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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 29-35 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 29-35, in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 36-56 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 34, the claim recites the limitation "the first portion of the tubular element" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as “a first portion of the tubular element”.
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.
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.
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