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's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 2/25/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Crooks does not teach every limitation of claim 1. This is not found persuasive because as shown in the rejection below, Crooks does teach every limitation.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crooks et al. (US 2015/0201670).
Regarding claim 1, Crooks teaches an aerosol-generating article (Crooks para 10) for producing an inhalable upon heating in an aerosol-generating device (Crooks para 10). Note ‘for producing an inhalable’ is intended use of the aerosol-generating article. The aerosol-generating article comprises: a rod of aerosol-generating substrate comprising tobacco (Crooks para 24, item 51), a mouthpiece comprising a plug of filtration material (Crooks para 31, item 65), a wrapper (Crooks para 46, item 115) and a tobacco-containing layer comprising tobacco and an aerosol-forming agent (Crooks para 147), wherein the rod of aerosol-generating substrate is wrapped by the wrapper and by the tobacco-containing layer (Crooks para 70) and the tobacco-containing layer is positioned in contact with a surface of the wrapper (Crooks para 70).
Regarding claim 2, Crooks teaches an aerosol-generating article as above for claim 1. Crooks further teaches the tobacco-containing layer is coated or bound on an inner surface of the wrapper, facing the rod of aerosol-generating substrate (Crooks para 70).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Crooks teaches an aerosol-generating article as above for claim 1. Crooks further teaches the wrapper comprises a heat-conductive sheet, which may be aluminum, and the tobacco-containing layer is in contact with the heat-conductive sheet (Crooks para 26, 70).
Regarding claim 5, Crooks teaches an aerosol-generating article as above for claim 3. Crooks further teaches the wrapper comprises an outer paper layer (Crooks para 70) and an inner layer facing the rod of aerosol- generating substrate, wherein the inner layer is the heat-conductive sheet (Crooks para 70).
Regarding claim 6, Crooks teaches an aerosol-generating article as above for claim 1. Crooks further teaches that the aerosol-forming agent may be a polyhydric alcohol (Crooks, para 134, glycerin) or a diol (Crooks para 134, glycols).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Crooks teaches an aerosol-generating article as above for claim 1. Crooks further teaches the tobacco-containing layer has a binder, such as a gum or a monosaccharide (Crooks para 20, 144).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Crooks teaches an aerosol-generating article as above for claim 1. Crooks further teaches nanoparticulate tobacco (micronized/micron scale or smaller) powdered tobacco with a particle size of less than the claimed 30 µm (Crooks para 138-139, in the incorporated reference).
Regarding claim 12, Crooks teaches an aerosol-generating article as above for claim 1. Crooks further teaches the tobacco-containing layer further comprises non-tobacco flavorant (Crooks para 144).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Crooks teaches an aerosol-generating article as above for claim 1. Crooks further teaches the aerosol-generating substrate comprises one or more of shredded tobacco, including lamina, stem, scrap, or reconstituted as well as tobacco sheets (Crooks para 126-128, 138).
Regarding claim 15, Crooks teaches an aerosol-generating article as above for claim 1. Crooks further teaches a tubular member between the rod of aerosol-generating substrate and the mouthpiece (Crooks para 41, item 93).
Regarding claim 17, Crooks teaches an aerosol-generating article as above for claim 1. Crooks further teaches a tipping paper over the mouthpiece, the tubular member, and the rod of aerosol-generating substate, partially overlapping with the wrapper (Crooks para 32).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crooks as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Revell (US 2020/0359675).
Regarding claim 9, Crooks teaches an aerosol-generating article as above for claim 1.
Crooks is silent with respect to the tobacco-containing layer having a thickness of 0.1-0.5 mm.
Crooks and Reevell are related in the field of aerosol generating articles comprising tobacco. Reevell teaches that the thickness of an individual tobacco layer should be from about 100-500 µm (0.1-0.5 mm) (Reevell para 54) as this allows for control and adjustment of features such as porosity and density to allow for more uniform aerosol generation (Reevell para 24). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thickness of the tobacco layer of Crooks to be from 100-500 µm as taught by Reevell because this would allow for the tobacco of Crooks to be controlled for thickness, porosity, and density for uniform aerosol generation.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crooks as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Jang et al. (US 2020/0359688).
Regarding claim 16, Crooks teaches an aerosol-generating article as above for claim 15. Crooks further teaches the tubular member may be hollow (Crooks para 41).
Crooks is silent with respect to the hollow tubular member being made of paper or PLA.
Crooks and Jang are related in the field of aerosol generators for tobacco products. Jang teaches a tube filter which may be hollow between the tobacco containing segment and the upstream user section (Jang para 28, 41, 42) where the hollow tubular portion is either formed from paper or polylactic acid (PLA) so as to be degradable (Jang para 41). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hollow tubular member of Crooks to be paper or PLA because this would improve the degradability of the aerosol generating article.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crooks as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Garcia Garcia et al. (US 2020/0359676).
Regarding claim 18, Crooks teaches an aerosol-generating article as above for claim 1.
While Crooks teaches the presence of aluminum as a heat distributing element, which may be considered a ‘susceptor element in contact with the tobacco-containing layer’ (Crooks para 26), Crooks is silent with respect to the aluminum element being inductively heatable.
Crooks and Garcia Garcia are related in the field of aerosol generating articles comprising tobacco. Garcia Garcia teaches doping a layer of aluminum with a ferromagnetic particle (Garcia Garcia para 23) so that the application of a magnetic field heats the susceptor and generates heat to further generate the aerosol (Garcia Garcia para 16, 23, 24). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aluminum layer of Crooks to be doped with a ferromagnetic material as taught by Garcia Garcia because this would allow the aluminum to be heated by a magnetic field and thus generate aerosol more effectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/LAURA B FIGG/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 5/21/26
Prosecution Insights