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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/24/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the amendment.
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to include new limitations directed to the pattern including at least one reference unit proximal to the aerosol-generating substrate or proximal to a mouthpiece end of the consumable. As a result of the amendment, the prior rejection has been withdrawn and a new ground of rejection has been made. The present rejection is based on Moloney in view of Fernando, and relies on Fernando for the added reference-unit/location feature.
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments directed to the previous rejection do not overcome the present rejection because the present rejection is based on the amended claim language and a different combination of prior art.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Moloney et al. (US 2021/0015161) in view of Fernando et al. (US 2014/0196736).
Regarding claim 1, Moloney teaches:
a consumable (article 402) for use in an aerosol generation device (apparatus 100), comprising an aerosol-generating substrate (aerosolizable medium of article 402). Moloney ¶[0070].
a wrapper (outside of an article on which indicia is provided, e.g., indicia 126 on the outside of article 102, with Moloney further teaching article 402 having indicia 426). Moloney ¶[0043].
a pattern (indicia 426) representing an information code for storing information about the consumable (indicia 426 indicative of a parameter of article 402). Moloney ¶[0071].
the pattern disposed along a direction which corresponds to an insertion or removal direction of the consumable into or from the aerosol generation device (indicia 426 in the form of optical lines extending substantially along the longitudinal axis of article 402). Moloney ¶[0070].
wherein the pattern is repeated in a longitudinal direction of the consumable at least two times (indicia 426 including four marker elements in the form of lines with varied spacing along the longitudinal axis of article 402). Moloney ¶[0071].
wherein the entire information code of the pattern is readable during an insertion of the consumable into the aerosol generation device (article 402 may be inserted into apparatus 100 in any orientation, and apparatus 100 may make a full or partial rotation for all marker elements to be read by the sensor arrangement). Moloney ¶[0071].
Moloney does not clearly teach wherein the pattern includes at least one of a first reference unit proximal to the aerosol-generating substrate or a second reference unit proximal to a mouthpiece end of the consumable.
Fernando is in the same field of endeavor because Fernando teaches a smoking article including identification information encoded on the smoking article for use with an electrically heated smoking system having a detector for detecting and distinguishing the smoking article based on the identification information. Fernando ¶[0014].
Fernando teaches a compatible marker-line feature for an encoded article-identification pattern. In particular, Fernando teaches a reference unit included in the pattern (a marker line indicating to the detector where the encoding begins). Fernando ¶[0063]. Fernando also teaches locating the encoded line pattern away from the heating end/proximal to the mouthpiece end (generally circular lines 215 located as far from the heating end as possible so that the lines will not be damaged during the smoking experience). Fernando ¶[0062].
Moloney’s indicia 426 already uses an optical line-based marking arrangement on article 402, with marker elements in the form of lines and spacing along the longitudinal axis to indicate a parameter of the article. Fernando teaches a compatible implementation for the same type of article-identification marking by using a marker line to identify where the encoding begins and locating the encoded lines away from the heating end so that they will not be damaged during use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moloney’s pattern (indicia 426) on the consumable (article 402) to include Fernando’s marker line as an additional reference line within the encoded indicia pattern, and to locate the encoded line/marker-line pattern away from the heating end/proximal to the mouthpiece end, in order to provide a known start/reference marker for the encoded article-identification pattern while positioning the identification lines where they will not be damaged during the smoking experience.
Regarding claim 2, Moloney in view of Fernando hereinafter modified Moloney teaches wherein the consumable has a substantially cylindrical shape (article 102 may be a generally cylindrical rod). Moloney ¶[0029].
Regarding claim 3, modified Moloney teaches wherein the consumable has an elongated shape and the insertion or removal direction of the consumable into or from the aerosol generation device is substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the consumable (article 402 having a longitudinal axis and being insertable into apparatus 100, with indicia 426 extending substantially along the longitudinal axis of article 402). Moloney ¶[0070].
Regarding claim 4, modified Moloney teaches wherein the pattern is arranged on the wrapper in a manner that the pattern is readable in the direction which corresponds to the insertion or removal direction of the consumable into or from the aerosol generation device (indicia 426 in the form of optical lines extending substantially along the longitudinal axis of article 402, corresponding to the insertion/removal direction of the article). Moloney ¶[0070].
Regarding claim 8, modified Moloney teaches wherein the pattern includes an image, dots, lines, a barcode, or any combination thereof (indicia 126 may comprise optical features such as lines, gaps, notches, a barcode, QR code, or other coded/encoded information). Moloney ¶[0045].
Regarding claim 10, modified Moloney teaches wherein the first or second reference units are circumferentially repeated on the consumable (indicia 126 may extend all of the way around the perimeter of article 102, such that sensor arrangement 122 may sense indicia 126 irrespective of rotational orientation). Moloney ¶[0044].
Regarding claim 20, modified Moloney in view of Fernando teaches or suggests wherein the first reference unit indicates a start of the pattern and the second reference unit indicates an end of the pattern.
As discussed with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to modify Moloney’s pattern (indicia 426) on the consumable (article 402) to include Fernando’s marker line indicating where the encoding begins. The added marker line corresponds to a reference unit indicating the start of the pattern. Fernando ¶[0063].
Moloney further teaches that the pattern (indicia 426) includes four marker elements in the form of lines with varied spacing along the longitudinal axis of article 402, wherein the spacing may create a defined start and a defined end of the marker elements. The spacing-defined end/terminal marker arrangement corresponds to a reference unit indicating the end of the pattern. Moloney ¶[0071].
Therefore, the modified Moloney pattern includes a start reference unit provided by Fernando’s marker line and an end reference unit provided by Moloney’s spacing-defined end/terminal marker arrangement.
Claims 5, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Moloney et al. (US 2021/0015161) in view of Fernando et al. (US 2014/0196736), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rose et al. (US 2017/0135394).
Regarding claim 5, modified Moloney in view of Fernando teaches a consumable (article 402) having a pattern (modified indicia 426) representing an information code disposed on the wrapper, as discussed with respect to claim 1.
Modified Moloney does not clearly teach wherein the pattern is readable on at least two longitude regions in the longitudinal direction which are spaced from each other by at least 10° in the circumferential direction.
Rose is in the same field of endeavor because Rose teaches smoking articles having printed pattern elements applied to a wrapper of a tobacco rod. Rose teaches wherein pattern elements are provided on at least two longitude regions in the longitudinal direction which are spaced from each other in the circumferential direction (patch elements 126 applied to wrapper 123 of tobacco rod 122 in rows 131, wherein the rows extend longitudinally along the tobacco rod and are circumferentially offset from adjacent rows around the tobacco rod). Rose ¶[0032].
Modified Moloney already teaches that it is desirable for article indicia to be sensed irrespective of rotational orientation of the article. Moloney ¶[0044]. Rose teaches a known wrapper-pattern arrangement having longitudinal rows circumferentially offset around a smoking article. Rose ¶[0032].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the modified Moloney/Fernando information-code pattern on at least two longitudinal regions circumferentially spaced around the wrapper, as taught by Rose, in order to permit the pattern to be readable from different rotational orientations of the consumable.
Regarding claim 7, modified Moloney teaches wherein the pattern is repeated on different longitudinal positions (indicia 426 including four marker elements in the form of lines with varied spacing along the longitudinal axis of article 402). Moloney ¶[0071].
Regarding claim 11, modified Moloney teaches a consumable (article 402) having repeated patterns (modified indicia 426) extending in the longitudinal direction of the consumable, as discussed with respect to claim 1.
Modified Moloney does not clearly teach wherein the repeated patterns extend in the longitudinal direction of the consumable over a longitudinal dimension which represents at least 20% of the total longitudinal dimension of the consumable.
Rose teaches wherein the repeated patterns extend in the longitudinal direction of the consumable over a longitudinal dimension which represents at least 20% of the total longitudinal dimension of the consumable (rows 131 of patch elements 126 provided along tobacco rod 122, wherein each longitudinal pitch or period length of the rows is about 25% of the nominal length of the tobacco rod 122). Rose ¶[0106].
Modified Moloney already teaches optical line indicia 426 extending along the longitudinal axis of article 402 to indicate a parameter of the article. Moloney ¶[0070]. Rose teaches a known wrapper-pattern arrangement in which repeated pattern rows extend longitudinally over about 25% of the nominal length of a smoking article. Rose ¶[0106].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the modified Moloney/Fernando repeated information-code pattern to extend over at least 20% of the total longitudinal dimension of the consumable, as taught by Rose, in order to provide a known longitudinal extent for repeated wrapper pattern elements on a smoking article.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights