DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/2/2026 with respect to the rejections over Rousseau or Cogbill and Rousseau have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousseau (US 2020/0253268) in view of Baker (US 4,077,414).
Regarding claim 1, Rousseau teaches a paper for smoking articles, the paper comprising: a flavored sheet [0061] comprising a cellulose-based polymer [0022], a humectant (plasticizer) [0021], and a flavoring material including cocoa, cinnamon, rose oil, vanilla, lemon oil, cinnamon, menthol, or ginger [0088]. Rousseau teaches the sheet comprises perforations performed as known in the art, and the number and size of the perforations may be selected as needed for the desired application [0073]. Rousseau does not specifically teach two or more perforation lines spaced apart from each other by a distance of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm, and each perforation has a diameter in a range of 0.02 mm to 0.08 mm. Baker teaches a smoking article paper comprising two or more higher porosity perforation bands (lines) 28 [Fig. 1; col. 1, l. 29-32; col. 1, l. 65 to col. 2, l. 1]. The lines 28 are spaced apart from each other by a distance of 1 mm to 3 mm via low porosity bands 26 [col. 1, l. 52-54]. Each perforation has a diameter in a range of 50 microns (0.05 mm) to 100 microns (0.1 mm) [col. 2, l. 47-48]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this configuration to the paper of Rousseau for advantageously controlling the burn rate and for increasing the puff number as suggested by Baker [col. 1, l. 21-23]. The limitation that the paper is a “tipping paper” does not impart further limit the composition of the claimed paper to distinguish from the paper of Rousseau. The paper of modified Rousseau thereby reads on the present limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Rousseau further teaches flax fibers, hemp fibers, abaca fibers, wood pulp fibers, bamboo fibers, coconut fibers, ramie fibers, or jute fibers [0018], also corresponding to a cellulose-based polymer, in an amount of 20% by weight to 40% by weight of the flavored sheet.
Regarding claim 3, Rousseau teaches the plasticizer is in an amount of 1 wt % to 10 wt % in the flavored sheet [0123].
Regarding claim 4, Rousseau teaches the flavoring material is provided is provided as part of an aerosol delivery composition [0086-0088]. The paper comprises the aerosol delivery composition in an amount of up to 40 wt% [0096]. Although Rousseau does not specifically teach the amount of flavoring material itself, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to optimize the level of flavoring material in the sheet as a matter of routine experimentation to achieve the desired flavor effects.
Regarding claim 6, Rousseau teaches the cellulose-based polymer comprises carboxymethyl cellulose [0022].
Regarding claim 7, Rousseau teaches the plasticizer comprises propylene glycol [0021].
Regarding claim 8, Rousseau teaches the sheet has a tensile strength of 1500 cN/15 mm or greater [0013], or 1.5 kgf/15 mm or greater (1 cN = 0.001 kgf).
Regarding claims 10-11, Rousseau teaches a smoking article in the form of a cigarette comprising the paper of claim 1 [0097-0098].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Rousseau as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Slama (US 20170360082).
Rousseau is silent to a thickness of the sheet. Slama teaches a cigarette paper comprising a thickness of 20 to 100 micrometers [0022], or 0.02 to 0.1 mm. As this is a conventional thickness known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to the sheet of Rousseau to achieve predictable results.
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cogbill (US 3,908,671) in view of Rousseau and Baker.
Regarding claim 1, Cogbill teaches a paper for smoking article comprising a sheet comprising a cellulose-based polymer and a plasticizer [col. 2, l. 32-43; col. 4, l. 20-30]. Cogbill does not teach a flavoring material. Rousseau teaches including a flavoring material with a smoking article paper, the flavoring material including cocoa, cinnamon, rose oil, vanilla, lemon oil, cinnamon, menthol, or ginger [0088]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a flavoring material with the sheet of Cogbill for the benefit of improved flavor. Modified Cogbill does not teach two or more perforation lines spaced apart from each other by a distance of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm, and each perforation has a diameter in a range of 0.02 mm to 0.08 mm. Baker teaches a smoking article paper comprising two or more higher porosity perforation bands (lines) 28 [Fig. 1; col. 1, l. 29-32; col. 1, l. 65 to col. 2, l. 1]. The lines 28 are spaced apart from each other by a distance of 1 mm to 3 mm via low porosity bands 26 [col. 1, l. 52-54]. Each perforation has a diameter in a range of 50 microns (0.05 mm) to 100 microns (0.1 mm) [col. 2, l. 47-48]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this configuration to the paper of modified Cogbill for advantageously controlling the burn rate and for increasing the puff number as suggested by Baker [col. 1, l. 21-23]. The limitation that the paper is a “tipping paper” does not impart further limit the composition of the claimed paper to distinguish from the paper of modified Cogbill. The paper of modified Cogbill thereby reads on the present limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Cogbill teaches the cellulose-based polymer is in an amount of 20 wt% to 55 wt % in the sheet [col. 2, l. 32-43].
Regarding claim 3, Cogbill teaches the plasticizer is in an amount of 2 wt% to 15 wt % in the sheet [col. 4, l. 20-30].
Regarding claim 4, Rousseau teaches the flavoring material is provided is provided as part of an aerosol delivery composition [0086-0088]. The paper comprises the aerosol delivery composition in an amount of up to 40 wt% [0096]. Although Rousseau does not specifically teach the amount of flavoring material itself, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to optimize the level of flavoring material in the sheet of modified Cogbill as a matter of routine experimentation to achieve the desired flavor effects.
Regarding claim 5, Cogbill teaches the sheet has a thickness of 1 mm [col. 5, l. 59-61].
Regarding claim 6, Cogbill teaches the cellulose-based polymer comprises carboxymethyl cellulose [col. 3, l. 52-64].
Regarding claim 7, Cogbill teaches the plasticizer comprises propylene glycol [col. 4, l. 20-30].
Regarding claim 8, modified Cogbill does not explicitly disclose the tensile strength of the sheet. However, modified Cogbill teaches all of the claimed limitations directed to the composition of the claimed sheet including all of the weight percentages and components described in the independent and dependent claims. Therefore, the sheet of modified Cogbill is interpreted to inherently have a tensile strength within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 10-11, modified Cogbill teaches a smoking article in the form of a cigarette comprising the paper of claim 1 [Cogbill Example 2].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Philip 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.
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights