CTFR 18/042,151 CTFR 100258 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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, 3-17 are pending and subject to this office action. Claims 7-13 are previously withdrawn. Claim 15 is amended and claims 15-17 are new. Response to Amendment The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed on 05/12/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pg. 6-7, Applicant argues that Alvarez discloses the wrapping material comprises an extracted tobacco material which does not read on the limitation of 50 wt% or more cigar leaf. The Examiner disagrees. Alvarez discloses extracted tobacco material refers to tobacco material where the water soluble components are removed ([0028]) and that the tobacco material can include leaves ([0031]). Removing water soluble components from tobacco leaves does not transform the leaves into another material. Alvarez discloses the tobacco material can be “flue-cured stems, leaves, fines, and/ or other tobacco by-products” ([0031]) which is considered to disclose an embodiment where the tobacco material is entirely leaves. Therefore, the disclosure of extracted tobacco material in the forms of leaves ([0027, 0031]) is considered to be tobacco leaves. On pg. 6-7, Applicant argues that cigar leaf refers to specialized leaves specifically cultivated for cigar production. The Examiner disagrees. While certain leaves may be cultivated specifically for use in cigars, many types of tobacco leaves can be used to make cigars. Further, Applicants specification is silent to the definition of the term cigar leaf and does not appear to disclose that cigar leaf only applies to specific types of tobacco leaves. The term, “cigar leaf” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the term “cigar leaf” is interpreted as tobacco leaf. The rejections presented below are maintained and modified where necessitated by Applicant’s amendment . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-5, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (US 20220279835 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Alvarez discloses a wrapping material (100, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0056]) comprising: Tobacco material in an amount greater than 40% by weight, where the tobacco material may be in the form of leaves ([0027, 0031, 0042]). The claimed range overlaps with the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. The wrapping material (100, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0056]) has a basis weight of 15gsm or greater and tensile strength of 2100 cN/ 30mm or greater ([0049]). The claimed ranges for basis weight and tensile strength overlap with the range taught by the prior art and are therefore considered prima facie obvious. The wrapping material (100) is made via a paper making process to form a thin sheet composed of fibrous materials for wrapping a smoking article (10) and therefore is considered to be a cigarette paper ([0037, 0056-0057]). The wrapping material (100) is used in a smoking article (10) which may be a cigarette, or heat not burn stick (“a heating type smoking article”, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0056-0057]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that cigars are made from tobacco leaves and therefore cigarette paper comprising tobacco leaf is considered to meet the claim limitation of cigarette paper comprising cigar leaf. Regarding claim 3 , Alvarez discloses the wrapping material (100) comprises tobacco material in the form of leaves ([0027, 0031, 0056]). Cigar leaf stem is interpreted as the central rib of the tobacco leaf. Alvarez does not disclose removing the stems of the tobacco leaves and therefore one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the wrapping material (100) to comprise cigar leaf stem. Alvarez is silent to cigar leaf ligule in the cigarette paper. Therefore, Alvarez reasonably suggests the cigarette paper does not comprise cigar leaf ligule, absent evidence to the contrary. Regarding claim 4 , Alvarez discloses the wrapping material (100) comprises wood pulp fibers ([0041-0042, 0044]). Regarding claim 5 , Alvarez discloses the wrapping material (100) comprises wood pulp fibers including softwood fibers, hardwood fibers, or mixtures thereof ([0041-0042, 0044]). Regarding claim 14 , Alvarez discloses the wrapping material (100, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0056]) has a basis weight of 15gsm or greater ([0049]). The claimed basis weight overlaps with the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. Regarding claim 16 , Alvarez discloses the wrapping material has a stretch (i.e. elongation) of greater than 1% ([0050]). The claimed range overlaps with the range taught by prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (US 20220279835 A1), as applied to claim 5 above, further in view of Zhou (CN 102733249 A) . Regarding claim 6, Alvarez discloses the wrapping material (100) comprises wood pulp fibers including softwood fibers, hardwood fibers, or mixtures thereof ([0041-0042, 0044]). Alvarez does not explicitly disclose the weight ratio of the hard pulp and soft pulp in the cigarette paper. However, Zhou, directed to a cigarette paper (abstract), discloses: Cigarette paper comprising a weight proportion of 10-60 % of hardwood pulp fiber, and 5.0-30 % of softwood pulp fiber (abstract, [0016-0027]). The claimed range of hard and soft pulp ratio overlaps with the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Alvarez, by using a weight proportion of 10-60 % of hardwood pulp fiber, and 5.0-30 % of softwood pulp fiber as taught by Zhou because both Alvarez and Zhou are directed to cigarette paper, Alvarez is silent to the weight ratio of hard pulp and soft pulp in the cigarette paper, Zhou teaches known weight ratios of hard pulp and soft pulp, and one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to similar cigarette papers for workable ranges of weight ratios and this involves applying known weight ratios of hard pulp and soft pulp to a similar cigarette paper to yield predictable results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (US 20220279835 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hanada (US 20220071275 A1, as previously cited in the Non-Final Rejection dated 05/30/2025) . Regarding claim 15, Alvarez is silent to the thickness of the wrapping material. However, Hanada, directed to a cigar (11, Fig. 1, [0014]), discloses: Cigarette paper (18, 21, Fig. 1) comprising 10 to 60% by mass leaf tobacco, having a thickness of 55 to 85 μm ([0026, 0029]). The claimed thickness range overlaps with the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Alvarez, by using a thickness of 55 to 85 μm as taught by Hanada because both Alvarez and Hanada are directed to cigarette paper, Alvarez is silent to the thickness of the wrapping material, Hanada teaches known thickness range for a similar wrapping material, and one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to similar cigarette papers for workable ranges of thickness and this involves applying a known thickness to a similar cigarette paper to yield predictable results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (US 20220279835 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Luxenbourg (US 20190390408 A1) . Regarding claim 17, Alvarez is silent to the smoothness of the wrapping material. However, Luxenbourg, directed to a smoking paper ([0004]), discloses: A smoking paper having a Bekk smoothness of 10 to 20s ([0146]). The surface smoothness and rear smoothness are interpreted as the smoothness on either side of the cigarette paper. Luxenbourg is silent to which side the smoothness is measured. Therefore, Luxenbourg reasonably suggests the smoothness range applies to both sides of the smoking paper, absent evidence to the contrary. The Examiner notes that claim 17 recites the smoothness without units. The specification discloses the smoothness is measured in seconds (pg. 6 lines 19-21). Therefore claim 17 is interpreted as a surface smoothness of 5 to 15 seconds and rear smoothness of 5 to 15 seconds. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Alvarez, by using a smoothness of 10 to 20s as taught by Luxenbourg because both Alvarez and Luxenbourg are directed to smoking paper, Alvarez is silent to the smoothness of the wrapping material, Luxenbourg teaches a known smoothness range for a similar wrapping material, and one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to similar cigarette papers for workable ranges of smoothness and this involves applying a known smoothness to a similar cigarette paper to yield predictable results. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MORGAN FAITH DEZENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-0155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-430pm EST. 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. /M.F.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/042,151 Page 2 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/042,151 Page 3 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/042,151 Page 4 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/042,151 Page 5 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/042,151 Page 6 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/042,151 Page 7 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/042,151 Page 8 Art Unit: 1755
Prosecution Insights