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 .
Examiner Comment
This Non-Final is in response to an inadvertent mistake in the previous Non-Final dated 11/19/2025. Prior art reference Ito (US4915117A) was referenced in the last prior art rejection, but was not cited in the rejection heading or PTO-892. The rejection and the PTO-892 are updated to correct the missing reference. This action restarts the period to reply from the mailing date of this communication.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 2025/10/28 is acknowledged.
Applicant argues that there is no search burden between Groups I (claims 1-7), II (claims 8-9), and III (claims 10-11). Groups I-III share a common inventive concept of an aerosol generating article that is comprised of a rod of aerosol generating material, a filter attached to the rod, a paper wrapper, and a non-ignitable insulation at the end opposite the filter which the prior art teaches. Therefore, the groups share a technical features but it is not “special” over the prior art. Restriction under 371 is not based on search burden but on unity of invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 1: “aerosol generating material” should read “aerosol generating article”.
Claim 12, line 1: “aerosol generating material” should read “aerosol generating article”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung, et al (WO2020101198A1, hereinafter referring to the English machine translation provided) and further in view of Mironov (US20160174609A1), Ito (US4915117A) and Kwon, et al (WO2020130752A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches a cigarette for a heat not burn device may be similar to a general combustive cigarette and may be divided into a first portion including an aerosol generating material and a second portion including a filter. [0052] The filter is attached to the proximal end of the tobacco rod. (Fig 4 and 5) The aerosol generating article (tobacco rod) that is comprised of an aerosol generating material [0060] The cigarette is wrapped in a outer wrapper that covers the entirety of the article. [0059] Jung discloses that the rod may be doubly wrapped by two or more wrappers and that the inner wrappers can wrap portions of the articles. ([0059], Figure 4)
Jung is silent with respect to the use of a non-ignitable insulation provided at the second end of the rod and that the insulation would allow for the transmission of microwave radiation.
Mironov, directed to the design of smoking articles, teaches that a smoking article that includes a non-combustible substantially air impermeable barrier (Abstract) Mironov teaches the barrier may be formed from one or more suitable materials that are substantially thermally stable and non-combustible at temperatures achieved by the non-blind combustible heat source during ignition and combustion. Suitable materials are known in the art and include, but are not limited to, for example: clays; metal oxides, such as iron oxide, alumina, titania, silica, silica-alumina, zirconia and ceria; zeolites; zirconium phosphate; and other ceramic materials or combinations thereof. [0108] [0124] The art also teaches that ceramic materials can be used as suitable heat insulative materials. [0047]
Mironov further teaches that the insulating sheet can be wrapped by an outer wrapper made of cigarette paper. [0023]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jung by using an ceramic paper material for the insulating portion as taught by Mironov because both Jung and Mironov are directed to smoking articles, Mironov teaches ceramic paper helps to avoid or reduce thermal degradation or combustion of the aerosol-forming substrate during use of the smoking article. [0116], and this involves the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Jung and Mironov are do not specifically teach that the inner barrier is a paper material.
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 Jung, Mironov, and Kwon by using an ceramic sheet with the thickness as taught by Ito because Jung, Mironov, 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.
Jung, Mironov, and Ito are silent with respect to an insulating material that would be specifically used with microwave 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 Jung 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 Mironov would allow for radiation such as microwave radiation to pass through because Jung, Mironov, 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], Mironov 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 2, Jung, as modified by Mironov and Ito, teaches that the aerosol generating rod is encircled by an inner wrapper made of an insulating ceramic sheet. Jung teaches that the aerosol generating article can be designed similarly to a combustion cigarette [0052] which a person having ordinary skill would recognize as being wrapped in a wrapper. As discussed in claim 1, Ito teaches that a wrapper can be a paper material made primarily of ceramic material. (Abstract; cl 3 ln 64-65)
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 Jung, Mironov, and Kwon by using an ceramic sheet with the thickness as taught by Ito because Jung, Mironov, 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 4, as discussed in claim 1, a modified Jung teaches that the inner wrapper is made of an insulating ceramic material that is wrapped around the rod of aerosol generating material and the outer wrapper is wrapped around the aerosol generating material and the inner wrapper.[0059]
Regarding claim 5, as discussed in claim 1, Kwon teaches the use of a ceramic insulating ring. [0039] This is considered to read on the limitation of the hollow ceramic cylinder.
Regarding claim 6, Jung teaches that the first wrapper can have a length of 7mm (0.7 cm). [0066]
Regarding claim 7, a modified Jung teaches that the aerosol generating portion of the cigarette is made up of a tobacco rod and that the rod is wrapped in an outer wrapper. [0059]
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) 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 Jung, Mironov, and Kwon by using an ceramic sheet with the thickness as taught by Ito because Jung, Mironov, 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.
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
Prosecution Insights