol-forming material, the tobacco extract is therefore 3.5 to 54 wt.% of the reconstituted plant sheet. This yields the sum of the aerosol generating agent and the tobacco extract on a dry weight basis to be between 17.5 and 85.5 wt.%.
The Applicant’s specification teaches that the total content by weight of solids is calculated using the dry weight of the sample (see [0050]-[0052]). Therefore dry weight basis is considered to be equivalent to total content by weight of solids.
Abi is silent to the amount of tobacco extract and aerosol-generating agent in the remainder of the aerosol-forming material. However, the remainder comprising 0% tobacco extract and aerosol-generating agent would maintain the 17.5 and 85.5 wt.%. of the reconstituted plant sheet, which overlaps the claimed range of between 40% and 80%, and if the remainder comprises 100% of tobacco extract and/or aerosol-generating agent, this would result in the total tobacco extract and aerosol generating agent in the reconstituted plant sheet being between 25.75 and 89.85 wt.%, which overlaps the claimed range of between 40% and 80%. As such, no matter the amount of tobacco extract and aerosol-generating agent in the remainder of the aerosol-forming material, the prior art teaches a range that overlaps the claimed range of between 40% and 80% and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 7, Abi further teaches:
In some cases the amorphous solid is deposed between about 0.1 to 0.5 mm from the heater. These minimum distances may reflect the thickness of a carrier that supports the amorphous solid (pages 10-11, last paragraph).
The amorphous solid may have a thickness between 0.015 mm and 1 mm (page 26, second paragraph).
The sum of the thickness of the amorphous solid (i.e. plant extract composition) and the carrier (i.e. fibrous supports) therefore defines the thickness of the reconstituted sheet.
The range of between 115 um (0.115 mm) and 1500 um (1.5 mm) taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of between 250 um and 1050 um and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 8, Abi further teaches:
In some cases the amorphous solid is deposed between about 0.1 to 0.5 mm from the heater. These minimum distances may reflect the thickness of a carrier that supports the amorphous solid (pages 10-11, last paragraph).
The amorphous solid may have a thickness between 0.015 mm and 1 mm (page 26, second paragraph).
The basis weight of the reconstituted plant sheet is calculated by multiplying its density by its thickness (see [0015] of the Applicant’s specification). As such, the basis weight of the amorphous solid is between 0.45 g/m2 and 8,000 g/m2, and the basis weight of the fibrous supports is between 98 g/m2 and 490 g/m2. As the basis weight of each layer overlaps the claimed range of greater than 200 g/m2, then the laminate as a whole would also have a basis weight that overlaps the claimed range and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Abi further teaches wherein the aerosol generating agent is chosen from sorbitol, glycerol, propylene glycol, and erythritol (page 28, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 10, Abi does not appear to explicitly disclose the reconstituted plant sheet having been calendered, wherein the calendaring of the reconstituted plant sheet includes passing the reconstituted plant sheet between two contra-rotating cylinders.
However, Hanada further teaches:
A tobacco sheet that has been subjected to calender processing. The calender processing includes having the object (that is, the tobacco sheet) pass through smooth rollers so that it will be endowed with smoothness and shine, and then compressed to a reduced and averaged thickness ([0030]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the reconstituted plant sheet of Abi to be subjected to calender processing as taught by Hanada, because both Abi and Hanada are directed to tobacco sheets, Hanada teaches this endows the sheet with smoothness and shine and compressed the sheet to a reduced and averaged thickness, and this merely involves incorporating a known way to process a plant sheet (i.e. calendaring) to a similar plant sheet to yield predicable results.
Passing the reconstituted tobacco sheet through smooth rollers as taught by Hanada defines the reconstituted plant sheet having been calendered, wherein the calendaring of the reconstituted plant sheet includes passing the reconstituted plant sheet between two cylinders. Although Hanada does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the cylinders are contra-rotating, the determination of patentability is based upon the product or apparatus structure itself. Patentability 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 though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP § 2113. As Abi teaches the tobacco sheet having been calendered by smooth rollers, the end product would the same which is a reconstituted plant sheet compressed to a reduced and average thickness, and therefore the claim is unpatentable.
Regarding claim 15, Abi further teaches wherein the refined plant fibers and the plant extract of the fibrous supports, and the plant extract composition are from tobacco plants (page 42, second paragraph). Abi does not appear to disclose wherein the refined plant fibers and the plant extract are chosen from medicinal plants.
However, Abi further teaches:
The active substance may comprise or be derived from one or more botanicals or constituents, derivatives or extracts thereof. The material may be in the form of liquid, gas, solid, powder, dust, crushed particles, granules, pellets, shreds, strips, sheets, or the like. Example botanicals are tobacco and eucalyptus (page 39, first full paragraph).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the fibrous supports and the plant extract composition of Abi to be comprised from eucalyptus instead of tobacco, as Abi teaches eucalyptus and tobacco are both botanical materials suitable for use in a smoking article, and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP § 2144.07.
The Applicant’s specification teaches that eucalyptus is a medicinal plant (see [0073] of the specification) and therefore having the fibrous supports and the plant extract composition be from eucalyptus would yield the refined plant fibers and the plant extract being chosen from medicinal plants.
Regarding claim 18, Abi further teaches:
In some cases the amorphous solid is deposed between about 0.1 to 0.5 mm from the heater. These minimum distances may reflect the thickness of a carrier that supports the amorphous solid (pages 10-11, last paragraph).
The basis weight of the reconstituted plant sheet is calculated by multiplying its density by its thickness (see [0015] of the Applicant’s specification). As such, the basis weight of the fibrous supports is between 98 g/m2 and 490 g/m2 which overlaps the claimed range of between 60 g/m2 and 200 g/m2 and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 20, modified Abi teaches wherein each of the two fibrous supports is obtained by a process including bringing the plant extract into contact with a respective base web (i.e. back addition of tobacco extract, page 42, third paragraph).
Further, the determination of patentability is based upon the product or apparatus structure itself. Patentability 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 though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP § 2113. As Abi teaches the reconstituted tobacco sheet comprises tobacco extract, the end product would the same as a fibrous support obtained by bringing the plant extract into contact with a respective base web, and therefore the claim is unpatentable.
Regarding claims 22-23, Abi further teaches the amorphous solid may be provided on the carrier (page 7, last paragraph), and the amorphous solid may be formed by drying a gel and it is thought that the slurry from which the gel is formed partially impregnates the porous layer, so that when the gel sets and forms cross-links, the porous layer is partially bound into the gel (page 8, first paragraph). As such, the amorphous solid drying on the carrier and partially impregnating the porous layer of the carrier defines bringing the plant extract composition into contact with the fibrous supports by coating as recited in claims 22-23.
Further, the determination of patentability is based upon the product or apparatus structure itself. Patentability 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 though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP § 2113. As Abi teaches the amorphous solid partially impregnates the carrier sheet, the end product would the same which is a reconstituted plant sheet comprising two fibrous support with a plant extract composition between the two fibrous supports, and therefore the claim is unpatentable.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abi (WO2020/025730), Gellatly (US 5,724,998), and Hanada (US2022/0071275) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sebold (US2022/0167659).
Regarding claim 21, modified Abi teaches the fibrous support is made by a Fourdrinier-based paper making-type approach with back addition of tobacco extract (page 42, second paragraph).
Abi does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the plant extract is brought into contact with each respective base web by spraying or impregnation.
Sebold, directed to a tobacco composition, teaches:
Making reconstituted tobacco with a Fourdrinier type paper making machine, and adding back concentrated solubles to the fibrous web with various methods such as spraying ([0083]).
The soluble portion of the tobacco furnish is separated from the insoluble fibrous portion of tobacco. After the separation, the fibrous portion of tobacco is typically subjected to mechanical refining to produce a fibrous pulp. The fibrous pulp will be then formed into a base web comprising the tobacco fibrous pulp ([0083]).
As such, the fibrous portion produced into a fibrous pulp and then formed into a base web defines a base web, and the concentrated solubles added back to the fibrous web define a plant extract.
Therefore as Abi is silent to how the tobacco extract is back added, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to the art for known methods of back adding tobacco extract that would be suitable for use to make a reconstituted sheet of tobacco.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the fibrous support of Abi by bringing the plant extract into contact with each respective base web by spraying as taught by Sebold, because both Abi and Sebold are directed to methods of making a reconstituted sheet of tobacco by a Fourdrinier-based paper making-type approach, and this merely involves incorporating a known way to back add a tobacco extract to a similar method of making a reconstituted sheet of tobacco to yield predictable results.
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 Nicole A Szumigalski whose telephone number is (703)756-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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 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.
/N.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights