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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/5/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-21 and 24-27 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claims 1 and 13 have been amended. Claims 22-23 have been cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 12/05/2025 containing
amendments and remarks to the claims.
The rejection to claim 13 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn due to claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 12/05/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended the claim to require the new limitation of wherein the drying is performed in an initial step during the further lamination by performing the further lamination using pairs of cylinders that are at least partially heated, wherein the recirculating air dryer has a network belt conveyor, and at least one inlet sensor adjacent an inlet of the recirculating air dryer and at least one outlet sensor adjacent an outlet of the recirculating air dryer to monitor the constant thickness strip through the recirculating air dryer. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously applied art and newly found art.
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments made to the claims.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 12-14, 16-17, 19, 21, 24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iodice (WO2019/157576, citations will refer to the English equivalent US2021/0244069) in view of Ting (US2009/0286090), Clearman (US 5,247,947), and Scheppe (US 3,786,573) as evidenced by Mesh Size Chart – Kramer Industries.
Regarding claim 1, Iodice teaches:
A method for producing homogeneous sheets of nicotine-free vegetable fibers (where different vegetable bases can be used to produce the strips, [0031]-[0032]) comprising:
Milling vegetable materials to reach specific particle sizes between 10 and 200 MESH ([0069]). As the milling step may be performed with equipment such as roller crusher, jaw crusher, etc. ([0087]), milling therefore reads on crushing up solid components of a raw material containing the nicotine-free vegetable fibers. As evidenced by Mesh Size Chart – Kramer Industries, 10 – 200 mesh equates to a particle size of 75 – 2000 um. The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of 20 – 220 um and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Mixing the crushed product thus obtained with water ([0072]), at least one binding agent (agglutinating compound, [0071]) and at least one material to form an aerosol (humectant agent, such as glycerine and/or propylene glycol [0072] and [0096]) until a mixture with a liquid content of about 30-60% is obtained ([0094]). The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of 30-50% and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Subjecting said mixture to a first lamination (final lamination, [0112]). As the two rollers of the lamination have adjustable spacing from 0.04-2.50 mm ([0112]), and the thickness of the material is defined according to the distance between rollers ([0113]), the first lamination therefore obtains a continuous strip with a thickness of about 0.04 to 2.50 mm. The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of 1-20 mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Drying said continuous strip to a liquid content of about 11% ([0138]). The range taught by the prior art falls within the claimed range of approximately 8-15% and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Iodice does not appear to explicitly disclose (I) subjecting said continuous strip to a series of further lamination steps, until a constant thickness strip having a substantially constant thickness of about 90-280 um is obtained, (II) wherein said drying is performed in an initial step during the further lamination by performing the further lamination using pairs of cylinders that are at least partially heated, (III) wherein said drying is continued by passing the constant thickness strip through a recirculating air dryer, (IV) wherein the recirculating air dryer has a network belt conveyor, and (V) providing at least one inlet sensor adjacent an inlet of the recirculating air dryer and at least one outlet sensor adjacent an outlet of the recirculating air dryer to monitor the constant thickness strip through the recirculating air dryer.
In regard to (I), while Iodice does not explicitly disclose that the final lamination is in more than one step, Iodice clearly suggests that lamination can occur in multiple steps and that lamination steps are used to control specific dimensions ([0044]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iodice by splitting the final lamination into two so that the continuous strip may be formed to a specific thickness sequentially rather than all at once. Given that the final lamination can be sized to overlap the range of both the continuous strip of 1-20 mm and the constant thickness strip of 90-290 micrometers, it is clear that the final lamination would be suitable for being carried out in two steps which merely involves the transposition of process steps or splitting one step into two where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and results. See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV)(C).
Having the final lamination occur in two steps would yield subjecting said continuous strip to a series of further lamination steps until a constant thickness strip having a substantially constant thickness is obtained.
In regard to (II), Ting, directed to a multilayer film, teaches:
Layers laminated together under heat and pressure. Typically, laminating is done by positioning the individual layers on one another under conditions of sufficient heat and pressure to cause the layers to combine into a unitary film. Typically, the layers are positioned on one another, and the combination is passed through the nip of a pair of heated laminating rollers by techniques well known in the art [0042].
As both Iodice and Ting are directed to layers of material being laminated together with laminating rollers, Ting is considered to be analogous art.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the lamination rollers of Iodice be heated as taught by Ting, and thus said drying is performed in an initial step during the further lamination by performing the further lamination using pairs of cylinders that are at least partially heated, because both Iodice and Ting are directed to layers of material laminated together with laminating rollers, Ting teaches lamination under sufficient heat and pressure causes the layers to combine, and this merely involves incorporating a known way to laminate a material with roller (i.e. with heated rollers) to similar lamination rollers to yield predictable results.
In regard to (III), Iodice further teaches:
Wherein said constant thickness strip is dried by passing through a dryer ([0076]).
The moisture percent after drying is not limited to the standards as described in the examples ([0138]).
Iodice does not teach wherein the dryer recirculates air.
Clearman, directed to tobacco paper ([Col. 22, lines 11-20)]), teaches:
A recirculated air controlled dryer which dries the extrudate to a moisture content of about 7 to 8 percent (Col. 15, lines 25-45).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Iodice by incorporating the recirculating air dryer as taught in Clearman to dry the material to 7-8% moisture, because both Iodice and Clearman are directed to sheets of a vegetable material, Clearman teaches the recirculating air dryer reduces the moisture content of the material, and this merely involves applying a known apparatus (i.e. air dryer) to a similar process to yield predictable result of a dried strip to a specific moisture level.
In regard to (IV), while Clearman does not appear to explicitly disclose the recirculating air dryer having a network belt conveyor, Iodice further teaches:
Once the strip is formed it is conducted via a conveyor belt through the drying furnace [0114]. As the conveyor belt connects the strip from one station to another, and thus is part of the network of forming the sheet, the conveyor belt defines a network belt conveyor.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the recirculating air dryer of modified Iodice by incorporating a network belt conveyor as taught by Iodice, because both Iodice and Clearman are directed to drying sheets of vegetable material, Iodice teaches the conveyor belt conducts the strip through the dryer, and this merely involves incorporating a known method to transport a strip of material through a dryer to a similar dryer to yield predictable results.
In regard to (V), Scheppe, directed to a method of and a device for controlling the process temperature in an air stream drying system, teaches:
A temperature sensing bulb at the heated air inlet part of the drying column, a temperature sensing bulb at the air outlet (Col. 1, lines 63-65). The temperature sensing bulb at the heated air inlet defines an inlet sensor adjacent an inlet of an air dryer and the temperature sensing bulb at the air outlet defines an outlet sensor adjacent an outlet of the recirculating air dryer.
Moisture being diffused from the particles humidifies the hot conveying air and causes lowering of the air temperature as the moisture evaporates (Col. 1, lines 59-62).
When moisture is being diffused and vaporized from particles, the outlet sensing bulb senses the lower air temperature and signals the controller, which in turn causes an increase in temperature for the amount of moisture being evaporated (Col. 2, lines 1-5).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the recirculating air dryer of modified Iodice by incorporating an inlet sensor adjacent an inlet of the air dryer and an outlet sensor adjacent an outlet of the recirculating air dryer as taught by Scheppe, and thus providing at least one inlet sensor adjacent an inlet of the recirculating air dryer and at least one outlet sensor adjacent an outlet of the recirculating air dryer, because both modified Iodice and Scheppe are directed to air dryers for removing moisture from material, Scheppe teaches the sensor signals the controller for control of the temperature and moisture evaporation, and this merely involves incorporating a known way to sense and control an air dryer (i.e. with inlet and outlet temperature sensors) to a similar air dryer to yield predictable results.
As the temperature sensors indicates the amount of moisture being evaporated from the material, and thus the constant thickness strip, the temperature sensors therefore monitor the constant thickness strip through the recirculating air dryer.
Regarding claim 2, Iodice further teaches wherein the dried constant thickness strip is subjected to winding or transversal cutting or shredding into threads of predefined dimensions [0123].
Regarding claim 4, Iodice further teaches wherein the solid components of said raw material are crushed with a mill [0087].
Regarding claim 12, Iodice further teaches wherein said mixture is subjected to a step of homogenization and forming (the step of pre-lamination and homogenization in an intensive mixer, [0107]) before subjecting said mixture to the first lamination step (as this occurs before the final lamination [0107]).
Regarding claims 13 and 19, modified Iodice further teaches wherein said mixture is subjected to the step of homogenization and forming (the step of pre-lamination and homogenization in an intensive mixer, [0107]) to form said continuous strip (as this occurs prior to the final lamination, [0107]) to then be subjected to said series of further lamination steps (as the final lamination is split into two steps as discussed with claim 1 previously).
As the rollers of the lamination equipment have a useful length of 500 mm ([0116]), one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested the use of rollers must result in a substantially constant width because they are compressed between two fixed rollers no larger than the functional width of the rollers. As the useful length of the rollers denotes the possible width length of the continuous strip, it is evident that the continuous strip has a substantially constant width of no more than 500mm, which overlaps the claimed range of between 100 and 2000 mm and is therefore considered to be prima facie obvious.
As the two rollers of the lamination process have adjustable spacing from 0.04-2.50 mm ([0112]), and the thickness of the material is defined according to the distance between rollers ([0113]), the said mixture subjected to the step of homogenization and forming to form said continuous strip of about 0.04 to 2.50 mm. The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of between 1 and 10 mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
As the same rollers are used for said first lamination, this reads on wherein, at an outlet of said first lamination, a single-layer tape with a thickness of 0.04 to 2.5 mm is obtained. The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of between 1 and 10 mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 14, modified Iodice further teaches wherein said mixture is subjected to a homogenization and shaping step (the step of pre-lamination and homogenization in an intensive mixer, [0107]) for transformation into a sequence of portions (the sequence of portions are interpreted as adjacent, connected sections of the strip that has been homogenized in the intensive mixture) to be then subjected to the first lamination step (as thereafter it can be conducted to the final lamination [0107]).
Regarding claim 16, Iodice further teaches wherein said first lamination comprises a homogenization step which is carried out before obtaining said continuous strip having a thickness of about 1-20 mm (the step of pre-lamination and homogenization in an intensive mixer, [0107]).
Regarding claim 17, Iodice further teaches:
Wherein said mixture is subjected in sequence first to a forming step (the step of pre-lamination [0107]) to transform the mixture into a sequence of portions (the sequence of portions are interpreted as adjacent, connected sections of the strip formed from the step of pre-lamination) and subsequently to a step of homogenizing said portions (the homogenization in an intensive mixer [0107]) before obtaining from the portions said continuous strip having a thickness of about 1-20 (as thereafter it can be conducted to the final lamination [0107]).
Regarding claim 21, Iodice further teaches wherein, in said series of further lamination steps, the mixture is allowed to rest between one of the further lamination steps and a next one of the further lamination steps (as the final lamination is split into two steps as discussed previously with claim 1, the transition from one step to the next reads on the mixture is allowed to rest).
Regarding claim 24, Iodice further teaches wherein vegetable fibers of chamomile and sage are used [0032].
Regarding claim 27, Iodice further teaches wherein the binding agent is corn starch, potato starch, guar gum, pectins, alginates, carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC) or microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) [0092].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iodice (WO2019/157576, citations will refer to the English equivalent US2021/0244069) in view of Ting (US2009/0286090), Clearman (US 5,247,947), and Scheppe (US 3,786,573) as evidenced by Mesh Size Chart – Kramer Industries as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ajithkumar (WO2018/215479, citations will refer to the English equivalent US20210/53541).
Regarding claim 3, Iodice further teaches wherein the milling step may be performed in milling equipment or other equipment such as crushers or hammer mills ([0087]). Iodice does not teach wherein the solid components of said raw material are crushed by grinding.
Ajithkumar, directed to making a sheet of homogenized botanical material, teaches:
Grinding tobacco to an average particle size of 30 – 120 um ([0077]).
Grinding to this size can open the tobacco cell structure and may improve aerosolization of volatile components ([0077]).
Incorporating the grinding step from Ajithkumar to the process as taught by Iodice would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve a raw material particle size of 75 um to 120 um through grinding, as this is the particle size range taught by both Iodice and Ajithkumar.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Iodice by incorporating the grinding tobacco step as taught by Ajithkumar to achieve a particle size of 75 um to 120 um through grinding, because both Iodice and Ajithkumar are directed to a method of making a botanical material, Ajithkumar teaches that grinding particles to this size may improve aerosolization of volatile components, and this merely involves applying a known way to crush botanical particles (i.e. grinding) to a similar process to yield predictable results.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iodice (WO2019/157576, citations will refer to the English equivalent US2021/0244069) in view of Ting (US2009/0286090), Clearman (US 5,247,947), and Scheppe (US 3,786,573) as evidenced by Mesh Size Chart – Kramer Industries as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pons-Andreu (2007/0077318).
Regarding claim 5, Iodice further teaches:
Wherein the milling step may be performed in milling equipment or other equipment such as crushers, hammer mills, or other equipment similar to comminution ([0087])
The milling step may be performed on at least one vegetable material such as cocoa ([0086])
Iodice does not teach wherein the solid components of said raw material are crushed with a cryogenic rung mill.
Pons-Andreu, directed to processing cocoa ([Abstract]), teaches:
Milling the cocoa beans utilizing a cryogenic mill, or adapting pin mills and hammer mills with a preliminary cryogenic step ([0033]).
An advantage of the cryogenic mill is that is avoids oxidation by use of an inert atmosphere.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify crushing the solid components of the raw material of Iodice with a cryogenic pin mill as taught by Pons-Andreu, because both Iodice and Pons-Andreu are directed to a method of processing vegetable materials, Pons-Andreu teaches that a cryogenic mill avoids oxidation of the vegetable material, and this merely involves applying a known way to crush vegetable material (i.e. with a cryogenic pin mill) to a similar process to yield predictable results.
Claims 6, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iodice (WO2019/157576, citations will refer to the English equivalent US2021/0244069) in view of Ting (US2009/0286090), Clearman (US 5,247,947), and Scheppe (US 3,786,573) as evidenced by Mesh Size Chart – Kramer Industries as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oishi (US2019/0368121).
Regarding claim 6, Iodice further teaches that the step of mixturing cellulose fibers in intensive mixers may use at least one cellulose fiber, such as a short fiber cellulose, long fiber cellulose, cellulose nanofibers, or other similar cellulose ([0089]). Iodice does not appear to explicitly disclose powdered cellulose.
Oishi, directed to a method of producing a laminate, teaches:
A method of producing composite of fibers and inorganic particles and a processing step to provide a laminate containing the composite of fibers and inorganic particles ([0008]). As such, both Oishi and Iodice are directed to a method of making a laminate material comprising fibers, and therefore Oishi is considered to be analogous art.
The fibers constituting the composite may include cellulose nanofibers ([0097]). These cellulose raw materials can also be further processed to be used as pulverized cellulose and cellulose nanofibers. The pulverized cellulose includes powdered cellulose ([0101]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nanocellulose fibers of Iodice to be powdered cellulose as taught by Oishi, because both Iodice and Oishi are directed to making a laminate material comprising cellulose fibers, and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 7, Iodice further teaches wherein nanocellulose fibers are also mixed with the other substances that form the mixture ([0071]). Iodice further teaches that the step of mixturing cellulose fibers in intensive mixers may use at least one cellulose fiber, such as a short fiber cellulose, long fiber cellulose, cellulose nanofibers, or other similar cellulose ([0089]). Iodice does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the powdered cellulose consists of an organic fiber obtained from natural cellulose.
Oishi, directed to a method of producing a laminate, teaches:
A method of producing composite of fibers and inorganic particles and a processing step to provide a laminate containing the composite of fibers and inorganic particles ([0008]). As such, both Oishi and Iodice are directed to a method of making a laminate material comprising fibers, and therefore Oishi is considered to be analogous art.
The fibers constituting the composite may include cellulose nanofibers ([0097]). These cellulose raw materials can also be further processed to be used as pulverized cellulose and cellulose nanofibers. The pulverized cellulose includes powdered cellulose ([0101]).
As the powdered cellulose, for example, it is possible to use (i) powdered cellulose produced by mechanically pulverizing carefully selected untreated pulp ([0101]). The powdered cellulose from untreated pulp reads on wherein powdered cellulose consists of an organic fiber obtained from natural cellulose.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nanocellulose fibers of Iodice to be powdered cellulose from untreated pulp as taught by Oishi, because both Iodice and Oishi are directed to making a laminate material comprising cellulose fibers, and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 10, Iodice further teaches wherein before forming said mixture with the crushed components of said raw material, said crushed components are mixed with nanocellulose fibers (where mixturing the vegetable material and the nanocellulose fibers occurs before adding the humectant agents and water, [0071]-[0072]). Iodice further teaches that the step of mixturing cellulose fibers in intensive mixers may use at least one cellulose fiber, such as a short fiber cellulose, long fiber cellulose, cellulose nanofibers, or other similar cellulose ([0089]). Iodice does not appear to explicitly disclose powdered cellulose.
Oishi, directed to a method of producing a laminate, teaches:
A method of producing composite of fibers and inorganic particles and a processing step to provide a laminate containing the composite of fibers and inorganic particles ([0008]). As such, both Oishi and Iodice are directed to a method of making a laminate material comprising fibers, and therefore Oishi is considered to be analogous art.
The fibers constituting the composite may include cellulose nanofibers ([0097]). These cellulose raw materials can also be further processed to be used as pulverized cellulose and cellulose nanofibers. The pulverized cellulose includes powdered cellulose ([0101]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nanocellulose fibers of Iodice to be powdered cellulose as taught by Oishi, because both Iodice and Oishi are directed to making a laminate material comprising cellulose fibers, and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iodice (WO2019/157576, citations will refer to the English equivalent US2021/0244069) in view of Ting (US2009/0286090), Clearman (US 5,247,947), Scheppe (US 3,786,573) and Oishi (US2019/0368121) as evidenced by Mesh Size Chart – Kramer Industries as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Bottacco (US2022/0346433).
Regarding claim 8, modified Iodice teaches a slurry formed with powdered cellulose. Modified Iodice is silent to the particle size of the powdered cellulose.
Bottacco, directed to a method of making tobacco film, teaches:
Method for producing a tobacco-containing film (Abstract). As both Iodice and Bottacco are directing to making sheets of a vegetable material, Bottacco is considered to be analogous art.
Mixing powder material and a binder gel, the binder gel comprising at least water, a binder, and glycerin or propylene glycol ([0006]). As such the mixture of Bottacco has similar material to the mixture of Iodice.
The powdered material comprises tobacco powder and plant powder and the plant powder comprises cellulose, preferably in powder or fiber form ([0007]). Cellulose in particle or fiber form with an average particle size of less than 350 μm, preferably less than 250 μm ([0025]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to make the powdered cellulose of modified Iodice be of an average particle size of less than 250 um as taught by Bottacco, because both Iodice and Bottacco are directed to making sheets of a vegetable material, and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP § 2144.07.
The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of between 50 and 100 um and is therefore considered to be prima facie obvious.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iodice (WO2019/157576, citations will refer to the English equivalent US2021/0244069) in view of Ting (US2009/0286090), Clearman (US 5,247,947), and Scheppe (US 3,786,573) as evidenced by Mesh Size Chart – Kramer Industries as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oishi (US2019/0368121) and Bottacco (US2022/0346433).
Regarding claim 9, Iodice further teaches wherein before forming said mixture with the crushed components of said raw material, said crushed components are mixed with nanocellulose fibers (where mixturing the vegetable material and the nanocellulose fibers occurs before adding the humectant agents and water, [0071]-[0072]). Iodice further teaches that the step of mixturing cellulose fibers in intensive mixers may use at least one cellulose fiber, such as a short fiber cellulose, long fiber cellulose, cellulose nanofibers, or other similar cellulose ([0089]). Iodice does not appear to explicitly disclose (I) powdered cellulose and (II) wherein powdered cellulose is in a percentage comprises between 2% and 10% of the weight of the raw material.
In regard to (I), Oishi, directed to a method of producing a laminate, teaches:
A method of producing composite of fibers and inorganic particles and a processing step to provide a laminate containing the composite of fibers and inorganic particles ([0008]). As such, both Oishi and Iodice are directed to a method of making a laminate material comprising fibers, and therefore Oishi is considered to be analogous art.
The fibers constituting the composite may include cellulose nanofibers ([0097]). These cellulose raw materials can also be further processed to be used as pulverized cellulose and cellulose nanofibers. The pulverized cellulose includes powdered cellulose ([0101]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the nanocellulose fibers of Iodice to be powdered cellulose as taught by Oishi, because both Iodice and Oishi are directed to making a laminate material comprising cellulose fibers, and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP § 2144.07.
In regard to (II), Bottacco, directed to a method of making tobacco film, teaches:
Method for producing a tobacco-containing film (Abstract). As both Iodice and Bottacco are directed to making sheets of a vegetable material, Bottacco is considered to be analogous art.
Mixing powder material and a binder gel, the binder gel comprising at least water, a binder, and glycerin or propylene glycol ([0006]). As such the mixture of Bottacco has similar material to the mixture of Iodice.
The powdered material comprises tobacco powder and plant powder and the plant powder comprises cellulose, preferably in powder or fiber form ([0007]). A ratio of cellulose of the plant powder and tobacco powder can be at most 20% and at least 2% ([0046]), by weight ([0008]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to make the powdered cellulose of modified Iodice be between 2% and 20% of the weight of the raw material as taught by Bottacco, because both Iodice and Bottacco are directed to making sheets of a vegetable material, and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP § 2144.07.
The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of between 2% and 10% and is therefore considered to be prima facie obvious.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iodice (WO2019/157576, citations will refer to the English equivalent US2021/0244069) in view of in view of Ting (US2009/0286090), Clearman (US 5,247,947), Scheppe (US 3,786,573) and Oishi (US2019/0368121) as evidenced by Mesh Size Chart – Kramer Industries as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Perkins (U.S. 3,861,400) as evidenced by Colloid Mill – Fruit Processing Machine.
Regarding claim 11, modified Iodice does not teach wherein the mixture formed by the crushed product, the powdered cellulose, the water, the at least one binding agent and the at least one material for forming an aerosol is subjected to at least one of: a roughing step by passing through at least one pair of grooved cylinders or a refining step by passing through at least one pair of refining cylinders until the mixture reaches a particle size not exceeding 20 um.
Perkins, directed to smoking products including reconstituted tobacco sheets (Col. 1, lines 1-10) teaches:
Passing a tobacco slurry through a colloid mill to remove any lumps which may have formed from coagulation, and then casting that slurry to make a tobacco sheet (Col. 3, lines 20-40). As both Iodice and Perkins are directed to making sheets of a vegetable material, Perkins is considered to be analogous art.
The rotor and stator components of the colloid mill are considered to be a pair of refining cylinders. As evidenced by Colloid Mill – Fruit Processing Machine, colloid mills are known in the art to produce a particle size of 2-50 um, which overlaps the prior art of no more than 20 um. The tobacco slurry as taught in Perkins is subjected to the same step and would come to the same result, as less than 20 micron particle size is just a result of the refining.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Iodice by incorporating the refining step through the colloid mill as taught by Perkins, because both Iodice and Perkins are directed to a method of producing sheets of a vegetable material, Perkins teaches that the colloid mill removes any agglomerates that may have formed, and this merely involves applying a known method (i.e. refining through a colloid mill) to a similar process to yield the predictable result of refining particles.
Claim 15, 18, and 25-26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iodice (WO2019/157576, citations will refer to the English equivalent US2021/0244069) in view of Ting (US2009/0286090), Clearman (US 5,247,947), and Scheppe (US 3,786,573) as evidenced by Mesh Size Chart – Kramer Industries as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith (US 4,446,678).
Regarding claim 15, Iodice further teaches wherein a first rolling of the mixture is carried out by rolling said mixture with a unit comprising at least one pair of rolling cylinders (two metallic rollers of the pre-lamination equipment, [0100]-[0101]). The mixturing of the mass to be laminated, which occurs before lamination steps, is used for the opening of cellulose fibers ([0098]). Iodice does not teach wherein the unit comprises a lobed feeder.
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), the machine capable of carrying out physical processing with a large number of different material types (col. 1 lines 50-53).
Material fed between the multilobed rollers is subjected to compressive and shearing forces, resulting in a controllable degree of particle fracture or cell rupture in the material being processed (col. 1, lines 57-63).
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).
As Iodice teaches opening of cellulose fibers of the material prior to lamination, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement to the lobed feeders of Iodice prior to the rolling cylinders of the lamination equipment, and thus defining wherein a first rolling of the mixture is carried out with a unit comprising a lobed feeder and at least a pair of rolling cylinders.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Iodice by including multilobed rollers to rupture the cells of the material being processed as taught by Smith, because both Iodice and Smith are directed to plant processing, Smith teaches that intermeshing lobes are less complicated, less expensive, and more efficient, and this merely involves applying a known technique of cell rupture of a plant material using lobed rollers to a similar process to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, Iodice further teaches pre-lamination of said mixture with a unit comprising at least one pair of rolling cylinders (two metallic rollers of the pre-lamination equipment, [0100]-[0101]). Iodice further teaches that the mixturing of the mass to be laminated, which occurs before lamination steps, is used for the opening of cellulose fibers ([0098]). Iodice does not teach wherein said mixture is homogenized mainly or exclusively by a lobe feeder positioned at an inlet of at least one pair of rolling rolls.
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), the machine capable of carrying out physical processing with a large number of different material types (col. 1 lines 50-53).
Material fed between the multilobed rollers is subjected to compressive and shearing forces, resulting in a controllable degree of particle fracture or cell rupture in the material being processed (col. 1, lines 57-63).
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).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the mixturing of the mass to be laminated Iodice with multilobed rollers to rupture the cells of the material being processed as taught by Smith, because both Iodice and Smith are directed to plant processing, Smith teaches that intermeshing lobes are less complicated, less expensive, and more efficient, and this merely involves substituting a known way to open plant fibers with another known way to open plant fibers (i.e. multilobed roller) to a similar process to yield predictable results.
As Iodice teaches opening of cellulose fibers of the material prior to lamination, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement to the lobed feeders of Iodice prior to the rolling cylinders of the lamination equipment, and thus defining wherein a lobe feeder positioned at an inlet of at least one pair of rolling rolls.
Regarding claims 25-26, Iodice further teaches wherein said first lamination is carried out in a unit of first lamination (final lamination equipment), which has a pre-rolling module which is defined by at least one pair of lamination rolls (set of cylindrical metal rollers, [0112]). As the two rollers of the lamination process have adjustable spacing from 0.04-2.50 mm ([0112]), and the thickness of the material is defined according to the distance between rollers ([0113]), the first lamination therefore obtains a continuous strip with a thickness of about 0.0 to 2.50 mm. The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of 1-20 mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Iodice further teaches that the mixturing of the mass to be laminated, which occurs before lamination steps, is used for the opening of cellulose fibers ([0098]). Iodice does not appear to disclose where the unit of first lamination comprises a homogenization module of the mixture, located immediately upstream with respect to a pre-rolling module.
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), the machine capable of carrying out physical processing with a large number of different material types (col. 1 lines 50-53).
Material fed between the multilobed rollers is subjected to compressive and shearing forces, resulting in a controllable degree of particle fracture or cell rupture in the material being processed (col. 1, lines 57-63).
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).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the mixturing of the mass to be laminated of Iodice with multilobed rollers to rupture the cells of the material being processed as taught by Smith, because both Iodice and Smith are directed to plant processing, Smith teaches that intermeshing lobes are less complicated, less expensive, and more efficient, and this merely involves substituting a known way to open plant fibers with another known way to open plant fibers (i.e. multilobed roller) to a similar process to yield predictable results.
As Iodice teaches opening of cellulose fibers of the material prior to lamination, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement to the lobed feeders of Iodice prior to the rolling cylinders of the lamination equipment, and thus defining the unit of first lamination comprising a homogenization module of the mixture (i.e. lobed rollers), located immediately upstream with respect to a pre-rolling module.
The lobed rollers define a lobe feeder as recited in claim 26.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iodice (WO2019/157576, citations will refer to the English equivalent US2021/0244069) in view of Ting (US2009/0286090), Clearman (US 5,247,947), and Scheppe (US 3,786,573) as evidenced by Mesh Size Chart – Kramer Industries as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gindrat (US2016/0286852).
Regarding claim 20, Iodice does not teach wherein before subjecting said continuous strip, already subjected to said first lamination, to said series of further lamination steps, said continuous strip is subjected to stratification until a multilayer strip of thickness is obtained of about 2 -20 mm.
Gindrat, directed to combining tobacco sheets ([0001]), teaches:
An apparatus for combining sheets of tobacco ([0004] – [0009]). The apparatus and method are considered to “subject stratification” on the tobacco sheets. As both Iodice and Gindrat are directed to making sheets of a vegetable material, Gindrat is considered to be analogous art.
A multilayer strip would be obtained by subjecting the strip made after the first lamination step in Iodice, to the apparatus for combining sheets of tobaccos as taught in Gindrat, of which the second sheet for combining would be an identical sheet previously made with Iodice. As the multilayer strip would be made from two sheets of Iodice with a thickness of 0.02mm to 2.5mm, as discussed previously, the total thickness of the multilayer strip would thus be 0.04mm to 5mm. The claimed range of approximately 2 to 20mm overlaps the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Iodice and incorporate the stratification step as taught by Gindrat, because both Iodice and Gindrat are directed to sheets of a vegetable material, and this merely involves applying a known method (i.e. combining sheets) to a similar process to yield the predictable result of a multilayer strip.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicole A Szumigalski whose telephone number is (703)756-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 4:30 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.
/N.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755