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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05 January 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 05 January 2026:
Claims 1-32 and 34-39 are pending
Claims 19-32 are withdrawn
Claim 33 is cancelled
Claims 36-39 are new
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to the claims filed 05 January 2026 have been acknowledged. The rejection to Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn due to amendments of the claim. However, Examiner notes that the amendments introduce new issues that will be addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pages 8-9 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant has amended Claim 1 to further recite “such that the sheet material compressively clamps the capsule”. Applicant argues that the amendment addresses the indefiniteness of the term “gripping” while also noting that Ormaza does not disclose a mechanical clamping relationship as now required in amended Claim 1.
Regarding the indefiniteness of the term “gripping”, Examiner agrees with the Applicant that the newly amended Claim 1 addresses and further defines the term of “gripping” by further defining it as having a compressively clamping force. However, it should be noted that Applicant’s disclosure fails to explicitly or distinctively claim the clamping mechanical force.
Applicant’s specification makes no mention of the sheet “compressively clamp[ing]” on the capsule. In particular, Paragraph [0248] merely mentions that the sheet may be compressed when rolled by a user to cause rupturing of the capsule but does not describe any kind of compressive clamping force caused by the sheet itself for retainment purposes; whereas the other paragraphs Applicant refers to only broadly mentions retaining the capsule in a space arranged in the sheet, or insertion of the capsule by compressed gas without any actual mention of the sheet itself inducing a compressing clamping force. Furthermore, Applicant’s drawings fail to distinctively illustrate the sheet or its adjacent portion providing a compressive clamping force on the capsule. Thus, Applicant’s amendments do not meet the written description requirement outlined in 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Regarding Ormaza not disclosing the mechanical compressive clamping force now recited in amended Claim 1, Examiner has further reviewed and determined that while Ormaza does not explicitly state a compressive clamping force, said clamping force can be considered an inherent functional characteristic of Ormaza’s sheet’s adjacent portions, and the Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112.01.I).
In this case, Ormaza discloses that the adjacent portions formed by the corrugated section 24 are capable of retaining (i.e., holding) onto the capsule (42) when the rolled tip (20) is crushed (see Figs. 1-2, 6-7; Col. 5, Lines 10-19). One ordinarily skilled in the art would reasonably interpret crushing the rolled tip means applying a compressive force on said tip and its adjacent corrugated portions. As such, it is implied that that the portions of the sheet material that form the rolled tip and corrugated portions functionally has the capability of applying a compressive force on the capsule for securement/retainment. Therefore, Ormaza is considered to disclose all of the subject matter recited in amended Claim 1.
On Pages 9-10 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that there is no motivation to modify Ormaza with Carpenter’s disclosure regarding application of an external user force on a plurality of particles because Carpenter will not solve Ormaza’s deficiency in regards to the compressive clamping force applied by a sheet on a capsule. Thus, an obvious modification would not be appropriate as it will not address all elements of the invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, reiterating previous statements above that upon further review and consideration, Examiner maintains that Ormaza’s disclosure would still apply to and address all limitations recited in amended Claim 1 (see above).
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-18 and 34-39 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “the capsule is gripped by adjacent portions of the sheet material such that the capsule is held between the portions of the sheet material such that the sheet material compressively clamps the capsule”. However, Applicant’s specification makes no mention of sheet “compressively clamp[ing]” on the capsule, and Applicant’s drawings fail to distinctively illustrate the sheet or its adjacent portion providing a compressive clamping force on the capsule.
Because Applicant’s specifications and drawings fail to explicitly mention a force that “compressively clamps” or describe it in a manner that one ordinarily skilled in the art could reasonably conclude that the disclosure contains details regarding a compressively clamping force, Claim 1 is considered as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-18 and 34-39 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 14, 15, 18 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ormaza (Publication No. US11076632B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ormaza discloses a component (i.e., Joint/blunt tips) for a delivery system (i.e., a joint/blunt) comprising:
a sheet material (Tip sheet 22) that is arranged into a body of material (Tip assembly 20) (Figs. 1-2, 7; Col. 3, Lines 12-17, 28-35, 65-67; Tip assembly is a body comprising the sheet material, corrugated section 24, and cut portion 27);
at least one additive capsule (Flavor capsule 42) incorporated with the body (Col. 4, Lines 1-3, 21-24; capsule is inserted into the cut portion of the material body);
wherein the additive capsule is breakable upon the application of a force to the body by a user (Fig. 1, 7; Col. 4, Lines 21-24; capsule can be crushed; the capsule is inside the material body/tip assembly, implying that the crushing force is applied to the body by the user).
and wherein the capsule (42) is gripped (i.e., secured) by adjacent portions (i.e., corrugated paper section) of the sheet material such that the capsule is held between the portions of the sheet material (see annotated Figs. 3 and 7, Fig. 5; Col. 3, Lines 39-45; Col. 5, Lines 3-15; the corrugated section 24 secures/grips the capsule; the section is formed via creases in the paper which will form adjacent portions at the end of the cut-out).
PNG
media_image1.png
923
1089
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
795
1232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ormaza does not explicitly state that the capsule is held between the portions of the sheet material (22) such that the sheet material compressively clamps the capsule. However, it should be noted that the Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary (see MPEP § 2112.01.I).
In this case, Ormaza discloses that the adjacent portions formed by the corrugated section 24 are capable of retaining (i.e., holding) onto the capsule (42) when the rolled tip (20) is crushed (see Figs. 1-2, 6-7; Col. 5, Lines 10-19). One ordinarily skilled in the art would reasonably interpret crushing the rolled tip means applying a compressive force and said tip and its adjacent corrugated portions. As such, it is implied that that the portions of the sheet material that form the rolled tip and corrugated portions functionally has the capability of applying a compressive force on the capsule for securement/retainment.
Regarding Claim 2, Ormaza further discloses a plurality of additive capsules (42) incorporated with the body (20) (Fig. 8; Col. 2, Lines 57-60);
wherein the additive capsules are breakable upon the application of a force to the body by a user (Fig. 1, 7; Col. 4, Lines 21-24; capsule can be crushed; the capsule is inside the material body/tip assembly, implying that the crushing force is applied to the body by the user).
Regarding Claim 7, Ormaza further discloses that the sheet material (Tip sheet 22) comprises paper (Col. 3, Lines 12-17; tip sheet is made from stiff paper).
Regarding Claim 8, Ormaza further discloses the sheet material (22) is folded to form the body (Tip assembly 20) (Figs. 1, 3-4, 6-7; Col. 3, Lines 32-35, Lines 12-17; Col. 4, Lines 4-12; tip sheet forms a rolled body configuration for the tip assembly).
Regarding Claim 14, Ormaza further discloses the additive capsules (42) are retained within folds (Corrugated structure 24) of the sheet material (Fig. 6; Column 4, Lines 55-56; capsule is disclosed to be inserted/retained in the corrugated section that is illustrated to have creases/folds).
Regarding Claim 15, Ormaza further discloses the additive capsule (42) are nested (i.e., retained) in the body (20) between the corrugated structures (i.e., formations) formed from the corrugated section (24) of the sheet material (22) (Figs. 6-7; Col. 4, Lines 55-65).
Regarding Claim 18, Ormaza further discloses that the component (i.e., blunt tip) is a component for a combustible aerosol provision system (i.e., blunt/joint) (Col. 3, Lines 12-17; blunts/joints are considered a type of combustible aerosol provision system).
Furthermore, it should be noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating a device (i.e., component) does not differentiate said device from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim.
Ormaza discloses all structural limitations regarding the component as claimed by the applicant (see Claim 1 rejection). Since the Applicant and Ormaza’s components are structurally similar, they are considered indistinguishable from each other regardless of Applicant’s component’s intended use with a provision system.
Regarding Claim 35, Ormaza further discloses the corrugated section 24 (i.e., formations) comprise depressions or protuberances of the sheet material (see Figs. 6-7; the corrugated section is shown to be a folded section that form grooves and crease peaks that are equivalent to depressions and protuberances on the sheet when folded).
Regarding Claim 36, Ormaza further discloses the sheet material (22) comprises major faces, and wherein the capsule (42) is gripped by adjacent portions of at least one of or both of the major faces of the sheet material such that the capsule is held between the portions of the sheet material (see annotated Fig. 7; the flat faces which the arrows point at are considered equivalent to major faces; the capsule is shown to be held between the portions of the sheet material that form the insert cavity 27).
PNG
media_image2.png
795
1232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 37, Ormaza further discloses the capsule (42) is gripped in a radial direction of the component by adjacent portions of the sheet material (22) such that the capsule is held between the portions of the sheet material (see annotated Fig. 7 below and Fig. 8; the adjacent portions shown above and below the capsule are positioned in the radial direction of the sheet component when folded/rolled; when the adjacent portions are folded over, the capsule is held between the adjacent portions of the sheet by forming cut out portion 27 as shown in Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image2.png
795
1232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 38, Ormaza further discloses the capsule (42) is gripped by adjacent folds (24) of the sheet material (22) such that the capsule is held between the folds of the sheet material (22) (see Figs. 7, 9-11; note that each adjacent portion in annotated Fig. 7 below have folds; the capsule is held between the adjacent portion and subsequently the folds of said adjacent portion).
PNG
media_image2.png
795
1232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 39, Ormaza further discloses the sheet material (22) is crimped (see Figs. 7, 9-11; the corrugated section 24 of the sheet is folded into ridges which is considered equivalent to the sheet being crimped).
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 3, 5, 6, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ormaza (Publication No. US11076632B1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Carpenter (Publication No. US20110271968A1 cited in IDS dated 30 November 2022).
Regarding Claim 3, Ormaza does not disclose that the component further comprises a plurality of particles incorporated with the body, wherein the particles promote breaking of the capsules upon application of external force to the body by a user.
However, Carpenter, directed to a modifiable cigarette, discloses a filter cavity (i.e., body) that contains/incorporates flavor/additive capsules and particles that assist in rupturing said capsules via frictional contact [0045]. Carpenter further discloses a plurality of particles incorporated with the body, wherein the particles promote breaking of the additive capsule upon the application of said external force to the body by a user ([0045]; discloses the plural word “particles” which implies there are more than one particle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the component disclosed by Ormaza to add/incorporate a plurality of particles in the body/cavity as disclosed by Carpenter, as both are directed to a cigarette/smoking article paper material, where Carpenter teaches the advantage of adding particles with the capsules to that assist in rupturing said capsules via frictional contact [0045].
Regarding Claim 5, Carpenter further discloses the particle(s) comprise of polymeric material ([0045]; discloses polyethylene and polypropylene beads which are polymers)
Regarding Claim 6, Carpenter further discloses the particle(s) comprise of cellulose acetate ([0045]; discloses cellulose acetate tow beads).
Regarding Claim 13, Ormaza discloses that the additive capsules (42) are inserted in the sheet material (22) in the corrugated section (Fig. 6; Column 4, Lines 55-56). Ormaza does not explicitly disclose that the additive capsules are attached to the sheet material.
However, Carpenter, directed to a modifiable cigarette, discloses that a flavorant can be incorporated into a paper wrapping material (i.e., sheet material) by imbedding flavorant particles into the paper wrapping material with adhesives commonly used with cigarette wrapping materials to enhance the sensory characteristics of the smoking article [0072-0073].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the sheet material disclosed by Ormaza to attach flavorant capsules and/or particles using adhesives as disclosed by Carpenter, as both are directed to a cigarette/smoking article paper material, where Carpenter teaches the advantage of attaching flavorant/additive particles to enhance the sensory characteristics of the smoking article [0072].
Regarding Claim 16, Carpenter further discloses that the particle(s) can vary in shape, wherein representative shapes can include spherical, prismic, or the like; the particles can also be irregular in shape, size and surface features, to facilitate capsule rupture [0045]. Carpenter does not specifically disclose that the particles are cylindrical in shape.
However, Carpenter does disclose that the particle can be in the form of pellets which one ordinarily skilled in the art would reasonably interpret to be cylindrical in shape.
Alternatively, it should be noted that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design (see MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B).
Carpenter discloses that the particle can vary in shape, size, and surface features to facilitate capsule rupturing [0045]. Carpenter also discloses that capsules are classified as a type of particle that can have various shapes such as being spherical, rectilinear, oblong, elliptical, or oval shapes ([0050, 0053]; cylindrical shapes can be considered a type of oblong/elliptical shape).
Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art would find it obvious to change the shape of the particle to any kind of regular or irregular elliptical/oblong shape such as a cylindrical shape, with a reasonable expectation that the cylindrical particle will be able to assist in capsule rupturing.
Regarding Claim 17, Carpenter further discloses the particle(s) is a bead (i.e., is spherical) which implies that the particle has a curved edge [0045].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ormaza (Publication No. US11076632B1) in view of Carpenter (Publication No. US20110271968A1 cited in IDS dated 30 November 2022) as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of Cospheric (“White Cellulose Acetate Polymer Spheres Density 1.3g/cc – 1mm to 12mm Diameter”, see attached copy).
Regarding Claim 4, Modified Ormaza further discloses the particle(s) comprise of cellulose acetate bead (Carpenter, [0045]). Modified Ormaza does not disclose the particle having a of at least 1 g/cc.
However, the prior art discloses several known densities for a cellulose acetate particle/bead. For example, the manufacturer Cospheric discloses precision spherical particle products such as a cellulose acetate plastic bead with a 1.3 g/cc density (Cospheric, “White Cellulose Acetate Polymer Spheres Density 1.3g/cc – 1mm to 12mm Diameter”, Pg. 3). The density of the bead product disclosed by Cospheric is more than the minimum density of 1 g/cc claimed by the Applicant, thus meeting the claim limitations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a cellulose acetate bead particle as disclosed by modified Ormaza, to have a density of 1.3 g/cc as disclosed by Cospheric, as both are directed to a cellulose acetate bead, where one ordinarily skilled in the art can apply the known teachings of a cellulose acetate bead density disclosed by Meyer to a similar acetate bead/particle disclosed by modified Ormaza to predictably result in a cellulose acetate bead particle capable of being used in a smoking article/system to help facilitate rupturing of capsules.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ormaza (Publication No. US11076632B1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Meyer et al (Publication No. US20070267034A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Ormaza does not disclose the tipping sheet material having a thickness of at least 30 micrometers.
However, the prior art discloses several known thickness dimensions for a tipping sheet material. For example, Meyer, directed to a smoking article, discloses a cigarette comprising of tipping paper which has a thickness of 46 micrometers [0052]. Meyer’s disclosed tipping paper thickness of 46 micrometers is more than the minimum thickness of 30 micrometers claimed by the Applicant, thus satisfying the claim limitation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the tipping sheet/paper disclosed by Ormaza to have a thickness of 46 micrometers as disclosed by Meyer, as both are directed to a tipping sheet material for smoking articles, where one ordinarily skilled in the art can apply the known teachings of a tipping paper thickness disclosed by Meyer to a similar tipping sheet material disclosed by Ormaza to predictably result in a blunt/cigarette tip component capable of being used with a cigarette/blunt.
Regarding Claim 10, Ormaza does not disclose the tipping sheet material having a thickness of less than 130 micrometers.
However, the prior art discloses several known thickness dimensions for a tipping sheet material. For example, Meyer, directed to a smoking article, discloses a cigarette comprising of tipping paper which has a thickness of 46 micrometers [0052]. Meyer’s disclosed tipping paper thickness of 46 micrometers is less than the maximum thickness of 130 micrometers claimed by the Applicant, thus satisfying the claim limitation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the tipping sheet/paper disclosed by Ormaza to have a thickness of 46 micrometers as disclosed by Meyer, as both are directed to a tipping sheet material for smoking articles, where one ordinarily skilled in the art can apply the known teachings of a tipping paper thickness disclosed by Meyer to a similar tipping sheet material disclosed by Ormaza to predictably result in a blunt/cigarette tip component capable of being used with a cigarette/blunt.
Regarding Claim 11, Ormaza does not disclose the tipping sheet material having a basis weight of at least 15 gsm.
However, the prior art discloses several known basis weights for a tipping sheet material. For example, Meyer, directed to a smoking article, discloses a cigarette comprising of tipping paper which has a grammage (i.e., basis weight) of 37 grams per meter squared (gsm) [0052]. Meyer’s disclosed tipping paper basis weight of 37 gsm is more than the minimum basis weight of 15 gsm claimed by the Applicant, thus satisfying the claim limitation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the tipping sheet/paper disclosed by Ormaza to have a paper basis weight of 37 gsm as disclosed by Meyer, as both are directed to a tipping sheet material for smoking articles, where one ordinarily skilled in the art can apply the known teachings of a tipping paper basis weight disclosed by Meyer to a similar tipping sheet material disclosed by Ormaza to predictably result in a blunt/cigarette tip component capable of being used with a cigarette/blunt.
Regarding Claim 12, Ormaza does not disclose the tipping sheet material having a basis weight of less than 100 gsm.
However, the prior art discloses several known basis weights for a tipping sheet material. For example, Meyer, directed to a smoking article, discloses a cigarette comprising of tipping paper which has a grammage (i.e., basis weight) of 37 grams per meter squared (gsm) [0052]. Meyer’s disclosed tipping paper basis weight of 37 gsm is more than the maximum basis weight of 100 gsm claimed by the Applicant, thus satisfying the claim limitation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the tipping sheet/paper disclosed by Ormaza to have a paper basis weight of 37 gsm as disclosed by Meyer, as both are directed to a tipping sheet material for smoking articles, where one ordinarily skilled in the art can apply the known teachings of a tipping paper basis weight disclosed by Meyer to a similar tipping sheet material disclosed by Ormaza to predictably result in a blunt/cigarette tip component capable of being used with a cigarette/blunt.
Claims 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ormaza (Publication No. US11076632B1) as applied to Claim 14 above, and further in view of Granberg et al (Publication No. US20180281341A1).
Regarding Claim 34, Ormaza does not disclose the folds comprise Miura folds.
However, it should be noted that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2143.F).
In this case, Granberg, directed to a fiber-containing sheet (i.e., paper material), discloses a Miura folding pattern for folding paper (i.e., corrugated paper) into a series of mountain and valley folds, which has the advantage being usable on a wide range of materials such as rigid (i.e., stiff) material while retaining a flat-folded shape that can be continuously opened [0060-0064].
Ormaza discloses that the folds (i.e., corrugated section) is formed on a stiff paper material (Col. 3, Lines 12-16). Furthermore, the corrugated section, as shown in Figures 6-7, show that corrugated section is formed through folding along crease lines that form a series of valley and mountain folds.
Since Ormaza’s corrugated section is on a foldable stiff paper material and Granberg discloses that Miura folding is usable on rigid (i.e., stiff) materials, one ordinarily skilled in the art would be motivated to apply Granberg’s teaching of Miura folds to Ormaza’s corrugated section to form folds on a stiff material while retaining a flat-folded shape that can be continuously opened [0060-0064].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the corrugated/folded section disclosed by Ormaza using Miura folds as disclosed by Granberg, to predictably result in a corrugated section comprising of Miura folds that are capable of retaining capsules
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Inagaki et al (Publication No. US20200107574A1) – Smoking article filter comprising a corrugated film with ridge/valley portion folds that define a path wherein particles are arranged within said paths.
P.H. Leake et al (Publication No. US3428049A) – Tobacco smoke filter comprising absorbent material and frangible capsules. The absorbent material can be slivers or crimped paper that is compressible to allow the contents of the capsule fill the void space left by the broken capsule.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vu P Pham whose telephone number is (703)756-4515. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (7:30AM-4:00PM 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.
/V.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights