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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 05/20/2026.
Claims 16-22, 24, 26, 28-30 are pending.
Claim 31 is new.
Claims 23, 25, and 27 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see pages 6-12, filed 05/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On pages 6-7, the Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered modifying Zuber’s gathered sheet of homogenized tobacco material with Adams density of a tobacco plug of cut filler.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Zuber was never relied upon to teach only homogenized tobacco material as cut filler. Instead, Zuber was relied upon to teach a substrate comprising tobacco material such as plant shreds and/or homogenized material ([0048]), as detailed in the Final Office Action dated 02/24/2026.
Furthermore, Homogenized plant material is in a preferable embodiment but not what the disclosure is limited to because Zuber discloses other embodiments that exclude homogenized tobacco material. Therefore, the density of the cut filler material does not have to be applied to homogenized tobacco material.
On page 7, the Applicant further argues that Zuber teaches away from treating cut filler and gathered homogenized tobacco material as interchangeable for the specific problem relied upon in the rejections because Zuber contrasts gathered homogenized tobacco material with shreds of tobacco material.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that homogenized plant material is considered tobacco cut filler in accordance with the Applicant’s Specification: “as used herein, the term "cut filler" is used to describe to a blend of shredded plant material, such as tobacco plant material, including, in particular, one or more of leaf lamina, processed stems and ribs, homogenized plant material.” (page 13). Therefore, the arguments are unpersuasive as cut filler incorporates a broad range of tobacco materials.
Furthermore, for clarification purposes the Examiner notes that the density as a result effective variable is referring to embodiments comprising homogenized tobacco material and the rejection of Zuber in view of Adams is referring to plant shreds. Zuber discloses embodiments comprising both and in accordance with the Applicant’s Specification, both plant shreds and homogenized material are cut filler.
On pages 7-8, the Applicant further argues that the problem of loose ends falling out of the free end of the article is less likely to be a problem in Zuber because Zuber teaches homogenized tobacco material advantageously reduces the risk of loose ends compared to an aerosol-forming substrate comprising shreds of tobacco material and therefore one would not have been motivated to solve the loose ends problem as described in Adams. Further arguing that even if one were motivated to further improve the loose ends problem starting from Zuber, the person would not have been motivated to look to Adams because Zuber already may include a front plug to prevent egress of the aerosol-forming substrate during shipping and handling so if one wanted to improve the issue of loose ends they would just add a front plug upstream of the aerosol-forming substrate.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even if the loose ends is less likely to be a problem within the disclosure of Zuber, that does not mean one cannot apply additional methods to further prevent said problem. One can prevent a singular problem in multiple ways and further preventing a known issue in the art, such as preventing loose ends from falling out of a substrate, is still a benefit absent evidence of the contrary.
Furthermore, Zuber’s egression of the aerosol-forming substrate is not the same as the preventing loose ends. Zuber describes different issues known in the art of heating aerosol-forming substrates ([0024];[0056]).
Furthermore, in the embodiments that do not require homogenized tobacco material, preventing the loose ends of the tobacco plant material would clearly be an improvement to a similar type of cut filler and one would certainly look to Adams to cure this deficiency.
Finally, the Examiner notes that Adams is merely being relied upon to teach that the claimed density of tobacco material is known in the art and not novel. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a similar aerosol-generating substrate comprising the same materials would have similar densities even absent motivation to combine. See MPEP 2144.08 (c).
On pages 7-8 the Applicant further argues that Adams teaches elevated densities are preferred for the avoidance of loose ends at the end of the substrate and that the Office does not identify a reasoned basis to select the claimed density.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Adams teaches the preferred density of the tobacco cut filler is the balance between aerosol delivery and the avoidance of loose-ends within the substrate. Both of those were provided as reasons one would pick the claimed density in the Final Rejection dated 02/04/2026.
On page 8, the Applicant further argues that the rejection regarding Nappi cannot work because Nappi’s hollow tube segment alone cannot be the downstream section, arguing the downstream section of Nappi would need to include the additional elements of Nappi, specifically the filter segment and rod end filter segment. Since Nappi only teaches an RTD of the hollow tube segment and not the entire downstream section, Nappi cannot be relied upon to teach the claimed RTD.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Zuber teaches the downstream support element may be a hollow tubular element comprising cellulose acetate ([0089]-[0091]). While Nappi does not teach the same location as Zuber, Nappi teaches the same hollow tubular element comprising the same materials (cellulose acetate tow) (Nappi [0034]), and therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the same material and same design would result in a similar RTD. Therefore the arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection stands.owe
However, to advance prosecution an additional reference that makes obvious the claimed RTD has been provided below.
On page 10, the Applicant further argues to provide a downstream section with such low RTD, one would need to remove all of the downstream features from Zuber other than the support element 30 and that there is no reason why the person would have been motivated to do this without impermissible hindsight.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Zuber discloses the downstream elements pictured in Figure 1 are not essential and may comprise fewer elements ([0198]), therefore it is not impermissible hindsight to omit these elements as it is taught in the disclosure that they are omittable.
Furthermore, the downstream end is just a downstream end of the hollow tubular element and Applicant’s own Specification also teaches embodiments where “more preferably, the downstream section of the aerosol- generating article may comprise an element or component in addition to the hollow tubular element, such as a filter segment or mouthpiece segment.” (page 40). Therefore, the Applicant’s own disclosure does not teach against adding mouthpieces/cooling segments to the downstream end of the hollow tubular element.
Furthermore, merely making separable the mouthpiece and filter from the remained of the article or omitting the mouthpiece and filter components entirely such that the hollow tubular element extends all the way to the downstream end of the aerosol generating article would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the mouthpiece and aerosol-cooling element of Zuber can indeed be omitted and the downstream section would just comprise the support elements hollow tubular element that would extend to the downstream end of the downstream section.
New claim 31 overcomes the current prior art of record, however a rejection based on newly found prior art is provided below.
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 16-22, 24, 26, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuber et al. (US-20140305448-A1) and further in view of Adams et al. (EP 0836390 A1, as cited in the IDS dated 04/04/2023) and Nappi (WO-2017148773-A1) or alternatively Malgat et al. (US-20160331032-A1, as cited in the IDS dated 07/03/2023).
In regards to claim 16, Zuber, directed to an aerosol-generating article for use with an aerosol-generating device, discloses the aerosol-generating article comprising an aerosol-generating substrate ([0001] and [0019]-[0024]); and
- A downstream support element (i.e., downstream section) extending from a downstream end of the aerosol-generating substrate to a downstream end of the aerosol-generating article (Figure 1, [0015]-[0016], and [0178]-[0182]),
- Wherein the aerosol-generating substrate has a length from about 7 to about 15 mm ([0087]) and a diameter from about 5 to 12 mm ([0086]). Zuber discloses a length-to-diameter range that would result in a length-to-diameter ratio of the aerosol-generating substrate being from about 0.58 to about 3. The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of a length-to-diameter ratio of the aerosol-generating substrate is no more than 6 and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
- Wherein the downstream section comprises a support element 30 comprising a hollow tubular element that extends from one downstream end of the downstream section to the upstream end of the downstream section ([0091]). Refer to figure 1 annotated by the Examiner provided below. Zuber further teaches that while the embodiment described and illustrated in Figure 1 has four elements, the four elements are not essential and according to other embodiments may comprise fewer elements ([0198]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the additional elements, the mouthpiece and the aerosol-cooling element could be omitted from the article all together such that the hollow tubular element extends all the way to the downstream end of the aerosol generating article and is considered prima facie obvious to arrive at the claimed invention. In addition, the downstream end of the article does not include the mouth end of the device and therefore the end of element 30 is interpreted as the downstream end of the article.
The solid aerosol-forming substrate may comprise, for example, one or more of: powder, granules, pellets, shreds, strands, strips or sheets containing one or more of: herb leaf, tobacco leaf, tobacco ribs, expanded tobacco and homogenized tobacco (i.e., all examples of tobacco cut filler) ([0048]).
PNG
media_image1.png
481
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zuber does not explicitly disclose the density of the aerosol-generating substrate is no more than 0.5 grams per cubic centimeter (I) and does not explicitly disclose the resistance to draw of the entire downstream section is less than 15 mm H2O (II).
In regards to (I):
Zuber is silent to a specific density of the aerosol-generating substrate and does not explicitly disclose a density of no more than 0.5 grams per cubic centimeter.
However, Zuber teaches the weight of an aerosol-forming substrate comprising a gathered sheet of homogenized tobacco material of a particular length is determined by the density, width and thickness of the sheet of homogenized tobacco material that is gathered to form the aerosol-forming substrate. The weight of aerosol-forming substrates comprising a gathered sheet of homogenized tobacco material of a particular length can thus be regulated by controlling the density and dimensions of the sheet of homogenized tobacco material. This reduces inconsistencies in weight between aerosol-forming substrates of the same dimensions, and so results in lower rejection rate of aerosol-forming substrates whose weight falls outside of a selected acceptance range compared to aerosol-forming substrate comprising shreds of tobacco material ([0057]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill would reasonably conclude that the density of the aerosol-generating substrate is a result effective variable that will affect the consistency, weight, and acceptance of the substrate in the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the density of the aerosol-generating substrate to be no more than 0.5 grams per cubic centimeter to regulate the weight of the substrate because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 II(B)).
In addition, Adams directed to a cigarette for an electrical smoking system discloses a tobacco rod (i.e., aerosol-generating substrate) with a density most preferably between about 0.24 and 0.28 grams per cubic centimeter ([0036]).
The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed density of the substrate being no more than 0.5 grams per cubic centimeter and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Adams further discloses elevated densities are preferred for the avoidance of loose ends at the free end of the substrate and lowered densities are preferred for better aerosol delivery characteristics such as greater contribution of aerosol from the tobacco portion ([0036]). Adams further teaches the densities provided in the disclosure are a balance of preferred avoidance of loose ends and optimal aerosol characteristic’s ([0036]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to modify Zuber by making the density of the aerosol-generating substrate comprising plant shreds/cut filler no more than 0.5 grams per cubic centimeter, as taught by Adams, because one of ordinary skill in the art would look to a similar reference for a known density of an aerosol-generating substrate comprising similar tobacco material, especially when the original prior art is silent to one, Adams teaches the claimed density is known in the art to provide a balance between aerosol delivery and the avoidance of loose-ends ([0036]), and this merely involves applying a known density of a similar tobacco cut filler substrate to yield predictable results.
In regards to (II):
Zuber is silent to a specific resistance-to-draw of the entire downstream section.
Nappi directed to a smoking article having a filter with a hollow tubular segment, discloses the smoking article comprising a mouth cavity and a tobacco rod (i.e., aerosol generating substrate) (page 2, lines 1-10).
Nappi further discloses the hollow tubular segment (i.e., entire downstream section) having a wall thickness of no more than 0.9 mm and formed from a fibrous filtration material (page 2, lines 9-15).
Nappi further discloses the hollow tubular element has an unrestricted flow channel with a substantially constant cross-sectional area for the smoke and air to flow through and is the downstream section of the article (Figure 1 and page 2, lines 33-34).
Nappi further discloses the unrestricted, hollow tube segment does not substantially contribute to increasing the resistance-to-draw (resistance-to-draw) of the smoking article. At most, the unrestricted, hollow tube segment contributes only marginally to increasing the resistance-to-draw of the smoking article. In practice, the unrestricted, hollow tube segment may be adapted to generate a resistance-to-draw in the range of approximately 1 mm H2O and approximately 20 mm H2O (page 3, lines 5-10). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the downstream section having a resistance-to-draw of less than 30 mm H2O 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 modified Zuber, by making the downstream element have a resistance-to-draw less than 10 mm H2O, as taught by Nappi, because all are directed to aerosol-generating articles, Nappi teaches a similar hollow tubular section made of the same materials (cellulose acetate) with a low resistance-to-draw (page 3, lines 5-10), and this involves applying a known and commonly used resistance-to-draw of a similar downstream element, which is merely silent to a specific resistance-to draw, to yield predictable results.
Alternatively, Malgat, directed to an aerosol-generating article with a low resistance air flow path, discloses an aerosol generating article for producing an inhalable aerosol upon heating ([0006]), the article extending from a mouth end to a distal end (Figure 1).
Malgat further discloses an aerosol generating substrate ([0111]) and a downstream section at a location downstream of the aerosol-generating element (Figure 1 and [0069]-[0076]).
Malgat further discloses an overall resistance to draw of the entire article before engagement with the device is close to zero and preferably less than 10 mm H2O (i.e., an overall resistance to draw of the downstream section is less than 10 mmH2O) ([0008] and [0109]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if the overall resistance to draw of the article is less than 10 mm H2O, the downstream section also has an overall resistance to draw of less than 10 mm H2O.
Malgat further discloses the RTD of the entire article before engagement with the device is preferable because it prevents the article from being heated without proper engagement with a device ([0128]).
Malgat further discloses the RTD of a second airflow path, which is in the downstream section (Figure 1), has an RTD of less than 10 mm H2O (claim 2), which makes obvious the claimed range of the downstream section having an RTD of less than 15 mm H2O.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Zuber, by making the articles downstream section comprise an RTD of less than 10 mm H2O as taught by Malgat because both are directed to aerosol generating articles, Malgat teaches the low RTD is preferable in the article to prevent improper heating of the device ([0128]), and this merely involves applying a known resistance to draw value of a similar article to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 17, Zuber discloses the aerosol-generating substrate has a length from about 7 to about 15 mm ([0087]) and a diameter from about 5 to 12 mm ([0086]). Zuber discloses a length-to-diameter range that would result in a length-to-diameter ratio of the aerosol-generating substrate being from about 0.58 to about 3. The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of a length-to-diameter ratio of the aerosol-generating substrate is at least 0.5 and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claims 18-19, Zuber discloses the aerosol-generating substrate has a diameter from about 5 to 12 mm ([0086]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the diameter of the aerosol-generating substrate being from at least 5 to no more than 8 millimeters and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claims 20-21, Zuber discloses the aerosol-generating substrate has a length from about 7 to about 15 mm ([0087]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the length of the aerosol-generating substrate being from at least 10 to no more than 40 millimeters and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 22, As discussed above in claim 16, density is a result effective variable that can be optimized. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the density of the aerosol-generating substrate could be modified to have a density of at least 0.24 grams per cubic centimeter as claimed.
Further, Adams discloses the aerosol-generating substrate comprising a density most preferably between about 0.24 and 0.28 grams per cubic centimeter ([0036]).
The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed density of the substrate being at least 0.24 grams per cubic centimeter and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 24, Zuber discloses the aerosol-generating substrate comprises an aerosol former, wherein the aerosol former content in the aerosol-generating substrate is between approximately 5% and approximately 30% on a dry weight basis ([0081]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the aerosol former being at least 10 percent by weight and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 26, Zuber discloses the aerosol-generating article may comprise one or more air inlets (i.e., ventilation zone) downstream the aerosol-generating substrate (at a location along the downstream section), through which air may be drawn into the aerosol-generating article ([0032]).
In regards to claim 29, Zuber discloses an aerosol-generating article system comprising ([0168]):
The aerosol-generating article according to claim 16; and
An aerosol-generating device having a distal end and a mouth end (Figure 2 and [0168]), the aerosol generating device comprising:
A housing (body) extending from a distal end to the mouth end, the housing defining a device cavity configured to receive the aerosol-generating article ([0161]) at the mouth end of the aerosol-generating device (Figure 2), and
A heater within the cavity configured to heat the aerosol-generating substrate when the aerosol-generating article is received within the device cavity ([0160]-[0171]).
In regards to claim 30, Zuber discloses the device may include other heaters in addition to the internal heating element that is inserted into the aerosol-forming substrate of the aerosol-generating article ([0165]).
Adams discloses a heater fixture (i.e., device) slidably receives the aerosol generating article ([0013]).
Adams further discloses when the article is inserted, each heater will locate alongside (i.e., circumscribe) the tobacco rod (i.e., substrate) at a predetermined location so that condensation of the tobacco aerosol at or about the heater elements is reduced ([0014]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Zuber with additional external heaters such as the ones taught by Adam that circumscribe the substrate because both Zuber and Adam are directed to heating of aerosol generating substrates, Zuber teaches that other heaters in addition to the internal heating element may be used, Adam teaches a known type of external heater in the art, and this merely involves applying a known heater to a known device ready for improvement of the addition of a second heater.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuber et al. (US-20140305448-A1) in view of Adams et al. (EP 0836390 A1, as cited in the IDS dated 04/04/2023), Nappi (WO-2017148773-A1), and Malgat et al. (US-20160331032-A1, as cited in the IDS dated 07/03/2023) and further in view of Malgat et al. (Malgat’2 US-20190075845-A1).
In regards to claim 28, Zuber discloses the aerosol-forming substrate can have a front-plug upstream the substrate ([0022]). Zuber further discloses the front-plug may be formed from an air permeable filter material such as cellulose acetate tow and that the permeability of the front-plug may be varied to help control resistance-to-draw of the aerosol-generating article ([0031]).
Modified Zuber is silent regarding a specific resistance-to-draw value and does not explicitly disclose a resistance-to-draw of the upstream section from 10 to 70 mm H2O.
Malgat’2 directed to an article-generating article discloses an aerosol-generating article comprising an aerosol-forming substrate (abstract).
Malgat’2 further discloses an upstream plug element comprising a resistance-to-draw from about 20 to 40 mm H2O ([0015]).
The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the upstream element having a resistance-to-draw between 10 and 70 mm H2O, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Malgat’2 further discloses porosity or permeability of the material may be varied to support control of a resistance-to-draw through the aerosol-generating article ([0014]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified Zuber, by making the upstream section have a resistance-to-draw from 10 to 70 mm H2O, as taught by Malgat’2, because all are directed to aerosol-generating articles, Malgat’2 teaches a resistance-to-draw is important to control so that the user can draw air through the upstream element ([0012]-[0014]), and this involves applying a known and commonly used resistance-to-draw of a similar upstream element, which is merely silent to a specific resistance-to draw, to yield predictable results.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuber et al. (US-20140305448-A1) in view of Adams et al. (EP 0836390 A1, as cited in the IDS dated 04/04/2023), Nappi (WO-2017148773-A1), and Malgat et al. (US-20160331032-A1, as cited in the IDS dated 07/03/2023) and further in view of Ki (KR-20190038178-A, hereinafter referring to the English translation provided) and Seo (US-20210092990-A1).
In regards to claim 31, Zuber discloses cut filler within the aerosol-generating substrate comprising strands of the tobacco material may be arranged on the entire surface of a carrier or arranged in a pattern to provide a non-uniform flavor delivery during use ([0048]-[0050]), but is silent regarding the specific arrangement of the strands and therefore does not explicitly disclose about 20 to 60 percent of the strands extend along a full length of the aerosol-generating substrate.
Ki, directed to a smoking article comprising an aerosol generating substrate and a filter ([0085]) discloses an aerosol generating material comprising a plurality of tobacco material strands with a wide range of lengths ([0094).
Ki further discloses the aerosol generating material comprises multiple strands of different lengths (i.e., random) which allows the aerosol generated from the aerosol generating material to be increased ([0095]).
Seo, directed to an aerosol-generating rod comprising tobacco strands, teaches random orientation of tobacco strands along the length of the aerosol generating substrate is known in the art and further discloses an example of random orientation of tobacco strands in Fig. 3B. Fig. 3B teaches an aerosol-generating rod including a medium portion (110) which has 5 strands out of 13 pictured strands that fully extend the length of the medium portion, resulting in about 38% of the strands extending along a full length of the aerosol-generating substrate. The percentage disclosed by the prior art is within the claimed range of the strands extending along a full length of the aerosol-generating substrate, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
PNG
media_image2.png
444
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified Zuber by making the length of the strands random and having different lengths, as taught by Ki, and further showing that a random orientation of strands can result in a percentage of about 38% of the strands extending along a full length of the aerosol generating substrate which is within the claimed range, because all are directed to smoking articles, Ki teaches the different lengths allow the aerosol generated to increase ([0095]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of having a random organization of tobacco plant strands of a similar tobacco substrate to yield predictable results.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the percentage of strands extending along the entire length of the aerosol generating substrate, since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed percentage is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the percentage of strands extending along a full length of the substrate motivated by the desire to increase the aerosol generated from the aerosol generating material and thereby improving the manufacturing characteristics of the aerosol generating material (Ki [0095]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELEINE PAULINA DELACRUZ whose telephone number is (703)756-4544. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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.
/MADELEINE P DELACRUZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights