DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to applicant’s request for continued examination filed November 19, 2025. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 10 was previously cancelled. Claim 22 is new. Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are pending. Claims 1-9, 11-16, and 22 are rejected.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 19, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 19, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-2, 5-9, 12, and 15-16 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 KADIRIC.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 27, 2025.
In the office action mailed May 5, 2025, Examiner responded to the traversal. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 12-13, 15-16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019003204 A1 (hereinafter GAMBERINI) in view of US 20180027870 A1 (hereinafter KADIRIC).
Regarding claim 1, GAMBERINI discloses a smoking article with a group of segments and an empty space with a first and second wrapping sheet (abstract). GAMBERINI discloses A Heat-Not-Burn smoking construction (Fig. 4, article 1, GAMBERINI discloses that the article is a smoking article for example a cigarette, page 3, lines 10-15), wherein the smoking construction extends in a length direction (shown in Fig. 1, in the direction of A) and comprises a longitudinal axis (Fig. 1, A, page 3, lines 16-21), along which at least one tobacco segment comprising tobacco is provided (Fig. 4, segments 3 and 4, page 3, lines 23-28). GAMBERINI discloses that the segments comprise tobacco (page 7, lines 10-16), at least one cooling tube (Fig. 4, empty space 6, page 3, lines 30-34). GAMBERINI further discloses a filter (Fig. 4, combination of segment 15 and segment 5) comprising at least an upstream filter segment (Fig. 4, segment 15) and a downstream filled filter segment (Fig. 4, segment 5) adjacent to the upstream hollow filter segment. GAMBERINI further discloses wherein the filter segments are wrapped with at least one first combining wrapper (Fig. 4, sheet 10, page 4, lines 26-28), wherein the cooling tube and the filter are surrounded by a second combining wrapper (Fig. 4, wrapping sheet 18, page 7, lines 23-29) extending partially on the tobacco segment (as shown in Fig. 4) to attach the filter and the cooling tube to the tobacco segment, wherein the cooling tube is formed between the filter and the tobacco segment by the first combining wrapper, which surrounds the filter and forms a cavity (Fig. 4, inner space of the tube formed by the wrapping sheet) between the tobacco segment and the filter that extends along a certain length beyond the upstream hollow filter segment.
GAMBERINI teaches that the upstream filter may be hollow. GAMBERINI teaches a non-limiting and not illustrated embodiment wherein the segment 15 is provided with a its own through cavity (page 6 lines 31-36 and cont. page 7, lines 1-3). This is considered to be a hollow. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously recognize this through cavity to be a hollow and implement the non-limiting embodiment as taught.
GAMBERINI does not disclose wherein the second combining wrapper is wrapped outside of the first combining wrapper.
KADIRIC teaches a smoking article comprising a tobacco road and a filter segment (abstract). KADIRIC teaches that the article can be used in an electrical heating article (¶3). KADIRIC teaches that the filter segment has multiple segments including a rod end filter segment 18 that abuts the tobacco rod, a first filter segment 20, and a hollow tube segment 22 (Fig. 2, ¶67). KADIRIC teaches that these segments are wrapped first by a plug wrap (Fig. 2, plug wrap 23, ¶68). KADIRIC further teaches that these segments may additionally each be individually wrapped by an individual plug wrap (¶68). KADIRIC teaches that the filter is then joined to the tobacco rod by an additional tipping paper that covers the entire segment and a portion of the tobacco rod (¶4) that is impermeable (¶32). KADIRIC teaches that the layers of wrapping help improve resistance to collapse or deformation (¶43, ¶48).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GAMBERINI to provide wherein the second combining wrapper is wrapped outside of the first combining wrapper as taught in KADIRIC. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously layer wraps in a smoking article. Doing so would provide structure that improves resistance to collapse or deformation during use (KADIRIC ¶43, ¶48)
Regarding claim 2, modified GAMBERINI discloses the smoking construction according to claim 1 as discussed above. GAMBERINI further discloses wherein the cooling tube comprises a paper material. The cooling tube, considered to be empty space 6, is by the sheet 18 and delimited by segment 4 and 15 as shown in Fig. 4. GAMBERINI discloses that the sheets are made of paper, cardboard, or a similar material (page 8, lines 20-29).
Regarding claim 4, modified GAMBERINI discloses the smoking construction according to claim 1 as discussed above. GAMBERINI does not disclose wherein the first combining wrapper is thicker and/or has a higher basis weight than the second combining wrapper .
KADIRIC teaches a smoking article comprising a tobacco road and a filter segment (abstract). KADIRIC teaches that the article can be used in an electrical heating article (¶3). KADIRIC teaches that the filter segment has multiple segments including a rod end filter segment 18 that abuts the tobacco rod, a first filter segment 20, and a hollow tube segment 22 (Fig. 2, ¶67). KADIRIC teaches that these segments are wrapped first by a plug wrap (Fig. 2, plug wrap 23, ¶68). KADIRIC further teaches that these segments may additionally each be individually wrapped by an individual plug wrap (¶68). KADIRIC teaches that the filter is then joined to the tobacco rod by an additional tipping paper that covers the entire segment and a portion of the tobacco rod (¶4) that is impermeable (¶32). KADIRIC teaches that the layers of wrapping help improve resistance to collapse or deformation (¶43, ¶48). KADIRIC teaches that the plug wrap has a basis weight of preferably at least 80 grams per square meter or more (¶29). Whereas the tipping paper has a basis weight of less than about 70 grams per square meter (¶32). KADIRIC further teaches that the plug wrap has a thickness of preferably at least about 100 micrometers which KADIRIC teaches is a relatively high thickness (¶30). KADIRIC teaches that this is advantageous to give the customer the perception that the filter has a uniform thickness (¶30).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GAMBERINI to provide wherein the first combining wrapper is thicker and/or has a higher basis weight than the second combining wrapper as taught in KADIRIC. GAMBERINI is silent as to specific thicknesses of wrappers and how they relate proportionally, but KADIRIC teaches a thicker combining wrapper to change tastes and flavors. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously look to KADIRIC, analogous art to GAMBERINI and the instant application, to learn that varying the thicknesses of the wrappers will affect the tastes and flavors. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that changing the wrapper thicknesses relative to one and other would impart different physical properties and tastes and improve customer perception (KADIRIC ¶30).
Regarding claim 5, modified GAMBERINI discloses the smoking construction according to claim 1 as discussed above. GAMBERINI further discloses wherein the cooling tube forms an empty cavity. This is shown at least in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 6, modified GAMBERINI discloses the smoking construction according to claim 1 as discussed above. GAMBERINI further teaches an alternate embodiment wherein the length of the cooling tube is larger than or equal to a length of the filter. This embodiment is shown in Fig. 6. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously implement the non-limiting embodiment as taught.
Regarding claim 7, modified GAMBERINI discloses the smoking construction according to claim 1 as discussed above. GAMBERINI further discloses wherein the length of the cooling tube is larger or equal to a length of the tobacco segment. This is shown at least in Fig. 1, but more obviously in Figs. 4 and 6.
Regarding claim 8, modified GAMBERINI discloses the smoking construction according to claim 1 as discussed above. GAMBERINI further teaches an embodiment wherein ventilation holes are provided in the cooling tube . GAMBERINI teaches the addition of through holes that are not illustrated. GAMBERINI teaches that the hoes establish a connection between the empty space (considered to be the cooling tube) and the outside. These holes are provided in wrapping layers 12, 13, and possibly 14 (page 9 lines 33-36 and cont. page 10, lines 1-6)
Regarding claim 9, modified GAMBERINI discloses the smoking construction according to claim 1 as discussed above. GAMBERINI further discloses wherein the filled filter segment comprises acetate or paper tow (page 7, lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 12, modified GAMBERINI discloses the smoking construction according to claim 1 as discussed above. GAMBERINI further teaches, wherein the cooling tube comprises a tubular reinforcement material. GAMBERINI teaches that the empty space is wound by several layers 12, 13, and 14 and that this winding may be up to 720° (page 9, lines 1-7). This clearly delimits the empty space and provides a good mechanical seal (page 8, lines 30-35)
Regarding claim 13, modified GAMBERINI discloses the smoking construction according to claim 2 as discussed above. GAMBERINI does not disclose wherein the paper material has a weight higher than substantially 60 grams per square meter.
KADIRIC teaches a smoking article comprising a tobacco road and a filter segment (abstract). KADIRIC teaches that the article can be used in an electrical heating article (¶3). KADIRIC teaches that the filter segment has multiple segments including a rod end filter segment 18 that abuts the tobacco rod, a first filter segment 20, and a hollow tube segment 22 (Fig. 2, ¶67). KADIRIC teaches that these segments are wrapped first by a plug wrap (Fig. 2, plug wrap 23, ¶68). KADIRIC further teaches that these segments may additionally each be individually wrapped by an individual plug wrap (¶68). KADIRIC teaches that the filter is then joined to the tobacco rod by an additional tipping paper that covers the entire segment and a portion of the tobacco rod (¶4) that is impermeable (¶32). KADIRIC teaches that the layers of wrapping help improve resistance to collapse or deformation (¶43, ¶48). KADIRIC teaches that the plug wrap has a basis weight of preferably at least 80 grams per square meter or more (¶29). Whereas the tipping paper has a basis weight of less than about 70 grams per square meter (¶32).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GAMBERINI to provide wherein the paper material has a weight higher than substantially 60 grams square meter as taught in KADIRIC. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide a stiffer paper having an increased gsm higher than 60. Doing so would is well known in the art (KADIRIC ¶29, ¶32). And would provide better definition so that the filter segments are not crushed (KADIRIC ¶43, ¶48).
Regarding claim 15, modified GAMBERINI discloses the smoking construction according to claim 1 as discussed above. GAMBERINI further discloses wherein the second combining wrapper overlaps the first combining wrapper along at least a part of the length of the first combining wrapper. This is shown in Fig. 4 where wrapping 10 and wrapping 18 are overlapping.
Regarding claim 16, modified GAMBERINI discloses the smoking construction according to claim 8 as discussed above. GAMBERINI further discloses wherein the ventilation holes are formed by lasering through the first and second combining wrapper (page 11, line 6).
Regarding claim 22, modified GAMBERINI discloses the smoking construction according to claim 8 as discussed above. GAMBERINI does not disclose wherein the first combining wrapper is thicker and has a higher basis weight than the second combining wrapper.
KADIRIC teaches a smoking article comprising a tobacco road and a filter segment (abstract). KADIRIC teaches that the article can be used in an electrical heating article (¶3). KADIRIC teaches that the filter segment has multiple segments including a rod end filter segment 18 that abuts the tobacco rod, a first filter segment 20, and a hollow tube segment 22 (Fig. 2, ¶67). KADIRIC teaches that these segments are wrapped first by a plug wrap (Fig. 2, plug wrap 23, ¶68). KADIRIC further teaches that these segments may additionally each be individually wrapped by an individual plug wrap (¶68). KADIRIC teaches that the filter is then joined to the tobacco rod by an additional tipping paper that covers the entire segment and a portion of the tobacco rod (¶4) that is impermeable (¶32). KADIRIC teaches that the layers of wrapping help improve resistance to collapse or deformation (¶43, ¶48). KADIRIC teaches that the plug wrap has a basis weight of preferably at least 80 grams per square meter or more (¶29). Whereas the tipping paper has a basis weight of less than about 70 grams per square meter (¶32). KADIRIC further teaches that the plug wrap has a thickness of preferably at least about 100 micrometers which KADIRIC teaches is a relatively high thickness (¶30). KADIRIC teaches that this is advantageous to give the customer the perception that the filter has a uniform thickness (¶30).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GAMBERINI to provide wherein the first combining wrapper is thicker and has a higher basis weight than the second combining wrapper as taught in KADIRIC. GAMBERINI is silent as to specific thicknesses of wrappers and how they relate proportionally, but KADIRIC teaches a thicker combining wrapper to change tastes and flavors. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously look to KADIRIC, analogous art to GAMBERINI and the instant application, to learn that varying the thicknesses of the wrappers will affect the tastes and flavors. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that changing the wrapper thicknesses relative to one and other would impart different physical properties and tastes and improve customer perception (KADIRIC ¶30). Regarding basis weight, KADIRIC clearly teaches that the basis weight of the plug wrap is higher than the tipping paper (KADIRIC ¶29, ¶32). Further a person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously understand that the plug wrap having a “relatively high thickness” (KADIRIC) ¶30 is relative to the tipping paper. Finally, it is notoriously well known that plug wrap is thicker than tipping paper because plug wrap provides structure.
Claims 3, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAMBERINI and KADIRIC as applied to claim 1-2, 4-9, 12-13, 15-16, and 22 above, and further in view of US 20210092989 A1 (hereinafter HAN).
Regarding claim 3, GAMBERINI discloses the smoking construction according to claim 1 as discussed above. GAMBERINI does not disclose wherein the cooling tube extends along the longitudinal axis and has a length between substantially 15 mm and substantially 45 mm.
HAN teaches an aerosol forming rod (abstract). HAN teaches that the aerosol-forming rod has a cooling structure 222 (Fig. 2, ¶50). HAN teaches that the cooling structure is wrapped by many wrappers (Fig. 2, ¶51). HAN teaches that the length of the cooling structure is determined according to the shape of the cigarette and can be from about 7 mm to 20 mm (¶76).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GAMBERINI to provide wherein the cooling tube extends along the longitudinal axis and has a length between substantially 15 mm and substantially 45 mm as taught in HAN. GAMBERINI is silent as to specific lengths of the cooling tube. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously look to HAN, analogous art to GAMBERINI and the instant application, to determine appropriate lengths for the cooling tube. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11, modified GAMBERINI discloses the smoking construction according to claim 1 as discussed above. GAMBERINI does not disclose wherein the tobacco segment comprises reconstituted tobacco including strands of tobacco sheet and/or folded sheets comprising tobacco powder and/or more than substantially wt. 5 % of glycerin.
HAN teaches an aerosol forming rod (abstract). HAN teaches that the aerosol-forming rod has tobacco rod (Fig. 2, tobacco rod 200, ¶50). HAN teaches that the tobacco rod can be made of reconstituted tobacco (¶8-11) and/or tobacco shreds (¶12), and/or tobacco sheets (¶11), and/or tobacco powders (¶67), and may include glycerin in a range of 5% to 30% (¶34)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GAMBERINI to provide wherein the tobacco segment comprises reconstituted tobacco including strands of tobacco sheet and/or folded sheets comprising tobacco powder and/or more than substantially wt. 5 % of glycerin as taught in HAN. GAMBERINI is silent as to specific types of tobacco. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously look to HAN, analogous art to GAMBERINI and the instant application, to determine appropriate types of tobacco, additives, and ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It is also noted that due to the claim language of claim 11 which recites “and/or” only one limitation from the list need be disclosed in the prior art to read on the claim. IN this case, HAN discloses many of the recitations so they have been cited, but only one is necessary.
Regarding claim 14, modified GAMBERINI discloses the smoking construction according to claim 1 as discussed above. GAMBERINI does not disclose wherein the cooling tube is filled with a filler material.
HAN teaches an aerosol forming rod (abstract). HAN teaches that the aerosol-forming rod has a cooling structure 222 (Fig. 2, ¶50). HAN teaches that the cooling structure maybe be formed of a crimped polymer sheet with a plurality of channels extending through which gas passes (¶77). The cooling structure has a material with a thickness (¶78). The cooling structure may have a thread containing a volatile flavor component (¶79).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GAMBERINI to provide wherein the cooling tube is filled with a filler material as taught in HAN. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously fill the cooling tube with filler material. Doing so would provide air channels for the vapor to pass through and cool (HAN ¶77).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE L MOORE whose telephone number is (313)446-6537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9 am to 5 pm.
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.
/STEPHANIE LYNN MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747