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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 18 August 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending and subject to this office action. Claims 8-11 have been withdrawn. Claims 1, 13 and 18 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6-8, filed 10 March 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 1 and 13 have been added. The new limitations presented in these claims overcomes the prior art of record. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of previously applied prior art and newly found prior art.
The applicant amended claim 1 to further clarify the claimed invention to require the non-ignitable insulation extend from the second end of the rod extending only a length of the article and that the insulation is located between the aerosol generating material and the paper wrapper
The applicant amended claim 13 to further clarify the claimed invention to require the non-ignitable insulation extend from the second end of the rod extending only a length of the article
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 18 under 35 USC §112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 18 has been amended to change dependency from claim 2 to claim 13. The antecedent basis rejection has been overcome by the amendment; as such the rejection has been withdrawn.
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, 4-5, 7, 13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US5611360) and further in view of Kwon, et al (WO2020130752A1).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 13, Tang teaches a smoking article comprised of a core of aerosol generating material circumscribed by a porous ceramic insulator tube. (Abstract) The smoking article is further comprised of a cigarette wrapping paper that is wrapped around the outside of the article (cl2 ln 65) and a filter attached to the distal end of the smoking section. (cl3 ln 3-6) Tang discloses that the ceramic tube only extends over the smoking portion (aerosol generating material portion) of the article and does not extend into the filter section. (Fig 2 and 3, annotated figure 1 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
663
854
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1.
Tang teaches the ceramic insulator tube may be made from a selection of materials such as alumina silicate. (cl3 ln 58) A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that alumina silicate would be non-flammable. However, the art further teaches that the ceramic portion may also be treated with flame retardants. (cl3 ln 62)
Tang is silent with respect to the ceramic material being useable with microwave transmission radiation for heating.
Kwon, directed to the design of aerosol generating devices, teaches an insulating ring/ tube that is made from a ceramic material or other filler material having low thermal conductivity between the electromagnetic coil and an inner susceptor. ([0039], [0092]) The prior art teaches that the use of these materials allow for the radiation to pass through the tube/filler material to generate heat while preventing the heat generated in the article from being transferred back to the element producing the radiation. [0088]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Tang by using a ceramic or other filler material for the insulating portion as taught by Kwon suitable for radiation or recognize that the ceramic of Tang would allow for radiation such as microwave radiation to pass through because both Tang and Kwon are directed to smoking articles, Kwon teaches the use of these materials allows the transmission of radiation while preventing the heat generated in the aerosol generating article from being transferred back to the radiation source [0088], Tang teaches similar materials such as ceramics, and this involves the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and recognizing a latent property of materials already disclosed to be suitable for insulation.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed in claim 1, Tang teaches that the length of the aerosol generating material is circumscribed by the ceramic insulation material and that the outer layer is cigarette paper which includes the proximal, second end, of the rod. (cl2-3 ln 65-2)
Regarding claim 5, Tang teaches the ceramic insulation is a tube, considered a cylinder, that extends from the distal end, second end, of the article down the entire length of the smoking section. (cl2-3 ln 65-2)
Regarding claim 7, Tang teaches that the aerosol generating material is a tobacco mixture and the outer wrapping paper is conventional cigarette paper. (cl2 ln 60-61)
Regarding claim 17, Tang teaches that the aerosol generating material is a tobacco mixture and the outer wrapping paper is conventional cigarette paper. (cl2 ln 60-61)
Regarding claim 18, Tang teaches the ceramic insulation is a tube, considered a cylinder, that extends from the distal end, second end, of the article down the entire length of the smoking section and is circumscribed by cigarette paper. (cl2-3 ln 65-2)
Claims 2-3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US5611360) and Kwon, et al (WO2020130752A1), as applied to claim 1 and 13, and further in view of Ito (US4915117A).
Regarding claim 2, Tang teaches the ceramic component extends to the distal end of the article and is in the form of a tube but fails to disclose the materials comprising the tube.
Ito, directed to cigarettes, teaches a thin sheet formed of a ceramic sheet used to hold the tobacco that can be used at high temperatures. (Abstract)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Tang and Kwon by using a ceramic sheet to for the tubular element as taught by Ito because Tang, Kwon, and Ito are directed to smoking articles, Ito teaches the ceramic sheet does not produce harmful organic substances with the heat of smoking (cl 2-3 ln 68-2), and this involves the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 3, Ito teaches that the ceramic sheet can have a thickness of about 30-300 micrometers (0.03mm – 0.3mm). (cl 4 ln 17-19) The claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Tang and Kwon by using a ceramic sheet with the thickness as taught by Ito because Tang, Kwon, and Ito are directed to smoking articles, Ito teaches this thickness is practical for the requirement for a thin sheet (cl 4 ln 17-19) made completely from ceramic material (cl 3 ln 64-65), and this involves the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 12, Ito teaches that the ceramic sheet can have a thickness of about 30-300 micrometers (0.03mm – 0.3mm). (cl 4 ln 17-19) A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the cylinder, if made from the ceramic paper of It, would have a radial thickness that would be the same thickness as the paper. Thus, the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Tang and Kwon by using a ceramic sheet with the thickness as taught by Ito because Tang, Kwon, and Ito are directed to smoking articles, Ito teaches this thickness is practical for the requirement for a thin sheet (cl 4 ln 17-19) made completely from ceramic material (cl 3 ln 64-65), and this involves the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 16, Ito teaches that the ceramic sheet can have a thickness of about 30-300 micrometers (0.03mm – 0.3mm). (cl 4 ln 17-19) The claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Tang and Kwon by using a ceramic sheet with the thickness as taught by Ito because Tang, Kwon, and Ito are directed to smoking articles, Ito teaches this thickness is practical for the requirement for a thin sheet (cl 4 ln 17-19) made completely from ceramic material (cl 3 ln 64-65), and this involves the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claims 6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US5611360) and Kwon, et al (WO2020130752A1), as applied to claim 1 and 13, and further in view of Llewellyn Crooks, et al (US20070215167A1).
Regarding claim 6, Tang and Kwon are silent with respect to the ceramic material extending down a specific length of the rod.
Llewellyn Crooks, directed to smoking articles, teaches the aerosol generating article can comprise an insulation material that extends around the distal end of the substrate material. [0020] that the insulation can extend up the aerosol generating rod 0.5mm to 2mm. [0020] This range, as taught by Llewellyn Crooks, overlaps the range of the instant claim, and therefore the instant claim is prima facie obvious. See MPEPE 2144.05.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Tang and Kwon by using a ceramic sheet with a length as taught by Llewellyn Crooks because Tang, Kwon, and Llewellyn Crooks are directed to smoking articles, Llewellyn Crooks teaches the wrapping material, which would include the insulation extending along the aerosol generating rod, would aid in the transfer of heat down the article [0028], and this involves the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Tang and Kwon are silent with respect to the ceramic material extending down a specific length of the rod.
Llewellyn Crooks, directed to smoking articles, teaches the aerosol generating article can comprise an insulation material that extends around the distal end of the substrate material. [0020] that the insulation can extend up the aerosol generating rod 0.5mm to 2mm. [0020] This range, as taught by Llewellyn Crooks, overlaps the range of the instant claim, and therefore the instant claim is prima facie obvious. See MPEPE 2144.05.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Tang and Kwon by using a ceramic sheet with a length as taught by Llewellyn Crooks because Tang, Kwon, and Llewellyn Crooks are directed to smoking articles, Llewellyn Crooks teaches the wrapping material, which would include the insulation extending along the aerosol generating rod, would aid in the transfer of heat down the article [0028], and this involves the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRGINIA R BIEGER whose telephone number is (703)756-1014. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7:30-4:30.
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, Phillip 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.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
