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 14-20, and 22-29 are pending and are subject to this office action. Claims 16, 26, and 27 are amended and claims 28-29 are new.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed on 05/08/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 14-20, and 22-27 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has updated claims 14, 26-27 to correct the antecedent basis issue with the limitation, “the ventilation perforations.” Therefore the rejection has been withdrawn. However, the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained for lacking antecedent basis for the limitation, “the ventilation perforations.”
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9-16, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 14, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 9-10, Applicant argues Malgat in view of Seo, Cantrell, Renaud, and Muller does not disclose a hollow tubular cooling element, a ventilation zone along the hollow tubular cooling element, the claimed ventilation level, and homogenized plant material with the claimed density because there is no teaching or suggestion to modify Malgat to arrive at the claimed invention. The Examiner disagrees. The teaching or suggestion to modify Malgat is laid out in the prior art rejections and the Examiner notes that the Applicant has not specifically pointed out where the Examiner did not address the teaching or suggestion.
On pg. 11-13, Applicant argues the combination of Malgat and Renaud is improper because Malgat is directed to inductively heated aerosol generating articles while Renaud is directed to convectively heated system. The Examiner disagrees. Malgat discloses an aerosol forming substrate (20, Fig. 1) formed of homogenized tobacco in the form of strips (pg. 7 lines 13-19) but is silent to the density of the tobacco. Renaud discloses an aerosol forming substrate comprising strands of homogenized tobacco material having a density of 1100 -1500 mg/cm3 which exhibits improved resistance to combustion (Table 1 examples 2-4, Fig. 3-5, [0035-0036, 0040, 0044, 0104]).The benefit of combustion resistance of the aerosol generating substrate is not limited to smoking articles heated by convection. Renaud discloses substrate may be heated by conductive, radiative, or convective heat transfer and the homogenized tobacco are capable of withstanding different modes of heat transfer ([0028-0030]). While Renauld discloses substrates heated by convection have a high potential to combust ([0029]), the invention is not limited to articles heated by convection. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
On pg. 14-16, Applicant argues the perforations disclosed by Muller are structurally different that the perforations along a hollow tubular element disclosed by Seo and therefore the perforation size disclosed by Muller cannot be applied to the smoking article of Malgat. Seo discloses perforations (160) in the cooling structure (130) which allows outside air to enter the article (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, 130, [0095]). Similarly, Muller discloses perforations in the cylindrical surface of a cigarette to admit cool atmospheric air when the product is smoked (col. 1 lines 6-11). Although the perforations disclosed by Muller are not formed in a cooling structure, the perforations are similarly formed through a peripheral wall of a smoking article and provide the same cooling function in a smoking article and therefore the perforation size disclosed by Muller can be reasonably applied to the smoking article disclosed by Malgat to arrive at the claimed invention.
Therefore, the prior art rejections are maintained and modified based on Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites the limitation, “the ventilation perforations.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims because it is the first mention of a ventilation perforation. It is unclear if the ventilation perforations are the perforations formed through a peripheral wall of the second hollow tubular element as recited in claim 1 or additional perforations for ventilation. For the purposes of examination, the ventilation perforations will be interpreted as the perforations in the second hollow tubular element as recited in claim 1.
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 14-18, 22, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malgat (WO 2017153443 A1, as cited in IDS dated 11/22/2022) in view of Seo (US 20220248746 A1), Cantrell (US 20070023056 A1), Renaud (US 20120006343 A1), and Muller (US 4148324 A).
Regarding claim 14, Malgat discloses an aerosol generating article (10) comprising:
A rod of aerosol forming substrate (20) which comprises homogenized tobacco material (“homogenized plant material”, Fig. 1, pg. 22, lines 20-30, pg. 7 lines 13-19).
A downstream section downstream of the aerosol forming substrate (20) comprising:
A support element (30) comprising a hollow cellulose acetate tube (“a first hollow tubular segment”) located immediately downstream of the aerosol forming substrate (20) and in longitudinal alignment with the aerosol forming substrate (20, Fig. 1, pg. 24 lines 8-19).
An aerosol cooling element (40) located immediately downstream of the support element (30) and in longitudinal alignment with the support element (30) and aerosol forming substrate (20, Fig. 1, pg. 24, lines 20-31)
An upstream section located upstream of the aerosol forming substrate (20), the upstream section comprising a plug element (90, “upstream element”) located immediately upstream of the aerosol forming substrate (20, Fig. 1, pg. 23 lines 24-31). The plug element (90) has a resistance to draw (RTD) of 20 mmWG to 40 mmWG (pg. 4 lines 9-15). The range taught by the prior art lies within the claimed range and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Malgat does not explicitly disclose the aerosol cooling element (40) comprises a hollow tubular segment with a ventilation zone along the hollow tubular segment.
However, Seo, directed to a smoking article (abstract, [0001]), discloses:
A smoking article (10) comprising a smoking material portion (110), a support structure (120), a cooling structure (130), and a mouthpiece portion (140), surrounded by a wrapper (150, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, [0074]).
The cooling structure (130) cools the aerosol and comprises a paper tube having a hollow section (130H) to maximize the cooling effect (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, [0089, 0090]).
A plurality of perforations (160) penetrates the cooling structure (130) which allows outside air to flow into the hollow section (130H) of the cooling structure (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, 130, [0095]) which is considered to meet the limitation of a ventilation zone comprising one or more rows of perforations formed through a peripheral wall of the second hollow tubular segment.
The plurality of perforations (160) serves to lower a surface temperature of the mouthpiece and a temperature of the mainstream smoke delivered to a smoker during smoking ([0096]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Malgat by substituting the cooling element with a perforated hollow tubular cooling structure as taught by Seo because both Malgat and Seo are directed to aerosol generating articles with cooling elements, Seo teaches hollow cooling structure maximizes the cooling effect and the perforations lower the temperature of the mainstream smoke delivered to the smoker, and this involves applying a known cooling structure and perforations to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Seo discloses the air dilution rate of the cooling structure is 10 to 50% ([0098]). Seo also discloses the dilution level can be adjusted to achieve an appropriate mainstream smoke temperature while maintaining an appropriate atomization transfer amount ([0097, 0098]).
Malgat or Seo do not explicitly disclose an aerosol generating article with a ventilation level of at least 10%.
However, Cantrell, directed to a smoking article (abstract), discloses:
A smoking article (10) comprising a series of perforations (81) on a peripheral wall of the smoking article (10) to provide air dilution (Fig. 1, [0039])
The smoking article has an air dilution level of about 10 to 80% ([0097]).
Higher air dilution levels reduce the transfer efficiency of aerosol-forming material into mainstream aerosol ([0097]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Malgat, in view of Seo, by modifying the smoking article to have an air dilution level of 10 to 80% as taught by Cantrell because both Malgat and Cantrell are directed to smoking articles, Cantrell teaches an air dilution level that maintains an appropriate transfer efficiency of aerosol-forming material into mainstream aerosol, and this involves applying a known air dilution level to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Malgat, Seo, or Cantrell do not explicitly disclose the aerosol generating substrate comprises homogenized tobacco material with a density of 0.3-1.3 g/cm3.
However, Renaud, directed to an aerosol generating substrate for a smoking article (abstract), discloses:
An aerosol forming substrate comprising strands of homogenized tobacco material with a mass to surface area ratio of 0.09mg/mm2 or more which have improved resistance to combustion (Table 1 examples 2-4, Fig. 3-5, [0035-0036, 0104]).
The mass to surface area ratio can be controlled by the density of the homogenized tobacco material ([0040])
The aerosol forming substrate comprises homogenized tobacco material with a density of 1100 -1500 mg/cm3 ([0044]). The claimed range overlaps with the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Malgat, in view of Seo and Cantrell, by providing the homogenized tobacco material with a density of 1100 -1500 mg/cm3 as taught by Renaud because both Malgat and Renaud are directed to smoking articles, Renaud teaches the density of the homogenized tobacco material is used to control the mass to surface area ratio to a level that prevents combustion, and this involves applying a known tobacco density to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Malgat, Seo, Cantrell, or Renaud do not explicitly disclose the equivalent diameter of at least one of the ventilation perforations is 100-250 microns.
However, Muller, directed to a perforating device for cigarettes (abstract), discloses:
Rod shaped smoking products are perforated to admit cool air when the product is smoked (col. 1 lines 8-11)
The perforating device (50) comprises perforating needles (23) with a diameter less than 0.01 inch which results in perforations that are less than 0.01 inch in diameter which limit the intake of ambient air, and maintain the structure of the smoking product (Fig. 1, col. 1 lines 12-20, 47-51, col. 2 lines 41-46).
The claimed range of 100-250 microns lies within the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Malgat, in view of Seo, Cantrell, and Renaud by using a perforation size of less than 0.01in as taught by Muller because both Malgat and Muller are directed to smoking articles, Muller teaches the perforation size maintains the structure of the smoking article and this involves applying a known perforation size to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, Malgat discloses an elongate susceptor (25) arranged longitudinally within the aerosol-forming substrate (20, Fig. 1, pg. 2 lines 1-5, pg. 9 lines 1-17).
Regarding claim 16, Malgat discloses an elongate susceptor (25) that extends all the way to a downstream end of the aerosol forming substrate (Fig. 1) where the elongate susceptor has the same length as the aerosol forming substrate (pg. 10 lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 17, Seo discloses a cooling structure (130) comprising a paper tube having a hollow section (130H) defining a cavity extending from an upstream end to a downstream end of the cooling structure (130, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, [0089, 0090]).
Regarding claim 18, Cantrell discloses an aerosol generating article having an air dilution level of 10 to 80% ([0097]). The claimed range of a ventilation level less than 40% lies within in the range taught by the prior art is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 22, Seo discloses a row of perforations (160) arranged in a circumferential direction of the cooling structure (130, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, [0017, 0095]).
Regarding claim 24, Muller discloses perforations that are less than 0.01 inch in diameter (Fig. 1, col. 1 lines 12-20, 47-51, col. 2 lines 41-46). The claimed range overlaps with the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 25, Malgat discloses the length of the plug element (90) is 1 to 10mm (pg. 5 lines 19-27). The range taught by the prior art lies within the claimed range and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 26, Malgat discloses an aerosol generating article (10) comprising:
A rod of aerosol forming substrate (20) which comprises homogenized tobacco material (“homogenized plant material”, Fig. 1, pg. 22, lines 20-30, pg. 7 lines 13-19).
An elongate susceptor (25) arranged longitudinally within the aerosol-forming substrate (20, Fig. 1, pg. 2 lines 1-5, pg. 9 lines 1-17)
A downstream section downstream of the aerosol forming substrate (20) comprising:
A support element (30) comprising a hollow cellulose acetate tube (“a first hollow tubular segment”) located immediately downstream of the aerosol forming substrate (20) and in longitudinal alignment with the aerosol forming substrate (20, Fig. 1, pg. 24 lines 8-19).
An aerosol cooling element (40) located immediately downstream of the support element (30) and in longitudinal alignment with the support element (30) and aerosol forming substrate (20, Fig. 1, pg. 24, lines 20-31)
An upstream section located upstream of the aerosol forming substrate (20), the upstream section comprising a plug element (90, “upstream element”) located immediately upstream of the aerosol forming substrate (20, Fig. 1, pg. 23 lines 24-31). The plug element (90) has a resistance to draw (RTD) of 20 mmWG to 40 mmWG (pg. 4 lines 9-15). The range taught by the prior art lies within the claimed range and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Malgat does not explicitly disclose the aerosol cooling element (40) comprises a hollow tubular segment with a ventilation zone along the hollow tubular segment.
However, Seo, directed to a smoking article (abstract, [0001]), discloses:
A smoking article (10) comprising a smoking material portion (110), a support structure (120), a cooling structure (130), and a mouthpiece portion (140), surrounded by a wrapper (150, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, [0074]).
The cooling structure (130) cools the aerosol and comprises a paper tube having a hollow section (130H) to maximize the cooling effect (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, [0089, 0090]).
A plurality of perforations (160) penetrates the cooling structure (130) which allows outside air to flow into the hollow section (130H) of the cooling structure (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, 130, [0095]) which is considered to meet the limitation of a ventilation zone comprising one or more rows of perforations formed through a peripheral wall of the second hollow tubular segment.
The plurality of perforations (160) serves to lower a surface temperature of the mouthpiece and a temperature of the mainstream smoke delivered to a smoker during smoking ([0096]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Malgat by substituting the cooling element with a perforated hollow tubular cooling structure as taught by Seo because both Malgat and Seo are directed to aerosol generating articles with cooling elements, Seo teaches hollow cooling structure maximizes the cooling effect and the perforations lower the temperature of the mainstream smoke delivered to the smoker, and this involves applying a known cooling structure and perforations to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Seo discloses the air dilution rate of the cooling structure is 10 to 50% ([0098]). Seo also discloses the dilution level can be adjusted to achieve an appropriate mainstream smoke temperature while maintaining an appropriate atomization transfer amount ([0097, 0098]).
Malgat or Seo do not explicitly disclose an aerosol generating article with a ventilation level of at least 10%.
However, Cantrell, directed to a smoking article (abstract), discloses:
A smoking article (10) comprising a series of perforations (81) on a peripheral wall of the smoking article (10) to provide air dilution (Fig. 1, [0039])
The smoking article has an air dilution level of about 10 to 80% ([0097]).
Higher air dilution levels reduce the transfer efficiency of aerosol-forming material into mainstream aerosol ([0097]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Malgat, in view of Seo, by modifying the smoking article to have an air dilution level of 10 to 80% as taught by Cantrell because both Malgat and Cantrell are directed to smoking articles, Cantrell teaches an air dilution level that maintains an appropriate transfer efficiency of aerosol-forming material into mainstream aerosol, and this involves applying a known air dilution level to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Malgat, Seo, or Cantrell do not explicitly disclose the aerosol generating substrate comprises homogenized tobacco material with a density of 0.3-1.3 g/cm3.
However, Renaud, directed to an aerosol generating substrate for a smoking article (abstract), discloses:
An aerosol forming substrate comprising strands of homogenized tobacco material with a mass to surface area ratio of 0.09mg/mm2 or more which have improved resistance to combustion (Table 1 examples 2-4, Fig. 3-5, [0035- 0036, 0104]).
The mass to surface area ratio can be controlled by the density of the homogenized tobacco material ([0040])
The aerosol forming substrate comprises homogenized tobacco material with a density of 1100 -1500 mg/cm3 ([0044]). The claimed range overlaps with the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Malgat, in view of Seo and Cantrell, by providing the homogenized tobacco material with a density of 1100 -1500 mg/cm3 as taught by Renaud because both Malgat and Renaud are directed to smoking articles, Renaud teaches the density of the homogenized tobacco material is used to control the mass to surface area ratio to a level that prevents combustion, and this involves applying a known tobacco density to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Malgat, Seo, Cantrell, or Renaud do not explicitly disclose the equivalent diameter of at least one of the ventilation perforations is 100-250 microns.
However, Muller, directed to a perforating device for cigarettes (abstract), discloses:
Rod shaped smoking products are perforated to admit cool air when the product is smoked (col. 1 lines 8-11)
The perforating device (50) comprises perforating needles (23) with a diameter less than 0.01 inch which results in perforations that are less than 0.01 inch in diameter which limit the intake of ambient air, and maintain the structure of the smoking product (Fig. 1, col. 1 lines 12-20, 47-51, col. 2 lines 41-46).
The claimed range of 100-250 microns lies within the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Malgat, in view of Seo, Cantrell, and Renaud by using a perforation size of less than 0.01in as taught by Muller because both Malgat and Muller are directed to smoking articles, Muller teaches the perforation size maintains the structure of the smoking article and this involves applying a known perforation size to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 27, Malgat discloses an aerosol generating article (10) comprising:
A rod of aerosol forming substrate (20) which comprises homogenized tobacco material (“homogenized plant material”, Fig. 1, pg. 22, lines 20-30, pg. 7 lines 13-19).
An elongate susceptor (25) arranged longitudinally within the aerosol-forming substrate (20, Fig. 1, pg. 2 lines 1-5, pg. 9 lines 1-17)
A downstream section downstream of the aerosol forming substrate (20) comprising:
A support element (30) comprising a hollow cellulose acetate tube (“a first hollow tubular segment”) located immediately downstream of the aerosol forming substrate (20) and in longitudinal alignment with the aerosol forming substrate (20, Fig. 1, pg. 24 lines 8-19).
An aerosol cooling element (40) located immediately downstream of the support element (30) and in longitudinal alignment with the support element (30) and aerosol forming substrate (20, Fig. 1, pg. 24, lines 20-31)
An upstream section located upstream of the aerosol forming substrate (20), the upstream section comprising a plug element (90, “upstream element”) located immediately upstream of the aerosol forming substrate (20, Fig. 1, pg. 23 lines 24-31). The plug element (90) has a resistance to draw (RTD) of 20 mmWG to 40 mmWG (pg. 4 lines 9-15). The range taught by the prior art lies within the claimed range and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Malgat does not explicitly disclose the aerosol cooling element (40) comprises a hollow tubular segment with a ventilation zone along the hollow tubular segment.
However, Seo, directed to a smoking article (abstract, [0001]), discloses:
A smoking article (10) comprising a smoking material portion (110), a support structure (120), a cooling structure (130), and a mouthpiece portion (140), surrounded by a wrapper (150, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, [0074]).
The cooling structure (130) cools the aerosol and comprises a paper tube having a hollow section (130H) to maximize the cooling effect (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, [0089, 0090]).
A plurality of perforations (160) penetrates the cooling structure (130) which allows outside air to flow into the hollow section (130H) of the cooling structure (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, 130, [0095]) which is considered to meet the limitation of a ventilation zone comprising one or more rows of perforations formed through a peripheral wall of the second hollow tubular segment.
The plurality of perforations (160) serves to lower a surface temperature of the mouthpiece and a temperature of the mainstream smoke delivered to a smoker during smoking ([0096]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Malgat by substituting the cooling element with a perforated hollow tubular cooling structure as taught by Seo because both Malgat and Seo are directed to aerosol generating articles with cooling elements, Seo teaches hollow cooling structure maximizes the cooling effect and the perforations lower the temperature of the mainstream smoke delivered to the smoker, and this involves applying a known cooling structure and perforations to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Seo discloses the air dilution rate of the cooling structure is 10 to 50% ([0098]). Seo also discloses the dilution level can be adjusted to achieve an appropriate mainstream smoke temperature while maintaining an appropriate atomization transfer amount ([0097, 0098]).
Malgat or Seo do not explicitly disclose an aerosol generating article with a ventilation level of at least 10%.
However, Cantrell, directed to a smoking article (abstract), discloses:
A smoking article (10) comprising a series of perforations (81) on a peripheral wall of the smoking article (10) to provide air dilution (Fig. 1, [0039])
The smoking article has an air dilution level of about 10 to 80% ([0097]).
Higher air dilution levels reduce the transfer efficiency of aerosol-forming material into mainstream aerosol ([0097]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Malgat, in view of Seo, by modifying the smoking article to have an air dilution level of 10 to 80% as taught by Cantrell because both Malgat and Cantrell are directed to smoking articles, Cantrell teaches an air dilution level that maintains an appropriate transfer efficiency of aerosol-forming material into mainstream aerosol, and this involves applying a known air dilution level to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Malgat, Seo, or Cantrell do not explicitly disclose the aerosol generating substrate comprises homogenized tobacco material with a density of 0.3-1.3 g/cm3.
However, Renaud, directed to an aerosol generating substrate for a smoking article (abstract), discloses:
An aerosol forming substrate comprising strands of homogenized tobacco material with a mass to surface area ratio of 0.09mg/mm2 or more which have improved resistance to combustion (Table 1 examples 2-4, Fig. 3-5, [0035- 0036, 0104]).
The strands of homogenized tobacco material are formed by an extrusion process ([0060])
The mass to surface area ratio can be controlled by the density of the homogenized tobacco material ([0040])
The aerosol forming substrate comprises homogenized tobacco material with a density of 1100 -1500 mg/cm3 ([0044]). The claimed range overlaps with the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Malgat, in view of Seo and Cantrell, by using extruded homogenized tobacco material with a density of 1100 -1500 mg/cm3 as taught by Renaud because both Malgat and Renaud are directed to smoking articles, Renaud teaches the density of the homogenized tobacco material is used to control the mass to surface area ratio to a level that prevents combustion, and this involves applying a known tobacco density to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Malgat, Seo, Cantrell, or Renaud do not explicitly disclose the equivalent diameter of at least one of the ventilation perforations is 100-250 microns.
However, Muller, directed to a perforating device for cigarettes (abstract), discloses:
Rod shaped smoking products are perforated to admit cool air when the product is smoked (col. 1 lines 8-11)
The perforating device (50) comprises perforating needles (23) with a diameter less than 0.01 inch which results in perforations that are less than 0.01 inch in diameter which limit the intake of ambient air, and maintain the structure of the smoking product (Fig. 1, col. 1 lines 12-20, 47-51, col. 2 lines 41-46).
The claimed range of 100-250 microns lies within the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Malgat, in view of Seo, Cantrell, and Renaud by using a perforation size of less than 0.01in as taught by Muller because both Malgat and Muller are directed to smoking articles, Muller teaches the perforation size maintains the structure of the smoking article and this involves applying a known perforation size to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malgat (WO 2017153443 A1, as cited in IDS dated 11/22/2022) in view of Seo (US 20220248746 A1), Cantrell (US 20070023056 A1), Renaud (US 20120006343 A1), and Muller (US 4148324 A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Cao (US 20220053822 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Malgat does not explicitly disclose the draw resistance of the support element. However, Malgat discloses a support element (30) comprising a hollow cellulose acetate tube (“a first hollow tubular segment”) located immediately downstream of the aerosol forming substrate (20) and in longitudinal alignment with the aerosol forming substrate (20, Fig. 1, pg. 24 lines 8-19) which comprises substantially the same structure required by the claimed invention. Therefore, the hollow tubular support element of Malgat is expected to exhibit the claimed resistance to draw, absent evidence to the contrary. It follows that with the same structure as claimed by the applicant, that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the prior art support element would have a similar resistance to draw, absent evidence to the contrary.
Further regarding claim 19, Malgat discloses the aerosol cooling element has a low resistance to draw (pg. 15 lines 11-19).
Malgat, does not explicitly disclose that the resistance to draw of the cooling element is less than 10 mmH2O.
However, Cao, directed to an aerosol generating product ([0006]), discloses:
An aerosol generating product (10) comprising an aerosol atomization element (20), a hollow cellulose acetate tube (60, “a support element”), a smoking cooling element (30), and a filter nozzle (40, Fig. 3, [0060]).
The smoke cooling element has a sealing pressure drop of less than 2 mmH2O ([0033, 0042]). The resistance to draw range taught by the prior art lies within the claimed range and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
The low pressure drop of the smoke cooling element allows the aerosol to pass through smoothly which ensures enough flux of smoke and enhances the user experience ([0041]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Malgat, in view of Seo, Cantrell, Renaud, and Muller, by modifying the aerosol cooling element to have a pressure drop of less than 2 mmH2O as taught by Cao because both Malgat and Cao are directed to smoking articles, Cao teaches the low pressure drop of the smoke cooling element ensures enough flux of smoke and enhances the user experience, and this involves applying a known resistance to draw in a cooling element to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malgat (WO 2017153443 A1, as cited in IDS dated 11/22/2022) in view of Seo (US 20220248746 A1), Cantrell (US 20070023056 A1), Renaud (US 20120006343 A1), and Muller (US 4148324 A) as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Santoso (WO 2016174013 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Malgat discloses the aerosol forming substrate (20) comprises homogenized tobacco and additional non-tobacco volatile flavor compounds (pg. 7 lines 13-30).
Renaud discloses the strands of homogenized tobacco may comprise non-tobacco flavorants ([0067]).
Malgat or Renaud do not explicitly disclose the homogenized tobacco material comprises non tobacco plant flavor in the form of particles.
However, Santoso, directed a clove containing flavoring material for a smoking article (abstract), discloses:
Treated cloves particles that are easy to handle and can be processed with tobacco laminae (pg. 4 para 2)
The cut rolled cloves (“non tobacco plant flavor particles”) may be combined with reconstituted tobacco (pg. 7 para 5).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Malgat, in view of Seo, Cantrell, Renaud, and Muller, by including treated clove particles in the homogenized tobacco as taught by Santoso because both Malgat and Santoso are directed to smoking articles, Santoso teaches the treated clove particles are easy to handle in manufacturing, and this involves applying cloves in a known particle form to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malgat (WO 2017153443 A1, as cited in IDS dated 11/22/2022) in view of Seo (US 20220248746 A1), Cantrell (US 20070023056 A1), Renaud (US 20120006343 A1), and Muller (US 4148324 A) as applied to claim 22, and further in view of Zhou (CN 107981411 A, as cited in IDS dated 08/23/2022, hereinafter referring to the English translation provided).
Regarding claim 23, Seo discloses the number and size of the perforations (160) impact the air dilution rate of the cooling structure (130, [0160]).
Seo does not explicitly disclose two rows of perforations spaced longitudinally along the second hollow tubular segment.
However, Zhou, directed to a cigarette ([0001]), discloses:
A cigarette comprising a tobacco shred section (7) wrapped with cigarette paper (8) and a reconstituted tobacco tube filter section (4) wrapped with cork (6, Fig. 1, [0027-0032, 0042]).
Perforations in the wrapping of the reconstituted tobacco hollow tube improve the cooling effect of the cigarette and flue gas suction ([0012, 0014, 0020]).
The cork wrapping (6) is provided with punching holes (5) in two rows to provide a better cooling effect ([0012, 0020, 0032])
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Malgat, in view of Seo, Cantrell, Renaud, and Muller, by including two rows of perforations as taught by Zhou because both Malgat and Zhou are directed to smoking articles, Zhou teaches that two rows of perforations provide a better cooling effect, and this involves applying known rows of perforations to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malgat (WO 2017153443 A1, as cited in IDS dated 11/22/2022) in view of Seo (US 20220248746 A1), Cantrell (US 20070023056 A1), Renaud (US 20120006343 A1), and Muller (US 4148324 A) as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of Gindrat (US 20170275030 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Malgat discloses an aerosol generating article (10) comprising a rod of aerosol forming substrate (20, Fig. 1, pg. 22, lines 20-30, pg. 7 lines 13-19), and a hollow support element (30, “a first hollow tubular segment”) located immediately downstream of the aerosol forming substrate (20, Fig. 1, pg. 24 lines 8-19). Seo discloses a hollow cooling structure (130, 130H) downstream of a support structure (120, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, [0089, 0090]). Therefore, Malgat, in view of Seo, Cantrell, Renauld, and Muller, discloses an aerosol generating article comprising a rod of aerosol forming substrate and two hollow segments downstream of the rod.
Malgat is silent to the position of the center of mass of the aerosol generating article.
However, Gindrat, directed to a feeding apparatus for cigarette manufacturing (100, Fig. 3, [0001]), discloses:
An aerosol-generating article (16) comprising an aerosol-generating substrate (30) and mouthpiece (32) where the center of mass (38) of each aerosol-generating article (16) is upstream of the midpoint of the article (16, Fig. 2, [0025, 0095]).
The distance between the center of mass of each aerosol-generating article and the midpoint along the length of each aerosol-generating article is between 5 to 20 percent of the total length of the aerosol-generating article ([0025]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Malgat, in view of Seo, Cantrell, Renaud, and Muller, by providing an aerosol generating article having a center of mass positioned 5-20% of the length upstream of the midpoint of the article as taught by Gindrat because both Malgat and Gindrat are directed to smoking articles, Malgat is silent to center of mass of the aerosol generating article, Gindrat teaches a known range of center of pass positions along the length of the article, and one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to similar aerosol generating articles for workable ranges of center of mass and this involves applying known center of mass to a similar aerosol generating article to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 29, Gindrat discloses the distance between the center of mass of each aerosol-generating article and the midpoint along the length of each aerosol-generating article is between 5 to 20 percent of the total length of the aerosol-generating article ([0025]). The claimed range for center of mass position overlaps with the claimed range of less than 70% from the downstream end of the article and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
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 MORGAN FAITH DEZENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-0155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-430pm 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.
/M.F.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights