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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-10 and 12-14 are currently pending and are subject to this office action. Claims 1, 4, 5, 10, and 12 are amended. Claim 11 is canceled. This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 04/15/2026.
Response to Amendments
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 04/15/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed 04/15/2026, the information disclosure statements filed 12/08/2025, 02/10/2025, and 09/26/2023 have been considered.
In response to Applicant’s amendments filed 04/15/2026, the Examiner withdraws the objection to claims 4 and 5 for containing informalities.
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed 04/15/2026, the Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection over claims 2-7 and 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 6-10, filed 04/16/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 1 to include a limitation of now canceled claim 11, specifically, “.. disposed therein, and wherein the tobacco medium of the tubular portion is in the form of granules”. The Applicant argues that the combination of Ma and Beard does not teach tobacco granules incorporated into the tubular cooling portion.
The Examiner agrees. Beard’s cited granules are disclosed as smoke-altering/adsorbent material, not tobacco medium, and therefore do not establish the claimed granular form of the tobacco medium or a reason for modifying Ma to arrive at the claimed invention.
The following are modified rejections based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[52], Line 2: “described in greater later” should read “described in greater detail later”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (CN 112568489 A, hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation and as cited in IDS dated 04/24/2025), and further in view of Lord (WO 2020089078 A1, as cited in IDS dated 04/24/2025).
PNG
media_image1.png
196
251
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
193
347
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 1, Tang, directed to a heating cigarette, teaches (i) a cigarette comprising a smoke generating unit (Fig. 2: #1) made of tobacco material [0019], (ii) a filtering unit (Fig. 2: #3) spaced apart from the smoke generating unit (Fig. 2: #1), (iii) and a tubular support cooling unit (Fig. 2: #2) disposed between the smoke generating unit (Fig. 2: #1) and the filtering unit (Fig. 2: #3). (iv) The support cooling unit (Fig. 2: #2) comprises a tube wall (Fig. 1: #21, [0008]) comprising reconstituted tobacco leaf sheets [0023]. Tang teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however Tang is silent to:
Wherein the tobacco medium of the tubular cooling portion is in a form of granules
Lord, directed to a smoking substitute consumable, teaches wherein an aerosol cooling element may comprise aerosol cooling material in the form of pellets or granules of extruded tobacco, creating a higher surface area for heat exchange (Pg. 4, Lines 15-17).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tobacco medium of Tang to wherein the tobacco medium of the tubular cooling portion is in a form of granules because both Tang and Lord are directed to cooling segments in aerosol generating articles. Lord teaches an aerosol cooling element comprising pellets or granules of tobacco to create a higher surface area for heat exchange (Pg. 4, Lines 15-17) and this merely involves applying a known tobacco form to a known aerosol generating article ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
PNG
media_image1.png
196
251
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
193
347
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 2, Tang teaches wherein the reconstituted tobacco leaf sheets of the tube wall (Fig. 1: #21) are arranged uniformly within the tubular support cooling unit (Fig. 2: #2).
With regard to Claim 3, As modified by Lord, Tang teaches wherein tobacco granules of the tube wall (Fig. 1: #21) are arranged uniformly within the tubular support cooling unit (Fig. 2: #2). While Tang does not disclose the tobacco medium in a non-uniform configuration, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a non-uniform arrangement along the tubular cooling portion as it merely changes the distribution of tobacco material already disposed along the cooling portion and would have simply been a rearrangement of parts and design choice (MPEP 2144.94(VI)(C)), wherein the specific arrangement is not shown to be critical to the operation of the cooling portion.
With regard to Claim 10, Tang teaches wherein flavoring components are soaked within an inner wrapping layer (Fig. 1: #212) of the pipe wall (Fig. 1: #21, [0044]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (CN 112568489 A, hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation and as cited in IDS dated 04/24/2025) and Lord (WO 2020089078 A1, as cited in IDS dated 04/24/2025), as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Beard (US 20120255569 A1).
With regard to Claim 4, modified Tang teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Tang is silent to:
Wherein a concentration of the tobacco medium in the tubular cooling portion at an inlet side of the tubular cooling portion adjacent to the tobacco medium is greater than a concentration of the tobacco medium in the tubular cooling portion adjacent to the filter portion
Beard, directed to a filtered cigarette, teaches a cigarette comprising smoke-altering material that may be provided only in one portion of a filter element, while another portion may be free of smoke-altering material [0047]. Beard further teaches an embodiment wherein the smoke-altering material is present only in the portion of the filter element proximal to the tobacco rod [0023]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to similarly vary the amount of granular tobacco medium of Tang, such that a greater amount is disposed towards the tobacco medium side inlet of the cooling portion and less towards the filter side, to enable particulate material to interact with certain gaseous species within the mainstream aerosol without contacting the full stream of the mainstream aerosol [0047].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cooling portion of modified Tang to wherein a concentration of the tobacco medium in the tubular cooling portion at an inlet side of the tubular cooling portion adjacent to the tobacco medium is greater than a concentration of the tobacco medium in the tubular cooling portion adjacent to the filter portion because both Tang and Beard are directed to aerosol generating articles. Beard teaches varying an amount of granular tobacco medium in specific sections to enable particulate material to interact with certain gaseous species within the mainstream aerosol without contacting the full stream of the mainstream aerosol [0047] and this merely involves the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (CN 112568489 A, hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation and as cited in IDS dated 04/24/2025) and Lord (WO 2020089078 A1, as cited in IDS dated 04/24/2025), as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Molins (GB 1372691 A) and Han (US 20210092989 A1).
With regard to Claim 5, Modified Tang teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Tang is silent to:
Wherein a concentration of the tobacco medium in the tubular cooling portion at an inlet side of the tubular cooling portion adjacent to the tobacco medium is less than a concentration of the tobacco medium in the tubular cooling portion adjacent to the filter portion
Molins, directed to a spaced filter cigarette, teaches a filter portion that may include a firm section at the end of a cigarette and a less firm section between the firm section and a tobacco portion, wherein the less firm section may be formed of less dense Estron (Pg. 2, Lines 22-28). Molins further teaches that the less dense section produces a substantial part of the total filtering effect without producing as much pressure drop as would be produced by a similar section of greater density (Pg. 2, Lines 28-34). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to similarly modify the tobacco medium of modified Tang that teaches material characteristics of the tobacco medium, such that the longitudinally arranged portions are at different densities in order to provide filtering while reducing pressure drop (Pg. 2, Lines 28-34).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cooling portion of modified Tang to wherein a concentration of the tobacco medium in the tubular cooling portion at an inlet side of the tubular cooling portion adjacent to the tobacco medium is greater than a concentration of the tobacco medium in the tubular cooling portion adjacent to the filter portion because both Tang and Molins are directed to aerosol generating articles. Molins teaches varying densities of a section of a cigarette to provide filtering while reducing pressure drop (Pg. 2, Lines 28-34) and this merely involves the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Han, directed to an aerosol-forming rod, teaches wherein physical properties and taste of a tobacco rod may be controlled by using reconstituted tobacco having different physical properties [0038]. Han further recognizes a non-uniform density tendency according to the length of the rod and different densities [0041]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Tang, as modified by Molins, and Han such that the concentration is lower at the inlet side and greater at the filter side, to improve the taste of the tobacco rod [0040].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cooling portion of modified Tang to wherein a concentration of the tobacco medium in the tubular cooling portion at an inlet side of the tubular cooling portion adjacent to the tobacco medium is less than a concentration of the tobacco medium in the tubular cooling portion adjacent to the filter portion because both Tang and Han are directed to imparting flavors in aerosol generating articles. Han teaches wherein tobacco in an aerosol forming rod may have different physical properties to improve the taste of the tobacco rod [0040] and this merely involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (CN 112568489 A, hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation and as cited in IDS dated 04/24/2025) and Lord (WO 2020089078 A1, as cited in IDS dated 04/24/2025), as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Adams (US 5692526 A).
With regard to Claim 6, modified Tang teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Tang is silent to:
Wherein a concentration of the tobacco medium at a central region of the tubular cooling portion is greater than at opposite end regions of the tubular cooling portion
PNG
media_image3.png
294
459
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Adams, directed to a cigarette for an electrical smoking system, teaches a tobacco column having a high-density central segment (Fig. 14: #608) along a tobacco rod, compared to other low-density segments (Fig. 14: #606 & #610, Col. 17: Lines 1-8). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the high-density central technique of Adams to the tubular cooling portion of modified Tang to create a more uniform firmness and longitudinal strength in the tobacco rod (Col. 16, Lines 20-30).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tubular cooling portion of modified Tang to wherein a concentration of the tobacco medium at a central region of the tubular cooling portion is greater than at opposite end regions of the tubular cooling portion because both Tang and Adams are directed to aerosol generating articles. Adams teaches a high-density central segment with filler material that creates a more uniform firmness and longitudinal strength in the tobacco rod (Col. 16, Lines 20-30) and this merely involves applying a known concentration to a known article ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 7, modified Tang teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Tang is silent to:
Wherein a concentration of the tobacco medium at a central region of the tubular cooling portion is less than at opposite end regions of the tubular cooling portion
Adams teaches periodically compressing a tobacco rod to establish spaced regions along the tobacco rod that have a density greater than interim portions of the rod (Col. 16, Lines 15-20). Adams further teaches that the tobacco column provides additional structural connections between the ends of the tobacco rod (Col. 17, Lines 24-26). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to similarly provide smaller concentrations of tobacco medium at interim portions of Tang's cooling portion to provide additional structural support.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tubular cooling portion of modified Tang to wherein a concentration of the tobacco medium at a central region of the tubular cooling portion is less than at opposite end regions of the tubular cooling portion because both Tang and Adams are directed to aerosol generating articles. Adams teaches having a higher density at opposite end regions of a rod as opposed to interim portions to provide additional structural connections between the ends of the tobacco rod (Col. 17, Lines 24-26) and this merely involves applying a known concentration to a known article ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (CN 112568489 A, hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation and as cited in IDS dated 04/24/2025) and Lord (WO 2020089078 A1, as cited in IDS dated 04/24/2025), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Banks (US 20200397039 A1)
With regard to Claim 8, Tang teaches wherein a grooved corrugated layer (Fig. 1: #212) of the support cooling unit (Fig. 2: #2) can be made of a cellulose acetate sheet [0012]. Modified Tang teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Tang is silent to:
Wherein the tubular cooling portion comprises cellulose acetate tow
Banks, directed to cellulose acetate tows, teaches wherein cellulose acetate tow may be used to provide sufficient strength and hardness [0014]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood cellulose acetate tow to be an alternative form of the cellulose acetate sheet of Tang and found it obvious to modify the cellulose acetate of Tang to be in the form of tow to be suitable for forming hollow structures while providing structural strength and hardness [0010-0014].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tubular cooling portion of Tang to wherein the tubular cooling portion comprises cellulose acetate tow because both Tang and Banks are directed to cellulose acetate used within smoking articles. Banks teaches cellulose acetate tow to form hollow structures while providing structural strength and hardness [0010-0014] and this merely involves applying a known alternative form to a known material ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 9, modified Tang teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Tang is silent to:
Wherein the cellulose acetate tow has a denier of 3 to 20
Banks teaches wherein cellulose acetate tow may have a denier of 3-12 [0023], having a significant amount of overlap in the range of the claimed invention and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the denier of Banks to modified Tang to improve draw characteristics of the article [0016].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tubular cooling portion of Tang to wherein the cellulose acetate tow has a denier of 3 to 20 because both Tang and Banks are directed to cellulose acetate used within smoking articles. Banks teaches cellulose acetate tow with a denier of 3-12 to improve draw characteristics of the article [0016] and this merely involves applying a known denier amount to a known material ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (CN 112568489 A, hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation and as cited in IDS dated 04/24/2025) and Lord (WO 2020089078 A1, as cited in IDS dated 04/24/2025), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma (CN 212877579 U, hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation and as cited in IDS dated 04/24/2025), Takeuchi (US 20040226568 A1), Chen (CN 110506989 A, hereinafter citations referring to English language equivalent US 20210204595 A1), and NASA (Sieve Analysis Appendix 4-8).
With regard to Claim 12, modified Tang teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Tang is silent to:
Wherein the tobacco medium portion comprises tobacco medium in the form of granules
Wherein the granules of the tobacco medium of the tobacco medium portion are larger than the granules of the tubular cooling portion
In regards to i., Ma, directed to a cigarette, teaches wherein a smoke generating section comprising granular tobacco raw material [0099] to create a better smoke generation effect, resulting in a high concentration and good comfort during inhalation [0044].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tobacco medium portion of modified Tang to comprise tobacco medium in the form of granules because both Ma and Tang are directed to aerosol generating articles comprising tobacco material. Ma teaches a smoke generating section comprising tobacco granules to create a better smoke generation effect, resulting in a high concentration and good comfort during inhalation [0044] and this merely involves applying a known tobacco form to a known article ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regards to ii., Takeuchi, directed to a smoking article, teaches wherein a flavor generating member may comprise granular molded material made of tobacco raw material [0030]. The diameter of the granules are in a range of 0.5 to 2 mm [0041]. Takeuchi further teaches that when the granules are too large the heat capacity per granule increases and the flavor delivered tends to decrease [0041] and when the granules are too small, suction resistance increases [0041]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply Takeuchi’s teaching of selecting the size of the tobacco containing granules to improve the flavor delivery and suction resistance of Tang.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tobacco medium portion of modified Tang to wherein the granules of the tobacco medium of the tobacco medium portion are larger than the granules of the tubular cooling portion because both Ma and Takeuchi are directed to aerosol generating articles comprising tobacco material. Takeuchi teaches a granule diameter range to improve flavor deliver a suction resistance in an article [0041] and this merely involves combining prior art elements according to known sizing techniques to yield predictable results.
Further in regards to ii., Chen teaches a cooling filter rod formed from cooling particles having a diameter of preferably 20-35 mesh [0019]. NASA evidences that a particle with a mesh size in the range of 20-35, using the U.S. sieve system, corresponds to about 0.5-0.84 mm in width (Pg. 7). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Tang, as modified by Takeuchi, and Chen's preferred cooling particle size because particles of proper diameter provide sufficient air permeability and allow the cooling particles to contact high temperature smoke to exchange heat and enable cooling [0022-0023]. The resulting combination results in the granules of the tobacco medium portion being larger than the granules of the tubular cooling portion.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tobacco medium portion of modified Tang to wherein the granules of the tobacco medium of the tobacco medium portion are larger than the granules of the tubular cooling portion because both Ma and Chen are directed to aerosol generating articles comprising cooling sections. Chen teaches cooling particles within a specific range to provide sufficient air permeability and allow the cooling particles to contact high temperature smoke to exchange heat and enable cooling [0022-0023] and this merely involves combining prior art elements according to known sizing techniques to yield predictable results.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (CN 112568489 A, hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation and as cited in IDS dated 04/24/2025) and Lord (WO 2020089078 A1, as cited in IDS dated 04/24/2025), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma (CN 212877579 U, hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation and as cited in IDS dated 04/24/2025).
With regard to Claim 13, modified Tang teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Tang is silent to:
Wherein the tobacco medium portion comprises a plurality of segments
Ma, directed to a cigarette, teaches wherein a smoke generating section comprising a smoke generating material section and a sheet like smoke generating material section [0099] to create a better smoke generation effect, resulting in a high concentration and good comfort during inhalation [0044].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tobacco medium portion of modified Tang to comprise a plurality of segments because both Ma and Tang are directed to aerosol generating articles comprising tobacco material. Ma teaches a smoke generating section comprising two sections to create a better smoke generation effect, resulting in a high concentration and good comfort during inhalation [0044] and this merely involves applying a known tobacco form to a known article ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 14, modified Tang teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Tang is silent to:
Wherein at least one of the plurality of segments comprises a tobacco medium
Ma teaches wherein a smoke generating section comprises a smoke generating material section and a sheet like smoke generating material section, each comprising tobacco material [0099] to create a better smoke generation effect, resulting in a high concentration and good comfort during inhalation [0044].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tobacco medium portion of modified Tang to wherein at least one of the plurality of segments comprises a tobacco medium because both Ma and Tang are directed to aerosol generating articles comprising tobacco material. Ma teaches a smoke generating section comprising two sections with tobacco material to create a better smoke generation effect, resulting in a high concentration and good comfort during inhalation [0044] and this merely involves applying a known tobacco form to a known article ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWATOSIN O DIYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 am - 6 pm.
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.
/O.O.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights