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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2025 June 27 has been entered.
Claims 24-25 and 27-33 are pending.
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.
Claims 24-25, 30, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauman (US 5584306 A) in view of Rosado (US 20180368465 A1) and Jarriault (WO 2019129494 A1), as evidenced by “Gelling Agent” (hereinafter ADDR), “Pectin as a gelling agent: vegan, high fiber and heat-friendly” (hereinafter Tanis), and “Locust bean gum (LBG) as a gelling agent for plant tissue culture media” (hereinafter Horticulturae).
Claims 24, 30, and 33: Beauman teaches a system (fig. 1) for producing reconstituted tobacco (title), comprising:
a material pulverization system (28 and 32), which is designed to generate a powdered material (14) with a predefined particle size (col. 3, lines 30-46);
a binding machine (36 and 38), which is designed to generate a highly viscous binder solution (12) based on water from at least one binder (34) and water (WATER), wherein the highly viscous binder solution (12) has a viscosity of at least 1000 cP (col. 5, lines 26-28), wherein the binding machine (36 and 38) comprises a mixing device (38) which mixes glycerin (HUMECTANTS; col. 5, line 65-end) with the binder (34);
and a mixing unit (16), which is designed and configured to mix the powdered material (14) from the material pulverization system (28 and 32) with the highly viscous binder solution (12) from the binding machine (36 and 38) to form a tobacco paste (col. 7, lines 1-8, “slurry”).
Beauman does not explicitly teach that the binding machine is a gelling machine, that the mixing device is upstream of a water supply,
and an extrusion unit, which is designed to extrude the tobacco paste from the mixing unit and to press the paste out of an outlet, such that an extruded profile is produced from the tobacco paste, wherein the extrusion unit comprises at least one of a pressure sensor, arranged adjacently to the outlet of the extrusion unit, or a temperature-control unit, which is designed to bring the tobacco paste in the extrusion unit to a temperature between 20°C and 60°C in at least one section or subregion of the extrusion unit,
wherein the temperature is between 30°C and 40°C,
wherein the at least one section or the subregion of the extrusion unit is the outlet of the extrusion unit.
One of ordinary skill would immediately envisage operating the binding machine such that the highly viscous binder solution (12) is a gel. Beauman discloses various binders (col. 4, lines 18-30) of which the preferred variant, guar gum, is a gelling agent (ADDR). Alternative binders such as pectin (Tanis), locust bean gum (Horticulturae), alginate (ADDR), starch (ADDR), methyl cellulose (ADDR), hydroxymethyl cellulose (ADDR), carboxymethyl cellulose (ADDR), pullulan (ADDR), and xanthan gum (ADDR) are all gelling agents. The resulting gel would contain a high number of bonding sites for cooperation with tobacco particles (col. 5, lines 54-58).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide that the binding machine is a gelling machine, because doing so would be reasonably suggested by the inherent gelling properties of Beauman’s disclosed binders, such that the resulting gel contains a high number of bonding sites for cooperation with tobacco particles.
Rosado teaches a system (fig. 1 shows a method; figs. 3-9 show apparatuses) for producing reconstituted tobacco (title) comprising a pre-mixing device (fig. 3, #306) which mixes glycerin with a binder [105 and 109] upstream of a water supply (fig. 6, #8; [129]), such that gelling is delayed, but not prevented, in order to promote uniform dispersion of the binder [48-49].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange Beauman’s mixing device upstream of a water supply, because doing so would delay but not prevent gelling in order to promote uniform dispersion of the binder.
Rosado’s ingredients of water, glycerin, and a binder are identical to Beauman’s ingredients of water, glycerin, and a binder to yield expectation to succeed.
Jarriault teaches a system for producing reconstituted tobacco (p. 4, line 27 – p. 5, line 3) comprising an extrusion unit (fig. 1-2 and p. 18, lines 21-28) which is designed to extrude a tobacco mass (mixture) and to press the tobacco mass (mixture) out of an outlet (202), such that an extruded profile is produced from the tobacco mass (mixture), wherein the extrusion unit comprises a temperature-control unit (p. 19, lines 16-25, the mixture is cooled within the extrusion unit), which is designed to bring the tobacco mass in the extrusion unit to a temperature of between 35°C and 45°C in the outlet (outlet #202 forms an egress of cooled section #205) of the extrusion unit, such that the tobacco mass can be extruded into a sheet shape for further processing (p. 5, lines 1-11) while comprising an optimized amount of alkaloids (p. 6, lines 18-29) in order to deliver flavor to a user (p. 3, lines 15-17).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Jarriault’s extrusion unit, which is designed to extrude the tobacco paste from the mixing unit and to press the paste out of an outlet, such that an extruded profile is produced from the tobacco paste, wherein the extrusion unit comprises a temperature-control unit, which is designed to bring the tobacco paste in the extrusion unit to a temperature between 35°C and 45°C in the outlet of the extrusion unit, because doing so would enable the tobacco mass to be extruded into a sheet shape for further processing while comprising an optimized amount of alkaloids in order to deliver flavor to a user.
Jarriault’s temperature range overlaps with the claimed ranged to yield prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05: the courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The courts have held that prior art teaching carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" rendered obvious a claim was limited to "more than 5%." In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941). The courts have held that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range.
Claim 25: modified Beauman teaches the system for producing reconstituted tobacco according to claim 24, wherein the powdered material (fig. 1, #14) comprises tobacco powder.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauman (US 5584306 A) in view of Rosado (US 20180368465 A1) and Jarriault (WO 2019129494 A1), as evidenced by “Gelling Agent” (hereinafter ADDR), “Pectin as a gelling agent: vegan, high fiber and heat-friendly” (hereinafter Tanis), and “Locust bean gum (LBG) as a gelling agent for plant tissue culture media” (hereinafter Horticulturae) as applied to claim 24 in further view of Stiller (US 4598721 A).
Claim 27: modified Beauman teaches the system for producing reconstituted tobacco according to claim 24, further comprising: a fractioning unit (fig. 1, CHEVRON CUTTER), which is designed to divide up a profile extruded from an extrusion unit (claim 26) in order to generate a series of portions of tobacco paste (col. 7, lines 15-24).
Modified Beauman does not explicitly teach that the fractioning unit comprises a rotating severing element with a rotating blade.
Stiller teaches a system (fig. 1) for producing reconstituted tobacco (title) comprising a fractioning unit (26 and 28) comprising a rotating severing element with a rotating blade (26), such that tobacco pieces cut by the rotating blade are pulled smooth by their own weight (col. 3, lines 6-10), and such that tobacco pieces with arbitrary dimensions can be produced in an economical manner (col. 1, lines 57-60).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Stiller’s rotating severing element with a rotating blade to Beauman’s fractioning unit, because doing so would pull the portions of tobacco paste smooth by their own weight and would enable the portions of tobacco paste to be produced with arbitrary dimensions in an economical manner.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauman (US 5584306 A) in view of Rosado (US 20180368465 A1) and Jarriault (WO 2019129494 A1), as evidenced by “Gelling Agent” (hereinafter ADDR), “Pectin as a gelling agent: vegan, high fiber and heat-friendly” (hereinafter Tanis), and “Locust bean gum (LBG) as a gelling agent for plant tissue culture media” (hereinafter Horticulturae) as applied to claim 24 in further view of Kaminskas (US 20020128990 A1).
Claim 28: modified Beauman teaches the system for producing reconstituted tobacco according to claim 24, further comprising: a rolling unit (fig. 1, #46), which is designed to roll portions of tobacco paste in order to generate a flat web of material (col. 7, lines 1-6).
Modified Beauman does not explicitly teach that the rolling unit comprises a moisture sensor, which is connected to a central control unit in order to detect the moisture of portions, tobacco paste, or a flat web of material and to generate a signal to the gelling machine.
Kaminskas teaches a system comprising a rolling manufacturing unit (figs. 2-3, #24) comprising a moisture sensor (66), which is connected to a central control unit in order to detect the moisture of portions ([36], “data collected from the moisture sensor”) and to generate a signal for a viscous glue-making machine ([36], “correlate optimum emulsion glue viscosity”), such that glue viscosity is optimized in real time.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a moisture sensor, which is connected to a central control unit in order to detect the moisture of portions and to generate a signal to the gelling machine, to Beauman’s rolling unit as suggested by Kaminskas, because doing so would help to optimize tobacco mass viscosity in real time.
Claims 29 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beauman (US 5584306 A) in view of Rosado (US 20180368465 A1) and Jarriault (WO 2019129494 A1), as evidenced by “Gelling Agent” (hereinafter ADDR), “Pectin as a gelling agent: vegan, high fiber and heat-friendly” (hereinafter Tanis), and “Locust bean gum (LBG) as a gelling agent for plant tissue culture media” (hereinafter Horticulturae) as applied to claim 24 in further view of Jing (CN 110652028 A with reference made to machine translation) and Soo (US 20170303579 A1).
Claims 29 and 31-32: modified Beauman teaches the system for producing reconstituted tobacco according to claim 24, further comprising: a drying unit (fig. 1, #48 and #50), which is suitable for drying a web of material generated by a rolling unit (46).
Modified Beauman does not explicitly teach that the drying unit is suitable for drying the web of material to a moisture content of less than 20%, that the drying unit comprises at least one sensor which detects a moisture content of at least one of the dried web of material or a flat web of material, and which is connected to a central control unit and arranged at at least one of an entrance or at an exit of the drying unit,
or that the dried web of material has a moisture content of between 4% and 16%,
or that the dried web of material has a moisture content of between 6% and 10%.
Jing teaches a system (fig. 1 shows a method; figs. 2-6 show apparatuses) for producing reconstituted tobacco (title) comprising a drying unit ([110-111], oven) suitable for drying a substantially flat mass of material ([110], the material is conveyed on a belt; [111], the resulting product is a slice product) to a moisture content of 10%-12% [111], such that suitable reconstituted tobacco products can be produced [111].
Jing’s moisture range overlaps with the claimed ranged to yield prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05: the courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The courts have held that prior art teaching carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" rendered obvious a claim was limited to "more than 5%." In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941). The courts have held that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use, as Beauman’s generic drying unit, Jing’s specific drying unit suitable for drying the web of material to a moisture content of 10%-12%, which overlaps with 6%-10%, because doing so would be a simple substitution of drying units between systems for producing reconstituted tobacco and would yield suitable reconstituted tobacco products.
Soo teaches a system for producing reconstituted tobacco (title) comprising a drying unit ([58], #21) comprising a sensor which detects a moisture content (41) of a cast web of tobacco material [55] and is connected to a central control unit ([58], #40) and arranged at an exit of the drying unit ([58], “comprises at its exit”), such that the moisture content of the cast web at the exit can be controlled [32] in a preferred feedback loop [36].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Soo’s sensor which detects a moisture content of at least one of the dried web of material or a flat web of material, and which is connected to a central control unit and arranged at at least one of an entrance or at an exit of the drying unit, because doing so would enable the moisture content of the cast web at the exit to be controlled in a preferred feedback loop.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 2025 June 27 have been carefully considered. Upon further search and consideration necessitated by applicant’s amendments, a new ground of rejection is made.
Applicant’s arguments (p. 7-8) against Ehling are rendered moot by the new ground of rejection which does not rely on Ehling.
Jarriault teaches an extrusion unit comprising a temperature-control unit designed to bring a tobacco mass to a temperature between 35°C and 45°C for the benefit of extruding the tobacco mass into a sheet shape for further processing while comprising an optimized amount of alkaloids in order to deliver flavor to a user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tobey C. Le whose telephone number is (703)756-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30-18:30 ET.
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.
/TOBEY C LE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747