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 Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-13, 19, 25 and 27-28 are cancelled. Claims 14-18, 20, 22-24, 26, 29, 31 and 34-35 are amended. Claim 21 is withdrawn. Claims 14-18, 20, 22-24, 26 and 29-35 are presently examined.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 8/5/2025 are overcome.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is fewer than 50 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “being” is used where “is” would be grammatically correct. 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 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffitt (US 7,163,015) in view of Sutton (US 10,863,766), as evidenced by Wu (US 9,500,575).
Regarding claims 14 and 26, Moffitt discloses an electrically heated smoking system that uses a tobacco rod (abstract, figure 1A, reference numeral 20) having a tobacco plug (figure 1A, reference numeral 30) and a filter tube (column 4, lines 41-50, figure 1A, reference numeral 30), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a mouthpiece element. The tobacco rod is wrapped by a cigarette paper layer that extends along the entire length of the tobacco rod (column 4, lines 41-50, figure 1A, reference numeral 60), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an outer wrapper that circumscribes the various components. Moffitt does not explicitly disclose (a) the tobacco plug being a hybrid aerosol generating element and (b) tobacco per se being a capillary material as well.
Regarding (a), Sutton teaches an article for use with an apparatus for heating smokable material (abstract, figure 1, reference numeral 40). The article has an annular body of smokable material (figure 1, reference numeral 43), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a solid aerosol forming substrate, that surrounds a body of porous aerosol containment material (column 7, lines 6-20, figure 1, reference numeral 44), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a liquid retention material. The body of smokable is in contact with the body of aerosol containment material (column 7, lines 21-32). The body of smokable material contains particle of the smokable material having a mean particle size, which are considered to meet the claim limitation of granules. The aerosol containment material contains an aerosol forming material (column 7, lines 6-20). The aerosol forming agent is glycerol (column 2, lines 53-54). The smokable material is in the form of tobacco per se (column 6, lines 19-31). Sutton additionally teaches that the use of porous aerosol containment helps to increase the surface area on which aerosol may form (column 13, lines 59-67, column 14, lines 1-2).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the tobacco rod of Moffitt for the article of Sutton. One would have been motivated to do so since Sutton teaches an article that increase the surface area to form aerosol.
Regarding (b), Wu teaches that tobacco is a colloidal capillary cellular thin layer material having relatively strong moisture absorbability (column 1, lines 21-59), indicating that the tobacco per se of Sutton would be a capillary material.
Regarding claim 15, Sutton teaches that the tobacco may be homogenized tobacco (column 6, lines 19-31).
Regarding claim 17, modified Moffitt teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Moffitt additionally discloses that the cigarette has a diameter of between 7.5 mm to 8.5 mm (column 3, lines 63-67, column 4, lines 1-40). Modified Moffitt does not explicitly teach a diameter of the tobacco plug article.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the tobacco plug article of modified Moffitt have the claimed diameter. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 18, Sutton teaches that the aerosol containment material is provided in the form of annular sheet (figures 1, 2).
Regarding claim 20, it is evident that the tobacco material of Sutton could transport glycerin since tobacco is known capillary material and glycerin is a liquid at room temperature.
Regarding claim 22, Sutton teaches that smokable material and aerosol containment material are located at the same position along the article (figure 1).
Regarding claim 23, Sutton teaches that the smokable material and aerosol containment materials extend along the entire length of the article (figure 1).
Regarding claim 24, modified Moffitt teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Moffitt does not explicitly teach a length of the tobacco plug article.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the tobacco plug article of modified Moffitt have the claimed size. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 29, Moffitt discloses that the filter is a mouthpiece filter (column 2, liens 23-32), indicating that the filter forms a mouth end of the article.
Regarding claim 30, Moffitt discloses that the tobacco plug and filter are separated from each other by a void (column 4, lines 41-50, figure 1A, reference numeral 46).
Regarding claim 31, Moffitt discloses that the void is a hollow area that is surrounded by the wrapper (figure 1A).
Regarding claim 34, Sutton teaches that the smokable material and aerosol containment material are in contact along their entire length (figure 1).
Regarding claim 35, Sutton teaches that the aerosol containment material is polyester (column 3, lines 6-22), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a plastic.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffitt (US 7,163,015) in view of Sutton (US 10,863,766), as evidenced by Wu (US 9,500,575), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Guyard (WO 2015/008253).
Regarding claim 16, modified Moffitt teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Moffitt does not explicitly teach a hydrophobic cigarette paper.
Guyard teaches a smoking article having a tobacco substrate that is surrounded by a wrapper having an inner surface that has a hydrophobic coating (abstract) that resists the transfer of water and other substances (page 5, lines 7-10). Guyard additionally teaches that this coating reduces the CO concentration in mainstream aerosol and (page 3, lines 11-21) and reduces the formation of visible spots on the article (page 3, lines 22-31).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cigarette paper of modified Moffitt with the inner hydrophobic coating of Guyard. One would have been motivated to do so since Guyard teaches a coating that reduces the CO concentration in mainstream aerosol and reduces the formation of visible spots on the article.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffitt (US 7,163,015) in view of Sutton (US 10,863,766), as evidenced by Wu (US 9,500,575), as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Malgat (WO 2015/082649).
Regarding claim 32, modified Moffitt teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Moffitt does not explicitly teach the void having a cellulose acetate support.
Malgat teaches a heated aerosol generating article for use with an aerosol generating device (abstract) having a support element in the form of a hollow tube that reduces the resistance to draw of the aerosol generating article to almost zero (page 3, lines 9-14). The support element is located immediately downstream of the aerosol forming substrate (page 9, lines 11-12) and is formed from cellulose acetate (page 9, lines 13-18).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the void of modified Moffitt with the cellulose acetate support element of Malgat. One would have been motivated to do so since Malgat teaches a support element that reduces the resistance to draw of the cigarette to almost zero.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffitt (US 7,163,015) in view of Sutton (US 10,863,766), as evidenced by Wu (US 9,500,575), as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Bonici (WO 2014/140273).
Regarding claim 32, modified Moffitt teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Moffitt does not explicitly the tobacco plug article arranged in an end to end relationship with a sealing element.
Bonici teaches a smoking article having an aerosol forming substrate and a carbonaceous heat source (abstract) that is isolated from the aerosol forming substrate to prevent temperature spikes (page 23, lines 35-37, page 24, lines 1-2) by a barrier (page 24, lines 21-25) that abuts both the downstream end of the heat source and the upstream end of the aerosol forming substrate (page 24, lines 29-30). Bonici additionally teaches that the heat source transfers heat to the aerosol forming substrate to produce an aerosol (page 7, lines 36-37, page 8, lines 1-4).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the tobacco rod of modified Moffitt with the heat source and barrier of Bonici. One would have been motivated to do so since Moffitt discloses that the tobacco rod is heated electrically and Bonici teaches an aerosol forming substrate that is heated with a carbonaceous heat source. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See MPEP § 2143, C.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection relying on Moffitt are entered as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 pm.
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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755