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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant has elected Group I (claims 1–11, 14–17, and 19) with traverse. However, Applicant has not presented any reasons, arguments, or explanations as to why the restriction requirement is alleged to be improper, nor has Applicant specifically addressed why the groups are not independent or distinct.
Accordingly, the traverse is considered improper, and the election is treated as an election without traverse. See MPEP § 818.03(a).
Claims 20, 21, 31, and 32, directed to non-elected inventions, are withdrawn from further consideration in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reevell (US 2020/0253274).
Regarding claim 1, Reevell discloses an article for use as part of an aerosol provision system.
Reevell teaches an aerosol-generating article comprising a component in the form of a rod having a longitudinal axis and configured for airflow during use, thereby defining an upstream end and a downstream end (Reevell, e.g., Abstract; ¶¶ [0017], [0018]).
Reevell further discloses that the component comprises a first material, such as a wrapper or structural rod material, and a second material comprising a plurality of non-tobacco strands disposed within the component (Reevell, Abstract; ¶¶ [0008], [0021], [0032]).
The non-tobacco strands of Reevell comprise solid, non-crystalline materials, including polymeric, gel-based, or extruded materials configured to absorb or adsorb an aerosol former, thereby constituting an amorphous solid material (Reevell, ¶¶ [0033]–[0039]).
Reevell further discloses that the amorphous solid strands extend substantially longitudinally through the component in the direction of the rod axis and, in preferred embodiments, have a length substantially equal to the length of the rod, thereby extending between the upstream and downstream ends and having a length of at least about 70% of the component length (Reevell, ¶¶ [0018], [0049], [0060]).
Regarding claim 2, Reevell discloses that the second material comprises a plurality of elongate strands, each strand being an elongate solid element, and that the plurality of strands are arranged substantially parallel to one another along the longitudinal direction of the rod (Reevell, Abstract; ¶¶ [0018], [0052]).
Regarding claim 3, Reevell expressly discloses embodiments in which the aerosol-generating article comprises about 20 elongate solid strands (Reevell ¶[0051]).
Because 20 strips falls squarely within the claimed numerical ranges, Reevell teaches a number of elongate amorphous solid strips meeting the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, Reevell discloses that the amorphous solid strands comprise a substance to be delivered, specifically an aerosol former, which is absorbed or adsorbed into or onto the solid strands and released during use to form an inhalable aerosol (Reevell, ¶¶ [0033]–[0040]).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-11, 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black et al. (US 2022/0015413), and further in view of Reevell (US 2020/0253274).
Regarding claim 1, Black teaches an article for use as part of an aerosol provision system. Black teaches an aerosol-generating article comprising a component having an upstream end and a downstream end and including a first material and a second material, both disposed within and surrounded by a wrapper (see, e.g., Black, Abstract; ¶¶ [0020]–[0024], [0035]).
Black further teaches that the first material is an aerosol-generating material, such as longitudinal aerosol-generating substrate strips configured to produce aerosol during use, and that the second material is distinct from the first material and arranged within the same component (Black, ¶¶ [0036]–[0042], [0050]).
Black does not explicitly teach that the second material comprises an amorphous solid material that extends substantially longitudinally through the component and has a length of at least about 70% of the length of the component, as recited in claim 1.
However, Reevell discloses that aerosol-generating articles may include a second material comprising an amorphous solid material, such as non-tobacco polymeric or gel-based solid strands, which extend substantially longitudinally through the component between upstream and downstream ends and, in preferred embodiments, have a length substantially equal to the length of the component, thereby meeting the claimed “at least about 70%” length requirement (Reevell, Abstract; ¶¶ [0018], [0033]–[0039], [0049], [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the aerosol-generating article of Black to incorporate the longitudinally extending amorphous solid second material taught by Reevell in place of or in addition to Black’s second material, in order to achieve predictable improvements in aerosol or substance delivery uniformity, control of release, and structural stability of the article, as expressly taught by Reevell.
Black discloses an aerosol-generating article comprising a plurality of elongate elements disposed within a component and extending substantially parallel along the longitudinal axis of the article (e.g., Black ¶¶ [0036]–[0042], [0050]).
Regarding claim 2, Black teaches an aerosol-generating article comprising a plurality of elongate elements disposed within a component and extending substantially parallel along the longitudinal axis of the article (e.g., Black ¶¶ [0036]–[0042], [0050]).
Reevell discloses that amorphous solid delivery materials may be provided in the form of a plurality of elongate solid strands extending longitudinally and arranged substantially parallel to one another within the component (Reevell ¶¶ [0018], [0049], [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the second material of Black as a plurality of elongate, parallel amorphous solid strips as taught by Reevell in order to provide uniform substance delivery and predictable airflow interaction, as expressly taught by Reevell.
Regarding claim 3, Reevell expressly discloses embodiments in which the aerosol-generating article comprises about 20 elongate solid strands (Reevell ¶[0051]).
Because 20 strips falls squarely within the claimed numerical ranges, Reevell teaches a number of elongate amorphous solid strips meeting the limitations of claim 3.
It would have been obvious to apply the strand number taught by Reevell to the modified article of Black for predictable and optimized delivery performance.
Accordingly, claim 3 is unpatentable over Black in view of Reevell.
Regarding claim 4, Reevell teaches that the elongate amorphous solid strands preferably have a length substantially equal to the length of the component, extending along substantially the entire longitudinal extent of the article (Reevell ¶¶ [0018], [0049]).
A strand having a length substantially equal to the component length necessarily extends to within a small distance of both the upstream and downstream ends, including within 5 mm, as recited in claim 4.
It would have been obvious to implement such full-length or near-full-length strands in the article of Black, as modified by Reevell, to ensure consistent interaction with airflow along the component.
Regarding claim 6, Reevell expressly discloses that the amorphous solid delivery material comprises a substance to be delivered, such as an aerosol former or other deliverable compound, which is absorbed or adsorbed into or onto the solid material and released during use of the article (Reevell ¶¶ [0033]–[0040]).
It would have been obvious to incorporate such substance-containing amorphous solid material into the aerosol-generating article of Black in order to provide controlled and predictable delivery of a substance during aerosol generation, as expressly taught by Reevell.
Regarding claim 9, Black teaches an aerosol-generating article comprising an aerosol-generating material part (10) including aerosol-generating strips (18) and a second material in the form of an inductively heatable susceptor (12), wherein the susceptor is positioned within the aerosol-generating material and is fully surrounded by the aerosol-generating strips (¶¶[0080], [0083], [0088]).
As set forth above with respect to claim 1, Reevell discloses the remaining limitations of the independent claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the surrounding arrangement taught by Black to the article of Reevell in order to promote uniform heating and aerosol generation.
Regarding claim 10, Black expressly teaches that the inductively heatable susceptor (12) is positioned centrally within the aerosol-generating material part (10) and is fully surrounded by the aerosol-generating strips (18) (¶[0088]).
As explained above with respect to claim 1, Reevell teaches the remaining limitations of the independent claim. It would have been obvious to incorporate the internal and surrounding arrangement disclosed by Black into the aerosol-generating article of Reevell as a predictable design choice for improving heat transfer and aerosol formation.
Regarding claim 11, Black explicitly teaches that the aerosol-generating material part (10) comprises aerosol-generating strips (18) formed from aerosol-forming material (¶¶[0071], [0075]–[0076]).
As set forth above with respect to claim 1, Reevell is relied upon for the remaining limitations of the independent claim.
It would have been obvious to utilize the aerosol-generating material disclosed by Black as the first material in the combined article of Black and Reevell, since both references are directed to aerosol-generating articles for inhalation.
Regarding claim 14, Black teaches an aerosol-generating article in which the aerosol-generating material part (10), including aerosol-generating strips (18), forms the portion of the article that generates aerosol during use (¶¶[0071], [0075]–[0076]). Thus, Black teaches a component that constitutes an aerosol generation portion of the article.
As set forth above with respect to claim 1, Reevell is relied upon for the remaining limitations of the independent claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the component of the combined article of Black and Reevell as an aerosol generation portion, since both references are directed to aerosol-generating articles in which aerosol is produced in a defined portion of the article.
Regarding claim 15, As set forth with respect to claim 1, the “first material” broadly recites a material portion of the aerosol-generating article that is surrounded by a wrapper and is not limited to being aerosol-generating.
Black discloses an aerosol-generating article comprising multiple material portions arranged longitudinally and surrounded by a wrapper, including a filter (26) (¶[0074]). The filter constitutes a filter material and is a material portion of the article within the meaning of the claimed first material.
Accordingly, Black teaches the additional limitation of claim 15. As previously explained with respect to claim 1, Reevell is relied upon for the remaining limitations of the independent claim.
Regarding claim 16, Black teaches an aerosol-generating article in which the arrangement and configuration of the aerosol-generating material part (10) and the second material, such as the inductively heatable susceptor (12), are selected to control heating, airflow, and aerosol characteristics within the article (¶¶[0071], [0072], [0080], [0088]). Thus, Black teaches a component that modifies aerosol properties during use.
As set forth above with respect to claim 1, Reevell is relied upon for the remaining limitations of the independent claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the component of the combined article of Black and Reevell as an aerosol-modifying portion, since both references are directed to aerosol articles in which internal components are arranged to influence aerosol formation, delivery, and characteristics.
Regarding claim 17, Black teaches an aerosol-generating article in which internal components, including the aerosol-generating material and associated elements, are arranged to influence heating, airflow, and aerosol characteristics during use, thereby functioning as an aerosol-modifying portion of the article (¶¶[0071], [0072], [0080], [0088]).
Reevell expressly teaches that aerosol-generating articles include articles in which an aerosol-generating substrate is combusted, such as conventional cigarettes (Reevell ¶¶[0014]–[0015]). Reevell further teaches aerosol-generating substrates configured to control aerosol formation and release during use (Reevell ¶¶[0012], [0021]–[0023]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the aerosol-modifying portion taught by Black for use in a combustible aerosol provision system, as expressly contemplated by Reevell, since both references are directed to aerosol-generating articles in which internal structures are arranged to influence aerosol formation and delivery.
Regarding claim 19, Black teaches an aerosol-generating article comprising a shell or wrapper (14) that encloses both an aerosol-generating material part (10), including aerosol-generating strips (18), and a second material in the form of an inductively heatable susceptor (12) (¶¶[0070], [0071], [0080], [0088]). In Black, the wrapper surrounds both the aerosol-generating material and the second material and maintains their positional relationship within the article.
As set forth above with respect to claim 1, Reevell discloses the remaining limitations of the independent claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to enclose both the first and second materials of Reevell within a wrapper as taught by Black, since both references are directed to aerosol-generating articles and the use of a wrapper to contain multiple internal components is a well-known and predictable structural arrangement.
Claim(s) 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Black et al. (US 2022/0015413), and Reevell (US 2020/0253274) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of SCIBOZ et al. (US 2018/0310608).
Regarding claim 5,
“…wherein the second material comprises a sheet material and wherein a tensile strength of the second material in a longitudinal direction is at least one of …”
As set forth above, Black as modified by Reevell teaches an aerosol-generating article comprising first and second materials arranged within a wrapper, wherein the second material may comprise an amorphous solid material configured to deliver a substance. Black as modified by Reevell does not teach that the second material is provided in the form of a sheet material, nor does it teach or address tensile strength of the second material in a longitudinal direction.
However, SCIBOZ is in the same field of endeavor, namely aerosol-generating articles and tobacco products comprising sheet-based materials used for aerosol formation and delivery. SCIBOZ teaches forming homogenized tobacco material as a continuous web or sheet that is incorporated into an aerosol-generating article and functions as a material component of the article (SCIBOZ, [¶0067]), corresponding to the claimed second material.
SCIBOZ further teaches that fibers and binders are incorporated into the homogenized tobacco sheet to increase tensile strength, thereby improving resistance to tearing and enabling conveying, winding, and assembly of the sheet in a longitudinal direction during manufacture (SCIBOZ, [¶0051–¶0054], [¶0058]).
Thus, SCIBOZ teaches a sheet material used as a structural material component of an aerosol-generating article, wherein tensile strength in the longitudinal direction is an important design consideration. Tensile strength is therefore identified as a result-effective variable for sheet-based materials used in aerosol-generating articles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the second material of the article of Black as modified by Reevell as a sheet material having sufficient longitudinal tensile strength, as taught by SCIBOZ, since SCIBOZ addresses the same problem of providing mechanically robust sheet materials suitable for manufacture and use in aerosol-generating articles.
Regarding claim 7,
“…wherein the substance to be delivered is menthol.”
As set forth above, Black as modified by Reevell teaches an aerosol-generating article comprising first and second materials arranged within a wrapper, wherein the second material may comprise an amorphous solid material configured to deliver a substance. However, Black as modified by Reevell does not expressly teach that the substance to be delivered is menthol.
SCIBOZ is in the same field of endeavor, namely aerosol-generating articles and tobacco products configured to deliver flavorants during aerosol generation. SCIBOZ discloses forming a sheet material incorporated into an aerosol-generating article, corresponding to the claimed second material (SCIBOZ, [¶0067]).
SCIBOZ further teaches that the sheet material may include menthol as a flavorant or aerosol-forming substance, wherein the menthol is incorporated into the sheet and released during use of the aerosol-generating article (SCIBOZ, [¶0020–¶0022], [¶0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate menthol into the sheet-based second material of the article of Black and Reevell in view of SCIBOZ, since SCIBOZ teaches the use of menthol for aerosol delivery in the same field of aerosol-generating articles and addresses the same problem of delivering flavorants during use.
Regarding claim 8,
“…wherein the amorphous solid material comprises 2 mg to about 20 mg of menthol.”
As discussed above, Black as modified by Reevell teaches an aerosol-generating article comprising an amorphous solid second material configured to deliver a substance.
Black as modified by Reevell does not teach a specific amount of menthol incorporated into the amorphous solid material.
However, SCIBOZ, which is in the same field of endeavor of aerosol-generating articles and tobacco products, teaches incorporating menthol into a sheet-based material used in aerosol-generating articles and further teaches that the amount of menthol incorporated may be selected and adjusted depending on desired aerosol delivery characteristics (SCIBOZ, [¶0022], [¶0049], [¶0074–¶0076]).
SCIBOZ thus teaches that menthol content is a formulation parameter, i.e., a result-effective variable, that may be optimized without changing the fundamental structure or operation of the sheet material used for aerosol delivery.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an amount of menthol within the recited range of 2 mg to about 20 mg when incorporating menthol into the sheet-based second material of the article of Black and Reevell in view of SCIBOZ, as a matter of routine optimization to achieve desired aerosol delivery characteristics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. 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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747