DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s filing 09/07/2023. Claims 1-11 are pending. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 04/23/2021.
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 .
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0046023 to Reevell (“Reevell”) in view of WO2014/086802 to Camus (“Camus”).
With regard to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 11, Reevell discloses the claimed aerosol generating article for use with an aerosol generating device (see e.g. Fig. 22-23), the aerosol generating article comprising:
a substantially planar aerosol generating substrate (see Fig. 22-23
PNG
media_image1.png
192
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
a wrapping member surrounding the substantially planar aerosol generating substrate to form a substantially planar aerosol generating article (see e.g. [0012], [0037] [0042-43] [0097]);
wherein the wrapping member comprises a window aligned with part of the aerosol generating substrate (Reevell does not disclose this limitation. Camus teaches at e.g. abstract, page 1 line 29-31, page 8 line 15-35, page 9 line 1-6, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the aerosol generating device art to include a wrapper having a window aligned with part of the substrate (abstract, “A sheet of paper material is Provided and comprises a window in the paper material. . . . The sheet of paper material is wrapped around at least a portion of the transparent wrapper (18) so that an underlying mouthpiece segment can be viewed through the window and the substantially transparent wrapper (18).”) See Camus at page 9, line 1-6, “Alternatively, or in addition, the paper wrapper may include a window which overlies at least a portion of a filter segment which includes a particulate material so that a consumer can observe the particulate material through the window and the substantially transparent layer. Where the paper wrapper also includes a window overlying a cavity within the mouthpiece, these may be the same window extending over both portions of the mouthpiece or they may be different windows.”). For claim 2, see Camus at e.g. page 1 line 30, page 8 line 21, cut out window in sheet material. For claim 3, Revell discloses the main surface as the outside surface of the device; Camus at e.g. Fig. 1 and 2 show that the window is less than the whole main surface. For claim 4, See Camus at page 9, line 1-6, “Alternatively, or in addition, the paper wrapper may include a window which overlies at least a portion of a filter segment which includes a particulate material so that a consumer can observe the particulate material through the window and the substantially transparent layer. Where the paper wrapper also includes a window overlying a cavity within the mouthpiece, these may be the same window extending over both portions of the mouthpiece or they may be different windows.” For claim 7, Reevell discloses the flat planar surface, and Camus at e.g. Fig. 2 shows the two connected papers (e.g. 18, 20) that are rectangle shaped.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the aerosol generating device art before the effective filing date to include the wrapping with window aligned with substrate, as shown in Camus, where the motivation or advantage of such combination is, as shown in Camus, “so that a consumer can observe the particulate material through the window and the substantially transparent layer.” Camus, page 9 line 1-6.
With regard to claim 8, Reevell further discloses where the aerosol generating article further comprises a support member forming a mouth- end portion of the article, and the support member has a tubular form configured to receive a downstream end of the aerosol generating substrate (e.g. Fig. 22-23).
With regard to claim 9-10, Reevell does not disclose claim 9-10. However, Camus teaches at e.g. page 10 line 1-10 that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the wrapper aerosol device art to include the ability of where the wrapping member has a porous inner surface facing towards the aerosol generating substrate for absorbing condensation and an anti-stick outer surface facing away from the aerosol generating substrate (see Camus, page 10, line 1-10, where the inner surface is a film that is absorbant, and then the moisture barrier coating/anti-stick is only applied to the outer surface of a sheet material). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the wrapping art before the effective filing date to include such surface coatings in order to reduce shrinkage, as shown throughout Camus page 10-11.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell, Camus, in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2018/0295875 to Kadiric (“Kadiric”).
With regard to claim 5-6, Reevell and Camus do not teach claims 5-6. Kadiric teaches at e.g. abstract, Fig. 5-6 [0078] that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the aerosol generation device art to include where the wrapping member comprises a removable portion covering the window and one or more lines of weakness defining a periphery of the removable portion, and the removable portion is removable by a user prior to use of the aerosol generating article in an aerosol generating device, and perforations/weakening line (abstract, a removable tipping wrapper portion (26) extending downstream from the at least one weakening line (22).; [0078] perforations that form a weakening line).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in aerosol generation device art before the effective filing date to include such removable portion of the wrapper, and with perforations, for the reasons stated in Kadiric at [0010]: “By providing at least one surface formation on a surface of the mouthpiece wrapper and underlying a removable tipping wrapper portion, aerosol generating articles according to the present invention advantageously provide a consumer with a choice over the surface texture of the aerosol generating article that contacts the their lips during smoking or otherwise using the aerosol-generating article. In particular, the consumer may choose not to remove the removable tipping wrapper portion to retain a surface texture that may be substantially the same as the surface texture of a conventional smoking article. Alternatively, the consumer may choose to remove the removable tipping wrapper portion before or during smoking to experience an alternative surface texture provided by the at least one surface formation on the underlying mouthpiece.” (emphasis added, to show advantage to user of providing different options, thereby allowing users to tailor their experience to their own preferences, and the like).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627