DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to applicant’s request for continued examination filed March 30, 2026. Claim 23 was previously cancelled. Claim 31 has been amended. Claims 18-22 and 24-34 are pending and stand rejected.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 30, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 18-22 and 24-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160150825 A1 (hereinafter MIRONOV) in view of US 20200281260 A1 (hereinafter JORDIL) and US 20180007974 A1 (hereinafter THORENS). In the alternative, the claims are rejected over MIRONOV, JORDIL, and THORENS and in further view of US 20170238600 A1 (hereinafter GRANT).
Regarding claim 18, MIRONOV discloses an aerosol-generating article configured to heat an aerosol-forming substrate (abstract). MIRONOV discloses a rod of aerosol-generating substrate (Fig. 3, aerosol forming substrate 20, ¶129) ; and an elongate susceptor arranged longitudinally within the aerosol-generating substrate (Fig. 3, susceptor 4, ¶125), wherein the susceptor extends all the way to a downstream end of the rod of aerosol-generating substrate (Shown in Fig. 3). MIRONOV further discloses wherein the susceptor has a thickness from about 55 micrometers to about 65 micrometers (¶14). MIRONOV discloses a preferred embodiment wherein the thickness of the susceptor is between 10 micrometers and 200 micrometers (¶14). 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). MIRONOV further discloses a downstream section (Fig. 3, combination of support element 30, aerosol-cooling element 40, and mouthpiece 50) at a location downstream of the rod of aerosol-generating substrate, wherein the downstream section comprises an aerosol-cooling element (Fig. 3, combination of support element 30 and aerosol-cooling element 40, ¶126) in longitudinal alignment with the rod of aerosol-generating substrate, the aerosol-cooling element comprising a hollow tubular segment (Fig. 3, support element 30, ¶130) that defines a cavity extending all the way from an upstream end of the hollow tubular segment to a downstream end of the hollow tubular segment.
Regarding the limitation, and wherein a ratio between a length of the susceptor and an overall length of the aerosol-generating article is from about 0.2 to about 0.35, MIRONOV discloses that the length of the susceptor is between 8 mm and 15 mm (¶14). MIRONOV discloses that the overall length of the aerosol-generating article is between 30 mm and 100 mm (¶93). Therefore, the ratio between the susceptor and the overall length can be calculated. The lowest ratio is 8 mm susceptor / 100 mm aerosol generating article = 0.08. The highest ratio is 15 mm susceptor / 30 mm aerosol generating article = 0.5. Therefore MIRONOV discloses a ratio between a length of the susceptor and an overall length of the aerosol- generating article from 0.08 to 0.5. This range encompasses the range of the instant application. 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). In this case, the calculated ratio based on the specification of MIRONOV overlaps with the instant application. Therefore a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
MIRONOV does not disclose a ventilation zone at a location along the hollow tubular segment.
JORDIL teaches an aerosol article with an aerosol-generating substrate (abstract). JORDIL teaches that the mouthpiece comprises one or mor ventilation zones over the additive segment (¶56). JORDIL teaches that the ventilation zone introduces cooler air into the aerosol upstream (¶56) and this dilutes the aerosol to reduce the moisture content (¶56). JORDIL further teaches that these that the ventilation zones introduce air into the upstream cavity during smoking to advantageously increase the turbulence of the aerosol within the upstream cavity and increase the residence time of the aerosol (¶61).
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 have modified MIRONOV to provide a ventilation zone at a location along the hollow tubular segment as taught in JORDIL. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide a ventilation zone because doing so would introduce air into the upstream cavity during smoking to advantageously increase the turbulence of the aerosol within the upstream cavity and increase the residence time of the aerosol (JORDIL ¶61). This is a rationale to combine as supported by at least (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143, I, (D)). The inclusion of the ventilation zone of JORDIL on the article of MIRONOV would advantageously increase turbulence and residence time with predictable results so that the aerosol has more time to cool (JORDIL ¶61).
Neither MIRONOV nor JORDIL disclose an upstream element, upstream of the rod of aerosol generating substrate.
THORENS teaches an aerosol generating article capable of being used with an electrically operated aerosol generating device (abstract). THORENS teaches an embodiment where the article may have a front-end plug 251d (Fig. 2D, ¶300). In this embodiment the front end plug is formed of a highly porous cellulose acetate that may provide an air flow path and prevent egress of liquid into the article (¶300).
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 have modified MIRONOV to provide an upstream section at a location upstream of the rod of aerosol-generating substrate, the upstream section comprising an upstream element located immediately upstream of the rod of aerosol-generating substrate as taught in THORENS. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide an upstream section because doing so would provide and air path and prevent egress of unwanted liquid or other substances into the article (THORENS ¶300). This is a rationale to combine as supported by at least (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143, I, (D)). The inclusion of an upstream element as taught in THORENS on the article of MIRONOV would advantageously prevent egress of unwanted liquid into the article (THORENS ¶300).
Regarding the limitation, wherein the rod of aerosol-generating substrate, the elongate susceptor, the upstream element, and the downstream section are arranged such that a center of mass of the aerosol- generating article is at least about 60 percent of a way along a length of the aerosol- generating article from the downstream end. MIRONOV is silent as to the location of the center of mass of the aerosol generating article. However, MIRONOV teaches that the article has many segments. MIRONOV teaches a four elements in coaxial alignment: an aerosol-forming substrate 20, a support element 30, an aerosol-cooling element 40, and a mouthpiece 50 (¶130-¶131). MIRONOV teaches that the substrate 20 is made from tobacco (¶45), the support element 30 is made from a hollow cellulose acetate tube (¶72), the cooling element 40 is made from a crimped sheet of polylactic acid, and the mouthpiece 50 is made from conventional cellulose acetate tow (MIRONOV ¶86). The upstream element is taught in THORENS is made from a highly porous cellulose acetate material (¶300). This is directly analogous to the structure of the instant application. The instant application comprises the upstream element made from cellulose acetate tow (PG pub ¶315), a substrate made from homogenized tobacco (PG pub ¶21), a hollow tubular segment made from cellulose acetate (PG pub ¶243), and a mouthpiece made from low-density cellulose acetate (PG pub ¶354). Further, the lengths of the sections comprise overlapping ranges with those of MIRONOV. MIRONOV further provides ranges for the lengths of the segments (¶14, ¶20, ¶39, ¶68, ¶75, ¶78, ¶89). Therefore given that the article taught by modified MIRONOV is is same as those disclosed in the instant specification, with respect to material of construction, the segments, and their lengths, to result in an article having the claimed center of mass, the center of mass of the article taught by modified MIRONOV is expected to have an overlapping center of mass location as that of the instant application. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, In re Best, 195 USPQ 430. Further a person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that tobacco is significantly heavier than low cellulose acetate of the mouthpiece and cooling segments. Therefore the configuration of modified MIRONOV would be shifted since the mouthpiece end is lighter than the tobacco end, the center of mass must be at least 60 percent along a length of the aerosol-generating article from a downstream end.
In the alternative to the modified MIRONOV teaching detailed above, regarding the limitation, wherein the aerosol-generating article is arranged such that a center of mass of the aerosol-generating article is at least 60 percent of the way along a length of the aerosol- generating article from a downstream end, GRANT teaches an apparatus for forming double-length products and transporting the products to a packer (abstract). GRANT teaches that segmented aerosol-forming articles, like those taught by MIRONOV and THORENS, have uneven mass distribution (¶2). GRANT teaches that a segment aerosol-forming article may be inhomogeneous, especially in the distribution of weight, due to the different segments of the combined article (¶11). GRANT teaches that the tobacco plug has a higher density compared to a filter segment or cavity (¶11). Therefore the center of mass is shifted from the midpoint at half length to the distal end thereof (¶11). GRANT discloses the need to solve the problem of the shift in the center of mass in the manufacturing process created by the shift in the midpoint due to the segments (¶2, ¶11). GRANT identifies that during manufacturing, processes can be interrupted when the machine jams as the segments move along due to uneven mass distribution (¶2, ¶8-¶9). GRANT teaches that for inhomogeneous aerosol-forming articles, such as those taught by modified Mironov, the center of gravity is preferably a distance between a center of mass and the midpoint may be between about 5 percent and about 20 percent (¶27). Therefore the center of mass is between about 55 percent and 70 percent along the way from the downstream end (¶27, claim 7). GRANT teaches that the center of mass is upstream of the tipping paper (Fig. 6, center of mass 14, ¶88).
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 have modified MIRONOV to provide wherein the aerosol-generating article is arranged such that a center of mass of the aerosol-generating article is at least 60 percent of the way along a length of the aerosol- generating article from a downstream end as taught in GRANT. A person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that the different segments disclosed in MIRONOV would have different densities and masses as taught in GRANT. These different masses would alter the center of mass to be between 55 and 70 percent along the way from the downstream end (GRANT ¶27). 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).
Regarding claim 19, modified MIRONOV discloses the aerosol-generating article according to claim 18 as discussed above. MIRONOV further discloses wherein the susceptor has a thickness from about 57 micrometers to about 63 micrometers (¶14). 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). In this case, MIRONOV discloses 10-100 micrometers (¶14) which is a range that encompasses the range disclosed in the instant application.
Regarding claim 20, modified MIRONOV discloses the aerosol-generating article according to claim 18 as discussed above. MIRONOV further discloses wherein the ratio between the length of the susceptor and the overall length of the aerosol-generating article is from about 0.24 to about 0.32, for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claim 21, modified MIRONOV discloses the aerosol-generating article according to claim 18 as discussed above. MIRONOV further teaches wherein the susceptor has a width of at least about 2 millimeters (¶14). MIRONOV discloses a width of the susceptor to be between 3 mm and 6 mm. 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). A width of 3 mm to 6 mm as taught in MIRONOV is a width of at least about 2 millimeters since all mm lengths greater than 2 mm are at least about 2 mm.
Regarding claim 22, modified MIRONOV discloses the aerosol-generating article according to claim 18 as discussed above. MIRONOV further teaches width of less than or equal to about 6 millimeters (¶14). 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).
Regarding claim 24, modified MIRONOV discloses the aerosol-generating article according to claim 18 as discussed above. MIRONOV does not disclose wherein a distance between the ventilation zone and a downstream end of the susceptor is at least about 2 millimeters.
JORDIL teaches an aerosol article with an aerosol-generating substrate (abstract). JORDIL teaches that the mouthpiece comprises one or mor ventilation zones over the additive segment (¶56). JORDIL teaches that the ventilation zone introduces cooler air into the aerosol upstream (¶56) and this dilutes the aerosol to reduce the moisture content (¶56). JORDIL further teaches that these that the ventilation zones introduce air into the upstream cavity during smoking to advantageously increase the turbulence of the aerosol within the upstream cavity and increase the residence time of the aerosol (¶61). JORDIL further teaches that the ventilation zone is at least 1 mm upstream of the additive segment (¶57) and could be even further than that (¶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 have modified MIRONOV to provide wherein a distance between the ventilation zone and a downstream end of the susceptor is at least about 2 millimeters as taught in JORDIL. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide a ventilation zone because doing so would introduce air into the upstream cavity during smoking to advantageously increase the turbulence of the aerosol within the upstream cavity and increase the residence time of the aerosol (JORDIL ¶61). A person of ordinary skill in the art would place the ventilation zone upstream of the susceptor to provide for residence time, the specific mm measurement being in the range of at least 2 mm is reasonable considering the total length of the segments.
Regarding claim 25, modified MIRONOV discloses the aerosol-generating article according to claim 18 as discussed above. MIRONOV does not disclose wherein a distance between the ventilation zone and a downstream end of the susceptor is less than or equal to about 20 millimeters.
JORDIL teaches an aerosol article with an aerosol-generating substrate (abstract). JORDIL teaches that the mouthpiece comprises one or mor ventilation zones over the additive segment (¶56). JORDIL teaches that the ventilation zone introduces cooler air into the aerosol upstream (¶56) and this dilutes the aerosol to reduce the moisture content (¶56). JORDIL further teaches that these that the ventilation zones introduce air into the upstream cavity during smoking to advantageously increase the turbulence of the aerosol within the upstream cavity and increase the residence time of the aerosol (¶61). JORDIL further teaches that the ventilation zone is at least 1 mm upstream of the additive segment (¶57) and could be even further than that (¶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 have modified MIRONOV to provide wherein a distance between the ventilation zone and a downstream end of the susceptor is less than or equal to about 20 millimeters as taught in JORDIL. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide a ventilation zone because doing so would introduce air into the upstream cavity during smoking to advantageously increase the turbulence of the aerosol within the upstream cavity and increase the residence time of the aerosol (JORDIL ¶61). A person of ordinary skill in the art would place the ventilation zone upstream of the susceptor to provide for residence time, the specific mm measurement being in the range of less than or equal to 20 mm is reasonable considering the total length of the segments disclosed in MIRONOV ¶74-¶75.
Regarding claim 26, modified MIRONOV discloses the aerosol-generating article according to claim 18 as discussed above. MIRONOV further discloses wherein the hollow tube segment has a length of less than 10 millimeters (MIRONOV ¶75).
Regarding claim 27, modified MIRONOV discloses the aerosol-generating article according to claim 18 as discussed above. MIRONOV does not disclose wherein the aerosol-generating article has a ventilation level of at least about 10 percent.
JORDIL teaches an aerosol article with an aerosol-generating substrate (abstract). JORDIL teaches that the mouthpiece comprises one or mor ventilation zones over the additive segment (¶56). JORDIL teaches that the ventilation zone introduces cooler air into the aerosol upstream (¶56) and this dilutes the aerosol to reduce the moisture content (¶56). JORDIL further teaches that these that the ventilation zones introduce air into the upstream cavity during smoking to advantageously increase the turbulence of the aerosol within the upstream cavity and increase the residence time of the aerosol (¶61). JORDIL teaches that the ventilation level is preferably between about 20 percent and about 80 percent (¶59).
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 have modified MIRONOV to provide wherein the aerosol-generating article has a ventilation level of at least about 10 percent as taught in JORDIL. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide a ventilation zone because doing so would introduce air into the upstream cavity during smoking to advantageously increase the turbulence of the aerosol within the upstream cavity and increase the residence time of the aerosol (JORDIL ¶61). A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously target a ventilation level of greater than 10 percent. 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). A ventilation level of 20 to 80 percent is at least about 10 percent.
Regarding claim 28, modified MIRONOV discloses the aerosol-generating article according to claim 18 as discussed above. MIRONOV does not disclose wherein the aerosol-generating article has a ventilation level of less than 40 percent.
JORDIL teaches an aerosol article with an aerosol-generating substrate (abstract). JORDIL teaches that the mouthpiece comprises one or mor ventilation zones over the additive segment (¶56). JORDIL teaches that the ventilation zone introduces cooler air into the aerosol upstream (¶56) and this dilutes the aerosol to reduce the moisture content (¶56). JORDIL further teaches that these that the ventilation zones introduce air into the upstream cavity during smoking to advantageously increase the turbulence of the aerosol within the upstream cavity and increase the residence time of the aerosol (¶61). JORDIL teaches that the ventilation level is preferably between about 20 percent and about 80 percent (¶59).
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 have modified MIRONOV to provide wherein the aerosol-generating article has a ventilation level of less than 40 percent as taught in JORDIL. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide a ventilation zone because doing so would introduce air into the upstream cavity during smoking to advantageously increase the turbulence of the aerosol within the upstream cavity and increase the residence time of the aerosol (JORDIL ¶61). A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously target a ventilation level of greater than 10 percent. 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).
Regarding claim 29, modified MIRONOV discloses the aerosol-generating article according to claim 18 as discussed above. MIRONOV further teaches wherein the downstream section further comprises a mouthpiece element (Fig. 3, mouthpiece 50, ¶131) located downstream of the aerosol-cooling element.
Regarding claim 30, modified MIRONOV discloses the aerosol-generating article according to claim 29 as discussed above. MIRONOV does not disclose wherein a resistance-to-draw (RTD) of the mouthpiece element is less than 15 millimeters H2O.
JORDIL teaches an aerosol article with an aerosol-generating substrate (abstract). JORDIL teaches a mouthpiece 14 (Figs. 1-2, mouthpiece 14, ¶76). JORDIL teaches that the downstream filtration segments of the mouthpiece have a resistance to draw of at least about 5 mm water gauge (¶55).
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 have modified MIRONOV to provide wherein a resistance-to-draw (RTD) of the mouthpiece element is less than 15 millimeters H2O as taught in JORDIL. 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).
Regarding claim 31, modified MIRONOV discloses the aerosol-generating article according to claim 18 as discussed above. MIRONOV does not disclose an upstream section at a location upstream of the rod of aerosol-generating substrate, the upstream section comprising an upstream element located immediately upstream of the rod of aerosol-generating substrate.
THORENS teaches an aerosol generating article capable of being used with an electrically operated aerosol generating device (abstract). THORENS teaches an embodiment where the article may have a front-end plug 251d (Fig. 2D, ¶300). In this embodiment the front end plug is formed of a highly porous cellulose acetate that may provide an air flow path and prevent egress of liquid into the article (¶300).
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 have modified MIRONOV to provide an upstream section at a location upstream of the rod of aerosol-generating substrate, the upstream section comprising an upstream element located immediately upstream of the rod of aerosol-generating substrate as taught in THORENS. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide an upstream section because doing so would provide and air path and prevent egress of unwanted liquid or other substances into the article (THORENS ¶300).
Regarding claim 32, modified MIRONOV discloses the aerosol-generating article according to claim 31 as discussed above. MIRONOV does not disclose wherein a resistance-to-draw (RTD) of the upstream element is less than 40 millimeters H2O.
THORENS teaches an aerosol generating article capable of being used with an electrically operated aerosol generating device (abstract). THORENS teaches an embodiment where the article may have a front-end plug 251d (Fig. 2D, ¶300). In this embodiment the front end plug is formed of a highly porous cellulose acetate that may provide an air flow path and prevent egress of liquid into the article (¶300). THORENS further teaches that the resistance to draw of the porous body may be between 10 to 130 mm H2O (¶82). THORENS teaches that having a low resistance to draw is desirable to allow the passage of air through the diffuser (¶82).
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 have modified MIRONOV to provide wherein a resistance-to-draw (RTD) of the upstream element is less than 40 millimeters H2O as taught in THORENS. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide an upstream section because doing so would provide and air path and prevent egress of unwanted liquid or other substances into the article (THORENS ¶300). Further a person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide a low resistance to draw to allow an easy passage of air (THORENS ¶82). 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).
Regarding claim 33, modified MIRONOV discloses the aerosol-generating article according to claim 18 as discussed above. MIRONOV further discloses wherein the aerosol-generating substrate comprises a gel composition (¶48) that includes an alkaloid compound (¶33, nicotine is an alkaloid compound), or a cannabinoid compound, or both an alkaloid compound and a cannabinoid compound, or wherein the aerosol-generating substrate comprises a homogenized plant material comprising non-tobacco plant flavor particles (¶45). MIRONOV discloses that the aerosol-generating substrate preferably generates a nicotine-containing aerosol that is directly inhalable into a user’s lung (¶33). Nicotine is notoriously well-known to be an alkaloid compound. Further MIRONOV discloses that the aerosol-generating substate may comprise tobacco, but also may be formed from a non-tobacco containing aerosol-forming material (¶45). Additionally, due to the recitation of “or” the limitations of this claim are met where the prior art discloses any one of the recited compositions.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIRONOV, JORDIL, and THORENS or in the alternative over MIRONOV, JORDIL, THORENS, and GRANT as applied to claim 18-22 and 24-33 above, and further in view of US 20100163063 A1 (hereinafter FERNANDO).
Regarding claim 34, modified MIRONOV discloses the aerosol-generating article according to claim 18 as discussed above. MIRONOV does not disclose wherein the aerosol- generating substrate comprises a porous medium loaded with a gel composition.
FERNANDO teaches a smoking article to be used with an electrically heated smoking system for receiving articles (abstract). FERNANDO teaches that the substrate may be embedded in a thermally stable carrier (¶23). FERNANDO teaches that the substrate maybe be deposited onto the carrier in the form of a gel (¶23). FERNANDO teaches that the carrier may be a paper, non-woven carbon fiber mat, a low mass open mesh metallic screen (¶23). These carriers are considered to be porous. FERNANDO teaches that the substrate may be deposited on the entire surface or in a pattern in order to provide a non-uniform flavor delivery (¶23). FERNANDO further teaches that the substrate may include a porous carrier material to absorb a liquid substrate (¶24).
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 have modified MIRONOV to provide wherein the aerosol- generating substrate comprises a porous medium loaded with a gel composition as taught in FERNANDO. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide a substrate in the form of a gel. Doing so would enable efficient application of the substrate onto the carrier (FERNANDO ¶23). Further a person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide porous carrier (FERNANDO ¶23). Doing so would provide customized substrate delivery to the user (FERNANDO ¶23). Finally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the paper and especially a mesh mat is porous because it has breaks (i.e. pores) in the surface and the list of carriers in FERNANDO ¶23 overlaps with the instant application (See PG Publication of instant application ¶130).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 30,2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed March 30, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 18-22 and 24-34 based upon 35 USC 103 as set forth in the last Office action because: the rejection of record is still sufficient to render obvious the article of the instant application as detailed above and explained in the response to arguments below.
Applicant’s submission of an affidavit under rule 1.132 is acknowledged, but not persuasive.
Applicant asserts in the affidavit that, “Grant does not teach this type of an upstream element as specified in claim 18.” GRANT is not relied on to teach an upstream element. GRANT is relied on because it recognized that the different segments will have different densities that result in the center of mass for the article being shifted from the midpoint of the article. GRANT therefore teaches a method for solving this problem that is in existance because segmented products create shifted centers of mass that negatively impact a production process. GRANT teaches the method for improving the production process which is needed because products, like the segmented product of MIRONOV, have a range of center of mass that is offset from the midpoint.
At the outset it is noted that the prior art references of MIRONOV, JORDIL, and THORENS are silent as to the center of mass of the article. This does not preclude these articles from having a center of mass that is 60 percent of a way along a length as an inherent matter of construction of the segments. In fact, it is likely, given the composition of the segments (as detailed above) that the center of mass is in fact located 60 percent of a way along a length. The fact that the center of mass property was not disclose in the prior art does not mean that the property is present, in fact it inherently must be, and that it overlaps with the range of the instant application.
Applicant points to the specification of the instant application that discloses that adjustment of the center of mass provides haptic feedback to the consumer. As explained above, the upstream element taught in THORENS is made from cellulose acetate and provided at the end of the article. This would reasonably result in an article that has a center of mass beyond the middle of the article and 60% beyond the length of the article. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage, in this case haptic feedback due to a shifted center of mass, which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Further, an alternative combination of GRANT to provide for a center of mass beyond the halfway point. GRANT teaches a method of manufacturing to accommodate aerosol-generating products comprising high density substrate that shifts the center of mass further away from the tipping paper (¶26). GRANT teaches that since articles have a shifted center of mass, the improvements to the method of manufacture to prevent jamming are necessary (¶2). Therefore, GRANT teaches that there are articles that are produced with a shifted center of mass due to the desired densities of the segments (¶11). As with above, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage, in this case haptic feedback due to a shifted center of mass, which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues, “Not all tobacco plugs will have a higher density than all filter segments...It is also not accurate to generalize the teachings of Grant” This argument is not considered persuasive. The rejection is not grounded in ALL tobacco plugs having a higher density that ALL filter segments. The one taught in GRANT is a teaching that illustrates that there are in fact aerosol-generating articles in the art that purposefully have a shifted center of mass as a result of the segments included.
The teaching of possible combinations proffered by applicant that does not result in a shifted center of mass does not overcome the explicit teaching of a shifted center of mass away from the proximal end as taught in GRANT.
Applicant argues “Nothing in Grant teaches or suggests that the segments of MIRONOV, JORDIL, and THORENS would be ‘arranged such that a center of mass of the aerosol-generating article is at least 60 percent of the way along a length of the aerosol- generating article from a downstream end.’” However, the fact that the MIRONOV, JORDIL, and THORENS are silent as to the center of mass does not result in an exclusion of the center of mass simply being at least 60 percent of the way along the length. While Grant doesn’t state “at least 60%” the reference teaches that the center of mass for aerosol generating articles, such as those taught by MIRONOV, JORDIL, and THORENS, is preferably a distance between a center of mass and the midpoint may be between about 5 percent and about 20 percent (¶27). Therefore the center of mass is between about 55 percent and 70 percent along the way from the downstream end (¶27, claim 7). Therefore there is clear teaching to adjust the center of mass for the articles of modified Mironov to use the improved manufacturing process of Grant and prevent blockages.
In light of GRANT that does include specific teachings regarding how to best produce segmented articles with a shifted center of mass to prevent jams, it is reasonable to conclude that the center of mass in the other prior art references MIRONOV, JORDIL, and THORENS which are segmented articles is not centered, due to the segmented nature of the aerosol generating product, and located closer to the distal end.
The affidavit does not provide other evidence that is persuasive to overcome the rejection of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE L MOORE whose telephone number is (313)446-6537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9 am to 5 pm.
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.
/STEPHANIE LYNN MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights