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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/11/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, and 7-25 are pending. Claims 4 and 11 are amended. Claims 5, 13-19, and 24-25 are withdrawn. Claim 6 is cancelled. The remaining claims are previously presented.
Response to Amendment
The Amendments to the claims are entered. The amendments claims 4 and 11 overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejections for indefiniteness, and thus these rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that there is a difference in location and function for the respective functions of the segments in Ferrie and Lisan. Yet Lisan claims that the filter or a filter element according to the invention may be joined to a wrapped tobacco rod with one end of the filter towards the tobacco. Ferrie discloses every aspect of the invention of claim 1, including the positioning of the segment and bore diameter, the composition comprising fibrous material, and the cooling effect of the segment, but does not disclose the density of the fibrous material. Lisan teaches a hollow bore segment attached joined to a wrapped tobacco rod with one end of the filter towards the tobacco, ([0052]), where the position of the filter may be joined adjacent to the end of the tobacco rod. The bore diameter is consistent with that of Ferrie (diameter 2.8-3.0 mm), ([0015]). The material of which it is made is cellulose acetate, ([0008]), again consistent with that of Ferrie. The tobacco smoke filtering material configured a cylindrical channel having a diameter of 2.8-3.0 mm was found to have a surprisingly additional filtering effect with filters according to the invention of Lisan. Because the filter segment of Lisan comprises all of the attributes of the cooling section of Ferrie, it too is considered to provide a cooling effect. Because the inventor’s of Lisan disclose that the filter segment possesses superior filtration effect, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the cooling section of Ferrie to further have the cellulose acetate density and bore diameter of Lisan. The arguments regarding the location of Lisan’s filter are not persuasive, since the location of the filter of Lisan is not part of the modification of Ferrie, and while generally the filter element is disclosed as being located so it is visible at the mouth end, ([0051]), such orientation is not required. Based on the disclosure of Lisan there is no inconsistency with using the tobacco smoke filtering material of Lisan in the cooling section location of Ferrie. Applicant arguments in this regard are not persuasive.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 9-10, 20, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrie et al. (WO 2020/089056 A1), and further in view of Lisan et al. (US 2016/0106147 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ferrie discloses an article for use in a non-combustible aerosol provision system, ([pg 3 lines 18-19]), the article comprising an aerosol-generating section, ([pg 3 lines 20-22]), comprising a plurality of strands and/or strips of aerosol- generating material, ([pg 4 line 3], [pg 4 line 19], [pg 4 lines 25-29]), said aerosol-generating section being circumscribed by a moisture impermeable wrapper, ([pg 7 lines 24-25]); and a cooling section directly adjacent to said aerosol-generating section, the cooling section comprising a hollow channel having an internal diameter of between about 1 mm and about 4 mm, ([pg 9 line 5], [pg 9 lines16-18]). Ferrie further discloses the cooling section comprises fibrous tow, which may be cellulose acetate ([pg 9 lines 7-8],[pg 12 lines 17-19]). While the cellulose acetate forming the cooling section must have some density inherently, Ferrie does not disclose a particular density or range of densities of the cellulose acetate used in the cooling section.
Lisan teaches smoke filters and filter elements, ([0001]), and is thus within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Lisan teaches a filter element comprising a channel, a bore, ([0007]), where the filtering material is preferably cellulose acetate tow and where the cellulose acetate wall density is in the range of 0.25 and 0.41 g/cc, ([0008]), where the bore diameter is 2.8-3.0 mm, ([0015]), and where the composition and structure of such a filter element has a surprising additional filtering effect, ([0016]), and where the filter may be joined to a wrapped tobacco rod where one end of the filter is towards the tobacco, ([0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ferrie according to the teachings of Lisan, and used the cellulose acetate wall density in the range of 0.25-0.41 g/cc, with a bore diameter of between 2.8 mm-3.0 mm, because Lisan teaches that such a configuration will unexpectedly improve the smoke filtration of the cooling segment. The bore diameter and material of construction taught by Lisan are consistent with those disclosed by Ferrie. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the process parameters from Lisan in manufacturing the article of Ferrie, because the materials of construction and dimensions of the cooling elements are similar, ([0015]-[-0016]), and have been motivated to do so because of the unexpected additional filtration provided by the tighter specifications taught by Lisan.
Regarding claim 3, modified Ferrie discloses the article of claim 1. Ferrie further discloses that the moisture impermeable wrapper comprises a metallic layer, and wherein the metallic layer is formed from aluminum, ([pg 7 lines 24-25], [pg 8 lines 11-12]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ferrie discloses the article of claim 1. Ferrie further discloses the aerosol generating section has a length of around 12 or 13 mm, ([pg 6 lines 22-23]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ferrie discloses the article of claim 1. Ferrie further discloses the aerosol generating substrate comprises a reconstituted tobacco material, ([pg 4 lines 25-27]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ferrie discloses the article of claim 1. Ferrie further discloses the reconstituted tobacco material comprises additives including humectants which are provided as vapor generators, suggesting that glycerol is a suitable humectant, and suggesting a preferred range of 1 to 40%, ([pg 5 lines 11-21]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected glycerol as the humectant in a range of 10-25% because Ferrie suggests including a humectant, suggests glycerol as a suitable humectant, and the range 10-25% falls within the range suggested by Ferrie.
Regarding claim 20, modified Ferrie discloses the article of claim 1. Ferrie further discloses the aerosol generating substrate comprises gathered strips formed from a homogenized tobacco sheet (reconstituted tobacco), ([pg 4 lines 28-29]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Ferrie discloses the article of claim 1. Although Ferrie discloses that the aerosol cooling element may be formed of a crimped sheet, Ferrie does not disclose that the aerosol generating material is crimped, reasonably suggesting that it is uncrimped.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrie et al. (WO 2020/089056 A1) in view of Lisan et al. (US 2016/0106147 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gage et al. (US 2020/0128880 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ferrie discloses the article of claim 1. Ferrie further discloses the moisture impermeable wrapper comprises a metallic layer, and wherein the metallic layer is formed from aluminum, ([pg 7 lines 24-25], [pg 8 lines 11-12]). Ferrie does not disclose the basis weight of the wrapper.
Gage teaches a smoking article configured to generate an aerosol in response to heat, ([0008]). Gage teaches using a wrapping material that includes heat conductive properties for conducting heat to and maintaining the heat interaction with the aerosol generating material, ([0069]), further suggesting that a paper foil bi-laminate wrapper, with aluminum may be used with a basis weight of between 60 gsm and 100 gsm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ferrie to have a moisture impermeable wrapper with a gsm in the range taught by Gage. Both wrappers have a similar construction, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success using a wrapper of the basis weight taught by Gage, given that Ferrie is silent on what basis weight to use for the wrapper, which reasonably suggests that any basis weight from a similar wrapper would work.
Claim(s) 8, 11, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrie et al. (WO 2020/089056 A1) in view of Lisan et al. (US 2016/0106147 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deforel et al. (WO 2020/074535 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ferrie discloses the article of claim 1. Although Ferrie further discloses the aerosol generating substrate comprises gathered strips formed from a homogenized tobacco sheet (reconstituted tobacco), ([pg 4 lines 28-29]), Ferrie does not explicitly disclose that the strips are aligned in the longitudinal direction of the aerosol generating section, not that the strips extend along substantially the full length of the aerosol generating section in the longitudinal direction.
Deforel teaches a similar article, ([pg 1 lines 2-5]; Fig 3) comprising homogenized plant material ([pg 8 lines 10-13]), and an aerosol former content between 10-25%, ([pg 9 lines 25-27]). Deforel also teaches that the homogenized plant material may be provided in the form of shreds, strands, or strips, ([pg 11 lines 34-35]). Deforel teaches that “[t]he plurality of strands extend substantially longitudinally along the length of the aerosol generating substrate, aligned with the longitudinal axis. Preferably, the plurality of strands are therefore aligned substantially parallel to each other. This provides a relatively uniform, regular structure which facilitates the insertion of an internal heater element into the aerosol generating substrate and optimizes the efficiency of heating.” ([pg 12 lines 24-28]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ferrie according to the teachings of Deforel, to have provided the strips of Ferrie in a longitudinally extending direction across the full length of the aerosol generating section, to have provided a uniform regular structure to optimize the efficiency of heating, as taught by Deforel.
Regarding claim 11, modified Ferrie discloses the article of claim 1. Ferrie further discloses the aerosol generating section has a length of around 12 or 13 mm, ([pg 6 lines 22-23]).
Deforel discloses that the length of the shreds, strands, or strips may be determined by the manufacturing process whereby a rod is cut into shorter plugs and the length of the shreds, strands, or strips, correspond to the length of the plug.
Regarding claim 21, modified Ferrie discloses the article of claim 1. Ferrie further discloses the aerosol generating material may comprise homogenized tobacco, with a grammage greater than or equal to 100 g/m2, ([pg 4 lines 28-31]), and a grammage less than or equal to 250 g/m2, ([pg 5 line 1]). Ferrie further discloses that the aerosol forming material may comprise aerosol formers, fillers, and binders, ([pg 5 lines 9-10]). Ferrie does not disclose the thickness of the sheet.
Deforel teaches a similar sheet areal density range, with a grammage of between 100-300 g/m2, ([pg 10 lines 9-10]). Deforel that the thickness of the sheet may be in a range of 100-600µm, preferably between 150-300 µm, and most preferably between 200-250 µm, ([pg 10 lines 1-3]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Ferrie according to the teachings of Deforel. Ferrie discloses an aerosol generating material in the form of a similar reconstituted tobacco sheet, but does not disclose what thickness to used, and given the similarity of the sheets, Deforel reasonably suggests that a thickness of at least 100 µm would work as a thickness for modified Ferrie.
Regarding claim 22, modified Ferrie discloses the article of claim 21. Ferrie further discloses that the sheet may comprise a filler, ([pg 5 lines 9-10]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrie et al. (WO 2020/089056 A1) in view of Lisan et al. (US 2016/0106147 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Conner et al. (WO 2011/139730 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Ferrie discloses the article of claim 1. Ferrie discloses does not disclose the packing density of the aerosol generating material.
Conner teaches a rod shaped smoking article, ([0006]), with a heat generating element and an aerosol generating segment located downstream from the heat generating element, ([0006]). Conner teaches the aerosol generating material filled into the aerosol generating segment at a packing density of about 100 to 400 mg/cm3.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have filled the aerosol generating segment with the aerosol generating material of Ferrie, according to the packing density taught by Conner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using the packing density of Conner as a reasonable starting point for packing the aerosol generating segment of Ferrie, and because the taught range includes the end point of the claimed range, the claimed range is rendered obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL E VAKILI whose telephone number is (571)272-5171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 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 at (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.
/DANIEL EDWARD VAKILI/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
