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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/31/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 08/31/2026.
Claims 29-57 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claim 29 is amended.
Claims 36-56 are previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-11, filed 08/31/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 29 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 the Applicant argues that Eusepi does not teach in one embodiment the closing element 10 and edge portion 10a as required by the claim.
The Examiner disagrees.
Eusepi teaches a tubular element represented by sub unit 100. The sub unit 100 of Eusepi is explicitly taught to comprise a tubular body (tubular wrapper 1) and a folded end portion (edge portion 10a) ([0187]; see Figs. 12C-D).
The Examiner notes that the claim does not require that the tubular body 1 comprise the folded end portion 10a but rather the tubular element comprises a tubular body and a folded end portion, wherein the folded end portion forms a first end wall at the first end of the tubular body.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the prior art invention comprises all recited elements of the claims. Therefore, the prior art meets the claim limitations regardless of perceived advantages being met.
On page 9 the Applicant argues that the strip 1b taught by Eusepi does not appropriately teach a localized ventilated zone.
The Examiner disagrees.
The claim requires “a ventilation zone at a location along the tubular body of the tubular element” but does not require any further structure of the ventilation zone.
Eusepi teaches a ventilation zone (strip 1b) having permeability properties ([0186]). Specifically, Eusepi teaches that the tubular element 1 is defined either by a rigid tubular body 1a or by strip 1b, indicating that there may be portions of the tubular element 1 formed by strip 1b ([0185-0186]). These regions comprising only 1b are considered ventilation zones (for example, see Fig. 4B).
On page 10 the Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach the unrestricted flow channel of the amended claim.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Examiner notes that the limitation to “the tubular body being an unrestricted flow channel free from any components that would obstruct a flow of air in a longitudinal direction” is functional language directed to the intended use of the tubular body. Thus, as the claim is only directed to the tubular body, and not to a broader aerosol-generating article, the tubular body taught by Eusepi is considered to meet the claim. The Examiner notes that Eusepi’s example of using the tubular body in an aerosol-generating article comprising a filling material does not specifically limit the structure of the tubular body itself. The tubular body of Eusepi is therefore equivalent to the claimed tubular body and appropriately teaches the limitation.
On pages 10-11 the Applicant argues that Crooks does not appropriately teach the claimed ventilation zone position.
The Examiner disagrees.
Crooks teaches a circumferential row of perforations to increase air dilution ([0082]). Crooks teaches that the positioning of the perforations may be varied to control characteristics of the article ([0099]). It would thus be obvious to modify the tubular element to have a ventilation zone at any distance, including between about 5-15 mm, from the end portion as taught by Crooks because both Eusepi and Crooks are directed to tubular elements comprising ventilation zones, Eusepi is silent as to the precise relative location of the ventilation zone and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable configuration, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Thus, the rejection is maintained.
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments to the claims.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 29-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eusepi et al. (US 20210100279 A1) in view of Crooks et al. (US 20040134631 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Eusepi teaches a tubular element (sub unit 100; Fig. 12A; [0181]) for an aerosol-generating article (smoking article), the tubular element comprising:
a tubular body (tubular wrapper 1) defining a cavity (containment chamber 2) extending from a first end (end 3a; [0183]) of the tubular body to a second end (end 3b; [0183]) of the tubular body;
a folded end portion (edge portion 10a; [0199]) forming a first end wall (closing element 10; [0187]) at the first end of the tubular body, the first end wall delimiting an opening ([0044], [0210] teaches a plurality of holes or perforations or leaving some portions of the opening uncovered) for airflow between the cavity and an exterior of the tubular element;
and a ventilation zone (strip 1b; [0186]) at a location along the tubular body of the tubular element.
Eusepi does not explicitly teach the configuration of the ventilation zone.
Crooks, directed to a tubular element (tipping material 45; Fig. 1; [0082]) for an aerosol-generating article (cigarette 10; [0080]), comprising a tubular body defining a cavity (tipping material 45 defining cavity), an end portion (mouth end), and a ventilation zone ([0082]), teaches that a ventilation zone may comprise a circumferential row of perforations between about 5-15 mm from the end portion ([0105] teaches 13mm which anticipates the claimed range).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Eusepi by making the ventilation region a circumferential row of perforations between about 5-15 mm from the end portion as taught by Crooks because both Eusepi and Crooks are directed to tubular elements comprising ventilation zones, Eusepi is silent as to the precise configuration of the ventilation zone and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable configuration, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
The Examiner notes that the limitation to “the tubular body being an unrestricted flow channel free from any components that would obstruct a flow of air in a longitudinal direction” is functional language directed to the intended use of the tubular body. Thus, as the claim is only directed to the tubular body, and not to a broader aerosol-generating article, the tubular body taught by Eusepi is considered to meet the claim.
Regarding claim 30, Eusepi teaches that the ventilation zone comprises a plurality of perforations through the tubular body ([0185-0186] teaches that tubular body may be comprised of strip 1b, which may comprise a plurality of perforations).
Regarding claim 31, Crooks teaches that the ventilation zone comprises at least one circumferential row of perforations extending around the tubular body (Crooks [0105]).
Regarding claim 32, Crooks teaches that the tubular element has a ventilation level from about 20 percent to about 70 percent ([0105] teaches 45 percent, which anticipates the claimed range).
Regarding claim 33, Eusepi teaches that the tubular element is formed from a paper material ([0022]).
Regarding claim 34, Eusepi teaches at least a first portion of the tubular element forming the first end wall is air impermeable ([0210] teaches leaving some portions of the opening uncovered. It would be expected that, in this case, a first portion of the first end wall would be air impermeable).
Regarding claims 29 and 35, Eusepi teaches a tubular element (sub unit 100; Fig. 12A; [0181]) for an aerosol-generating article (smoking article), the tubular element comprising:
a tubular body (tubular wrapper 1) defining a cavity (containment chamber 2) extending from a first end (end 3a; [0183]) of the tubular body to a second end (end 3b; [0183]) of the tubular body;
a folded end portion (blocking portion 20 and closing element 10; Figs. 11A-11D; [0199], [0317]) forming a first end wall (blocking portion 20) at the first end of the tubular body, the first end wall delimiting an opening for airflow between the cavity and an exterior of the tubular element (first end wall 20 delimits an opening for the placement of closing element 10, which allows for airflow [0044], [0344]);
and a ventilation zone (strip 1b; [0186]) at a location along the tubular body of the tubular element;
wherein the first end wall extends partially into the cavity of the tubular body and forms an angle of less than 90 degrees with an inner surface of the tubular body (Figs. 11B, 11D; [0326-0327]), as required by claim 35.
Eusepi does not explicitly teach the configuration of the ventilation zone.
Crooks, directed to a tubular element (tipping material 45; Fig. 1; [0082]) for an aerosol-generating article (cigarette 10; [0080]), comprising a tubular body defining a cavity (tipping material 45 defining cavity), an end portion (mouth end), and a ventilation zone ([0082]), teaches that a ventilation zone may comprise a circumferential row of perforations between about 5-15 mm from the end portion ([0105] teaches 13mm which anticipates the claimed range).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Eusepi by making the ventilation region a circumferential row of perforations between about 5-15 mm from the end portion as taught by Crooks because both Eusepi and Crooks are directed to tubular elements comprising ventilation zones, Eusepi is silent as to the precise configuration of the ventilation zone and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable configuration, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eusepi and Crooks as applied to claim 29 above and further in view of Wheless et al. (US 5067498 A).
Regarding claim 57, Eusepi teaches that the tubular element is made of a sufficiently rigid cardboard or paperboard (page 3, lines 16-26).
Eusepi does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the tubular element.
Wheless, directed to a method for producing paper tubes for use in a smoking article, teaches that as standard paperboard tube has a thickness of 0.5-1mm (col. 1, lines 5-15 teaches a thickness of about 0.5 mm, which anticipates the claimed range).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Eusepi by making the tubular element with a thickness of 0.5-1mm as taught by Wheless because Eusepi is directed to a tubular element comprised of paperboard for a smoking article, Wheless is directed to a process of making paperboard tubes for smoking articles, Eusepi is silent as to the thickness of the paperboard tubular element and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable thickness, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlotte Davison whose telephone number is (703)756-5484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-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, 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.
/C.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1755
/PHILIP Y LOUIE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights