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 16, 19, 21-22, and 26, 28-32 are pending and are subject to this office action. Claim 16, 28, 30, 31 are amended. Claim 27 is canceled. Claim 32 is newly added.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed on 08/06/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The rejections below are maintained and modified based on Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 16, 19, 21-22, 28-30, 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibrahim (US 20180360099 A1) in view of Seo (US 20220248746 A1), Hepworth (US 20220183347 A1), and Cunningham (US 5150725 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
114
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Ibrahim discloses a consumable (100, “aerosol generating article”, Fig. 4, [0115]), comprising:
A rod of smokable material (102, “aerosol generating substrate”, Fig. 4, [0115]), and;
A mouthpiece (101, “downstream section”) downstream of the rod of smokable material (102) and extending from a downstream end of the smokable material (102) to a downstream end of the aerosol generating article (100, Fig. 4, [0115-0116]).
The rod of smokable material (102) comprises an aerosol generating agent (“an aerosol former”) in an amount of 10-20% by weight on a dry weight basis ([0030, 0032-0033, 0035, 0112]). The claimed range overlaps with the range by the prior art and therefore the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
The mouthpiece (101) comprises a tube ([0116]) such that the downstream section comprises an unobstructed airflow pathway from the downstream end of the smokable material (102) to a downstream end of the aerosol generating article.
Ibrahim does not explicitly disclose the mouthpiece (101) comprises a first ventilation zone comprising a first line of perforation holes.
However, Seo, directed to a smoking article (100, Fig. 4, [0074]), discloses:
A row of perforations (160, “first line of perforations”) circumscribing a mouthpiece filter (Fig. 4, Fig. 5), which serve to lower a temperature of the mainstream smoke delivered to a smoker during smoking ([0095-0096]), and;
The perforations (160) are separated from a downstream end (L2) of the smoking article (100) by 15 mm to 25 mm to prevent interference with the smoker's lips during smoking (Fig. 5, [0099]). The claimed range overlaps with the range by the prior art and therefore the claimed range is 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 Ibrahim by providing a first row of ventilation holes circumscribing the mouthpiece and separated from the downstream end by 15 mm to 25 mm as taught by Seo, because both Ibrahim and Seo are directed to smoking articles, Seo teaches the perorations serve to lower a temperature of the mainstream smoke delivered to a smoker during smoking and the position prevents interference with the smokers lips during smoking, and this involves applying known perforations in a known position to a similar mouthpiece filter in a similar aerosol generating article to yield predictable results.
Ibrahim is silent to the resistance to draw of the mouthpiece/downstream section.
However, Hepworth, directed to an aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1, [0058]), discloses:
A mouthpiece (2, extending from 2a to 2b) downstream of an aerosol generating material (3, Fig. 1, [0058, 0060]), the resistance to draw of the mouthpiece is less than 32mmH2O which allows sufficient aerosol to pass through the mouthpiece ([0070]). The claimed range lies within the range taught by the prior art 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 Ibrahim, in view of Seo, by providing the mouthpiece with a resistance to draw of less than 32mm H2O, as taught by Hepworth, because both Ibrahim and Hepworth are directed to smoking articles, Hepworth teaches the pressure drop allows for sufficient aerosol to pass through the mouthpiece, and this involves applying a known pressure drop range to a similar mouthpiece filter in a similar aerosol generating article to yield predictable results.
Ibrahim is silent to the dimensions of the article. Ibrahim, in view of Seo and Hepworth, does not explicitly disclose the position of the row of perforations relative to the upstream end of the article.
However, Hepworth, directed to an aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1, [0058]), discloses:
An aerosol generating article (1) comprising an aerosol generating material (3) having a length of 10 to 100mm ([0087]) and the mouthpiece (2, “downstream section”) having a length of 30 to 50mm (Fig. 1, [0049, 0058]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ibrahim, in view of Seo and Hepworth, by providing the substrate in a length of 10-100mm and the mouthpiece in a length of 30 to 50mm, as taught by Hepworth, because both Ibrahim and Hepworth are directed to smoking articles, Ibrahim teaches a smoking article having a mouthpiece and substrate but is silent to the dimensions of the article, Hepworth teaching a similar smoking article having a mouthpiece and substrate with known dimensions, and one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to similar articles for suitable ranges of mouthpiece length and substrate length, and this involves applying known ranges of length to a mouthpiece filter and substrate in a similar aerosol generating article to yield predictable results.
In regards to the limitation requiring the upstream end of the first ventilation zone is less than 37mm from an upstream end of the aerosol generating article, Seo discloses the perforations (160) are separated from a downstream end (L2) of the smoking article (100) by 15 mm to 25 mm to prevent interference with the smoker's lips during smoking (Fig. 5, [0099]) and Hepworth discloses an aerosol generating material (3) having a length of 10 to 100mm ([0087]) and the mouthpiece (2, “downstream section”) having a length of 30 to 50mm (Fig. 1, [0049, 0058]).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of the disclosed position of perforations, aerosol generating material length, and mouthpiece length, could have reasonably arrived at a smoking article where the distance of the row of perforations (“an upstream end of the first ventilation zone”) to the upstream end of the aerosol generating article is in a range that overlaps with the claimed range of no more than 37mm and therefore the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
Seo discloses the perforation method, number, size, and the like of the perforations (160) may be varied to impact the air dilution rate of the mouthpiece ([0097]).
Seo is silent to a length and width dimension of the perforations.
However, Cunningham, directed to a smoking rod/cigarette (abstract, Fig. 5), discloses:
Rectangular perforations (8) circumscribing the filter portion (1) of the smoking rod (Fig. 5, col. 4 lines 46-52)
The rectangular perforations are between 0.01 and 1mm in each dimension (claim 1, col. 3 lines 30-31) which reasonably suggests perforations with a range of lengths and widths that overlaps with the claimed length and width ranges and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Dimensions below 0.01mm are inconvenient to make and provide inadequate ventilation whereas dimensions above 1mm are also inconvenient to make and provide excessive ventilation (col. 5 lines 8-13).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ibrahim, in view of Seo and Hepworth by providing rectangular perforations with a width and length of 0.01 to 1mm as taught by Cunningham because both Ibrahim and Cunningham are directed to smoking articles, Cunningham teaches the dimensions of 0.01 to 1mm are convenient to make and provide appropriate ventilation, and this involves applying known ventilation hole dimensions to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, Seo discloses the perforations (160) are separated from a downstream end (L2) of the smoking article (100) by 15 mm to 25 mm to prevent interference with the smoker's lips during smoking (Fig. 5, [0099]) and Hepworth discloses an aerosol generating material (3) having a length of 10 to 100mm ([0087]) and the mouthpiece (2, “downstream section”) having a length of 30 to 50mm (Fig. 1, [0049, 0058]).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of the disclosed position of perforations, aerosol generating material length, and mouthpiece length, could have reasonably arrived at a smoking article where the distance of the row of perforations (“an upstream end of the first ventilation zone”) to the upstream end of the aerosol generating article is in a range that overlaps with the claimed range of greater than 20mm and therefore the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 21, Ibrahim is silent to the ventilation level of the smoking article.
However, Hepworth, directed to an aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1, [0058]), discloses:
An aerosol generating article has a ventilation level of 50 to 85% which helps to slow down the flow of aerosol and thereby enable the aerosol to cool sufficiently before it reaches the downstream end of the mouthpiece ([0085]). The claimed range overlaps with the range by the prior art and therefore the claimed range is 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 Ibrahim, in view of Seo, Hepworth, and Cunningham by providing the article with a ventilation level of 50-85% as taught by Hepworth because both Ibrahim and Hepworth are directed to smoking articles, Hepworth teaches the ventilation level cools the aerosol sufficiently, and this involves applying a known ventilation level to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 22, Seo discloses the number of perforations (160) may be 4 to 30 ([0100]). The claimed range overlaps with the range by the prior art and therefore the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 28, Ibrahim is silent to the diameter of the mouthpiece (101, i.e. downstream section comprising the unobstructed airflow pathway).
However, Hepworth, directed to an aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1, [0058]), discloses:
A hollow tubular element (4) provided at the mouth end of an aerosol generating article (1), and having an inner diameter of greater than 3.0mm because smaller diameters result in increasing the velocity of aerosol passing more than is desirable, such that the aerosol becomes too warm ([0068]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ibrahim, in view of Seo, Hepworth, and Cunningham, by providing the mouthpiece with a minimum inner diameter of 3.0mm as taught by Hepworth because both Ibrahim and Hepworth are directed to smoking articles, Hepworth teaches the minimum diameter keeps the aerosol from becoming too warm, and this involves applying a known inner diameter of a hollow mouthpiece to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 29, Ibrahim discloses the mouthpiece (101) comprises a tube ([0116]).
Regarding claim 30, Ibrahim discloses a consumable (100, “aerosol generating article”, Fig. 4, [0115]), comprising:
A rod of smokable material (102, “aerosol generating substrate”, Fig. 4, [0115]), and;
A mouthpiece (101, “downstream section”) downstream of the rod of smokable material (102) and extending from a downstream end of the smokable material (102) to a downstream end of the aerosol generating article (100, Fig. 4, [0115-0116]).
The rod of smokable material (102) comprises an aerosol generating agent (“an aerosol former”) in an amount of 10-20% by weight on a dry weight basis ([0030, 0032-0033, 0035, 0112]). The claimed range overlaps with the range by the prior art and therefore the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
The mouthpiece (101) comprises a tube ([0116]) such that the downstream section comprises an unobstructed airflow pathway from the downstream end of the smokable material (102) to a downstream end of the aerosol generating article.
Ibrahim does not explicitly disclose the mouthpiece (101) comprises a first ventilation zone comprising a first line of perforation holes.
However, Seo, directed to a smoking article (100, Fig. 4, [0074]), discloses:
A row of perforations (160, “first line of perforations”) circumscribing a mouthpiece filter (Fig. 4, Fig. 5), which serve to lower a temperature of the mainstream smoke delivered to a smoker during smoking ([0095-0096]), and;
The perforations (160) are separated from a downstream end (L2) of the smoking article (100) by 15 mm to 25 mm to prevent interference with the smoker's lips during smoking (Fig. 5, [0099]). The claimed range overlaps with the range by the prior art and therefore the claimed range is 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 Ibrahim by providing a row of ventilation holes circumscribing the mouthpiece separated from the downstream end by 15 mm to 25 mm as taught by Seo, because both Ibrahim and Seo are directed to smoking articles, Seo teaches the perorations serve to lower a temperature of the mainstream smoke delivered to a smoker during smoking and the position prevents interference with the smokers lips during smoking, and this involves applying known perforations in a known position to a similar mouthpiece filter in a similar aerosol generating article to yield predictable results.
Ibrahim is silent to the resistance to draw of the mouthpiece/downstream section.
However, Hepworth, directed to an aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1, [0058]), discloses:
A mouthpiece (2, extending from 2a to 2b) downstream of an aerosol generating material (3, Fig. 1, [0058, 0060]), the resistance to draw of the mouthpiece is less than 32mmH2O which allows sufficient aerosol to pass through the mouthpiece ([0070]). The claimed range lies within the range taught by the prior art 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 Ibrahim, in view of Seo, by providing the mouthpiece with a resistance to draw of less than 32mm H2O, as taught by Hepworth, because both Ibrahim and Hepworth are directed to smoking articles, Hepworth teaches the pressure drop allows for sufficient aerosol to pass through the mouthpiece, and this involves applying a known pressure drop range to a similar mouthpiece filter in a similar aerosol generating article to yield predictable results.
Ibrahim is silent to the dimensions of the article. Ibrahim, in view of Seo and Hepworth, does not explicitly disclose the position of the row of perforations relative to the upstream end of the article.
However, Hepworth, directed to an aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1, [0058]), discloses:
An aerosol generating article (1) comprising an aerosol generating material (3) having a length of 10 to 100mm ([0087]) and the mouthpiece (2, “downstream section”) having a length of 30 to 50mm (Fig. 1, [0049, 0058]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ibrahim, in view of Seo and Hepworth, by providing the substrate in a length of 10-100mm and the mouthpiece in a length of 30 to 50mm, as taught by Hepworth, because both Ibrahim and Hepworth are directed to smoking articles, Ibrahim teaches a smoking article having a mouthpiece and substrate but is silent to the dimensions of the article, Hepworth teaching a similar smoking article having a mouthpiece and substrate with known dimensions, and one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to similar articles for suitable ranges of mouthpiece length and substrate length, and this involves applying known ranges of length to a mouthpiece filter and substrate in a similar aerosol generating article to yield predictable results.
In regards to the limitation requiring the upstream end of the first ventilation zone is less than 37mm from an upstream end of the aerosol generating article, Seo discloses the perforations (160) are separated from a downstream end (L2) of the smoking article (100) by 15 mm to 25 mm to prevent interference with the smoker's lips during smoking (Fig. 5, [0099]) and Hepworth discloses an aerosol generating material (3) having a length of 10 to 100mm ([0087]) and the mouthpiece (2, “downstream section”) having a length of 30 to 50mm (Fig. 1, [0049, 0058]).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of the disclosed position of perforations, aerosol generating material length, and mouthpiece length, could have reasonably arrived at a smoking article where the distance of the row of perforations (“an upstream end of the first ventilation zone”) to the upstream end of the aerosol generating article is in a range that overlaps with the claimed range of no more than 37mm and therefore the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
Seo discloses the perforation method, number, size, and the like of the perforations (160) may be varied to impact the air dilution rate of the mouthpiece ([0097]).
Seo does not explicitly disclose a perforation width and length, where the length is greater than the width.
However, Cunningham, directed to a smoking rod/cigarette (abstract, Fig. 5), discloses:
Rectangular perforations (8) circumscribing the filter portion (1) of the smoking rod (Fig. 5, col. 4 lines 46-52), having a length greater than the width.
The rectangular perforations are between 0.01 and 1mm in each dimension (claim 1, col. 3 lines 30-31).
Dimensions below 0.01mm are inconvenient to make and provide inadequate ventilation whereas dimensions above 1mm are also inconvenient to make and provide excessive ventilation (col. 5 lines 8-13).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ibrahim, in view of Seo and Hepworth by providing rectangular perforations with a width and length of 0.01 to 1mm as taught by Cunningham because both Hepworth and Cunningham are directed to smoking articles, Cunningham teaches the dimensions of 0.01 to 1mm are convenient to make and provide appropriate ventilation, and this involves applying a known ventilation hole dimensions to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 32, Ibrahim discloses the mouthpiece (101) comprises a tube (Fig. 1, [0116]), such that the downstream section comprises an unobstructed airflow pathway from the downstream end of the smokable material (102) to a downstream end of the aerosol generating article.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibrahim (US 20180360099 A1) in view of Seo (US 20220248746 A1), Hepworth (US 20220183347 A1), and Cunningham (US 5150725 A), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Malgat (US 20160331032 A1, as cited on IDS dated 04/04/2023).
Regarding claim 26, Ibrahim is silent to the total draw resistance of the smoking article.
However, Malgat, directed to an aerosol generating article (abstract), discloses:
The resistance to draw (RTD) of the aerosol generating article is less than 10mm WG, preferably close to zero ([0109]). The range taught by the prior art lies withing the claimed range and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
The resistance to draw (RTD) of the aerosol generating article may be close to zero to prevent the user from drawing air through the aerosol-forming substrate sufficiently to light the aerosol-forming substrate ([0008]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ibrahim, in view of Seo, Hepworth, and Cunningham, by modifying the smoking article to have a resistance to draw of less than 10mmH2O as taught by Malgat because both Ibrahim and Malgat are directed to smoking article, Malgat teaches the sufficiently low resistance to draw prevents the user from drawing air through the aerosol-forming substrate sufficiently to light the aerosol-forming substrate, and this involves applying a known resistance to draw to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibrahim (US 20180360099 A1) in view of Seo (US 20220248746 A1), Hepworth (US 20220183347 A1), and Cunningham (US 5150725 A), and Malgat (US 20160331032 A1, as cited on IDS dated 04/04/2023).
Regarding claim 31, Ibrahim discloses a consumable (100, “aerosol generating article”, Fig. 4, [0115]), comprising:
A rod of smokable material (102, “aerosol generating substrate”, Fig. 4, [0115]), and;
A mouthpiece (101, “downstream section”) downstream of the rod of smokable material (102) and extending from a downstream end of the smokable material (102) to a downstream end of the aerosol generating article (100, Fig. 4, [0115-0116]).
The rod of smokable material (102) comprises an aerosol generating agent (“an aerosol former”) in an amount of 10-20% by weight on a dry weight basis ([0030, 0032-0033, 0035, 0112]). The claimed range overlaps with the range by the prior art and therefore the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
The mouthpiece (101) comprises a tube ([0116]) such that the downstream section comprises an unobstructed airflow pathway from the downstream end of the smokable material (102) to a downstream end of the aerosol generating article.
Ibrahim does not explicitly disclose the mouthpiece (101) comprises a first ventilation zone comprising a first line of perforation holes.
However, Seo, directed to a smoking article (100, Fig. 4, [0074]), discloses:
A row of perforations (160, “first line of perforations”) circumscribing a mouthpiece filter (Fig. 4, Fig. 5), which serve to lower a temperature of the mainstream smoke delivered to a smoker during smoking ([0095-0096]), and;
The perforations (160) are separated from a downstream end (L2) of the smoking article (100) by 15 mm to 25 mm to prevent interference with the smoker's lips during smoking (Fig. 5, [0099]). The claimed range overlaps with the range by the prior art and therefore the claimed range is 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 Ibrahim by providing a row of ventilation holes circumscribing the mouthpiece separated from the downstream end by 15 mm to 25 mm as taught by Seo, because both Ibrahim and Seo are directed to smoking articles, Seo teaches the perorations serve to lower a temperature of the mainstream smoke delivered to a smoker during smoking and the position prevents interference with the smokers lips during smoking, and this involves applying known perforations in a known position to a similar mouthpiece filter in a similar aerosol generating article to yield predictable results.
Ibrahim is silent to the resistance to draw of the mouthpiece/downstream section.
However, Hepworth, directed to an aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1, [0058]), discloses:
A mouthpiece (2, extending from 2a to 2b) downstream of an aerosol generating material (3, Fig. 1, [0058, 0060]), the resistance to draw of the mouthpiece is less than 32mmH2O which allows sufficient aerosol to pass through the mouthpiece ([0070]). The claimed range lies within the range taught by the prior art 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 Ibrahim, in view of Seo, by providing the mouthpiece with a resistance to draw of less than 32mm H2O, as taught by Hepworth, because both Ibrahim and Hepworth are directed to smoking articles, Hepworth teaches the pressure drop allows for sufficient aerosol to pass through the mouthpiece, and this involves applying a known pressure drop range to a similar mouthpiece filter in a similar aerosol generating article to yield predictable results.
Ibrahim is silent to the dimensions of the article. Ibrahim, in view of Seo and Hepworth, does not explicitly disclose the position of the row of perforations relative to the upstream end of the article.
However, Hepworth, directed to an aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1, [0058]), discloses:
An aerosol generating article (1) comprising an aerosol generating material (3) having a length of 10 to 100mm ([0087]) and the mouthpiece (2, “downstream section”) having a length of 30 to 50mm (Fig. 1, [0049, 0058]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ibrahim, in view of Seo and Hepworth, by providing the substrate in a length of 10-100mm and the mouthpiece in a length of 30 to 50mm, as taught by Hepworth, because both Ibrahim and Hepworth are directed to smoking articles, Ibrahim teaches a smoking article having a mouthpiece and substrate but is silent to the dimensions of the article, Hepworth teaching a similar smoking article having a mouthpiece and substrate with known dimensions, and one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to similar articles for suitable ranges of mouthpiece length and substrate length, and this involves applying known ranges of length to a mouthpiece filter and substrate in a similar aerosol generating article to yield predictable results.
In regards to the limitation requiring the upstream end of the first ventilation zone is less than 37mm from an upstream end of the aerosol generating article, Seo discloses the perforations (160) are separated from a downstream end (L2) of the smoking article (100) by 15 mm to 25 mm to prevent interference with the smoker's lips during smoking (Fig. 5, [0099]) and Hepworth discloses an aerosol generating material (3) having a length of 10 to 100mm ([0087]) and the mouthpiece (2, “downstream section”) having a length of 30 to 50mm (Fig. 1, [0049, 0058]).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of the disclosed position of perforations, aerosol generating material length, and mouthpiece length, could have reasonably arrived at a smoking article where the distance of the row of perforations (“an upstream end of the first ventilation zone”) to the upstream end of the aerosol generating article is in a range that overlaps with the claimed range of no more than 37mm and therefore the claimed range is considered prima facie obvious.
Seo discloses the perforation method, number, size, and the like of the perforations (160) may be varied to impact the air dilution rate of the mouthpiece ([0097]).
Seo does not explicitly disclose a perforation width and length, where the length is greater than the width.
However, Cunningham, directed to a smoking rod/cigarette (abstract, Fig. 5), discloses:
Rectangular perforations (8) circumscribing the filter portion (1) of the smoking rod (Fig. 5, col. 4 lines 46-52), having a length greater than the width.
The rectangular perforations are between 0.01 and 1mm in each dimension (claim 1, col. 3 lines 30-31).
Dimensions below 0.01mm are inconvenient to make and provide inadequate ventilation whereas dimensions above 1mm are also inconvenient to make and provide excessive ventilation (col. 5 lines 8-13).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ibrahim, in view of Seo and Hepworth by providing rectangular perforations with a width and length of 0.01 to 1mm as taught by Cunningham because both Hepworth and Cunningham are directed to smoking articles, Cunningham teaches the dimensions of 0.01 to 1mm are convenient to make and provide appropriate ventilation, and this involves applying a known ventilation hole dimensions to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Ibrahim is silent to the total draw resistance of the smoking article.
However, Malgat, directed to an aerosol generating article (abstract), discloses:
The resistance to draw (RTD) of the aerosol generating article is less than 10mm WG, preferably close to zero ([0109]). The range taught by the prior art lies withing the claimed range and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
The resistance to draw (RTD) of the aerosol generating article may be close to zero to prevent the user from drawing air through the aerosol-forming substrate sufficiently to light the aerosol-forming substrate ([0008]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ibrahim, in view of Seo, Hepworth, and Cunningham, by modifying the smoking article to have a resistance to draw of less than 10mmH2O as taught by Malgat because both Ibrahim and Malgat are directed to smoking article, Malgat teaches the sufficiently low resistance to draw prevents the user from drawing air through the aerosol-forming substrate sufficiently to light the aerosol-forming substrate, and this involves applying a known resistance to draw to a similar smoking article to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Seo (US 20210212358 A1) discloses a smoking product (100) comprising a smoking material portion (120) and downstream filter (110), the filter being formed of a hollow tubular element having perforations at specified distances from the downstream end of the article (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0036, 0041, 0044, 0084]).
Li (US 20080216853 A1) discloses a smoking article comprising a tobacco rod (12) and downstream tubular segment (18) having ventilation holes (42) and an orifice (34) in a flow restrictor (30) creating an unobstructed flow path (Fig. 1, [0018-0023]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORGAN FAITH DEZENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-0155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-430pm EST.
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.
/M.F.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
