DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 16-20 and 24-25 in the reply filed on 10/8/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the shared technical feature among all of the claims is a way of providing a capsule portion with capsules being easily breakable. This is not found persuasive because claims 16 and 21 require different configurations, the specific configuration for each corresponding to a different technical feature. Furthermore, the technical feature of claim 16 does not provide a contribution over the prior art as detailed below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Camus (WO 2014/012840).
Regarding claim 16, Camus teaches an aerosol-generating article 10 [Fig. 2], comprising: a substrate portion containing an aerosol-forming substrate 12 [page 11, l. 20-27]; and a embossed region 64 (capsule portion) containing a paper 58 (carrier material), breakable capsules 34 provided in depressions 68 between embossed peaks 66 of the carrier material, i.e. embedded in the carrier material [page 15, l. 11-34], the breakable capsules containing a flavorant (active agent), wherein at least parts of the one or more breakable capsules 34 are arranged at an outer surface of the aerosol-generating article [Fig. 2].
Regarding claim 17, Camus shows in Fig. 2 the at least parts of the one or more breakable capsules 34 protrude from the outer surface of the aerosol-generating article.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Camus teaches the aerosol-generating article has a cylindrical shape [page 14, l. 10], a plurality of breakable capsules 34 being arranged at an outer circumference of the article [Fig. 2].
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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camus as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Karles (US 2007/0012327).
Camus teaches the capsule portion is wrapped with a film (capsule wrapper) [page 10, l. 3-7]. Camus does not teach the capsule wrapper comprises a material that is impermeable for the one or more active agents. Karles teaches a cigarette wherein a film is impermeable to contents of the capsule to prevent permeation [0058]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the capsule wrapper of Camus to comprise a material that is impermeable for the one or more active agents so as to prevent permeation of the agent if prematurely released.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20 and 24 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: There is no teaching or reasonable suggestion in the prior art to modify the article of Kamus as applied to claim 16 above such that the capsule portion comprises a central hollow tubular portion or such that the carrier material is configured to resist pressure applied to the capsule portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights