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 1-2, 4-21, and 45-48 are pending and are subject to this office action. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 22-23 are cancelled. Claim 48 is new.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 10/20/2025, 11/05/2025, and 11/07/2025 fail to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because they list non-patent publications without providing a publication date, date of retrieval, or time frame when the document was available as a publication. The information disclosure statements were previously placed in the application file and references were been considered except where lined through. Applicant has not resubmitted the information disclosure statements to provide a publication date, date of retrieval, or time frame when the document was available as a publication for all non-patent publications. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed on 04/09/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11-12, filed 04/09/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Bottacco in view of Iodice have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to require limitations similar to those previously presented in claims 22-23, and to require that the drying step comprises a mesh belt conveyor with air flowing around the strip and mesh belt conveyor which was not previously presented. Applicant has removed limitations requiring a forming step for forming the mixture into discrete portions, and using a separate rolling station for the first lamination step. Bottacco discloses the web of material (101) is dried using a drying unit (8) comprising a belt conveyor (81, Fig. 7, [0077, 0088]) but does not explicitly disclose a mesh belt conveyor. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of a combination of previously applied prior art and newly found prior art.
On pg. 12, Applicant argues that Soots does not disclose passing drying air around the conveyor and tobacco because Soots discloses the air is only supplied to the upper surface of the tobacco. The Examiner disagrees. The limitation, “flowing air around the mesh belt conveyor and the strip” is interpreted as at least a portion of the air flowing around the mesh belt conveyor and the strip. While Soots discloses the air is predominantly directed to the top surface of the web (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, col. 5 lines 5-22), at least some of the air would flow around the sides of the conveyor and be drawn up to the exhaust (58, 59) such that air flows around the conveyor and strip.
The rejections below 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.
Claims 15 and 46 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 15 recites the limitation, “wherein the first rolling unit comprises a feeder lobe.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is the first mention of a first rolling unit. Applicant has amended claim 1 to remove the limitations requiring a first rolling unit. For the purposes of examination, claim 15 will be interpreted as the first lamination step comprising a feeder lobe.
Claim 46 recites the limitation, ‘the continuous strip moves vertically through the first rolling unit " in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is the first mention of a first rolling unit. Applicant has amended claim 1 to remove the limitations requiring a first rolling unit. Further, claim 1 from which claim 46 depends requires that a continuous strip is produced from the first lamination step. Therefore, it is unclear how the continuous strip can move vertically through a first rolling unit before the continuous strip is produced. For the purposes of examination, claim 46 will be interpreted as the mixture having a liquid content of 30-50% moves vertically through the first lamination step.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “drying the strip until a liquid content thereof is 8-15% by placing the strip on the mesh belt conveyor and flowing air around the mesh belt conveyor and strip”, however, the specification does not support this limitation. While ¶ 0078-0079, and ¶ 0097-0098 of the specification discloses the dryer (122) is air recirculated, the specification does not disclose that the air flows around the mesh belt conveyor and the strip. Further, the dryer (122) in Fig. 9-10 does not detail the air supply, exhaust, or other structures that would suggest the direction of air flow. Therefore, the specification does not support this limitation.
Claims 2, 4-21, 45-48 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on 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 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21, and 45-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottacco (US 20220346433 A1) in view of Del Borrello (US 20220022519 A1), and Lilja (US 3709232 A, as cited on IDS dated 11/07/2025), or alternatively in view of Del Borrello (US 20220022519 A1), Lilja (US 3709232 A, as cited on IDS dated 11/07/2025), and Soots (US 5755238 A).
Regarding claim 1, Bottacco discloses a method for producing reconstituted tobacco (abstract, Fig. 1, [0072]), comprising:
A pulverization system (2, Fig. 2) for grinding tobacco powder (12) to a particle size of less than 150µm ([0078]). The claimed range of 20 to 220µm overlaps with the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
A gelling machine (3, Fig. 3) for producing a binder gel (13) comprising water, a binder, and glycerin or propylene glycol ([0037], [0079]). The binder gel (13) is supplied to the mixing unit (4; Fig. 1).
A mixing unit (4) for mixing the tobacco powder (12), plant powder (14), and the binder gel (13; Fig 1) to form a tobacco paste (10) with a moisture content less than 50% ([0036]; [0050]). The plant powder may comprise cellulose in powdered form ([0046]). The claimed range of 30-50% lies within the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
A rolling unit (7) where the portions (100) are passed through a first lamination of primary rollers (71) to obtain a flat web of material (101; Fig. 6) with a thickness of less than 1.2 mm ([0051]; [0084]). The range of less than 1.2mm taught by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range of 1-20mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
The flat web of material (101) is smoothed further by cooperation of one primary rollers (71) and a secondary roller (72) arranged downstream of the primary roller (Fig. 6, ([0051]; [0084]). Bottacco discloses that the smoothing process is carried out by at least 2 pairs of rollers ([0036]) which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a series of further lamination steps.
Bottacco teaches that the thickness of the flat web decreases over successive lamination steps ([0036]). The flat web of material may have a thickness between 30 and 500µm ([0018]; [0051]). The range taught by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range of 90-280 µm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
A drying unit (8) downstream of the rolling unit (7) to dry the flat web (101) to a moisture content of 6-10% ([0035]; [0061]). The range of 6-10% taught by the prior overlaps within the claimed range and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
The dried web (102) is released from the conveyor belt (81) of the drying unit (8) for further processing into an end product (Fig. 7, [0088-0089]).
Bottacco discloses passing the mixture through a rolling unit (7) which comprises pairs of rollers ([0036]).
Bottacco does not explicitly disclose that the rollers are at least partially heated.
However, Del Borrello, directed to a method for producing a sheet of a material containing alkaloids (abstract), discloses
controlling the thickness of the sheet by subsequent compression steps between rollers ([0012])
the rollers are heated by a hot fluid ([0061])
drying may be improved in efficiency by heating the rollers ([0064])
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bottacco by using heated rollers as taught by Del Borrello because both Bottacco and Del Borrello are directed to the production of sheets for use in aerosol generating articles, Del Borrello teaches that heated rollers improves the drying efficiency and this involves applying a known technique of using heated rollers in a similar process to yield predictable results.
Bottacco discloses the web of material (101) is dried using a drying unit (8) comprising a belt conveyor (81, Fig. 7, [0077, 0088]).
Bottacco does not explicitly disclose the belt is a mesh.
However, Lilja, directed to a method of making tobacco webs (col. 1 lines 4-12), discloses:
A tobacco sheet passed through a drying oven (21) on conveyor (16) formed of a metal mesh gauze which permits 2 sided evaporation and provides rapid drying of the tobacco sheet (Fig. 2, col. 4 lines 14-16, col. 5 lines 31-48).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bottacco, in view of Del Borrello, by forming the conveyor of a mesh gauze as taught by Lilja because both Bottacco and Lilja are directed to tobacco processing, Lilja discloses the mesh gauze conveyor provides rapid two sided drying, and this involves applying a known mesh belt conveyor in a similar drying unit in a similar process to yield predictable results.
Bottacco discloses feeding the flat web to a drying unit (8) where the drying unit (8) is a tunnel dryer comprising a hot air oven (Fig. 6, Fig. 7, [0077,0088]). A tunnel dryer comprising a hot air oven is considered to be a dryer having hot air circulating within the oven to dry the web. The conveyor (81) passes through the drying unit (8), and therefore a tunnel dryer comprising a hot air oven reasonably suggests at least a portion of the air is circulated around the web (101) and belt conveyor (81).
Alternatively, Bottacco does not explicitly disclose the web (101) is dried by flowing air around the belt conveyor (81) and web (101, Fig. 6, Fig. 7).
However, Soots, directed to an apparatus for drying tobacco (10, Fig. 1), discloses
A drying apparatus (10) comprising a heated air supply (50) and return channels (58, 59) for recirculating air (10, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, col. 5 lines 5-22),
The dryer requires low residence time to dry the material to the requisite level (col. 5 lines 18-22).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bottacco, in view of Del Borrello and Lilja, by using a drying air recirculation system as taught by Soots because both Bottacco and Soots are directed to tobacco processing, Soots teaches that drying air recirculation system requires low residence time to dry the material and this involves applying a known technique of drying recirculated air in a similar process to yield predictable results.
In regards to the limitation requiring air is circulated around the mesh belt conveyor and the strip, Bottacco in view of Del Borrello, Lilja, and Soots, does not explicitly disclose the direction of air flow in the dryer. However, Soots discloses a heated air supply (50) and return (58, 59) formed on a top of an air dryer (10, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, col. 5 lines 5-22). Lilja discloses a conveyor (16) formed of a metal mesh gauze which allows air to pass through the conveyor (16, Fig. 2, col. 4 lines 14-16, col. 5 lines 31-48). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect at least some of the heated air supply (50) to pass through the web and mesh conveyor and around the sides of the conveyor and be drawn up to the return (58, 59) such that some of the air is circulating around the strip and belt. The Examiner notes that claim 1 does not require all of the air continuously circulate around the top and bottom of the mesh belt conveyor and strip.
Regarding claim 2, Bottacco discloses the dried continuous strip is cut into predefined widths and wound onto a bobbin (winding unit 9, Fig. 7, [0021-0022,0089-0090]).
Regarding claim 4, Bottacco discloses wherein the solid components of the tobacco are ground with a mill (“micronizing mill 21”, [0072]).
Regarding claim 6, Bottacco discloses wherein powdered cellulose consisting of an organic fiber obtained from natural cellulose is used ([0007]). The plant powder comprising cellulose is considered to meet the claim limitation of naturally derived cellulose.
Regarding claim 7, Bottacco discloses the mixture is formed with powdered cellulose having a particle size of less than 350µm ([0009, 0025]). The claimed range lies within the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considering prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Bottacco discloses the mixture is formed with powdered cellulose in a percentage of less than 30% of the tobacco powder ([0007, 0008, 0046, 0074]). The claimed range of 2 to 10% lies within the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considering prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Bottacco discloses supplying powdered material (11) comprising tobacco powder (12) and plant powder (14) to the mixing unit (4; Fig. 1). The plant powder (14) may comprise cellulose in powdered form ([0046]). The binder gel (13) comprising water, a binder, and glycerin or propylene glycol ([0037], [0079]) is supplied to the mixing unit (4) in a separate supply line (Fig. 1). Therefore, the powdered cellulose and tobacco powder are mixed before being supplied to the mixing unit (4).
Regarding claim 12, Bottacco discloses wherein said mixture is subjected to at least one of a homogenization (mixing unit 4, [0030]) or molding step (extrusion unit 5, [0032]) before subjecting the mixture to the first lamination step (rolling unit 7, Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 14, Bottacco discloses wherein said mixture is subjected to at least one of a homogenization (“mixing unit”, [0030]) or molding step (“extrusion unit”, [0032]) for transformation into a sequence of portions ([0033]) prior to the first lamination step (rolling unit 7, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Bottacco discloses a mixing unit (4, Fig. 1, “a homogenization step”) which is carried out before the first lamination step of the rolling unit (7) which obtains the continuous strip having a thickness of about 1-20 mm (“at most 1.2mm”, [0018, 0051]). The range of less than 1.2mm taught by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 19, Bottacco discloses a monolayer tape with a thickness of less than 1.2mm is obtained at the outlet of the first lamination step ([0018, 0051]). The range taught by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 21, Bottacco discloses the method comprises a rest between a laminating station and the next (Fig. 6). The portions of tobacco paste (100) pass through a first pair of rollers (71, 71) followed by a second pair of rollers (71, 72). The flat web (101) traveling from one pair of rollers to the next is considered to meet the claim limitation of a rest between a laminating station and the next.
Regarding claim 45, Bottacco discloses wherein at least one binding agent includes carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) ([0005]).
Regarding claim 46, Bottacco discloses the at least one binder includes guar meal ([0005, 0091]) and the portions (100) pass vertically through the first lamination step comprising a first set of rollers (71, 71, Fig. 6, [0036]).
Regarding claim 47, Bottacco discloses a rolling unit (7) where the portions (100) are passed through a first lamination of primary rollers (71) to obtain a flat web of material (101; Fig. 6, [0051]; [0084]) which is smoothed further by a series of further lamination steps comprising rollers (71, 72) arranged downstream (Fig. 6, ([0051]; [0084]). As there is no further processing positioned between the first set of rollers (71, 71) and second set of rollers (71, 72), the series of further lamination steps in the rolling unit (7) is considered to be immediately following the first lamination step.
Regarding claim 48, Soots discloses the air flows around the mesh belt conveyor as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Soots further discloses the air is recirculated within the dryer (claim 1, col. 5 lines 15-22).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottacco (US 20220346433 A1) in view of Del Borrello (US 20220022519 A1), Lilja (US 3709232 A, as cited on IDS dated 11/07/2025), and Soots (US 5755238 A), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Fichtali (US 20060122410 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Bottacco discloses using a micronizing mill (21) to comminute the tobacco ([0072]).
Bottacco does not explicitly disclose that the solid components are tobacco ground with a cryogenic pin mill.
However, Fichtali, directed to preparing plant biomass for extraction (abstract), discloses:
Comminuting the biomass using a pin mill, where liquid nitrogen is injected during the comminution process to optimize the process and/or quality of the comminuted biomass and/or downstream products ([0058]).
Comminuting using a pin mill and liquid nitrogen injection is considered to meet the claim limitation of a cryogenic pin mill.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bottacco, in view of Del Borrello, Lilja, and Soots, by substituting the micronizing mill with a cryogenic pin mill to comminute the solid components of tobacco as taught by Fichtali because both Bottacco and Fichtali are directed to comminuting plant materials, Fichtali teaches the cryogenic pin mill optimizes the process and/or quality of the products and this involves substituting one known comminution means for another to yield predictable results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottacco (US 20220346433 A1) in view of Del Borrello (US 20220022519 A1), Lilja (US 3709232 A, as cited on IDS dated 11/07/2025), and Soots (US 5755238 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deforel (US 20210329964 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Bottacco discloses adding plant powder to the slurry ([0007]).
Bottacco does not explicitly disclose that the plant powder may include ground cloves.
However, Deforel, directed to a method of making homogenized plant material for use in an aerosol-generating substrate ([0099]), discloses that the aerosol-generating substrate contains clove particles (abstract) to provide clove aromas upon heating of the substrate ([0007]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bottacco, in view of Del Borrello, Lilja, and Soots, by adding ground cloves to the slurry as taught by Deforel because both Bottacco and Deforel are directed to methods for making homogenized plant material, Deforel teaches that adding clove particles provides clove aromas upon heating of the aerosol generating substrate and this involves applying a known technique of adding cloves to a similar process to yield predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottacco (US 20220346433 A1) in view of Del Borrello (US 20220022519 A1), Lilja (US 3709232 A, as cited on IDS dated 11/07/2025), and Soots (US 5755238 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Graves (US 4702264 A).
Regarding claim 11, Bottacco discloses mixing the slurry in a mixing unit comprising a rotary stirrer ([0080]) to produce a tobacco paste.
Bottacco does not explicitly disclose subjecting the slurry to a roughing step for passage through at least one pair of grooved cylinders.
However, Graves, directed to processing tobacco leaf, discloses
A process for providing tobacco material in sheet like form comprising subjecting the tobacco material to size reduction, mixing the tobacco material with a binding agent in the presence of sufficient moisture, and passing the mixture through a nip roller system to form sheet like processed tobacco material (claim 1).
Passing the tobacco/binding agent mixture to through the nip of a pressurized roller system having two rollers wherein at least one of the roller faces comprises a series of grooves (“a pair of grooved cylinders”, col. 2 lines 11-30).
Working of the material by the action of the grooved roller can act to further activate binding agent within the mixture (col. 10 lines 61-67).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bottacco, in view of Del Borrello, Lilja, and Soots, by passing the mixture through a pair of grooved cylinders as taught by Graves because both Bottacco and Graves are directed to tobacco processing, Graves teaches that passing the mixture through the grooved roller can further activate the binding agent and this involves applying a known technique of using grooved rollers to a similar process to yield predictable results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottacco (US 20220346433 A1) in view of Del Borrello (US 20220022519 A1), Lilja (US 3709232 A, as cited on IDS dated 11/07/2025), and Soots (US 5755238 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iodice (US 20210244069 A1, cited in the IDS dated 09/12/2022).
Regarding claim 13, Bottacco discloses wherein said mixture is subjected to at least one of a homogenization (“mixing unit” 4, [0030]) or shaping phase (“extrusion unit” 6, [0032]) prior to the first lamination step (7, Fig. 1).
Bottacco does not explicitly disclose transformation into a continuous strip having a width of 100-2000mm and thickness of 1 to 10mm, prior to the first lamination step.
However, Iodice, directed a method for producing reconstituted vegetable strips (Fig. 1, [0068-0083]), discloses
Submitting a mixture through a pre-lamination system comprising two lamination rollers (4, 7) with adjustable spacing between 0.02-2.50mm (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0100-0101, 0108]). The thickness of the laminated material is defined by the roller spacing and therefore the resulting thickness overlaps with the claimed range of 1 to 10mm and is considered prima facie obvious.
The pre-lamination system employs rollers with a length of 600mm ([0103]). The roller length defines the maximum width of the laminated product. A width of less than 600mm overlaps with the claimed range is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
The prelamination process causes stretching, decreases the thickness, and further homogenizes the mass which promotes the obtainment of more resistant materials ([0102]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bottacco, in view of Del Borrello, Lilja, and Soots by including a pre-lamination rollers prior to the rolling unit as taught by Iodice because both Bottacco and Iodice are directed to the production of reconstituted plant films, Iodice teaches that passing the slurry through a pre-lamination process promotes the obtainment of more resistant materials and this involves applying a known technique of pre-lamination to a similar process to yield predictable results.
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottacco (US 20220346433 A1) in view of Del Borrello (US 20220022519 A1), Lilja (US 3709232 A, as cited on IDS dated 11/07/2025), and Soots (US 5755238 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Smith (US 4446678 A).
Regarding claim 15, Bottacco discloses passing the slurry through a rolling unit (7) which comprises at least 2 pairs of rollers ([0036]).
Bottacco does not explicitly disclose the first lamination step further comprises a feeder lobe.
However, Smith, directed to a plant material processing machine, discloses
a machine for the continuous physical processing of plant matter using intermeshing multilobed rollers (col. 1, lines 36-39).
material fed between the multilobed rollers is subjected to compressive and shearing forces (col. 1 line 57-62)
drive torque for the rollers can be transmitted through the intermeshing lobes and therefore the drive mechanism for the machine can be less complicated, less expensive, and more efficient (col. 2, lines 4-9).
a versatile machine capable of carrying out physical processing with a large number of different material types (col. 1 lines 50-53)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bottacco, in view of Del Borrello, Lilja, and Soots, by including multilobed rollers as part of the first lamination step as taught by Smith because both Bottacco and Smith are directed to plant processing, Smith teaches that intermeshing lobes transmit drive torque which results in a drive mechanism for the machine that can be less complicated, less expensive, and more efficient and this involves applying a known technique of using lobed rollers a similar process to yield predictable results of an improved drive mechanism.
Regarding claim 18, Bottacco discloses passing the mixture through a rolling unit (7) which comprises at least 2 pairs of rollers ([0036]).
Bottacco does not explicitly disclose that the mixture is homogenized predominantly or exclusively by means of a feeder lobe at the input of the pairs of rollers.
However, Smith, directed to a plant processing machine, discloses
a machine for the continuous physical processing of plant matter using intermeshing multilobed rollers (col. 1, lines 36-39).
material fed between the multilobed rollers is subjected to compressive and shearing forces (col. 1 line 57-62)
drive torque for the rollers can be transmitted through the intermeshing lobes and therefore the drive mechanism for the machine can be less complicates, less expensive, and more efficient (col. 2, lines 4-9).
a versatile machine capable of carrying out physical processing with a large number of different material types (col. 1 lines 50-53)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bottacco, in view of Del Borrello, Lilja, and Soots, by including multilobed rollers at the input of the rolling unit as taught by Smith because both Bottacco and Smith are directed to plant processing, Smith teaches that intermeshing lobes transmit drive torque which results in a drive mechanism for the machine that can be less complicated, less expensive, and more efficient and this involves applying a known technique of using lobed rollers a similar process to yield predictable results of an improved drive mechanism.
The examiner takes the position that since modified Bottacco uses the same means of homogenization (feeder lobes) a similar result of predominantly or exclusively homogenizing the mixture would be achieved.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottacco (US 20220346433 A1) in view of Del Borrello (US 20220022519 A1), Lilja (US 3709232 A, as cited on IDS dated 11/07/2025), and Soots (US 5755238 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Del Borrello (US 20230025967 A1, hereinafter referred to as Del Borello ‘5967).
Regarding claim 17, Bottacco discloses:
• a fractioning unit designed to divide up the profile extruded from the extrusion unit to generate portions (100) of tobacco paste ([0033]).
• smoothing at least one of the portions to form a flat web of material with a thickness less than 2mm. The range taught by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range of 1-20mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Bottacco does not explicitly disclose a homogenizing step of the portions before obtaining the continuous strip.
However, Del Borrello ‘5967, directed to the production of sheets homogenized tobacco material, discloses
generating a slurry including a material containing alkaloids, an aerosol former and water; and extruding the slurry and collecting the extruded slurry in a tank having a plurality of outlets (abstract)
the slurry is supplied to the subsequent processing step by the plurality of outlets ([0039]).
Mixing or stirring the extruded slurry in the tank to improve the homogeneity of the slurry ([0092]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bottacco, in view of Del Borrello, Lilja, and Soots, by stirring the extrudate in a tank as taught by Del Borrello ‘5967 because both Bottacco and Del Borrello ‘5967 are directed to production of tobacco sheets, Del Borrello ‘5967 teaches that stirring the extrudate increases the homogeneity of the mixture and this involves applying a known technique of stirring the mixture a similar process to yield predictable results of improved homogeneity.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bottacco (US 20220346433 A1) in view of Del Borrello (US 20220022519 A1), Lilja (US 3709232 A, as cited on IDS dated 11/07/2025), and Soots (US 5755238 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Graves (US 4768527 A).
Regarding claim 20, Bottacco discloses a rolling unit to generate a flat web of material ([0036]) with a thickness of less than 2mm ([0018]).
Bottacco does not explicitly disclose subjecting the flat web to stratification until a multilayer strip is obtained.
However, Graves, directed to a smokable material with multi-layered structure, discloses
a first filler material and second filler material are processed and each separately passed through roller system (Fig. 1).
The compressed materials (22) and (36) are fed into separate extruders to produce a multi-layer sheet-like material (col. 3 lines 25-30).
An embodiment having 3 co-extruded layers with a thickness ranging from 1/4 inch to about 3/16 inch col. 12 lines 21-25). The range of 1/4 inch to about 3/16 inch disclosed in the prior art lies within the claimed range and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
A material which includes multiple types of filler materials can be manufactured, where each layer is a different type of filler material (col 2 lines 21-34).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bottacco, in view of Del Borrello, Lilja, and Soots, by using multiple extruders after the first lamination step to generate a multilayer laminate as taught by Graves because both Bottacco and Graves are directed to processing tobacco materials, Graves teaches that the multilayer laminate can be comprised of layers of different filler material and this involves applying a known technique of using multiple extrusion units in a similar process to yield predictable results of creating a multilayer laminate.
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