DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12-29-2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the Applicants’ arguments/remarks filed 12-29-2025.
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are presently examined.
Claims 1 is amended, claim 7 is canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (EP3610741A1) and in view of Desnerck (WO2019238818) and Li (US20110155158A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches an aerosol generating system comprising:
a consumable comprising a rod-shaped portion including a wrapper surrounding (see [0258]-[0261], Lee teaches a number of layers (wrappers/sheets) and materials (heat resistant or insulative materials that can together define the wrapper) an aerosol generating substrate (see e.g., FIG 1 and FIG 2, part 7);
a heating chamber (see Lee annotated FIG 1 below) comprising
a first end (see Lee annotated FIG 1 below),
a second end (see Lee annotated FIG 1 below) and
a side wall extending around the heating chamber between the first and second ends (see Lee annotated FIG 1 below, the sidewall extends around the heating chamber between the first and second ends),
the heating chamber being configured to receive the rod-shaped portion of the consumable (the heating chamber is configured to receive the rod-shaped portion, see FIG 1); and
a width of the heating chamber is greater than a width of the rod-shaped portion (see FIG 2, the width of the heating chamber is greater than the rod-shaped portion),
the heating chamber further comprises a plurality of inward protrusions extending from the side wall and distributed around an inner perimeter of the heating chamber (see [0061], the protrusions 25 extend from the sidewall and are distributed around the inner perimeter of the heating chamber), and
the plurality of inward protrusions are configured to engage with and apply pressure to the resilient portion in order to position the consumable within the heating chamber (see [0060]-[0061], the plurality of protrusions 25 are configured to engage with and apply pressure to the resilient portion in order to position the consumable within the heating chamber, e.g., stability maintained of the consumable 7 in the heating chamber with the protrusions),
PNG
media_image1.png
726
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches heat not burn heater types and teaches a heater configured to deliver heat to the heating chamber, however Lee fails to explicitly disclose that the heater is configured to deliver heat to the heating chamber from the side wall.
Desnerck teaches the heater is configured to deliver heat to the heating chamber (10) from the side wall (14). (see Desnerck FIG 2B below and page 7 lines 18-30). Desnerck also teaches that its advantageous to have the electrically resistive coating (16) on the outside of the sidewall to be protected from damage and from contamination. (See FIG 2B and page 7 lines 23-26).
Thus it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating chamber of Lee with the electrically resistive coating (16) on the outside of the sidewall of Desnerck because both Lee and Desnerck are directed to similar heat not burn smoking devices with heating chambers, and Desnerck teaches it would be advantageous to have a heating element (electrically resistive coating) on the outside of the sidewall to provide heating while being protected from wear damage and from contamination.
PNG
media_image2.png
327
230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee fails to explicitly disclose that the wrapper includes a single layer defining a first portion (126) and a second portion the first portion of the wrapper comprising a resilient portion around a length axis of the rod- shaped portion, a thickness of the resilient portion is greater than a thickness of the- second portion of the wrapper.
However, Li teaches the wrapper includes a single layer wrapper defining a first portion (126) of the wrapper and a second portion (some portion of wrapper 140/123, [0141] (see annotated FIG 1 below) see also [0095]),
the first portion of the wrapper comprising a resilient portion (126) around a length axis (banded region extends in the longitudinal direction, see [0102]) of the rod- shaped portion, (see also longitudinal direction 142 of FIG 2)
a thickness of the resilient portion is greater than a thickness of second portion of the wrapper (e.g., the banded portion includes a banded region which includes an addon material that is deposited to the single layer wrapper, the banded portion includes an addon material which makes the thickness of the resilient portion thicker than the portion of the wrapper without the resilient portion [0145]-[0148], see also FIG 3, an ordinary artisan would appreciate that the thickness of the first portion 126, which includes the addon material is thicker than another portion of that same wrapper that does not have deposited material thereon, see FIG 3.
PNG
media_image3.png
515
820
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Li teaches that smoking articles with resilient portions (banded regions) should be added to smoking wrappers to improve ignition propensity and obtain improved self-extinguishment characteristics [0099]. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Lee with a wrapper including the resilient portion taught by Li to improve the ignition propensity and obtain improved self-extinguishment characteristics of the wrapper.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Lee teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Lee teaches the plurality of inward protrusions are configured symmetrically relative to the length axis to assist positioning the consumable at a center of the heating chamber. (see [0061], the protrusions 25 extend from the sidewall and are distributed symmetrically (see also FIG 1) around the inner perimeter of the heating chamber and are configured to engage with and apply pressure to the resilient portion in order to position the consumable within the heating chamber, e.g., stability maintained of the positioning of the consumable 7 in the heating chamber with the protrusions, see also FIG 7 analogous part protrusions 225).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Lee teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Lee teaches the first end of the heating chamber is open to receive the rod-shaped portion and the second end of the heating chamber is closed (See FIG 1).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Lee teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, although Lee is silent to the strain ratio of the consumable, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01(I)). One of ordinary skill would reasonably expect that the prior art consumable for use in the device of the prior art would reasonably have the same properties as the claimed consumable as they both disclose a consumable suitable for use in a vaporizing device. Thus, Lee inherently discloses when the resilient portion is compressed perpendicular to the length axis of the rod- shaped portion by a force of 0.4N, the consumable exhibits a strain ratio of below 10%.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Lee teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, although modified Lee is silent to the strain ratio of the consumable, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01(I)). One of ordinary skill would reasonably expect that the prior art consumable for use in the device of the prior art would reasonably have the same properties as the claimed consumable as they both disclose a consumable suitable for use in a vaporizing device. Thus, Lee inherently discloses when the resilient portion is compressed perpendicular to the length axis of the rod-shaped portion by a force of 8N, the consumable exhibits a strain ratio of below 15%.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Lee teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, although modified Lee is silent to the strain ratio of the consumable, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (see MPEP 2112.01(I)). One of ordinary skill would reasonably expect that the prior art consumable for use in the device of the prior art would reasonably have the same properties as the claimed consumable as they both disclose a consumable suitable for use in a vaporizing device. Thus, Lee inherently discloses when the resilient portion is compressed perpendicular to the length axis of the rod-shaped portion by a force of 0.4N, the consumable exhibits a strain ratio of between 1% and 8%.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Lee teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Lee teaches the aerosol generating substrate comprises tobacco (the tobacco rod is filled with tobacco leaves [0245]).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Lee teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Lee teaches the aerosol generating substrate comprises randomly oriented tobacco strands containing tobacco powder and an aerosol former (see [0247], plurality of randomly oriented strands, see also [0250], tobacco material may be tobacco leaf fragments (aerosol former) and tobacco powder, see [0244], aerosol former such as glycerin or propylene glycol)).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Lee teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Lee teaches the plurality of inward protrusions are ribs extending along the side wall parallel to the length axis of the rod-shaped portion when the rod-shaped portion is received in the heating chamber (see FIG 11 and 12, the plurality of inward protrusions (325/425) are ribs extending along the side wall parallel to the length axis of the rod shaped portion).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Lee teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Lee teaches the aerosol generating substrate is arranged in a predetermined section of the rod-shaped portion extending along the length axis (see FIG 29A and 29B part 310 is the aerosol generating substrate that is arranged in a predetermined section of the rod-shaped portion extending along the length axis), and
a length of the ribs is at least 50% of a length of the predetermined section (see FIG 12 and FIG 28, the ribs run most of the length of the heating chamber and as seen in FIG 28, the aerosol generating substrate runs the length of the heating chamber which is at least 50% of the predetermined section.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Lee teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, although Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose the length of the ribs is between 60% and 70% of the length of the predetermined section. (see FIG 12 and FIG 28, the ribs run most of the length of the heating chamber and as seen in FIG 28, the aerosol generating substrate runs the length of the heating chamber) it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the size of the cigarette rod such that the length of the ribs is between 60% and 70% of the length of the predetermined section. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding Claim 20 modified Lee teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Lee teaches an aerosol generating system comprising:
a consumable comprising a rod-shaped portion including a wrapper surrounding (see [0258]-[0261], Lee teaches wrapper) an aerosol generating substrate (see e.g., FIG 1 and FIG 2, part 7)
a heating chamber comprising a first end, a second end and a side wall extending around the heating chamber between the first and second ends (see Lee annotated FIG 1 above, the sidewall extends around the heating chamber between the first and second ends),
the heating chamber being configured to receive the rod-shaped portion of the consumable (the heating chamber is configured to receive the rod-shaped portion, see FIG 1) and
a width of the heating chamber is greater than a width of the rod-shaped portion, (see FIG 2, the width of the heating chamber is greater than the width of the rod-shaped portion)
the wrapper comprises a first layer defining a resilient portion surrounding a second layer having a longer length than the first layer, (wrapper 333, see also FIG 29A and 29B and [0259], note Lee teaches at least 4 portions or layers that can be used to define the wrapper see [0258]-[0261]) around a length axis of the rod-shaped portion, see how wrapper 333 overlaps wrappers 331 and 334),
Although the second layer in FIG 29B is illustrated as surrounding the first layer, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange/modify the order of the wrapping papers and modify Lee to have the resilient first layer (334/331) surrounding the second layer (333) having a longer length than the first layer as an obvious equivalent. (see Fig 29B, e.g., it would be obvious to change the order of the wrapper layers to having layer 331 and or 334 over layer 333.) Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
For example, wrapper 334 prevents the liquid materials from leaking out of the cigarette and prevents the holder from being contaminated by the liquid materials in the cigarette [0264], therefore it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the wrappers and put the wrapper 334 on the outside of wrapper 333 accomplishing the intended purpose with a reasonable expectation of success.
the first and second layers being disposed around a length axis of the rod-shaped portion (See FIG 29A and 29B, they are disposed around a length axis of the rod shaped portion),
the heating chamber further comprises a plurality of inward protrusions extending from the side wall and distributed around an inner perimeter of the heating chamber (see [0061], the protrusions 25 extend from the sidewall and are distributed around the inner perimeter of the heating chamber), and
the plurality of inward protrusions are configured to engage with and apply pressure to the resilient portion in order to position the consumable within the heating chamber. (see [0060]-[0061], the plurality of protrusions 25 are configured to engage with and apply pressure to the resilient portion in order to position the consumable within the heating chamber, e.g., stability maintained of the consumable 7 in the heating chamber with the protrusions),
Lee teaches heat not burn heater types and teaches a heater configured to deliver heat to the heating chamber, however Lee fails to explicitly disclose that the heater is configured to deliver heat to the heating chamber from the side wall.
Desnerck teaches the heater is configured to deliver heat to the heating chamber (10) from the side wall (14). (see Desnerck FIG 2B below and page 7 lines 18-30). Desnerck also teaches that its advantageous to have the electrically resistive coating (16) on the outside of the sidewall to be protected from damage and from contamination. (See FIG 2B and page 7 lines 23-26).
Thus it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating chamber of Lee with the electrically resistive coating (16) on the outside of the sidewall of Desnerck because both Lee and Desnerck are directed to similar heat not burn smoking devices with heating chambers, and Desnerck teaches it would be advantageous to have a heating element (electrically resistive coating) on the outside of the sidewall to provide heating while being protected from wear damage and from contamination.
PNG
media_image2.png
327
230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (EP3610741A1), Desnerck (WO2019238818), and Li (US20110155158A1) as applied to claims 7 and 20 above and in view of Barnes (US4938238).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Lee teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Lee teaches a paper wrapper [0258], however Lee is silent to the chemical composition of the paper and further to whether the paper wrapper is made from cellulose. Thus Lee fails to explicitly disclose the wrapper comprises cellulose paper.
Barnes teaches the wrapper comprises a cellulose based paper, and also teaches cellulose based paper contains a sufficient amount of inorganic material which is normally in interconnected entangled or overlapping web to provide structure which helps maintain the integrity of the article. (column 6 lines 38-45). Barnes also teaches the wrapper has high temperature resistance and can withstand temperatures of up to 700 degrees C while maintaining high strength properties. (see column 7 lines 1-7).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the wrapper of modified Lee with the wrapper of Barnes in order to have a cellulose wrapper that has high temperature resistance and that can withstand temperatures of up to 700 degrees C and still provide structure which helps maintain the integrity of the article.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Lee teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However modified Lee fails to explicitly disclose the resilient portion includes metal. However, Barnes teaches the resilient portion can include non-burning materials such as aluminum foil (See column 5 line 57, Examiner notes Barnes teaches other heat-resistant materials on the same page) which teaches the resilient portion includes metal.
Barnes also teaches the wrapper has high temperature resistance and can withstand temperatures of up to 700 degrees C while maintaining high strength properties. (see column 7 lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to modify the wrapper of modified Lee with the temperature resilient wrapper of Barnes in order to have a wrapper (with a resilient portion) that has high temperature resistance (that includes metal) and that can withstand temperatures of up to 700 degrees C and still provide structure which helps maintain the integrity of the article.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (EP3610741A1), Desnerck (WO2019238818), and Li (US20110155158A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and in view of Renaud (ES2657537T3).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Lee teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Lee teaches the tobacco substrate is strands (see [0247], plurality of randomly oriented strands, see also [0250], tobacco material may be tobacco leaf fragments (aerosol former) and tobacco powder, see [0244], aerosol former such as glycerin or propylene glycol)).
However, Lee is silent to a substrate density of the strands substrate density that would be suitable for use. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to search the related art to find a suitable substrate densities of the tobacco strand substrate that would be suitable for use with a reasonable expectation of success.
Renaud teaches a substrate density of 500mg/cm3 to 1000 mg/cm3 (see page 10 paragraph 2) which equates to 0.5 mg/mm3 to 1.0 mg/mm3 which overlaps with the claimed range of between 0.3 mg/mm3 and 0.6 mg/mm3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify substrate density of Lee to have a substrate density of 0.5mg/mm3 to 1.0 mg/mm3 as taught by Renaud, because both Lee and Renaud are directed to smoking devices with tobacco substrates, Lee is silent in regards to suitable substrate densities for use and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable densities for a similar smoking article, Renaud teaches known densities for a similar substrate and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (EP3610741A1), Desnerck (WO2019238818), and Li (US20110155158A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and in view of Klipfel (WO2016050470A1).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Lee teaches all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Lee teaches the aerosol generating substrate comprises tobacco lamina (leaf material), aerosol former (aerosol generating material), and filler (e.g., cellulose wood fibers) but is silent to a suitable percentage composition of each based on a total weight of the aerosol generating substrate. Thus a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to similar references to find suitable composition percentages for use.
Klipfel teaches between about 50 and 90% tobacco material (see page 13 lines 1-2; tobacco leaf, cast leaf tobacco, which is understood by person of ordinary skill in the art to include tobacco lamina, page 12 line 30) which overlaps with the claimed range of 60 and 85 wt. % of tobacco lamina, In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) and
Klipfel teaches between about 5% and about 30 percent aerosol former (page 12 lines 22-23) which overlaps with the claimed range of between 8 and 20 wt. % of the aerosol former and
between 5 and 15 wt. % of filler, page 8 line 8 of the instant specification explains the filler can be cellulose pulp. Klipfel teaches the filler (binder) can be about 1-5 percent of the aerosol generating substrate, see page 14 line 20, which shares an endpoint of 5 percent with the claimed range. The Courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I), based on a total weight of the aerosol generating substrate.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aerosol generating substrate of Lee to have the percentage compositions of the substrate as taught by Klipfel because both Lee and Klipfel are directed to aerosol generating substrates, Lee is silent in regards to suitable percentage compositions of the lamina, aerosol former and filler for use and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable compositions for a similar smoking article. Klipfel teaches known percentage compositions for a similar aerosol generating substrate and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (EP3610741A1), Desnerck (WO2019238818), and Li (US20110155158A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and in view of Mironov (KR20160003283A).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Lee teaches the substrate is a tobacco substrate having soft granular texture (see [0250], fine tobacco powders, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a tobacco substrate made from fine tobacco powder would have a soft granular texture), however Lee fails to explicitly disclose the substrate is compressed.
However, Mironov teaches the aerosol generating substrate is a compressed tobacco sheet. Mironov also teaches that by optimal selection and distribution of the particles in the tobacco sheet (such as that caused by compressing the sheet) the energy required for heating may be reduced, and the cost and waste are reduced, (See Mironov page 4 second to last paragraph.)
Thus a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the aerosol generating substrate of Lee with the compressed aerosol generating substrate of Mironov in order to reduce the energy required for heating and reducing the cost and waste.
Claims 14-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (EP3610741A1), Desnerck (WO2019238818), and Li (US20110155158A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and in view of Miao (WO2016150019A1).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Lee teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Lee teaches the heater is configured to heat up its surface to about 350°C. However, Lee is silent to the temperature the heating chamber would be at when the surface of the heating element reaches this temperature and thus is silent to suitable temperatures for heating chambers.
However, Miao teaches suitable temperatures for the interior of the heating chamber and teaches the interior of the heating chamber can be heated to 150 °C to 350 °C (page 5 paragraph 3) which overlaps with the claimed range the range of heat an interior of the heating chamber to at least 190°C. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating of Lee to have a target interior heating chamber temperature of 150 °C to 350 °C as taught by Miao, because both Lee and Miao are directed to smoking articles with heaters and chambers with tobacco substrates to be heated by heating elements, Lee is silent in regards to suitable temperatures of heating chambers for use and one of ordinary skill would be motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable chamber temperatures for a similar smoking article, Miao teaches known temperatures of chambers containing smoking substrates, and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Lee teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally Miao teaches the heater is configured to heat the interior of the heating chamber to 150 °C to 350 °C (page 5 paragraph 3) which overlaps with the claimed range the range of heat an interior of the heating chamber to between 230°C and 260°C. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Lee teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally Miao teaches the heater is configured to maintain the interior of the heating chamber to 220 – 350 within 20 seconds (see page 5 paragraph 4) which overlaps with the claimed range the range of heat an interior of the heating chamber at least 190°C for a predetermined puff sequencing time. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art looking for a suitable puff sequencing time, that the puff sequencing time of Miao is 20 seconds as presented by Miao as “within 20 seconds” (page 5 paragraph 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see arguments and amendments filed 12-29-2025 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 and 8-21 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee (EP3610741A1), Desnerck (WO2019238818), and Li (US20110155158A1).
Specifically regarding (A, starting on page 6 of remarks) Applicant argues that the rejection of record fails to address the newly presented claim limitations required by claim 1 filed 12/29/2025. This is found particularly persuasive and the rejection of record is withdrawn and a new ground of rejection is made as explained above.
Regarding (B, starting on the bottom of page 7 Applicant further argues regarding new claim 20):
PNG
media_image4.png
320
593
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive for the reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 20 and additionally because as explained previously rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. For example, wrapper 334 prevents the liquid materials from leaking out of the cigarette and prevents the holder from being contaminated by the liquid materials in the cigarette [0264] (emphasis added), therefore it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the wrappers and put the wrapper 334 on the outside accomplishing the intended purpose with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C, and both arrangements of the plurality of wrappers where one is shorter and the other is longer are known equivalents of design choice that would give predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael T Fulton whose telephone number is (703)756-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 - 4:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H Wilson can be reached on 571-270-3882. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747