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, 5-6, and 9-10 are currently pending and are subject to this office action. Claims 1 and 9 are amended. Claims 2-4 and 7-8 are canceled. This office action is in response to Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/27/2026.
Response to Amendments
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 12/08/2025 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 5-7, filed 12/08/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant argues that Kuersteiner teaches wherein the filter wrapper may have a thickness of 40 µm, not the filter.
The Examiner agrees. The filter wrapper and filter of Kuersteiner are disclosed as separate components. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to modify the filter of modified Han with the disclosed thickness of Kuersteiner because the thickness is directed to a separate component. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Papakyrillou (US 20170360087 A1).
The following are modified rejections based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (WO 2018182322 A1), and further in view of Buchmann (US 20190059443 A1), Hiroyuki (KR 20160122815 A, hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation), Papakyrillou (US 20170360087 A1), Jin (WO 2020168476 A1, hereinafter citations referring to English language equivalent US 20220053813 A1), and Grant (US 20190307976 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
247
291
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 1, Han, directed to an aerosol generating apparatus, teaches (i) a cigarette (Fig. 8A: 10), relating to the claimed tobacco rod, comprising a first filter segment (Fig. 8A: #810) and a second filter segment (Fig. 8A: #830), meeting the claim limitation of a tobacco rod comprising: a first filter segment and a second filter segment disposed upstream of the first filter segment. (ii) A rod (Fig. 8A: #820) is disposed in a space between the first and second filter segments, including tobacco granules [0118]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that for the rod to comprise tobacco granules, the rod must comprise a cavity therein, meeting the claim limitation of wherein a cavity segment which includes a cavity formed as a space between the first filter segment and the second filter segment, and tobacco granules filled in the cavity.
Han teaches all the limitations as set forth above, however Han is silent to:
Wherein both the first filter segment and second filter segment are paper filters
Wherein resistance to draw of the first filter segment is in a range of 50 mmH20/60 mm to 70 mmH20/60 mm.
Wherein the first filter segment includes a paper material whose paper width is in a range of 120 mm to 150 mm
Wherein the thickness of the paper material is in a range of about 30 µm to 50 µm
Wherein a density of the tobacco granules is in a range of 0.5 g/cm-3 to 1.2 g/cm3
Wherein the tobacco granules are filled in such a manner that a vortex is generated in the cavity segment during a puff, allowing the tobacco granules to move and mix with each other due to the vortex
In regards to i., Buchmann, directed to improve filter paper for cigarette filters, teaches a cigarette comprising a paper filter [0085]. The paper filter that may be a filter rod, filter plug, or segment [0080] and can be the sole filter or a segment of a filter [0085]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the paper filter of Buchmann to the two filter segments of Han because of its filtration efficiency [0082] and because it is a cheaper filtering option [0004]. Buchmann discloses using a paper filter as a sole filter of a cigarette [0085], and a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to duplicate it create two segments as a routine optimization.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter segments of Han by including wherein both the first filter segment and the second filter segment are paper filters because both Han and Buchmann are
directed to cigarettes with filtering components to better user experience. Buchmann teaches a cigarette comprising a paper filter to improve filtration efficiency of a cigarette [0082] and this merely involves combining the filter components of Buchmann and Han according to known filtration methods to yield predictable results.
In regards to ii., Hiroyuki, directed to a low-tar menthol cigarette, teaches wherein airflow can be improved at a ventilation resistance of 20 to 50 mmH20/27mm [0048]. Hiroyuki’s ventilation resistance converted to a length of 60 mm would give a range of about 55.55 to 111 mmH20/60 mm showing a significant amount of overlap in the claimed ranged of 50 to 70 mmH20/60mm in the claimed invention and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the resistance of the first filter segment of Han, by including, wherein resistance to draw of the first filter segment is in a range of 50 mmH20/60 mm to 70 mmH20/60 mm because both Han and Hiroyuki are directed to smokable material. Hiroyuki teaches a ventilation resistance of 25 mmH20/27mm to 50 mmH20/27 mm or 55.55 mmH20/60 mm to 111 mmH20/60 mm to increase the stability of the amount of menthol in smoke during smoking of low-tar cigarettes [0020] and this merely involves applying a known draw resistance to a similar invention to yield predictable results.
In regards to iii. and iv, Papakyrillou, directed to a hydrophobic filter, teaches (iii) a filter formed of hydrophone cellulosic material, such as paper, having a width of about 100mm to 250 mm [0026]. Papakyrillou discloses a value with significant overlap of the value in the claimed invention, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. (iv) The thickness of a sheet of cellulosic material may be in a range from about 30 to 50 micrometers [0030]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the width and thickness of the paper of Han based on the ranges of Papakyrillou to improve the draw resistance of the filter [0026].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first filter segment of modified Han by including wherein
the first filter segment includes a paper material whose paper width is in a range of 120 mm to 150 mm and wherein the thickness of the paper material is in a range of about 30 µm to 50 µm because both Han and Papakyrillou are directed to filter elements in cigarettes. Papakyrillou teaches a filter formed of paper material where the width is 100 mm to 250 mm and the thickness is 30 to 50 micrometers to improve the draw resistance of the filter [0026] and this merely involves applying known paper dimensions to a known filter ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regards to v., Jin, directed to abnormally shaped tobacco granules, teaches tobacco granules with a bulk density of 0.2 g/cm3– 0.8 g/cm3 [0023]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the density of Jin to meet the range of the claimed invention to help ensure that the cigarette has suitable smoking resistance and smooth smoking capabilities [0024]. Jin discloses a value with significant overlap of the value in the claimed invention, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. Additionally, an assertion of unexpected results does not rebut the presumption of obviousness established by overlapping ranges without comparative data (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the density of the tobacco granules of modified Han to wherein a density of the tobacco granules is in a range of 0.5 g/cm-3 to 1.2 g/cm3 because both Han and Jin are directed to cigarettes using tobacco granules to provide a smooth smoke output for a user. Jin teaches tobacco granules with a bulk density of 0.2 g/cm3– 0.8 g/cm3 to help ensure that the cigarette has suitable smoking resistance and smooth smoking capabilities [0024] and this merely involves applying a known density range to tobacco granules of a known cigarette ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regards to vi., Grant, directed to an inhaler with a swirl end plug, teaches a capsule cavity, that upon rotation, may suspend, similar to the vortex, and aerosolize nicotine particles to flow through the inhalation air [0012]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the suspension of particles would need to be influenced by inhalation from the user, during a puff, because inhalation provides the airflow and pressure difference necessary to move and distribute the particles within the medium, meeting the claim limitation of wherein the tobacco granules are filled in such a manner that a vortex is generated in the cavity segment during a puff, allowing the tobacco granules to move and mix with each other due to the vortex.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cavity segment of modified Han to wherein the tobacco granules are filled in such a manner that a vortex is generated in the cavity segment during a puff, allowing the tobacco granules to move and mix with each other due to the vortex because both Han and Grant are directed to rod shaped smoking articles using particles to generate aerosol. Grant teaches wherein rotation of a capsule cavity causes a suspension of particles and aerosolization to transport nicotine and flavoring to a user and this merely involves applying a known suspending technique to the granules of a similar aerosol generating smoking article ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
PNG
media_image2.png
86
334
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
247
291
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 9, Han, directed to an aerosol generating apparatus, teaches (i) an aerosol generating device (Fig. 1: #100) for use with an aerosol generating article [0027]. The device contains a cigarette (Fig. 8A: 10) containing tobacco granules [0118], meeting the claim limitation of an aerosol-generating article that is used with an aerosol generation device, the generating article comprising: a tobacco rod filled with tobacco granules. (ii) The cigarette comprises a first filter segment (Fig. 8A: #810) and a second filter segment (Fig. 8A: #830), meeting the claim limitation of a filter rod; (iii) A rod (Fig. 8A: #820) is disposed in a space between the first and second filter segments, including tobacco granules [0118]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that for the rod to comprise tobacco granules, the rod must comprise a cavity therein, meeting the claim limitation of wherein a cavity segment which includes a cavity formed as a space between the first filter segment and the second filter segment, and tobacco granules filled in the cavity. Han teaches all the limitations as set forth above, however Han is silent to:
Wherein both the first filter segment and second filter segment are paper filters
Wherein resistance to draw of the first filter segment is in a range of 50 mmH20/60 mm to 70 mmH20/60 mm.
Wherein the first filter segment includes a paper material whose paper width is in a range of 120 mm to 150 mm
Wherein the thickness of the paper material is in a range of about 30 µm to 50 µm
Wherein a density of the tobacco granules is in a range of 0.5 g/cm3 to 1.2 g/cm3
Wherein the tobacco granules are filled in such a manner that a vortex is generated in the cavity segment during a puff, allowing the tobacco granules to move and mix with each other due to the vortex
In regards to i., Buchmann, directed to improve filter paper for cigarette filters, teaches a cigarette comprising a paper filter [0085]. The paper filter that may be a filter rod, filter plug, or segment [0080] and the can be the sole filter or a segment of a filter [0085]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the paper filter of Buchmann to the two filter segments of Han because of its filtration efficiency [0082] and because it is a cheaper filtering option [0004]. Buchmann discloses using a paper filter as a sole filter of a cigarette [0085], and a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to duplicate it create two segments as a routine optimization.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter segments of Han by including wherein both the first filter segment and the second filter segment are paper filters because both Han and Buchmann are directed to cigarettes with filtering components to better user experience. Buchmann teaches a cigarette comprising a paper filter to improve filtration efficiency of a cigarette [0082] and this merely involves combining the filter components of Buchmann and Han according to known filtration methods to yield predictable results.
In regards to ii., Hiroyuki, directed to a low-tar menthol cigarette, teaches wherein airflow can be improved at a ventilation resistance of 20 to 50 mmH20/27mm [0048]. Hiroyuki’s ventilation resistance converted to a length of 60 mm would give a range of about 55.55 to 111 mmH20/60 mm showing a significant amount of overlap in the claimed ranged of 50 to 70 mmH20/60mm in the claimed invention and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the resistance of the first filter segment of Han, by including, wherein resistance to draw of the first filter segment is in a range of 50 mmH20/60 mm to 70 mmH20/60 mm because both Han and Hiroyuki are directed to smokable material. Hiroyuki teaches a ventilation resistance of 25 mmH20/27mm to 50 mmH20/27 mm converted to 55.55 mmH20/60 mm to 111 mmH20/60 mm to increase the stability of the amount of menthol in smoke during smoking of low-tar cigarettes [0020] and this merely involves applying a known draw resistance to a similar invention to yield predictable results.
In regards to iii. and iv, Papakyrillou, directed to a hydrophobic filter, teaches (iii) a filter formed of hydrophone cellulosic material, such as paper, having a width of about 100mm to 250 mm [0026]. Papakyrillou discloses a value with significant overlap of the value in the claimed invention, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. (iv) The thickness of a sheet of cellulosic material may be in a range from about 30 to 50 micrometers [0030]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the width and thickness of the paper of Han based on the ranges of Papakyrillou to improve the draw resistance of the filter [0026].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first filter segment of modified Han by including wherein
the first filter segment includes a paper material whose paper width is in a range of 120 mm to 150 mm and wherein the thickness of the paper material is in a range of about 30 µm to 50 µm because both Han and Papakyrillou are directed to filter elements in cigarettes. Papakyrillou teaches a filter formed of paper material where the width is 100 mm to 250 mm and the thickness is 30 to 50 micrometers to improve the draw resistance of the filter [0026] and this merely involves applying known paper dimensions to a known filter ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regards to v., Jin, directed to abnormally shaped tobacco granules, teaches tobacco granules with a bulk density of 0.2 g/cm3– 0.8 g/cm3 [0023]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the density of Jin to meet the range of the claimed invention to help ensure that the cigarette has suitable smoking resistance and smooth smoking capabilities [0024]. Jin discloses a value with significant overlap of the value in the claimed invention, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. Additionally, an assertion of unexpected results does not rebut the presumption of obviousness established by overlapping ranges without comparative data (MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the density of the tobacco granules of modified Han to wherein a density of the tobacco granules is in a range of 0.5 g/cm¬3 to 1.2 g/cm3 because both Han and Jin are directed to cigarettes using tobacco granules to provide a smooth smoke output for a user. Jin teaches tobacco granules with a bulk density of 0.2 g/cm3– 0.8 g/cm3 to help ensure that the cigarette has suitable smoking resistance and smooth smoking capabilities [0024] and this merely involves applying a known density range to tobacco granules of a known cigarette ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regards to vi., Grant, directed to an inhaler with a swirl end plug, teaches a capsule cavity, that upon rotation, may suspend, similar to the vortex, and aerosolize nicotine particles to flow through the inhalation air [0012]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the suspension of particles would need to be influenced by inhalation from the user, during a puff, because inhalation provides the airflow and pressure difference necessary to move and distribute the particles within the medium, meeting the claim limitation of wherein the tobacco granules are filled in such a manner that a vortex is generated in the cavity segment during a puff, allowing the tobacco granules to move and mix with each other due to the vortex
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cavity segment of modified Han to wherein the tobacco granules are filled in such a manner that a vortex is generated in the cavity segment during a puff, allowing the tobacco granules to move and mix with each other due to the vortex because both Han and Grant are directed to rod shaped smoking articles using particles to generate aerosol. Grant teaches wherein rotation of a capsule cavity causes a suspension of particles and aerosolization to transport nicotine and flavoring to a user and this merely involves applying a known suspending technique to the granules of a similar aerosol generating smoking article ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (WO 2018182322 A1), Buchmann (US 20190059443 A1), Hiroyuki (KR 20160122815 A, hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation), Papakyrillou (US 20170360087 A1), Jin (WO 2020168476 A1, hereinafter citations referring to English language equivalent US 20220053813 A1), and Grant (US 20190307976 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Assmann (CN 101128130, hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation).
With regard to Claim 5, modified Han teaches all of the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Han is silent to:
Wherein a diameter of the tobacco granules is in a range of 0.3 mm to 1.2 mm
Assmann, directed to a smoking article with tobacco beads, teaches tobacco bead spheres with a preferable diameter of about 0.2 mm to 1.2 mm [0067] to achieve a desired flavor in cigarette smoke [0061]. Assmann discloses a range with a significant amount of overlap of the range 0.3 mm to 1.2 mm in the claimed invention and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tobacco granule diameter of modified Han, by including, a diameter of the tobacco granules in a range of 0.3 mm to 1.2 mm because both Han and Assmann are directed to aerosol generating devices using tobacco granules to generate aerosol. Assmann teaches a tobacco bead density of 0.2 to 1.2 mm to create beads with good hardness and abrasion resistance [0088] and this merely involves the use of a known diameter measurement to improve a tobacco granules of a similar smoking device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Han (WO 2018182322 A1), Buchmann (US 20190059443 A1), Hiroyuki (KR 20160122815 A, hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation), Papakyrillou (US 20170360087 A1), Jin (WO 2020168476 A1, hereinafter citations referring to English language equivalent US 20220053813 A1), and Grant (US 20190307976 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haruki (WO 2020194688 A1, hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation).
With regard to Claim 6, modified Han teaches all of the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Han is silent to:
Wherein a filling rate of the tobacco granules in the cavity segment is about 80 vol% or lower
Haruki, directed to a heat-not-burn tobacco device, teaches wherein a volumetric filing rate of the tobacco strands occupying a tobacco rod may be 50 vol% or more and 80vol% or less [0080]. Haruki discloses a range with a significant amount of overlap of the range of 80vol% or less in the claimed invention and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filling rate of modified Han, by including, a filling rate of
the tobacco granules in the cavity segment of about 80 vol% or lower because both Han and Haruki are
directed to smoking devices using tobacco. Haruki teaches a volumetric filling rate of 80 vol% of less to
keep a controlled airflow through a tobacco rod [0057] and this merely involves applying a known filling rate to a similar smoking device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (WO 2018182322 A1), Buchmann (US 20190059443 A1), Hiroyuki (KR 20160122815 A, hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation), Papakyrillou (US 20170360087 A1), Jin (WO 2020168476 A1, hereinafter citations referring to English language equivalent US 20220053813 A1), and Grant (US 20190307976 A1), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Prestia (US 20180310607 A).
PNG
media_image3.png
86
334
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 10, Han teaches a filter rod with a mouth end (Fig. 1: #11) and all of the limitations in the claims as set forth above, however, Han is silent to:
Wherein the filter rod includes a cooling segment
Prestia, directed to tobacco rods, teaches a tobacco segment with a filter plug which comprises further segments. These further segments can include an aerosol cooling segment [0039], meeting the claim limitation of wherein the filter rod includes a cooling segment.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter rod of Han by including a cooling segment because both Han and Prestia are directed to aerosol generating articles with segments containing tobacco. Prestia teaches an aerosol cooling segment to cool down tobacco and this merely involves applying a known cooling segment technique to a similar rod ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWATOSIN O DIYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 am - 6 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, 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.
/O.O.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights