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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Figs. 2A-3B. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Fig. 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2, 5-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blick et al. (US 2014/0202470) as evidenced by Plastic Identification Tool.
Regarding claim 1, Blick teaches a vapour generating article (smoking article 10) comprising:
a main body having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, the body arranged to contain a solid vapour generating material — Blick discloses a tobacco rod 11 (main body) arranged to contain tobacco (a solid vapour generating material), with a first end and second end (¶ [0018]).
a filter comprising a mouthpiece end and an attachment end opposite the mouthpiece end, the attachment end arranged to be attached to the first end of the main body — Blick discloses filter section 12, sleeve 13, and filter section 14 forming the filter; sleeve 13 provides a mouthpiece end (¶¶ [0030]–[0031]); filter section 12 is attached to the tobacco rod 11 at the first end (¶ [0018]).
an airflow passageway within the filter configured to allow a vapour to flow into the filter through the attachment end from the first end of the body and out of the filter through the mouthpiece end — Blick discloses chamber 15 within the filter, which allows vapour to flow from tobacco rod 11 through filter section 12 into sleeve 13 and out through the mouthpiece (¶¶ [0021]–[0023]); additionally, channels 40 provide ventilation airflow into chamber 15 (¶¶ [0066]–[0068]).
wherein the filter comprises an adjuster configured to adjust the effective length of the filter such that the length of the airflow passageway within the filter is adjusted — Blick discloses the adjuster as formed by the relative sliding movement of filter section 12 within sleeve 13, which varies the length of chamber 15 and thereby adjusts the airflow passageway (¶¶ [0022]–[0023]).
Regarding claim 2, Blick teaches the adjuster comprises an inner sleeve portion (filter section 12) and an outer sleeve potion (sleeve 13). Regarding “wherein movement of the outer sleeve portion relative to the inner sleeve portion adjusts the length of the airflow passageway”, Blick teaches that sleeve 13 is slidable relative to the filter section 12, thereby varying the chamber 15 length to adjust the airflow passageway (¶¶ [0021]–[0023]).
Regarding claim 5, Blick teaches wherein the outer sleeve portion (sleeve 13) slides axially within the inner sleeve portion (filter section 12) (¶ [0021]; Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 6, Blick teaches the filter sections 12 14 are made of cellulose acetate tow [0020]. Cellulose acetate tow is a thermoplastic polymer derived from cellulose and is recognized in the art as a plastic material as evidenced by Plastic Identification Tool thereby meeting the limitation of “the filter is made of plastic”.
Regarding claim 12, Blick teaches a vapor generating article (smoking article 10) comprising:
a main body (tobacco rod 11) arranged to contain a solid vapor generating material such as tobacco (¶[0018]: “the tobacco rod 11” is formed of tobacco material).
The tobacco rod 11 forms a distal end of the smoking article (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2; also ¶[0017]–[0018]), with filter sections attached at the opposite end.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Blick (US 2014/0202470 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Blick teaches that the airflow passageway (chamber 15) is increased in length when filter section 12 is moved axially to the extended state (¶¶ [0021]–[0023]; Fig. 3).
Blick does not explicitly state that the airflow passageway is increased in length by moving the outer sleeve 13 away from the inner sleeve 12.
However, it has been held that making one part movable instead of another when both are part of a telescoping arrangement is an obvious matter of design choice. (See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Blick to move the outer sleeve 13 away from the inner sleeve 12 to increase the length of the airflow passageway as recited in claim 3.
One would have recognized that configuring the adjuster such that the outer sleeve 13 is moved away from the inner sleeve 12, instead of moving the inner sleeve 12, would have been a simple and predictable variation yielding the same result of lengthening the airflow passageway.
Regarding claim 4, Blick teaches that the airflow passageway (chamber 15) is decreased in length when filter section 12 is moved axially to the retracted state (¶¶ [0021]–[0022]; Fig. 2).
Blick does not explicitly disclose that the airflow passageway is decreased in length by moving the outer sleeve 13 toward the inner sleeve 12.
However, it has been held that making one part movable instead of another when both are part of a telescoping arrangement is an obvious matter of design choice. (See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Blick to move the outer sleeve 13 toward the inner sleeve 12 to decrease the length of the airflow passageway as recited in claim 4.
One would have recognized that configuring the adjuster such that the outer sleeve 13 is moved toward the inner sleeve 12, instead of moving the inner sleeve 12, would have been a simple and predictable variation yielding the same result of shortening the airflow passageway.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blick et al. (US 2014/0202470) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (US 2015/0027469 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Blick teaches the vapour generating article with the main body and filter arrangement as set forth in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Blick does not explicitly teach that the attachment end of the filter is releasably attachable to the first end of the main body.
However, Tucker discloses that filters in electronic smoking articles may be detachably attached to the main body or housing [¶0053, ¶0057].
It has been held that substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see MPEP § 2143).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Blick’s article in view of Tucker to include a filter attachment end that is releasably attachable to the main body, as required by claim 7.
One would have been motivated to apply Tucker’s detachable connection to Blick’s filter attachment in order to provide a user-replaceable filter.
Claim(s) 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blick et al. (US 2014/0202470) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Blick et al. (US 2013/0198361 A1) hereinafter Blick-2.
Regarding claim 8, Blick teaches the vapor generating article as detailed in the rejection of claim 1.
Blick does not explicitly disclose that the adjuster comprises a fixed element and a rotatable element configured to rotate relative to the fixed element.
However, Blick-2 discloses a smoking article an adjuster comprising a fixed element and a rotatable element (¶¶ [0293]–[0296], Figs. 50). Specifically, Blick-2 discloses a tobacco unit 261 (fixed element) and a rotatable sleeve 263 (rotatable element) (¶ [0293]). The sleeve 263 includes helical grooves 269 that engage with ribs 268 on the tobacco unit (¶ [0295]). This threaded engagement permits relative rotation of sleeve 263, which causes the sleeve to translate axially relative to the tobacco unit. As a result, the rotation of sleeve 263 adjusts the length of the variable chamber 265, which functions as an airflow passageway (¶ [0296]; Fig. 50).
It has been held that substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is an obvious matter of design choice (MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). It has further been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2143). Here, Blick already teaches an adjustable chamber length by relative movement of filter elements, while Tucker teaches a fixed and rotatable element with helical engagement to vary the chamber length.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Blick in view of Blick-2 to include a fixed element and a rotatable element configured such that rotation of the rotatable element adjusts the length of the airflow passageway, as recited in claim 8.
One would have been motivated to incorporate Blick-2’s rotational helical adjuster into Blick’s adjustable filter in order to provide a predictable, user-controllable mechanism for adjusting the airflow passageway length.
Regarding claim 9, Blick and Blick-2 are applied as in claim 8. Blick-2 (¶ [0295], Fig. 49) explicitly discloses that the rotatable element comprises a helical element (helical grooves and ribs that permit threaded engagement and rotation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Blick-2’s helical adjuster configuration in Blick’s article to allow repeatable adjustment of the airflow passageway length.
Regarding Claim 10, Blick-2 (¶¶ [0295]–[0296], Fig. 50) teaches that rotation of the helical element in a first direction extends the chamber length, and rotation in the opposite direction reduces the chamber length.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Blick-2’s bidirectional helical rotation feature to Blick’s adjuster, since such operation is a predictable result of threaded helical designs.
Regarding claim 11, Blick does not explicitly teach that wherein the rotatable element is made of paper.
However, Blick-2 discloses that the sleeve or outer sleeve is preferably formed of flexible material i.e. paper [0300]. Paper is thus expressly taught as a suitable material for the sleeve element.
It has been held that when a prior art discloses a particular material suitable for the identical structure recited in the claims, substitution of that known material is obvious (MPEP § 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Blick in view of Blick-2 to provide that the rotatable element is made of paper, as recited in claim 11.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form Blick’s adjustable rotatable element from paper as taught by Blick-2, since paper is conventional in smoking articles and provides known manufacturability and cost benefits.
Claim(s) 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blick et al. (US 2014/0202470) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morris et al. (US 2021/0329966).
Regarding claim 13, Blick teaches a vapor generating article comprising: a main body (tobacco rod 11; ¶ [0018]) containing a solid vapor generating material; a filter (sections 12, 13, 14; ¶¶ [0020]–[0021]) having a mouthpiece end and an attachment end; an airflow passageway (chamber 15; ¶ [0021]); and an adjuster (movement of section 12 within sleeve 13; ¶ [0021]) to vary the passageway length.
Blick does not explicitly teach a cooling region located between the filter and the substrate portion.
However, Morris discloses a smoking article including a cooling element positioned between the tobacco plug and the mouthpiece filter, configured to allow vapor to cool prior to inhalation (¶¶ [0035], [0041]–[0044]).
It has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious (see MPEP § 2143).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Blick’s smoking article with a cooling region as taught by Morris, in order to reduce vapor temperature and improve user comfort, yielding the predictable result of a cooled aerosol stream.
Regarding claim 14, as applied in claim 13, Blick in view of Morris teaches a cooling region between the filter and substrate portion.
Morris further discloses that the cooling region comprises a tubular bore or hollow chamber (¶ [0046]), which functions to cool the vapor.
It has been held that discovery of an optimum value of a result-effective variable is ordinarily within the skill of the art. (MPEP § 2144.01).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to implement the hollow chamber configuration of Morris in the smoking article of Blick, since Morris explicitly teaches this structure provides effective vapor cooling, yielding a predictable result.
Regarding claim 15, Blick teaches a vapor generating article (smoking article 10) which may be an article such as a cigarette, cigar, or cigarillo, whether based on tobacco, tobacco derivatives, expanded tobacco, reconstituted tobacco, or tobacco substitutes, and also heat-not-burn (HNB) products in which flavor is generated by the application of heat without combustion (¶[0017]).
Blick does not explicitly teach a vapor generating device configured to receive the vapor generating article and generate vapor from the vapor generating material.
However, Morris teaches that a plug of reconstituted tobacco material can be heated in a heating device, and that such HNB plugs are well known in the art (¶[0045]). Morris further teaches a cooling element comprising a longitudinally extending tubular core of thermoformed cellulose acetate, defining a bore through its length and including profiled outer grooves to provide effective cooling when used in heated tobacco products(¶[0046]).
It has been held that “the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results” (See MPEP § 2143).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Blick’s smoking article, which is expressly directed to heat-not-burn products, to be used with a heating device as taught by Morris.
Blick provides the article structure, while Morris supplies the missing teaching that such articles are conventionally paired with heating devices to generate vapor from the smokable material. The combination would have been a predictable application of known techniques to yield the expected result of a vapor generating system comprising a smoking article and a vapor generating device, as required by claim 15.
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