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
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 22 December 2025:
Claims 16-29 are pending
Claim 16 is amended
Claims 1-15 are cancelled
Claim 29 is new
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to the claims filed 22 December 2025 have been acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 22 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
On Pages 6-10 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant has amended Claim 16 to further recite that the first air ingress zone is specifically located along “an upstream half of the rod of the aerosol-forming substrate”. Applicant appears to be arguing that Matteau does not disclose perforations on an upstream half of the rod and that there modifying Matteau with any previously presented prior art would not arrive at the new limitation.
Examiner has reviewed the amendment and agrees with the Applicant that the previously presented art does not disclose the additional feature recited in amended Claim 16 and therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fournier et al (Publication No. US20030154991A1).
Applicant's arguments filed 22 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pages 6-10 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant reiterates their arguments directed to the incompatibility of modifying Matteau with non-combustion type of aerosol-generating articles in anticipation of further modifications made to the amended claims. Specifically, Applicant notes that Matteau’s article, being one for combustion, would have an end adapted for ignition which would not be necessary and therefore incompatible with modifications using prior art that is directed at heating and not combusting the aerosol generating article.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and reemphasizes that both combustion and non-combustion articles are representative of the overall field of aerosol-generating articles, wherein heat is utilized to generate an aerosol for smoking. In fact, in the field of aerosol-generating articles, aerosol generating articles can easily be adapted to be suitable to a specific heating means (i.e., combustion versus non-combustion) as evidenced by Lee et al (Publication No. US20200368462A1) which discloses an aerosol generating system that heats an aerosol-generating article that is colloquially called a “cigarette”. Furthermore, Lee specifically states that the heated cigarette article used in their aerosol system can be similar to a traditional combustive cigarette [0062], which indicates that combustive style cigarettes can in fact be configured to be a heated/non-combustive article for use.
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments to the claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-18, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matteau et al (Publication No. US6206008B1), in view of Rees et al (Publication No. WO2019224366A1, cited in IDS dated 06 September 2022), Fournier et al (Publication No. US20030154991A1) and Johnson et al (Publication No. US5095922A).
Regarding Claim 16, Matteau discloses an aerosol-generating article for producing an aerosol upon heating, the aerosol-generating article comprising:
a rod of aerosol-forming substrate (Rod-shaped tobacco element 11);
and a filter (120) positioned downstream of the rod of aerosol-forming substrate (Matteau, Fig. 1; Col. 3, Lines 13-23; downstream is where the filter abuts against one end of the substrate rod, the other rod end being the upstream end);
wherein the rod of aerosol-forming substrate and the filter are assembled within a wrapper (Wrapper 13) (Matteau, Fig. 1; Col. 3, Lines 13-16);
and first air ingress zone (Perforation/holes 14) and second air ingress zone (Ventilation holes 17) located on the wrapper (13), the first and the second air ingress zones each being configured to allow ingress of air into an interior of the aerosol- generating article (Matteau, Col. 3, Lines 49-53);
wherein the first air ingress zone is located along the rod of aerosol-forming substrate (Tobacco element 11) (Matteau, Col. 3, Lines 17-20);
and the second air ingress zone is located along the filter (Filter element 12) (Matteau, Col. 3, Lines 21-23).
Matteau does not disclose the following:
the filter further comprising a hollow tubular segment, wherein the second air ingress zone is located along the hollow tubular segment;
the aerosol-forming substrate having an aerosol former content of greater than 10 percent on a dry weight basis;
wherein the first air ingress zone is located along an upstream half of the rod of aerosol-forming substrate.
Regarding (I), Rees, directed to an aerosol generating assembly, discloses a filter assembly (205/305) comprising a mouth end segment (211/311), filter segment (209/309), and a cooling segment (207/307) where the cooling segment is a hollow annular tube (i.e., hollow tubular segment) (Rees, Figs. 4-5; Pg. 23, Lines 25-30; Pg. 27, Lines 5-9; Aerosol generating articles 201 and 301 are equivalent). Furthermore, the ventilation region (317) comprises of one or more ventilation holes located in the cooling segment (307) to aid with cooling (Rees, Pg. 27, Lines 11-16; Ventilation holes on the cooling segment is equivalent to the second air ingress zone).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the filter disclosed by Matteau to include a hollow tubular segment with ventilation holes (i.e., second air ingress zone) located on said hollow tubular segment as disclosed by Rees, as both are directed to an aerosol-generating product, where Rees teaches the advantage of having a hollow tube section to provide a physical displacement and temperature gradient between the aerosolisable material (203) and filter segment (209) to prevent damaging the temperature sensitive filter during use (Rees, Pg. 24, Lines 4-20); this also involves substitution of one known filter design with another known filter design to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Examiner notes that while Matteau’s article is combusted whereas Rees’ aerosol-generating article/assembly is not combusted, they both are materially similar – both articles comprise a filter, wrapping paper, and a tobacco substrate region that is heated to generate an aerosol. Since the two articles are materially similar and only differ in the manner of how they are operated (i.e., whether the heating reaches a combustion point or not), one ordinarily skilled in the art could reasonably adapt a combustion article to be operated in a non-combustion manner and reasonably expect said article can be heated to generate an aerosol.
Regarding (II), it is noted that Applicant discloses glycerin, propylene glycol, and triethylene glycol as examples of suitable aerosol formers. In that regard, Johnson, directed to a tobacco smokable material (i.e., aerosol-forming substrate) for manufacturing cigarettes, discloses said tobacco smokable material is an expanded tobacco filler, wherein the expansion renders said tobacco filler material the advantage of lower density and reduced weight when employed in cigarette manufacturing (Abstract; Col. 1, Lines 16-19).
The expanded tobacco filler material is prepared by contacting tobacco material to a humectant like glycerin, propylene glycol, triethylene glycol (i.e., aerosol former) such that the quantity of humectant/aerosol former applied to the tobacco material is less than about 15 percent, preferably 1 to 12 percent by dry weight of tobacco material (Abstract, Col. 5, Lines 24-35; disclosed humectant examples are the same as the aerosol formers disclosed by the Applicant, therefore they are considered equivalent; disclosed humectant weight percentage range is within the claimed range of greater than about 10 percent).
The claimed range for aerosol former overlap with the humectant/aerosol former range disclosed by Johnson and are therefore considered prima facie obvious (see MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the tobacco smoking material disclosed by Matteau with the expanded tobacco smoking material as disclosed by Johnson, as both are directed to a smokable material for cigarettes, where Johnson teaches the advantage of expanded tobacco material with less than 15 percent humectant/aerosol former which has a lower density and reduced weight when employed in cigarette manufacturing (Col. 1, Lines 16-19).
Regarding (III), Fournier directed to an electrical smoking system, discloses a cigarette (i.e., aerosol generating article) with a filled tobacco portion that is heated to produce tobacco smoke (Abstract). The cigarette further comprises perforations (14) (i.e., air ingress zone) located adjacent to the free end (15) (i.e., upstream end) to adjust the resistance to draw (RTD) and enhance the delivery to a smoker (Figs. 2, 3C ; [0035, 0048-0049]). The perforations can be disposed on the tobacco portion (88) rod, such as the upstream half of said tobacco portion rod (see Figs. 2, 3C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the first air ingress zone disclosed by Matteau to be located on the upstream half of the article rod as disclosed by Fournier, as both are directed to a smoking/aerosol generating article, where Fournier teaches the advantage of adding perforations to said article such as ones at an upstream half end to adjust the RTD and enhance delivery to a smoker [0048-0049].
Examiner notes that while Matteau’s aerosol-generating article/cigarette is disclosed to be combusted to generate an aerosol, one ordinarily skilled in the art would be aware that traditional cigarettes can be configured to be heated instead of combusted to still generate an aerosol. In fact, Fournier’s smoking system heats (does not combust) an aerosol-generating article which is called a “cigarette”, wherein said cigarette comprises similar components as Matteau’s cigarette article such as a filter, rod of tobacco, and wrapper (Abstract). Considering how both Fournier and Matteau both disclose similar articles that are colloquially called a cigarette, one ordinarily skilled in the art would reasonably conclude that a combustive cigarette like Matteau’s could be adapted and operated as a materially similar non-combustive cigarette like the one disclosed by Fournier.
Regarding Claim 17, Matteau does not disclose the filter further comprising a mouthpiece segment arranged downstream of the aerosol-forming substrate rod.
However, Rees, directed to an aerosol generating assembly, discloses the filter (Filter assembly 305) of the aerosol-generating article comprises:
a mouthpiece segment (111) comprising a plug of filtration material (109) (Reese, Pg. 20, Lines 5-16; filter is a plug of cellulose acetate) arranged downstream of the rod of aerosol-forming substrate (Rees, Fig. 2; Downstream end is considered to be the end where the rod connects to the cooling element 107);
and wherein the hollow tubular segment (107) (Rees, Pg. 21, Line 5; cooling element 107 comprises a hollow tube) is located between the mouthpiece segment (111) and the rod of aerosol-forming substrate (103) (Reese, see Fig. 2; Downstream end is considered to be the end where the rod connects to the cooling element 107). Note that the parts described in Fig. 1 are considered equivalent to those described in Figures 3-4, and subsequently Figures 5-6 (Rees, Pg. 22, Lines 13-15; Pg. Pg. 27, Lines 5-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the filter disclosed by Matteau to include a mouthpiece segment with a filter plug tubular segment arranged downstream of the aerosol-forming rod as disclosed by Rees, as both are directed to an aerosol-generating product, where Rees teaches the advantage of having the mouthpiece to prevent any liquid condensate from accumulating at the exit of the filter segment from coming into contact with the user (Rees, Pg. 26, Lines 28-30); this also involves substitution of one known filter design with another known filter design to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 18, Modified Matteau discloses the cooling element (107/207) is between the mouthpiece segment (111/211) and aerosolisable article (103/203) and the filter segment (109/209) is between the mouthpiece segment and the cooling element (Rees, see Fig. 2; Pg. 22, Lines 1-5). Matteau in view of Rees does not explicitly disclose that the cooling element is between the mouthpiece segment and hollow tubular segment.
However, it should be noted that the filter segment and cooling element disclosed by Reese are functionally equivalent in their ability to cool an aerosol via the ventilation apertures (Rees, Pg. 13, Lines 8-12); the filter segment can be considered the cooling segment of the filter assembly, and the cooling element (107/207) would be considered the hollow tubular segment of the assembly (Reese, Pg. 23, Lines 25-30; Aerosol-generating article 101 and 201 are considered equivalent).
Therefore, Rees implicitly discloses that the filter (assembly) further comprises an aerosol-cooling element (i.e., filter segment 109/209) located between the mouthpiece segment (111/211) and the hollow tubular segment (i.e., cooling element 107/207).
Regarding Claim 23, Matteau does not explicitly disclose that the first and/or second air ingress zones comprise a porous portion of the wrapper.
However, Matteau further discloses that the holes 14 (i.e., first air ingress zone) extends through a region 15 with a permeability (i.e., porosity) of 1500 Coresta units which is sufficient to render the smoking product 10 unsmokable (Matteau, Col. 3, Lines 33-37; airflow high enough to render the smoking product unsmokable would imply that that region is porous).
Furthermore, Matteau also discloses that the filter has a porous section wrapped with porous foil/wrapper with a permeability in the order of 10000-30000 Coresta units (Matteau, Col. 5, Lines 53-54) which is interchangeable with the vent holes on the filter (i.e., second ingress zone – Ventilation Holes 17) (Matteau, Col. 6, Lines 37-43).
The disclosed air permeability/porosity of the regions where the first and second air ingress zones (i.e., ventilation holes 14 and 17) enables the smoking product to be unsmokable, indicating that the first and second air ingress zones are located in a section of the wrapper that is considered porous.
Regarding Claim 24, Modified Matteau further discloses the first air ingress zone (Matteau, Holes 14) or the second air ingress zone (Matteau, Ventilation holes 17; Reese, Ventilation region/holes 317) comprises a plurality of apertures (i.e., series of holes) extending through the wrapper (i.e., aerosol-generating article outer layer) (Matteau, Col. 3, Lines 17-23; Rees, Pg. 22, Lines 1-5; Pg. 27, Lines 11-16; wrapper is formed around the article components, implying that it is the outer layer).
Regarding Claim 25, Matteau does not disclose that the first air ingress zone has a porosity of at least 3000 Coresta units.
However, Matteau discloses that the filter has a porous section or is wrapped with porous foil/wrapper in the order of 10000-30000 Coresta units (Matteau, Col. 5, Lines 53-54; disclosed range is at least/more than 3000 Coresta units) which is interchangeable with the vent holes on the filter (i.e., second ingress zone – Ventilation Holes 17) (Matteau, Col. 6, Lines 37-43).
It is also further disclosed that the airflow (i.e., porosity) through the ventilation holes 14 and 17 (i.e., air ingress zones) can be adjusted based on the sizing of the ventilation holes; to achieve a desired 65% airflow through the product, the size of the ventilation holes 17 (i.e., pore size) can be increased so long as the size of the holes 14 are reduced to compensate and vice versa (Matteau, Col. 4, Lines 65-67; Col. 5, Lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to adjust the size of the ventilation holes 14 (i.e., first air ingress zone) to achieve a porosity/airflow of 10000-30000 Coresta units so long as the ventilation holes 17 (i.e., second air ingress zone) are appropriately resized/reduced to maintain an overall airflow of 65% through the smoking product to render it unsmokable without the appropriate wrapper (Matteau, Col. 4, Lines 65-67; Col. 5, Lines 1-2; Abstract).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Matteau, because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Regarding Claim 26, Matteau does not disclose that the first air ingress zone has a porosity of less than 25000 Coresta units.
However, Matteau discloses that the filter has a porous section or is wrapped with porous foil/wrapper in the order of 10000-30000 Coresta units (Matteau, Col. 5, Lines 53-54; disclosed range is partially within the range of less than 25000 Coresta units) which is interchangeable with the vent holes on the filter (i.e., second ingress zone – Ventilation Holes 17) (Matteau, Col. 6, Lines 37-43).
It is also further disclosed that the airflow (i.e., porosity) through the ventilation holes 14 and 17 (i.e., air ingress zones) can be adjusted based on the sizing of the ventilation holes; to achieve a desired 65% airflow through the product, the size of the ventilation holes 17 (i.e., pore size) can be increased so long as the size of the holes 14 are reduced to compensate and vice versa (Matteau, Col. 4, Lines 65-67; Col. 5, Lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to adjust the size of the ventilation holes 14 (i.e., first air ingress zone) to achieve a porosity/airflow of 10000-30000 Coresta units so long as the ventilation holes 17 (i.e., second air ingress zone) are appropriately resized/reduced to maintain an overall airflow of 65% through the smoking product to render it unsmokable without the appropriate wrapper (Matteau, Col. 4, Lines 65-67; Col. 5, Lines 1-2; Abstract).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by Matteau, because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (See MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Regarding Claim 27, Matteau further discloses the wrapper (Cigarette paper 13.5) of the aerosol-generating article (Tobacco element 11.5) comprises an air-impermeable material (Matteau, Col. 6, Lines 9-11).
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matteau et al (Publication No. US6206008B1), in view of Rees et al (Publication No. WO2019224366A1, cited in IDS dated 06 September 2022), Fournier et al (Publication No. US20030154991A1) and Johnson et al (Publication No. US5095922A) as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Clark et al (Publication No. US20050066983A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Modified Matteau further discloses that the smoking product 10 (i.e., cigarette) may have a standard length or a luxury length such as 99mm to 103mm) (Matteau, Col. 3, Lines 23-28). Furthermore, the dimension such as the region 15 where holes 14 are located can vary in length; for example, the region can be a length twice the smoking product diameter or 50% or more the length of the tobacco element 11 (Matteau, Col. 4, Lines 32-39).
Modified Matteau does not disclose specific dimensions such as the second air ingress zone being located at least 2mm downstream of the first air ingress zone. However, Clark, directed to a filtered cigarette, discloses a filter element 20 with a plurality of ventilation holes 30 (i.e., second air ingress zone) and an adsorbent compartment 32 (i.e., hollow tubular segment) (Clark, Paragraph 008). The filter element length can vary, typically in the range of 15-65mm and the cigarette length could typically range from 80-150mm (Clark, Paragraphs 0032-0033).
In one embodiment of the cigarette disclosed by Clark, the ventilation holes (30) can be configured to be about 10-22mm from the tobacco rod (12) which will generally vary depending on the length of the filter segment (Clark, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0058). One preferred embodiment for example is having the ventilation holes positioned approximately midpoint of the compartment and the end of the filter element proximal to the tobacco rod as it can enhance the adsorption of certain vapor components of the mainstream smoke (Clark, Paragraph 0056).
As per Modified Matteau’s disclosure, the first air ingress zone (i.e., holes 14) are located on the tobacco rod/element (Matteau, Col. 3, Lines 17-20). Thus, if Modified Matteau’s cigarette is constructed with similar dimensions as the one disclosed by Clark, the second air ingress zone would at minimum be 10-22mm away (i.e., downstream) from the first air ingress zone if the first air ingress zone was constructed on the upstream end of the cigarette rod.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the filter disclosed by Modified Matteau construct the second air ingress zone (i.e., holes 17) disclosed by Modified Matteau to be 10-22mm away from the tobacco rod (and subsequently a similar distance away from the first air ingress zone/holes 14 on the tobacco rod) as disclosed by Clark as both are directed to a cigarette, where Clark teaches the advantage of varying the ventilation hole distance within that range to be at the mid-point between the tubular segment (i.e. compartment) and cigarette rod to enhance the adsorption of certain vapor components of the mainstream smoke (Clark, Paragraph 0056); this also involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 20, Modified Matteau further discloses that the smoking product 10 (i.e., cigarette) may have a standard length or a luxury length such as 99mm to 103mm) (Matteau, Col. 3, Lines 23-28). Furthermore, the dimension such as the region 15 where holes 14 are located can vary in length; for example, the region can be a length twice the smoking product diameter or 50% or more the length of the tobacco element 11 (Matteau, Col. 4, Lines 32-39).
Modified Matteau does not disclose specific dimensions such as the second air ingress zone being located at least 12mm downstream of the first air ingress zone. However, Clark, directed to a filtered cigarette, discloses a filter element 20 with a plurality of ventilation holes 30 (i.e., second air ingress zone) and an adsorbent compartment 32 (i.e., hollow tubular segment (Clark, Paragraph 008). The filter element length can vary, typically in the range of 15-65mm and the cigarette length could typically range from 80-150mm (Clark, Fig. 2; Paragraphs 0032-0033).
Clark further discloses the ventilation holes (30) can be configured to be about 10-22mm from the tobacco rod (12) which will generally vary depending on the length of the filter segment (Clark, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0058). One preferred embodiment for example is having the ventilation holes positioned approximately midpoint of the compartment and the end of the filter element proximal to the tobacco rod as it can enhance the adsorption of certain vapor components of the mainstream smoke (Clark, Paragraph 0056).
As per Modified Matteau’s disclosure, the first air ingress zone (i.e., holes 14) are located on the tobacco rod/element (Matteau, Col. 3, Lines 17-20). Thus, if Modified Matteau’s cigarette is constructed with similar dimensions as the one disclosed by Clark, the second air ingress zone would at minimum be 10-22mm away (i.e., downstream) from the first air ingress zone if the first air ingress zone was constructed on upstream end of the cigarette rod.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the filter disclosed by Modified Matteau construct the second air ingress zone (i.e., holes 17) disclosed by Modified Matteau to be 10-22mm away from the tobacco rod (and subsequently a similar distance away from the first air ingress zone/holes 14 on the tobacco rod) as disclosed by Clark as both are directed to a cigarette, where Clark teaches the advantage of varying the ventilation hole distance within that range to be at the mid-point between the tubular segment (i.e. compartment) and cigarette rod to enhance the adsorption of certain vapor components of the mainstream smoke (Clark, Paragraph 0056); this also involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 21, Matteau further discloses that the smoking product 10 (i.e., cigarette) may have a standard length or a luxury length (such as 99mm to 103mm) (Matteau, Col. 3, Lines 23-28). Furthermore, the holes 14 are located around the article region 15 which is the end of the tobacco element 11 (i.e., downstream end of the rod) adjacent to the junction 16 and filter element 12 (Matteau, Fig. 1; Col. 3, Lines 17-20).
Matteau does not disclose specific dimensions such as the first air ingress zone being located at least 2mm downstream of an upstream end of the rod. However, Clark, directed to a filtered cigarette, discloses a filter element 20 with a plurality of ventilation holes 30 (i.e., second air ingress zone) and an adsorbent compartment 32 (i.e., hollow tubular segment (Clark, Fig. 2; Paragraph 008). The filter element length can vary, typically in the range of 15-65mm and the cigarette length could typically range from 80-150mm (Clark, Paragraphs 0032-0033).
One ordinarily skilled in the art could construct the cigarette rod disclosed by Matteau to be in the range of 80-150mm as disclosed in Clark, which is a modification of the relative dimensions of the rod that would not impact its functionality as an aerosol-generating material. When the rod is constructed with this length, the upstream end of the rod (i.e., the end not adjacent to the filter) would be 80-150mm away from the downstream end (i.e., the end adjacent/abutting the filter).
Thus, when the first air ingress zone (i.e., holes 14) are constructed to be located on the downstream end of the rod, adjacent to the junction and filter as disclosed by Matteau, it is implicit that the first air ingress zone is approximately 80-150mm away (i.e., downstream) of the upstream end of the substrate rod.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the tobacco/aerosol-generating substrate rod disclosed by Matteau to be a length of 80-150mm as disclosed by Clark, as both are directed to an aerosol-generating/cigarette article and this is applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 22, Matteau further discloses that the smoking product 10 (i.e., cigarette) may have a standard length or a luxury length such as 99mm to 103mm) (Matteau, Col. 3, Lines 23-28). Furthermore, the dimension such as the region 15 where holes 14 are located can vary in length; for example, the region can be a length twice the smoking product diameter or 50% or more the length of the tobacco element 11 (Matteau, Col. 4, Lines 32-39).
Matteau does not disclose specific dimensions such as the second air ingress zone being located at least 2mm downstream of an upstream end of the hollow tubular segment. However, Clark, directed to a filtered cigarette, discloses a filter element 20 with a plurality of ventilation holes 30 (i.e., second air ingress zone) and an adsorbent compartment 32 (i.e., hollow tubular segment (Clark, Fig. 2; Paragraph 008). The filter element length can vary, typically in the range of 15-65mm and the cigarette length could typically range from 80-150mm (Clark, Paragraphs 0032-0033).
Clark further discloses the ventilation holes (30) can be configured to be about 10-22mm from the tobacco rod (12) which will generally vary depending on the length of the filter segment (Clark, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0058). When the ventilation holes are overlying the compartment 32 (i.e., hollow tubular segment), the holes are within 5mm (preferably 2mm) of the section proximal to the tobacco rod (i.e., the upstream end of the hollow segment abutting the cigarette rod).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinarily skilled in the art to construct the second air ingress zone (i.e., holes 17) disclosed by Matteau to be 10-22mm away from the tobacco rod (and subsequently a similar distance away from the first air ingress zone/holes 14 on the tobacco rod) as disclosed by Clark as both are directed to a cigarette, where Clark teaches the advantage of varying the ventilation hole distance within the specified range to be at the mid-point between the tubular segment (i.e. compartment) and cigarette rod to enhance the adsorption of certain vapor components of the mainstream smoke (Clark, Paragraph 0056); this also involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepworth (Publication No. US20200345075A1, cited in IDS dated 06 September 2022), in view of Matteau et al (Publication No. US6206008B1) and Rees et al (Publication No. WO2019224366A1, cited in IDS dated 06 September 2022).
Regarding Claim 28, Hepworth discloses an aerosol-generating system (100) comprising aerosol-generating article (Consumable 102) and an aerosol-generating device (i.e., Aerosol provision device 104) having a distal end (125) and a mouth end (124) (Hepworth, Paragraph 0036), the aerosol generating system further comprising:
a housing (110) defining a device cavity (i.e., hollow cylindrical tube) configured to removably receive the aerosol-generating article (consumable article 102) at the mouth end (Opening 132) of the device (Hepworth, Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0036-0037; Consumable material is inserted via opening into the hollow cylindrical tube heater arrangement 134);
a heater (Heater arrangement 134) configured to heat the aerosol-forming substrate when the aerosol-generating article is received within the device cavity (Hepworth, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0037);
and an air-flow channel (Air flow path A) extending between a channel inlet (112) and a channel outlet (Distal end 121), the air-flow channel being configured to establish a fluid communication between the interior of the device cavity (Heating arrangement 134; hollow cylindrical tube) and an exterior of the aerosol-generating device (Hepworth, Fig. 4; Paragraphs 0041 and 0047; Air can be drawn from the outside into the housing through the air inlet implies fluid communication);
wherein the aerosol-generating system is configured so that, when the aerosol- generating article is received within the device cavity, fluid communication between the interior of the aerosol-generating article and the exterior of the aerosol-generating device is established by a fluid communication being established between the first air ingress zone of the aerosol-generating article received within the device cavity and the air-flow channel of the aerosol-generating device (Hepworth, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0077; there is fluid communication between the second inlet (402) and the ventilation zone (108), allowing air to flow into the housing to the ventilation zone through the Flow path C).
Hepworth further discloses that the aerosol-generating article (i.e., consumable) may be a rod, cartridge/cassette, or any similar form that can be inserted into the apparatus (Hepworth, Paragraph 0028) that comprises:
an aerosol-forming substrate (Aerosolisable material 106);
a filter (Filter segment 204);
and an air ingress zone (Ventilation region 108) located on the cooling segment (Hepworth, Fig. 2; Paragraph 0042).
Hepworth does not disclose the aerosol-generating article having additional features such as a hollow tubular segment, first and second air ingress zones, or the specific orientation of the aerosol-generating article parts as described in Claim 16.
However, Matteau in view of Rees as applied to Claim 16 above, discloses an aerosol-generating article according to Claim 16 (see 103 Rejection of Claim 16). The aerosol-generating article disclosed by Matteau in view of Rees is rod-shaped with ventilation holes (air ingress zone) and the device disclosed by Hepworth is designed to accept rod-shaped consumables with ventilation holes (i.e., aerosol-generating article) to be heated and generate aerosols (Hepworth, Abstract; Paragraphs 0028 and 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to modify the aerosol-generating system disclosed by Hepworth by combining the aerosol-generating device disclosed by Hepworth with the aerosol-generating article disclosed by Matteau in view of Rees as applied to Claim 16, so long as the article is insertable into the device to be heated; this also involves combining prior art elements according to a known method (i.e., inserting the article into the device) to yield predictable results.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matteau et al (Publication No. US6206008B1), in view of Rees et al (Publication No. WO2019224366A1, cited in IDS dated 06 September 2022), Lee et al (Publication No. US20200368462A1) and Johnson et al (Publication No. US5095922A).
Regarding Claim 29, Matteau discloses an aerosol-generating article for producing an aerosol upon heating, the aerosol-generating article comprising:
a rod of aerosol-forming substrate (Rod-shaped tobacco element 11);
and a filter (120) positioned downstream of the rod of aerosol-forming substrate (Matteau, Fig. 1; Col. 3, Lines 13-23; downstream is where the filter abuts against one end of the substrate rod, the other rod end being the upstream end);
wherein the rod of aerosol-forming substrate and the filter are assembled within a wrapper (Wrapper 13) (Matteau, Fig. 1; Col. 3, Lines 13-16);
and first air ingress zone (Perforation/holes 14) and second air ingress zone (Ventilation holes 17) located on the wrapper (13), the first and the second air ingress zones each being configured to allow ingress of air into an interior of the aerosol- generating article (Matteau, Col. 3, Lines 49-53);
wherein the first air ingress zone is located along the rod of aerosol-forming substrate (Tobacco element 11) (Matteau, Col. 3, Lines 17-20);
and the second air ingress zone is located along the filter (Filter element 12) (Matteau, Col. 3, Lines 21-23).
Matteau does not disclose the following:
the filter further comprising a hollow tubular segment, wherein the second air ingress zone is located along the hollow tubular segment;
the aerosol-forming substrate having an aerosol former content of greater than 10 percent on a dry weight basis;
and wherein the aerosol-generating article further comprises an upstream section at a location upstream of the rod of aerosol-generating substrate.
Regarding (I), Rees, directed to an aerosol generating assembly, discloses a filter assembly (205/305) comprising a mouth end segment (211/311), filter segment (209/309), and a cooling segment (207/307) where the cooling segment is a hollow annular tube (i.e., hollow tubular segment) (Rees, Figs. 4-5; Pg. 23, Lines 25-30; Pg. 27, Lines 5-9; Aerosol generating articles 201 and 301 are equivalent). Furthermore, the ventilation region (317) comprises of one or more ventilation holes located in the cooling segment (307) to aid with cooling (Rees, Pg. 27, Lines 11-16; Ventilation holes on the cooling segment is equivalent to the second air ingress zone).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the filter disclosed by Matteau to include a hollow tubular segment with ventilation holes (i.e., second air ingress zone) located on said hollow tubular segment as disclosed by Rees, as both are directed to an aerosol-generating product, where Rees teaches the advantage of having a hollow tube section to provide a physical displacement and temperature gradient between the aerosolisable material (203) and filter segment (209) to prevent damaging the temperature sensitive filter during use (Rees, Pg. 24, Lines 4-20); this also involves substitution of one known filter design with another known filter design to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Examiner notes that while Matteau’s article is combusted whereas Rees’ aerosol-generating article/assembly is not combusted, they both are materially similar – both articles comprise a filter, wrapping paper, and a tobacco substrate region that is heated to generate an aerosol. Since the two articles are materially similar and only differ in the manner of how they are operated (i.e., whether the heating reaches a combustion point or not), one ordinarily skilled in the art could reasonably adapt a combustion article to be operated in a non-combustion manner and reasonably expect said article can be heated to generate an aerosol.
Regarding (II), it is noted that Applicant discloses glycerin, propylene glycol, and triethylene glycol as examples of suitable aerosol formers. In that regard, Johnson, directed to a tobacco smokable material (i.e., aerosol-forming substrate) for manufacturing cigarettes, discloses said tobacco smokable material is an expanded tobacco filler, wherein the expansion renders said tobacco filler material the advantage of lower density and reduced weight when employed in cigarette manufacturing (Abstract; Col. 1, Lines 16-19).
The expanded tobacco filler material is prepared by contacting tobacco material to a humectant like glycerin, propylene glycol, triethylene glycol (i.e., aerosol former) such that the quantity of humectant/aerosol former applied to the tobacco material is less than about 15 percent, preferably 1 to 12 percent by dry weight of tobacco material (Abstract, Col. 5, Lines 24-35; disclosed humectant examples are the same as the aerosol formers disclosed by the Applicant, therefore they are considered equivalent; disclosed humectant weight percentage range is within the claimed range of greater than about 10 percent).
The claimed range for aerosol former overlap with the humectant/aerosol former range disclosed by Johnson and are therefore considered prima facie obvious (see MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the tobacco smoking material disclosed by Matteau with the expanded tobacco smoking material as disclosed by Johnson, as both are directed to a smokable material for cigarettes, where Johnson teaches the advantage of expanded tobacco material with less than 15 percent humectant/aerosol former which has a lower density and reduced weight when employed in cigarette manufacturing (Col. 1, Lines 16-19).
Regarding (III), Lee, directed to an aerosol generating device comprising a cigarette article (i.e., aerosol generating article), discloses that the cigarette (3) may include a front-end plug (33) located on a side of the tobacco rod (33) not facing the filter (31) to prevent tobacco from escaping said rod during smoking (Figs. 1-3; [0075]; the side wherein the plug is installed is considered the upstream end of the cigarette article as it is opposite to the filter and therefore, said plug can be considered equivalent to an upstream section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the aerosol generating article disclosed by Modified Matteau to further comprise an end-plug (i.e., upstream section) at an upstream location of the aerosol-generating substrate rod as disclosed by Lee, as both are directed to an aerosol-generating/cigarette article, where Lee teaches the advantage of using an end-plug to prevent tobacco from escaping the rod during smoking [0075].
Examiner notes that while Matteau’s aerosol-generating article/cigarette is disclosed to be combusted to generate an aerosol, one ordinarily skilled in the art would be aware that traditional cigarettes can be configured to be heated instead of combusted to still generate an aerosol. As evidenced by Lee, an aerosol generating system can be used to heat (i.e., not combusted) a cigarette article inserted into said system (Abstract), wherein said cigarette is similar to a traditional combustive cigarette [0062]. Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art would reasonably conclude from Lee’s disclosure that a combustive cigarette can be adapted to be a non-combustive cigarette and used in an aerosol system to generate an aerosol upon non-combustive heating.
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 Vu P Pham whose telephone number is (703)756-4515. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (7:30AM-4:00PM 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.
/V.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755