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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-12 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/04/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 12/04/2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to further recite that “an axial length of the lip-release material region is less than an axial length of the tipping paper.” Applicant argues that Kadiric does not disclose that the lip-release lacquer covers less than an entire length of the tipping paper.
However, the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Reevell and Kadiric. Reevell is relied upon for the electric heating device including the heating chamber, compression cylinder, heating wall, and compression of the tobacco rod portion by the inner wall surface of the compression cylinder. Kadiric is relied upon for the detailed tobacco-stick structure including the tobacco rod portion, mouthpiece portion, tipping wrapper, and lip-release material provided on the tipping wrapper.
Kadiric teaches that the tipping wrapper may be coated with a lip-release lacquer coating, such as nitro cellulose or ethyl cellulose (Kadiric [0056]). Kadiric also teaches that tipping wrapper 20 includes defined axial portions, including removable tipping wrapper portion 26 extending between first weakening line 22 and second weakening line 28, with upstream tipping wrapper portion 24 and downstream tipping wrapper portion 30 remaining outside the removable tipping wrapper portion (Kadiric [0071]). Kadiric further teaches that the longitudinal edge of the tipping wrapper portion has a defined length of about 20 mm, thereby showing that Kadiric contemplates selected axial/longitudinal lengths for portions of the tipping wrapper (Kadiric [0072]).
Thus, Kadiric is not being relied upon merely for a generic coating over an entire tipping wrapper. Rather, Kadiric teaches both that the tipping wrapper may be coated with lip-release lacquer and that the tipping wrapper includes defined axial portions having selected longitudinal lengths. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the lip-release lacquer of Kadiric to a selected axial portion of the tipping wrapper rather than necessarily over the entire axial length of the tipping wrapper. Such a modification would have been a predictable selection of the location and extent of Kadiric’s known lip-release coating on Kadiric’s defined wrapper portions to provide the known lip-release function.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell et al. (US 2021/0307390 A1), and further in view of Kadiric et al. (US 2019/0313691 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Reevell teaches:
a heat-not-burn tobacco product comprising: an electric heating device (aerosol generation device 100 including heater 124) (Reevell [0100]);
a heat-not-burn tobacco stick used together with the electric heating device (substrate carrier 128 received in heating chamber 108) (Reevell [0123]);
wherein the electric heating device includes a hollow tube heater defined so as to form a heating chamber inside, the heating chamber allowing the heat-not-burn tobacco stick to be inserted (heating chamber 108 arranged to receive substrate carrier 114) (Reevell [0076]);
wherein the hollow tube heater includes a compression cylinder used to compress the tobacco rod portion from an outer peripheral side when the heat-not-burn tobacco stick is inserted (side wall 126 including protrusions 140 extending into heating chamber 108 to engage and compress substrate carrier 114) (Reevell [0078]);
a heating wall formed from at least part of the compression cylinder and used to heat the tobacco rod portion from the outer peripheral side (side wall 126 heated by heater 124 to transfer heat to the substrate carrier in heating chamber 108) (Reevell [0115]); and
wherein a cross-sectional area of the tobacco rod portion is relatively greater than an inner cross-sectional area of the compression cylinder and defined such that the tobacco rod portion inserted in the compression cylinder is compressed by an inner wall surface of the compression cylinder (substrate carrier 114 compressed by protrusions 140 extending inwardly into heating chamber 108) (Reevell [0082]).
Reevell does not explicitly teach the detailed structure of the heat-not-burn tobacco stick, including tobacco filler wrapped with rolling paper, a mouthpiece portion coupled to the tobacco rod portion with tipping paper, randomly aligned shredded tobacco, or a lip-release material region on the tipping paper.
Kadiric is directed to the same field of endeavor as Reevell, namely aerosol-generating/heat-not-burn tobacco articles and devices.
Kadiric teaches:
wherein the heat-not-burn tobacco stick includes a tobacco rod portion that includes a tobacco filler including shredded tobacco and rolling paper wrapping the tobacco filler (aerosol-generating substrate 12 including cut tobacco material surrounded by a paper wrapper) (Kadiric [0067]);
a mouthpiece portion coaxially coupled to the tobacco rod portion when wrapped with tipping paper together with the tobacco rod portion (filter 14 coupled to aerosol-generating substrate 12 by tipping wrapper 20) (Kadiric [0071]);
wherein the tobacco filler is wrapped with the rolling paper in a state where the shredded tobacco is randomly aligned (cut tobacco material provided in aerosol-generating substrate 12) (Kadiric [0067]); and
wherein part of an outer surface of the tipping paper is coated with a lip-release material (tipping wrapper coated with a lip-release lacquer coating such as nitro cellulose or ethyl cellulose) (Kadiric [0056]).
Kadiric further teaches that tipping wrapper 20 includes defined axial portions, including removable tipping wrapper portion 26 extending between first weakening line 22 and second weakening line 28, with upstream tipping wrapper portion 24 and downstream tipping wrapper portion 30 remaining outside the removable tipping wrapper portion (Kadiric [0071]). Kadiric also teaches that the longitudinal edge 28 of the tipping wrapper portion has a defined length of about 20 mm, thereby showing that Kadiric contemplates selected axial/longitudinal lengths for portions of the tipping wrapper (Kadiric [0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tobacco stick structure and lip-release tipping wrapper teachings of Kadiric with the electric heating device of Reevell, and to apply the lip-release lacquer of Kadiric to a selected axial portion of the tipping wrapper rather than necessarily over the entire axial length of the tipping wrapper. Kadiric teaches both that the tipping wrapper may be coated with lip-release lacquer and that the tipping wrapper includes defined axial portions having selected longitudinal lengths. Thus, the modification would have been a predictable selection of the location and extent of Kadiric’s known lip-release coating on Kadiric’s defined wrapper portions to provide the known lip-release function.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites that the cross-sectional area of the tobacco rod portion after insertion into the compression cylinder is greater than or equal to 40% and less than or equal to 99% of the cross-sectional area before insertion into the compression cylinder.
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Reevell teaches an electric heating device including a heating chamber having inwardly extending protrusions formed on an inner wall surface of a cylindrical heating device, wherein the protrusions contact and compress an aerosol substrate inserted into the heating chamber (Reevell ¶¶[0078]–[0080]).
Reevell further teaches that the degree of compression of the aerosol substrate is intentionally controlled by adjusting parameters such as the height, width, number, and spacing of the protrusions, and that increasing protrusion height results in compression of the aerosol substrate, elimination of air gaps, and changes in draw resistance (Reevell ¶¶[0086]–[0089]). Reevell explains that these parameters are selected to balance conductive heating, convective heating, and airflow, thereby demonstrating that controlled deformation of the substrate is a predictable and adjustable design characteristic of the heating device.
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that insertion of the tobacco rod portion into the compression cylinder of Reevell necessarily results in a reduction of the cross-sectional area of the tobacco rod portion, and that the extent of such reduction is determined by the selected dimensions and arrangement of the protrusions.
Selecting a cross-sectional area after insertion that is within the recited range of claim 2 represents a predictable design choice made in view of Reevell’s express teaching to adjust compression magnitude to achieve desired heating and draw characteristics.
Therefore, claim 2 is unpatentable over Reevell in view of Kadiric for the same reasons as claim 1, and for the additional reason that Reevell teaches controlled compression of the tobacco rod portion resulting in a predictable reduction of cross-sectional area within a selected range.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further recites that the compression cylinder includes a pair of opposite sandwiching walls extending along an axial direction of the compression cylinder, and the tobacco rod portion inserted in the compression cylinder is compressed by inner wall surfaces of the sandwiching walls.
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Reevell teaches an electric heating device including a heating chamber defined by a hollow tube having inner wall surfaces, wherein inwardly extending protrusions are formed on the inner surface of the side wall and extend toward the aerosol substrate when inserted into the heating chamber (Reevell ¶¶0078–0080).
Reevell further teaches that the protrusions are arranged around the inner perimeter of the side wall and are configured to contact and compress the aerosol substrate at multiple locations, including embodiments in which the substrate is pressed between opposing portions of the side wall via protrusions extending inward from opposite sides of the heating chamber (Reevell ¶¶0078–0081, FIGS. 6(a)–6(c)). In such embodiments, opposing inner wall surfaces act to sandwich and compress the aerosol substrate along an axial direction when the aerosol substrate is inserted (Reevell ¶¶0078–0081, FIGS. 6(a)–6(c)).
Accordingly, Reevell teaches a compression structure functionally equivalent to a pair of opposite sandwiching walls extending along an axial direction of the compression cylinder, wherein the tobacco rod portion is compressed by opposing inner wall surfaces.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 depends from claim 3 and further recites that the inner wall surfaces of the pair of sandwiching walls are opposed parallel to each other. Reevell’s heating chamber is cylindrical, such that opposing inner wall surfaces extending along the axial direction are inherently parallel to one another. Therefore, the additional limitation of claim 4 is met by the same disclosure.
Therefore, claims 3 and 4 are unpatentable over Reevell in view of Kadiric for the same reasons as claim 1, and for the additional reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 depends from claim 4 and further recites that a diameter of the tobacco rod portion is defined to a dimension greater than or equal to 105% and less than or equal to 200% of a space between the inner wall surfaces of the pair of sandwiching walls.
As discussed above with respect to claims 1–4, Reevell teaches a cylindrical heating chamber having inner wall surfaces with inwardly extending protrusions configured to contact and compress an aerosol substrate inserted into the heating chamber (Reevell ¶¶[0078]–[0081]).
Reevell further teaches that the spacing between opposing inner wall portions, as well as the dimensions of the protrusions, are intentionally selected and adjusted to control the degree of compression of the substrate and the resulting heating and draw characteristics (Reevell ¶¶[0086]–[0089]).
Reevell expressly teaches that the available air gap between the side wall and the substrate carrier may be adjusted within specific dimensional ranges (e.g., approximately 0.2–0.4 mm or 0.2–0.3 mm), and that increasing protrusion height and width increases compression of the aerosol substrate while reducing air gaps (Reevell ¶¶[0086]–[0089]).
These teachings demonstrate that the relative size relationship between the substrate diameter and the spacing between opposing inner wall surfaces is a known and adjustable design parameter used to achieve a desired degree of compression.
Accordingly, selecting a tobacco rod diameter that is greater than the spacing between opposing inner wall surfaces, such that the rod is compressed upon insertion, as recited in claim 5, represents a predictable design choice made in view of Reevell’s express teaching to vary spacing and protrusion dimensions to control compression. The recited range of 105% to 200% reflects a degree of compression that falls within the scope of routine optimization of known dimensional relationships disclosed by Reevell.
Therefore, claim 5 is unpatentable over Reevell in view of Kadiric for the same reasons as claim 1, and for the additional reason that Reevell teaches selecting dimensional relationships between the substrate diameter and inner wall spacing to achieve controlled compression of the tobacco rod portion.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 1 and further recite that, when the heat-not-burn tobacco stick is inserted to a prescribed location of the heating chamber, a whole of the tobacco rod portion and part of the mouthpiece portion are compressed by the inner wall surface of the compression cylinder, and that a cross-sectional area of the mouthpiece portion after insertion into the compression cylinder is greater than or equal to 60% and less than or equal to 99% of the cross-sectional area before insertion into the compression cylinder.
Reevell further teaches that the protrusions extend into the heating chamber along a longitudinal extent and engage the substrate carrier when the substrate is inserted to a prescribed position, thereby producing compression along a length of the inserted article rather than at a single point (Reevell ¶¶[0080]–[0081], FIGS. 6(a)–6(c)).
Because the aerosol substrate of Reevell includes a tobacco-containing portion and an adjacent upstream portion that are both inserted into the heating chamber when the substrate is fully inserted, compression by the inner wall surfaces necessarily includes compression of the whole tobacco rod portion and at least a portion of the mouthpiece-side portion.
Reevell additionally teaches that the degree of compression is controlled by adjusting the dimensions and arrangement of the inwardly extending protrusions, resulting in predictable deformation of the compressed portions of the substrate (Reevell ¶¶[0086]–[0089]).
Accordingly, selecting a degree of compression of the mouthpiece portion within the recited range of claim 7 represents a predictable design choice in view of Reevell’s express teaching to control compression magnitude to balance heating efficiency, airflow, and draw resistance.
Therefore, claims 6 and 7 are unpatentable over Reevell in view of Kadiric for the same reasons as claim 1, and for the additional reasons set forth above.
Regarding claim 8, Reevell further teaches that the dimensions of the heating chamber and the protrusions are selected such that the aerosol substrate is compressed upon insertion, including embodiments in which the available space within the heating chamber is smaller than the outer dimensions of the substrate prior to insertion, thereby eliminating air gaps and improving thermal contact (Reevell ¶¶[0086]–[0089]).
These teachings demonstrate that the effective inner cross-sectional area of the compression cylinder is smaller than the cross-sectional area of the tobacco rod portion prior to insertion, such that insertion of the tobacco rod necessarily results in radial compression by the inner wall surfaces of the compression cylinder. Reevell expressly teaches adjusting chamber dimensions and protrusion geometry to ensure such interference and compression in order to improve heating efficiency and aerosol generation (Reevell ¶¶[0086]–[0089]).
Accordingly, Reevell teaches or renders obvious defining the inner cross-sectional area of the compression cylinder to be smaller than the cross-sectional area of the tobacco rod portion before insertion, as recited in claim 8.
Therefore, claim 8 is unpatentable over Reevell in view of Kadiric for the same reasons as claim 1, and for the additional reasons set forth above.
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 JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. 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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights