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 16-26, and 29-30 are pending and are subject to this office action. Claim 16 and 19 have been amended.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed on 04/20/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Applicant notes that Barnes (US 5348027 A) was relied upon in the Non Final Rejection dated , but not included in the PTO-892. The Examiner has provided the cited for Barnes (US 5348027 A) on the PTO-892 provided with this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6, filed 04/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 19 to correct the antecedent basis issue with the limitation, “the wall thickness”. Therefore, the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6-9, filed 04/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hwang in view of Bowen have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 16 to require the hollow tubular element be formed of cardboard, which was not previously presented. The prior office action relied on Hwang for disclosing a hollow tubular element (first filter segment 321) formed of cellulose acetate (Fig. 5B, [0071]). Hwang does not explicitly disclose the first filter segment (321) may be formed of cardboard. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of a newly found prior art.
On pg. 6, Applicant argues the Cheong does not teach the claimed structural relationship between the axial length and wall thickness. The Examiner disagrees. Cheong was relied upon for disclosing a ratio of the length of the hollow tubular segment of the upstream element to the wall thickness of the hollow tubular segment of the upstream element, as recited in claim 19. Hwang discloses an upstream element having a length of 7mm (([0065])) and Cheong discloses an upstream element (421, 520) having a diameter of 4 to 10mm ([0078]) and an ID/OD ratio of 0.05 to 0.9 ([0099-0101]) which results in a ratio of length to wall thickness of 0.7-17.5 which overlaps with the claimed range of at least 5 and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. Applicant refers to previous arguments regarding Cheong. However, the previously filed arguments (07/17/2025, 11/10/2025) do not appear to address Cheong.
On pg. 8-9, Applicant argues that a person having ordinary skill of the art would not have applied the substrate density of Bowen to the article disclosed by Hwang because Bowen is directed to a combustible article while Hwang is directed to a heated article and therefore Bowen is non analogous to Hwang. The Examiner disagrees. Hwang discloses the draw resistance is an important factor when designed a cigarette ([0093]) and Bowen discloses varying the density of the substrate impacts the draw resistance (col. 7 lines 57-68, col. 8 lines 1-8). Hwang and Bowen are both directed to the same field of endeavor of smoking articles and therefore are considered analogous art. Hwang explicitly states draw resistance is a factor in the cigarette design and Bowen discloses the substrate density can be varied to achieve an appropriate draw resistance. Thus, the selection of an appropriate draw resistance is applicable to smoking articles that are intended to be burned or heated. While the cigarette design of Hwang and Bowen differ, Hwang and Bowen are both directed to smoking articles and a person having ordinary skill in the art could have reasonably looked to Bowen from Hwang to arrive at the claimed invention.
The prior art rejections below are maintained and modified where necessitated by 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 16-17, 21, 25, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (US 20210000180 A1) in view of Bowen (US 5374869 A) and Hepworth (US 20230217991 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Hwang directed to a cigarette (3), discloses:
A cigarette (3) comprising a front end plug (33, “upstream element”), a tobacco rod (31, “rod of aerosol generating substrate”), a first filter segment (321), and a second filter segment (322, Fig. 4, Fig. 5B, [0061-0063, 0083]),
The tobacco rod (31) may be formed of tiny bits cut from a tobacco sheet ([0067]) which is considered to meet the claim limitation of shredded tobacco material,
The tobacco rod (31) has a length of about 15mm ([0065]) which lies within the claimed range and is therefore considered prima facie obvious,
The first filter segment (321) and second filter segment (322) are considered to meet the claim limitation of a downstream section provided downstream of the rod of aerosol generating substrate.
The first filter segment (321) is a tube-shaped structure including a hollow therein (i.e. “at least one hollow tubular element”) which abuts a downstream end of the tobacco rod (31), and has a length of 7-20mm (Fig. 5B, [0070-0071]). The length taught by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
A plurality of perforations (36, “a ventilation zone”) are formed in an area of the outer wrapper (355, “a peripheral wall”) surrounding the first segment (321, “at least one hollow tubular segment”) allowing air to flow into the first segment (321) during a puff (Fig. 5B, [0083]).
The front end plug (33, “upstream element”) abuts an upstream end of the tobacco rod (31) and the front end plug (33) has a length of about 7 mm (Fig. 5B, [0065]). The length taught by the prior art lies within the claimed range and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Hwang does not explicitly disclose the average density of the shredded tobacco material in the aerosol generating substrate.
However, Bowen, directed to a cigarette (abstract), discloses:
A cigarette comprising a tobacco rod where the tobacco density is at least 300 mg/cc (col. 7 lines 57-68, col. 8 lines 1-8). The tobacco density taught by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
A higher density of tobacco in the tobacco rod results in an increased resistance to draw (col. 7 lines 57-68, col. 8 lines 1-8).
Bowen does not explicitly disclose an average density of tobacco between 150 to 500mmg/cc. However, Bowen discloses a tobacco density greater than 300mg/cc. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a tobacco density in the range of 300mg/cc or more would include an average tobacco density that overlaps the range of 150 to 500 mg/cc.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hwang by using a tobacco density of 300mg/cc or more in the aerosol forming substrate as taught by Bowen because both Hwang and Bowen are directed to smoking articles, Bowen teaches that the tobacco density is a results effective variable that impacts the draw resistance of the smoking article, and this involves applying a tobacco density in a known range to a similar smoking article to yield the predictable result of a smoking article with an appropriate resistance to draw.
Hwang discloses the first filter segment (321) may be formed of cellulose acetate (Fig. 5B, [0071]).
Hwang does not explicitly disclose the first filter segment (321, “at least one hollow tubular element”) is formed of cardboard.
However, Hepworth, directed to an aerosol generating article (1, Fig. 1A, [0050]), discloses:
A hollow cooling section (8) abutting a downstream end of an aerosol generating material (3) formed of cellulose acetate filamentary tow or a cardboard tube (Fig. 1A, [0051, 0086, 0089]), and;
The cooling section (8) is manufactured to have sufficient rigidity withstand handing during manufacturing and use of the article (1, [0086]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hwang, in view of Bowen, by forming the first filter segment of a cardboard tube as taught by Hepworth, because both Hwang and Hepworth are directed to aerosol generating articles, Hwang discloses a first filter segment formed of cellulose acetate and Hepworth discloses a similar hollow tubular cooling section formed of a material having sufficient rigidity for handling such as cellulose acetate or cardboard, and this involves applying a known cardboard material to a similar hollow tubular element in a similar aerosol generating article to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Hwang discloses the front end plug (33) may be a hollow tube having a central longitudinal cavity extending through it ([0095]).
Regarding claim 21, Hwang discloses the first filter segment (321) includes a cellulose acetate filter ([0071]) which is considered to be a fibrous filtration material.
Regarding claim 25, Hwang discloses the front end plug (33) is circumscribed by a wrapper (351, Fig. 5B, [0064]).
Regarding claim 29, Hwang discloses a second filter segment (322) at the upstream end of the cigarette (3) where the user inhales from (Fig. 5B, [0092]) which is considered to be a mouthpiece element.
Regarding claim 30, Hwang discloses the first filter segment (321, “at least one hollow tubular element”) has a length of 7-20mm (Fig. 5B, [0070-0071]). The claimed range overlaps with the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Claims 18-20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (US 20210000180 A1) in view of Bowen (US 5374869 A) and Hepworth (US 20230217991 A1), as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Cheong (US 20200352220 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Hwang discloses the inner diameter of the front end plug (33) can be varied to control the draw resistance of the article ([0095]).
Hwang does not explicitly disclose the wall thickness of the hollow tubular segment of the front end plug/upstream element.
However, Cheong, directed to an aerosol generating article (400, Fig. 5, [0073-0074]), discloses:
A front end filter segment (421, 520, “upstream element”) comprising a channel (510) and having a diameter of 4 to 10mm (Fig. 5, Fig. 6, [0074, 0078, 0083-0084, 0087]), and;
The shape and area of the channel may be adjusted to achieve the desired draw resistance, such as the front end filter segment (520, “upstream element”) where the ratio of the inner diameter (W1) to the outer diameter (W2) is 0.05 to 0.9 (Fig. 13, [0099-0101]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hwang, in view of Bowen and Hepworth, by providing the front end plug with an outer diameter of 4 to 10mm and an inner diameter to outer diameter ratio (ID/OD) of 0.05 to 0.9, as taught by Cheong, because both Hwang and Cheong are directed to aerosol generating articles, Cheong and Hwang both disclose that the dimensions of the front end plug can be varied to control the draw resistance of the article, and this involves applying a known front end plug dimensions to a similar aerosol generating article to yield predictable results.
A person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of a front end filter segment (421, 520) diameter of 4 to 10mm ([0078]) and an ID/OD ratio of 0.05 to 0.9 ([0099-0101]) disclosed by Cheong, could have reasonably arrived at a smoking article having an upstream element with a wall thickness that is in a range that overlaps with the claimed range of less than 1 mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 19, Hwang discloses the length of the front end plug (33, “upstream element) may be 7mm ([0065]) and the inner diameter of the front end plug (33) can be varied to control the draw resistance of the article ([0095]).
Hwang does not explicitly disclose a ratio of the length to the wall thickness of hollow tubular segment of the upstream element.
However, Cheong, directed to an aerosol generating article (400, Fig. 5, [0073-0074]), discloses:
A front end filter segment (421, 520, “upstream element”) comprising a channel (510) and having a diameter of 4 to 10mm (Fig. 5, Fig. 6, [0074, 0078, 0083-0084, 0087]),
The shape and area of the channel may be adjusted to achieve the desired draw resistance, such as a front end filter segment (520) where the ratio of the inner diameter (W1) to the outer diameter (W2) is 0.05 to 0.9 (Fig. 13, [0099-0101]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hwang, in view of Bowen and Hepworth, by providing the front end plug with an outer diameter of 4 to 10mm and an inner diameter to outer diameter ratio (ID/OD) of 0.05 to 9, as taught by Cheong, because both Hwang and Cheong are directed to aerosol generating articles, Cheong and Hwang both disclose that the dimensions of the front end plug can be varied to control the draw resistance of the article, and this involves applying a known front end plug dimensions to a similar aerosol generating article to yield predictable results.
A person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of the front end plug length of 7mm ([0065]) disclosed by Hwang and a front end filter segment (421, 520) diameter of 4 to 10mm ([0078]) and an ID/OD ratio of 0.05 to 0.9 ([0099-0101]) disclosed by Cheong, could have reasonably arrived at a smoking article having a ratio of the length to the wall thickness of hollow tubular segment of the upstream element in a range that overlaps with the claimed range of greater than 5 and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 20, Hwang discloses the inner diameter of the front end plug (33) can be varied to control the draw resistance of the article ([0095]).
Hwang does not explicitly disclose the inner diameter of the hollow tubular segment of the upstream element.
However, Cheong, directed to an aerosol generating article (400, Fig. 5, [0073-0074]), discloses:
A front end filter segment (421, 520, “upstream element”) comprising a channel (510) and having a diameter of 4 to 10mm (Fig. 5, Fig. 6, [0074, 0078, 0083-0084, 0087]),
The shape and area of the channel may be adjusted to achieve the desired draw resistance, such as a front end filter segment (520) where the ratio of the inner diameter (W1) to the outer diameter (W2) is 0.05 to 0.9 (Fig. 13, [0099-0101]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hwang, in view of Bowen and Hepworth, by providing the front end plug with an outer diameter of 4 to 10mm and an inner diameter to outer diameter ratio (ID/OD) of 0.05 to 9, as taught by Cheong, because both Hwang and Cheong are directed to aerosol generating articles, Cheong and Hwang both disclose that the dimensions of the front end plug can be varied to control the draw resistance of the article, and this involves applying a known front end plug dimensions to a similar aerosol generating article to yield predictable results.
A person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of the front end filter segment (421, 520) diameter of 4 to 10mm ([0078]) and an ID/OD ratio of 0.05 to 0.9 ([0099-0101]) disclosed by Cheong, could have reasonably arrived at a smoking article having an upstream element with an inner diameter that is in a range that overlaps with the claimed range of at least 4mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 22, Hwang discloses the inner diameter of the front end plug (33) can be varied to control the draw resistance of the article ([0095]) and the front end plug (33) has a length of 7mm ([0065]).
However, Hwang does not explicitly disclose a resistance to draw of the upstream element.
However, Cheong, directed to an aerosol generating article (400, Fig. 5, [0073-0074]), discloses:
A front end filter segment (421, 520, “upstream element”) comprising a channel (510) which is sized to achieve an appropriate suction resistance (Fig. 5, Fig. 6, [0074, 0078, 0083-0084, 0087]), and;
The suction resistance of the front end filter segment may be 1 to 30 mmWG/mm ([0088]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hwang, in view of Bowen and Hepworth, by providing the front end plug with a suction resistance of 1 to 30 mmWG/mm as taught by Cheong, because both Hwang and Cheong are directed to aerosol generating articles, Cheong and Hwang both disclose that the front end plug can be used to control the draw resistance, and this involves applying a known suction resistance to a front end plug in a similar aerosol generating article to yield predictable results.
A person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of the front end plug length of 7mm ([0065]) disclosed by Hwang and the suction resistance of 1 to 30 mmWG/mm disclosed by Cheong, could have reasonably arrived at a smoking article having an upstream element with a resistance to draw in a range that overlaps with the claimed range of less than or equal to 10 mmH2O and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 23, Hwang discloses the length of the front end plug (33) can be varied to control the draw resistance of the article ([0095]) and the front end plug (33) may have a length of 7mm ([0065]).
Hwang does not explicitly disclose the front end plug may have a length in the range of 4 to 6 mm.
However, Cheong, directed to an aerosol generating article (400, Fig. 5, [0073-0074]), discloses:
A front end filter segment (421, 520, “upstream element”) having a length of 4 to 20mm (Fig. 5, Fig. 6, [0074, 0078, 0083-0084, 0087]). The length taught by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range 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 Hwang, by providing the front end plug with a length of 4 to 20mm as taught by Cheong, because both Hwang and Cheong are directed to aerosol generating articles, Hwang discloses the length of the front end plug can be used to control the draw resistance, and this involves applying a known length to a similar front end plug in a similar aerosol generating article to yield predictable results.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (US 20210000180 A1) in view of Bowen (US 5374869 A) and Hepworth (US 20230217991 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Thorens (US 20170340016 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Hwang discloses the tobacco rod (31) may include an aerosol generating material (“at least one aerosol former”) such as glycerin ([0066]).
Hwang does not explicitly disclose the aerosol former content.
However, Thorens, directed to an aerosol generating article (abstract), discloses:
A solid aerosol forming substrate containing tobacco ([0091])
The aerosol forming substrate comprising at least one aerosol former to facilitate the formation of a dense and stable aerosol ([0090]).
The aerosol-forming substrate has an aerosol former content of greater than 5 percent on a dry weight basis ([0092]). The claimed range of at least 10% 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 Hwang, in view of Bowen and Hepworth, by providing the aerosol former in an amount 5% or greater on a dry weight basis, as taught by Thorens, because both Hwang and Thorens are directed to aerosol generating articles, Thorens teaches providing an aerosol former in an amount greater than 5% facilitates the formation of dense and stable aerosol, and this involves applying an aerosol former in a known amount to a similar aerosol generating article to yield predictable results.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (US 20210000180 A1) in view of Bowen (US 5374869 A) and Hepworth (US 20230217991 A1), as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Barnes (US 5348027 A).
Regarding claim 26, Hwang discloses that draw resistance is an import factor in cigarette design because it impacts the amount of aerosol in the air ([0093]).
Hwang does not explicitly disclose the draw resistance of the aerosol generating substrate.
However, Barnes, directed to cigarettes (abstract), discloses:
The pressure drop of the substrate can be varied to deliver sufficient aerosol (col. 3 lines 54-65).
The substrate has a pressure drop of 2 to 40mm water (col. 4 lines 14-18). 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 Hwang, in view of Bowen and Hepworth, by providing the aerosol generating substrate with a resistance to draw of 2 to 40mmWG as taught by Barnes because both Hwang and Barnes are directed to smoking articles, Hwang discloses that draw resistance is an import factor in cigarette design because it impacts the amount of aerosol in the air and Barnes teaches that the pressure drop of the substrate can be varied to obtain sufficient aerosol delivery, and this involves applying a known pressure drop of a substrate to a similar smoking article to yield the predictable result of a smoking article with sufficient aerosol delivery.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights