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 16-34, 36 are pending and are subject to this office action. Claims 16 is amended and claim 35 is canceled. Claims 28-30 are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed on 07/16/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed see pg. 8-16, filed 07/16/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 16 to require the resistance to draw of the upstream element is less than or equal to 10mmH2O, as previously recited in canceled dependent claim 35.
On pg. 8-9, Applicant argues that applying the cardboard tube (Fig. 1A, [0051, 0086]) of Hepworth to the first segment (321, Fig. 1) of Hwang ‘0180 is improper because Hwang ‘0180 discloses the selection of materials for the first segment (321) in relation to improved aerosol properties. The Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Hwang ‘0180 disclosing that the materials used for the first filter segment (321) may be chosen to improve aerosol properties does not preclude the selection of materials for different reasons and the first filter segment (321) is not limited to the materials disclosed by Hwang ‘0180. Hepworth discloses a similar hollow cooling section (8) formed of a cardboard tube which has sufficient rigidity withstand handing during manufacturing and use of the article (Fig. 1A, [0051, 0086, 0089]). Although Hwang ‘0180 discloses materials for the first segment (321) may be selected in terms of aerosol properties, a person having ordinary could have instead selected a carboard tube for the first segment (321), and they would have motivated to do so in order to have sufficient rigidity in handling and manufacturing.
On pg. 9-11, Applicant argues that Hwang ‘0180 suggests increasing the RTD of the upstream element because Hwang ‘01080 discloses the upstream element RTD and perforations are complementary such the upstream element RTD is increased to account for a decrease in RTD by the perforations. The Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Hwang ‘0180 discloses that draw resistance is an import factor in cigarette design because it impacts the amount of aerosol in the air ([0093]), but does not explicitly disclose a RTD value or range for the front end plug (33). Hwang ‘0180 teaching that the draw resistance of the front end plug and perforations may be optimized to achieve an acceptable overall draw resistance for the article does not teach away from an article having an upstream element with a draw resistance of less than 10 mmH2O.
On pg. 11-13, Applicant argues that the teachings of Hwang ‘0175 are not relevant to the cigarette disclosed by Hwang ‘0180, as the cigarette disclosed by Hwang ‘0175 is substantially different because it does not have perforations. The Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Hwang ‘0175 discloses the porosity, the inner diameter, and other design considerations of the front-end plug (33) may be determined in consideration of the draw resistance, the transfer amount of aerosol, and the cooling effect of the gas, such that draw resistance impacts the aerosol transfer amount and cooling effect of the gas ([0050-0053, 0099, 0100]). There is nothing in Hwang ‘0175 to suggest the relation between porosity, draw resistance, aerosol transfer amount, and cooling effect of the gas is limited to the specific cigarette configuration disclosed by Hwang ‘0175.
On pg. 13-14, Applicant argues that Hwang ‘0175 provides no teaching for decreasing the draw resistance of the front end plug, and that Hwang ‘0175 teaches increasing the RTD of the front end plug relative to the first segment (321). The Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. Hwang ‘0180 discloses that draw resistance is an import factor in cigarette design because it impacts the amount of aerosol in the air ([0093]). Hwang ‘0175 discloses the porosity, the inner diameter, and other design considerations of the front-end plug (33) may be determined in consideration of the draw resistance, the transfer amount of aerosol, and the cooling effect of the gas, such that draw resistance impacts the aerosol transfer amount and cooling effect of the gas ([0050-0053, 0099, 0100]). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform routine optimization to determine an optimal resistance to draw range of the upstream element to arrive at the claimed resistance to draw range of the upstream element.
Therefore, 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 16-20, 25, 27, 32-24, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (US 20210000180 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hwang ‘0180) in view of Hepworth (US 20230217991 A1) and Hwang (US 20210000175 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hwang ‘0175).
Regarding claim 16, Hwang ‘0180 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])
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, Fig. 4, Fig. 5B, [0071])
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 front-end plug (33) abuts an upstream end of the tobacco rod (31) and the upstream end of the front-end plug (33) is the upstream end of the cigarette (3), and the front-end plug (33) has a length of about 7mm (Fig. 4, Fig. 5B, [0065]). The length taught by the prior art lies within the claimed range and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Perforations (36, “a ventilation zone”) are formed in an area of the outer wrapper (355) 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]).
Hwang ‘0180 does not explicitly disclose the distance between the perforations (36) and the upstream end of the front-end plug (33, “upstream element”). However, Hwang ‘0180 discloses:
The cigarette (3) may have a total length of 48mm ([0065]).
The perforations (36) may be formed 12 to 24mm away from a rear end of the filter rod (32, i.e. downstream end of the cigarette, [0084]).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of the disclosed cigarette length and position of the perforations, could have reasonably arrived at a cigarette where the distance between the upstream end of the front-end plug (33, i.e. upstream end of the cigarette) and the perforations (36) is in a range that overlaps with the claimed range of 26-33mm.
Hwang ‘0180 discloses the first filter segment (321) is formed of cellulose acetate (Fig. 5B, [0071, 0079]).
Hwang ‘0180 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 ‘0180, by forming the first filter segment of a cardboard tube as taught by Hepworth, because both Hwang ‘0180 and Hepworth are directed to aerosol generating articles, Hwang ‘0180 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.
Hwang ‘0180 discloses that draw resistance is an import factor in cigarette design because it impacts the amount of aerosol in the air ([0093]).
Hwang ‘0180 does not explicitly disclose the draw resistance of the upstream element is less than 10mmH2O.
However, Hwang, ‘0175, directed to a cigarette (abstract, Fig. 1), discloses:
A cigarette (3) comprising a front-end plug (33) upstream of a tobacco rod (31, Fig. 1, [0027]), and;
The porosity, the inner diameter, and other design considerations of the front-end plug (33) may be determined in consideration of the draw resistance, the transfer amount of aerosol, and the cooling effect of the gas, such that draw resistance impacts the aerosol transfer amount and cooling effect of the gas ([0050-0053, 0099, 0100]).
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 ‘0180, in view of Hepworth, by providing the upstream element with a resistance to draw of less than 10mm H2O, because both Hwang ‘0180 and Hwang ‘0175 are directed to smoking articles, Hwang ‘0180 teaches generally that draw resistance impacts the amount of aerosol, and Hwang ’0175 further teaches that the resistance to draw of the front plug/upstream element is a results effective variable that directly impacts the transfer amount of aerosol and cooling effect of the gas, and this involves routine optimization of the resistance to draw of the upstream element using routine skill in the art to yield the predictable result of a smoking article with an optimal aerosol transfer amount and cooling effect.
Regarding claim 17, Hwang ‘0180 does not explicitly disclose the distance between the perforations (36) and the upstream end of the front-end plug (33, “upstream element”). However, Hwang ‘0180 discloses:
The cigarette (3) may have a total length of 48mm ([0065]).
The perforations (36) may be formed 12 to 24mm away from a rear end of the filter rod (32, i.e. downstream end of the cigarette, [0084]).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of the disclosed cigarette length and position of the perforations, could have reasonably arrived at a cigarette where the distance between the upstream end of the front-end plug (33, i.e. upstream end of the cigarette) and the perforations (36) is in a range that overlaps with the claimed range of 27-31mm.
Regarding claim 18, Hwang ‘0180 discloses the length of the tobacco rod (31) may be 15 mm ([0065]). The length taught by the prior art lies within the claimed range and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 19, Hwang ‘0180 discloses:
A second filter segment (322) positioned at the downstream end of the cigarette (3, Fig. 5B) where the user draws on the cigarette (3, [0058]), and is therefore considered to be a mouthpiece element, and;
The first filter segment (321) abuts an upstream end of the second filter segment (322, Fig. 5B), and;
The first filter segment (321) may be 7-20mm in length ([0070]) and the length of the second filter segment (322, “mouthpiece element”) is 4-20mm ([0075]). Therefore, the combined length of the first segment (321) and second segment (322) is in a range that overlaps with the claim range of 24-32 mm and therefore is considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 20, Hwang ‘0180 discloses the front-end plug (33) may be a hollow tube having a central longitudinal cavity extending through it ([0095]).
Regarding claim 25, Hwang ‘0180 discloses the tobacco rod (31) may be formed of pipe tobacco, which is formed of tiny bits cut from a tobacco sheet ([0067]) which is considered to meet the claim limitation of shredded tobacco material.
Regarding claim 27, Hwang ‘0180 discloses a second filter segment (322) positioned at the downstream end of the cigarette (3, Fig. 5B) where the user draws on the cigarette (3, [0058]), and is therefore considered to be a mouthpiece element.
Regarding claim 32, Hwang ‘0180 does not explicitly disclose the volume defined by the hollow tubular element. However, Hwang ‘0180 discloses:
The length of the first segment (321, “hollow tubular element”) is 7 to 20mm ([0070]), and
The diameter of the hollow within the first segment (321) may be 2 to 4.5mm ([0071]).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of the disclosed hollow tubular element length and diameter of the hollow (i.e. the inner diameter of the first segment), could have reasonably arrived at a cigarette where the volume defined by the hollow is in a range that overlaps with the claimed range of at least 300 m3.
Regarding claims 33 and 34, Hwang ‘0180 does not explicitly disclose the wall thickness of the hollow tubular element. However, Hwang ‘0180 discloses:
The diameter (i.e. the outer diameter of the hollow tubular element) of the cigarette (3) may be 5 mm to 9 mm ([0065]), and
The diameter of the hollow (i.e. the inner diameter of the hollow tubular element) within the first segment (321) may be 2 to 4.5mm ([0071]).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of the disclosed outer diameter of the cigarette and the inner diameter of the first segment (321), could have reasonably arrived at a cigarette where the wall thickness is in a range that overlaps with the claimed ranges of less than or equal to 1.5mm or 0.5mm
Regarding claim 36, Hwang ‘0180 discloses the cigarette (3) may be used with an aerosol generating device (1) and the front-end plug (33) may prevent the tobacco rod (31) from falling out of the cigarette (3, Fig. 1, [0063]).
Hwang ‘0180 does not explicitly disclose the front-end plug (33) is configured to position the tobacco rod (31) at a predetermined axial location when received in a chamber of an aerosol generating device (1).
However, Hwang ‘0180 discloses a cigarette (3) comprising a hollow tubular front-end plug (33) positioned immediate upstream of the tobacco rod (31) which is configured to be inserted in a chamber of an aerosol generating device (1, Fig. 1).
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the cavity in the hollow tubular front-end plug (33) to be capable of positioning the tobacco rod (31) at a predetermined axial location when received in a chamber of the aerosol generating device (1).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (US 20210000180 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hwang ‘0180) in view of Hepworth (US 20230217991 A1) and Hwang (US 20210000175 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hwang ‘0175), as applied to claim 20 above, further in view Malgat (US 20190075845 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Hwang ‘0180 discloses the inner diameter of the front-end plug (33) can be varied to control the draw resistance of the article ([0095]).
Hwang ‘0180 does not explicitly disclose the wall thickness of the upstream element.
However, Malgat, directed to an aerosol generating article (10, Fig. 1), discloses:
A hollow tubular plug element (90, “upstream element”) positioned upstream of an aerosol forming substrate (20, Fig.1, [0089])
The inner diameter of the plug element is the same as the width of the susceptor (25, [0093])
The diameter of the susceptor is 1 to 5mm ([0036])
The outer diameter of the plug element is greater than 5 mm ([0021])
The wall thickness of the upstream element is interpreted as the difference between the outer diameter and inner diameter of the upstream element.
A person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of the disclosed inner diameter of the plug element relative to the susceptor width, susceptor width, and outer diameter of the plug element, would have reasonably arrived at a smoking article where the wall thickness is in a range that overlaps with the claimed range of less than 2mm.
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 ‘0180, in view of Hepworth and Hwang ‘0175, by providing the front end plug with the range of wall thicknesses disclosed by Malgat, because both Hwang ‘0180 and Malgat are directed to aerosol generating articles, Hwang ‘0180 discloses the inner diameter of the front end plug may be used to control the draw resistance and Malgat discloses workable ranges of plug element dimensions, and this involves applying known plug element dimensions to a similar aerosol generating article to yield predictable results.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (US 20210000180 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hwang ‘0180) in view of Hepworth (US 20230217991 A1) and Hwang (US 20210000175 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hwang ‘0175), as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Thorens (US 20170340016 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Hwang ‘0180 discloses the tobacco rod (31) may include an aerosol generating material such as glycerin ([0066]).
Hwang ‘0180 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 ‘0180, in view of Hepworth and Hwang ‘0175, by providing the aerosol former in an amount 5% or greater on a dry weight basis, as taught by Thorens, because both Hwang ‘0180 and Thorens are directed to aerosol generating articles, Hwang ‘0180 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.
Regarding claim 23, Thorens discloses the aerosol-forming substrate has an aerosol former content of greater than 5 percent on a dry weight basis ([0092]). The claimed range of less than or equal to 20% overlaps with the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Claims 24 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (US 20210000180 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hwang ‘0180) in view of Hepworth (US 20230217991 A1) and Hwang (US 20210000175 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hwang ‘0175), as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Barnes (US 5348027 A).
Regarding claim 24, Hwang ‘0180 discloses that draw resistance is an import factor in cigarette design because it impacts the amount of aerosol in the air ([0093]).
Hwang ‘0180 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 ‘0180, in view of Hepworth and Hwang ‘0175, by providing the aerosol generating substrate with a resistance to draw of 2 to 40mmWG as taught by Barnes because both Hwang ‘0180 and Barnes are directed to smoking articles, Hwang ‘0180 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 routine optimization of the pressure drop of the substrate in a smoking article using routine skill in the art to yield the predictable result of a smoking article with sufficient aerosol delivery.
Regarding claim 31, Hwang ‘0180 discloses that draw resistance is an import factor in cigarette design because it impacts the amount of aerosol in the air ([0093]).
Hwang ‘0180 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 overlaps with 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 ‘0180, in view of Hepworth and Hwang ‘0175, by providing the aerosol generating substrate with a resistance to draw of 2 to 40mmWG as taught by Barnes because both Hwang ‘0180 and Barnes are directed to smoking articles, Hwang ‘0180 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 routine optimization of the pressure drop of the substrate in a smoking article using routine skill in the art to yield the predictable result of a smoking article with sufficient aerosol delivery.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (US 20210000180 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hwang ‘0180) in view of Hepworth (US 20230217991 A1) and Hwang (US 20210000175 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hwang ‘0175), as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Bowen (US 5374869 A).
Regarding claim 26, Hwang ‘0180 discloses the tobacco rod (31) may be formed of pipe tobacco, which is formed of tiny bits cut from a tobacco sheet ([0067]) and that draw resistance is an import factor in cigarette design because it impacts the amount of aerosol in the air ([0093]).
Hwang ‘0180 does not explicitly disclose the density of the shredded tobacco material.
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).
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 ‘0180, in view of Hepworth and Hwang ‘0175, by using a tobacco density of 300mg/cc or more in the aerosol generating substrate as taught by Bowen because both Hwang ‘0180 and Bowen are directed to smoking articles, Hwang ‘0180 discloses the draw resistance of the cigarette can impact the amount of aerosol and Bowen teaches that the tobacco density is a results effective variable that impacts the draw resistance of the smoking article, and this involves routine optimization of the tobacco density of a smoking article using routine skill in the art to yield the predictable result of a smoking article with an appropriate resistance to draw.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cheong (US 20200352220 A1) discloses an aerosol generating article (400) comprising a front end filter segment (421) having a suction resistance 1 mmWG/mm to about 30 mmWG/mm (Fig. 5, [0074, 0077, 0088]).
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
