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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending and subject to this office action. Claims 8-11 have been withdrawn. Claims 13-18 have been added.
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 13-18 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously applied prior art and newly found prior art.
The applicant amended claims 5 and 12 to change “aerosol generating material” to read “aerosol generating article”. As such, the objections to claims 5 and 12 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1 has been amended to add the limitation of: and a non-ignitable insulation provided at the second end of the rod and extending only a portion of the length of the article
Claims 13-18 have been added to further describe an embodiment of the invention.
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments made to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "cylinders" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "rod" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It would appear that claim is currently depending from the wrong claim and will be interpreted as depending on 13 which recites those features.
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 Batista, et al (WO2019197417A1), 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 teaches that the first wrapper can have a length of 7mm (0.7 cm) and the length of the cigarette rod is about 15mm. [0066] Jung teaches that the aerosol generating article can have individual sections wrapped by individual wrappers that extend only along a portion of the length of the article.
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 and Batista by using an ceramic paper material for the insulating portion as taught by Mironov because Jung, Batista 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, Batista 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, Batista, Mironov, and Kwon by using an ceramic sheet with the thickness as taught by Ito because Jung, Batista, 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, Batista, 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 and Batista 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, Batista, 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, Batista, Mironov, and Kwon by using an ceramic sheet with the thickness as taught by Ito because Jung, Batista, 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, Batista, Mironov, and Kwon by using an ceramic sheet with the thickness as taught by Ito because Jung, Batista, 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.
Claims 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Llewellyn Crooks, et al (US20070215167A1) and further in view of Phillips, et al (US20190082735A1) and Kwon, et al (WO2020130752A1).
Regarding claim 13, Llewellyn Crooks teaches a rod shaped smoking article that includes an aerosol generating region and a filter element. The smoking article possesses an overwrap. [0009] The aerosol generating article can comprise a insulation material that extends around the distal end of the substrate material. [0020]
Llewellyn Crooks teaches that the insulation material acts as a “jacket” around the article [0020] and is made from glass fibers or filaments [0132] and can incorporate materials including high-temperature resistant carbon filaments (e.g., graphite-type materials). [0133]
However, Llewellyn Crooks is silent with respect to the possibility of the insulation material being a ceramic cylinder.
Philips, directed to the design of smoking articles, teaches an aerosol generating article comprising an aerosol generating substrate and a filter. [0008]
The substrate material is surrounded by a tubular casing which is cylindrical in shape configured to receive the aerosol delivery component in either a wrapped or unwrapped configuration. [0077]
Phillips teaches the tubular casing is a thermally insulating material and that the thermally insulating material can be a ceramic material. [0076] The prior art discloses that the tubular casing is a hollow cylindrical tube as shown in Fig. 2C.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Llewellyn Crooks by using a tubular ceramic insulating portion as taught by Phillips because Llewellyn Crooks and Phillips are directed to smoking articles, Phillips teaches ceramic is a thermally-insulating material that it is able to distribute and dissipate heat such that the external surface temperature of the tubular casing is not excessively hot and reduces the likelihood of scorching of the external surface of the article. [0076], and this involves a simple substitution of one known element (glass “jacket” insulation) for another (ceramic tube insulation) to obtain predictable results.
Both Llewellyn Crooks and Philips teach an external heat source used to heat the aerosol generating material. However, both are silent with respect to the heating being microwave radiation or that the ceramic material would allow the transmission of an external source of microwave radiation.
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 Llewellyn Crooks and Phillips by using a ceramic insulating portion as taught by Kwon that is suitable for radiation or recognize that the ceramic of Phillips would allow for radiation such as microwave radiation to pass through because Llewellyn Crooks and Phillips, 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], Phillips 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 claims 14 and 15, Llewellyn Crooks teaches 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.
Regarding claim 17, as discussed in claim 13, Llewellyn Crooks teaches a rod shaped smoking article that includes an aerosol generating region and a filter element. The smoking article possesses an overwrap. [0009] and that the overwrap can be high opacity cigarette paper. [0084]
Regarding claim 18, Llewellyn Crooks, directed to the design of smoking articles, teaches a rod shaped smoking article where a tobacco rod circumscribed by paper wrapper The smoking article possesses an overwrap. [0009] The aerosol generating article can comprise a insulation material that extends around the distal end of the substrate material. [0020] Llewellyn Crooks teaches that the overwrap material extends over the longitudinally extending surface of the mouth end piece, the aerosol-generating region, at least a portion of the length of the heat source segment. [0009] Thus the overwrap taught by Llewellyn crooks would cover both the ceramic material and the aerosol generating material.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Llewellyn Crook, et al (US20070215167A1), Phillips, et al (US20190082735A1) and Kwon, et al (WO2020130752A1), as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Ito (US4915117A).
Regarding claim 16, the prior art is silent with respect to the thickness of the ceramic insulating portion.
Ito, directed to cigarettes, teaches ceramic sheet is not particularly limited with respect to the thickness, but preferably is about 30-300 micrometers thick for practical purposes. (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 Llewellyn Crooks, Phillips, and Kwon by using a tubular ceramic insulating portion with a thickness as taught by Ito because Llewellyn Crooks, Phillips, Kwon, and Ito are directed to smoking articles, Ito teaches this design provides an material that is incombustible at high temperatures (cl 1 ln 66) and safe for the user (Abstract), and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results
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 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