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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The foreign references identified in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on 09/26/2023, 02/10/2025, 04/24/2025, and 12/08/2025 were searched for corresponding US Patents, Publications, or other English equivalents. Please see below:
CN 112788959 = US 20210127741;
CN 103037718 = US 20180317560;
CN 112423608 = US 20220330606;
CN 108601407 = US 20190075845;
CN 207639686 = No US or English equivalents located;
CN 112568489 = No US or English equivalents located;
CN 212877579 = No US or English equivalents located;
EP 3818864 = US 20210127741;
WO 2020089078 = No US equivalents, but is in English;
WO 2020256341 = US 20220330606;
KR 1020200005077 = No US or English equivalents located;
WO 2016151681 = No US or English equivalents located;
KR 1020200007019 = US 20200205467;
KR 1020200144049 = US 20220330606;
JP 2013532953 = US 20180317560;
KR 1020190107441 = No US or English equivalents located;
KR 1020200043165 = US 20210127741;
WO 2017207585 = US 20200008462;
KR 1020180070512 = US 20200093177; and
KR 1020210036716 = US 20220264943.
Of the above, US 20220330606, US 20220264943, US 20200205467, US 20200093177, US 20200008462 US 20190075845, and US 20180317560 are being cited in the attached PTO-892 because they are not already of record.
The information disclosure statement filed on 12/08/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China Application Serial Number 202280023982.9, Office Action dated September 5, 2025, 8 pages, has not been considered. The other references cited in the above information disclosure statement were fully considered.
The information disclosure statement filed on 02/10/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the Japan Patent Office Application Number 2023-566006, Office Action dated November 12, 2024, 2 pages, has not been considered. The other references cited in the above information disclosure statement were fully considered.
The information disclosure statement filed on 09/26/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the Korean Intellectual Property Office Application Number 10-2021-0063012, Office Action dated September 14, 2023, 6 pages, has not been considered. The other references cited in the above information disclosure statement were fully considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 4, Examiner submits this claim would be more consistent if amended to recite “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 portion is greater than a concentration of the tobacco medium in the tubular cooling portion at an outlet side of the tubular cooling portion adjacent to the filter portion.”
As to claim 5, Examiner submits this claim would be more consistent if amended to recite “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 portion is less than a concentration of the tobacco medium in the tubular cooling portion at an outlet side of the tubular cooling portion adjacent to the filter portion.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2–7 and 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 2, the term “uniformly disposed” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “uniformly disposed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Simply stated, a person of ordinary skill in the art is unable to ascertain when a tobacco medium is “uniformly disposed” along a longitudinal direction of the cooling portion. It’s unclear whether applicant intend to capture a uniform density, length, concentration of tobacco/nicotine, shape, or some other parameter not claimed.
As to claim 3, the term “non-uniformly disposed” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “non-uniformly disposed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Simply stated, a person of ordinary skill in the art is unable to ascertain when a tobacco medium is “non-uniformly disposed” along a longitudinal direction of the cooling portion. It’s unclear whether applicant intend to capture a non-uniform density, length, concentration of tobacco/nicotine, shape, or some other parameter not claimed.
Claims 4–7 are rejected for the same reasons via their dependency on claim 3.
As to claim 10, this claim recites “wherein the wall comprises a flavoring material constituting the tubular cooling portion.” However, claim 10 when read in light of claim 1 creates circular confusion. For example, claim 10 nested into claim 1 arrives at “the tubular cooling portion comprises a wall comprising [a flavoring material constituting the tubular cooling portion] . . . .” This circular logic creates confusion because the wall is already part of the cooling portion. Does “constituting” intend to limit the structure of cooling portion to just the flavoring material?
For the purposes of searching and throughout the remainder of this action, Examiner will assume claim 10 recites “wherein the wall further comprises a flavoring material
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MA CN 212877579 (“MA”) (of record and with reference made to the attached machine translation).
As to claim 1, MA discloses an aerosol-generating article comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
225
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a tobacco medium portion (Fig. 1, 1; page 7);
a filter portion (3) disposed to be spaced apart from the tobacco medium portion (Fig. 1); and
a tubular cooling portion (2; page 7’s “the cooling section 2 is provided with a plant cooling fixing piece”) disposed between the tobacco medium portion and the filter portion (Fig. 1), wherein the tubular cooling portion comprises a wall (associated with 20) comprising a tobacco medium (last two paragraphs under “Embodiment 1” on page 7).
As to claim 2, MA discloses the aerosol-generating article of claim 1, wherein the tobacco medium is uniformly disposed in the tubular cooling portion along a longitudinal direction of the tubular cooling portion (Figs. 1–2; solid inner region of 2 in Fig. 1).
As to claim 3, MA discloses the aerosol-generating article of claim 1, wherein the tobacco medium is non-uniformly disposed in the tubular cooling portion along a longitudinal direction of the tubular cooling portion (through hole 20 creates a void in the tubular cooling portion along a longitudinal direction of the tubular cooling portion).
As to claim 10, MA discloses the aerosol-generating article of claim 1, wherein the wall comprises a flavoring material constituting the tubular cooling portion (last two paragraphs under “Embodiment 1” on page 7).
Claim(s) 1–2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TANG CN 112568489 A (“TANG”) (of record and with reference made to the attached machine translation).
As to claim 1, TANG discloses an aerosol-generating article comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
474
474
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a tobacco medium portion (Figs. 1–2, 1; page 5);
a filter portion (3) disposed to be spaced apart from the tobacco medium portion (Figs. 1–2, page 4); and
a tubular cooling portion (2) disposed between the tobacco medium portion and the filter portion, wherein the tubular cooling portion comprises a wall comprising a tobacco medium (page 4).
As to claim 2, TANG discloses the aerosol-generating article of claim 1, wherein the tobacco medium (2) is uniformly disposed in the tubular cooling portion along a longitudinal direction of the tubular cooling portion (Figs. 1–2).
As to claim 10, TANG discloses the aerosol-generating article of claim 1, wherein the wall comprises a flavoring material constituting the tubular cooling portion (last two lines on page 4).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6–7 and 13–14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MA CN 212877579 (“MA”) (of record and with reference made to the attached machine translation).
As to claim 6, MA discloses the aerosol-generating article of claim 3.
MA’s embodiment in Figs. 1–2 fails to explicitly disclose 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.
MA further teaches, albeit in a different embodiment illustrated in Figs. 4 and 8, 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
238
234
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
267
273
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of MA’s Fig. 4 or 8 into the disclosure of MA’s Figs. 1–2 for the benefit of cooling the stream of smoke through the aerosol-generating article (as taught by MA on page 7–8).
As to claim 7, MA discloses the aerosol-generating article of claim 3.
MA’s embodiment in Figs. 1–2 fails to explicitly disclose 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.
MA further teaches, albeit in a different embodiment illustrated in Fig. 7, 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.
PNG
media_image5.png
260
235
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of MA’s Fig. 7 into the generic disclosure of MA’s Figs. 1–2 for the benefit of a tobacco medium portion with both raw granular tobacco material and reconstituted sheet-shaped smoke material (as taught by MA on page 7–8).
As to claim 13, MA discloses the aerosol-generating article of claim 1.
MA’s embodiment in Figs. 1–2 fails to disclose wherein the tobacco medium portion comprises a plurality of segments.
MA further teaches, albeit in a different embodiment, wherein a tobacco medium portion (Fig. 5, 1 and 11) comprises a plurality of segments (1 and 11).
PNG
media_image6.png
272
507
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of MA’s Fig. 5 into the disclosure of MA’s Figs. 1–2 or vice versa for the benefit of a tobacco medium portion with both raw granular tobacco material and reconstituted sheet-shaped smoke material (as taught by MA in the first full paragraph on page 8).
As to claim 14, MA makes obvious the aerosol-generating article of claim 13.
The obvious rationale arrives at wherein at least one of the plurality of segments comprises a tobacco medium (as taught by MA in the first full paragraph on page 8).
Claim(s) 8–9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANG CN 112568489 A (“TANG”) (of record and with reference made to the attached machine translation) in view of LI CN 112423608 (“LI”) (of record and with reference made to the attached machine translation).
As to claim 8, TANG discloses the aerosol-generating article of claim 1.
TANG further discloses wherein the tubular cooling portion comprises a cellulose acetate
TANG fails to explicitly disclose that the cellulose acetate is a tow.
LI teaches wherein the tubular cooling portion comprises a cellulose acetate tow (bottom of page 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date with the motivation to form an acetate fibre sheet (as disclosed by TANG at Page 3) to incorporate the teachings of LI’s cellulose acetate is a tow for the benefit of a structurally rigid hollow tubular cooling part (as taught by LI in the last two paragraphs on page 7).
As to claim 9, TANG and LI make obvious the aerosol-generating article of claim 8.
TANG fails to disclose the cellulose acetate tow has a denier of 3 to 20.
LI further teaches the cellulose acetate tow has a denier of 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date with the motivation to form an acetate fibre sheet (as disclosed by TANG at Page 3) to further incorporate the specific teachings of LI’s acetate is a tow with denier of 5 for the benefit of a structurally rigid hollow tubular cooling part (as taught by LI in the last two paragraphs on page 7).
Claim(s) 3–7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MA CN 212877579 (“MA”) (of record and with reference made to the attached machine translation) in view of BEARD US 20120255569 (“BEARD”).
With respect to claim 3, MA anticipates claim 3 for the reasons stated in the relevant section above. With respect to claims 6–7, MA makes obvious claims 6–7 for the reasons stated in the relevant section above. An alternative rejection is made below to advance compact prosecution.
As to claims 3–7, MA discloses the aerosol-generating article of claim 1.
MA fails to explicitly disclose 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 portion is greater than at an outlet side of the tubular cooling portion adjacent to the filter portion (claim 4) or 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 portion is less than at an outlet side of the tubular cooling portion adjacent to the filter portion (claim 5).
BEARD teaches a smoke altering medium of a tubular cooling portion is in a form of granules (Fig. 2, 34; and [0048]) and these granules may be limited to defined portions of the tubular cooling portion [0057]. See reproduction below:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of BEARD into the generic disclosure of MA and arrive at wherein the tobacco medium of the tubular cooling portion is in a form of granule limited/present in only a defined portion of the tubular cooling portion (as taught by BEARD at [0057]) for the benefit of providing additional flavor to the smoke stream as it passes from the tobacco medium portion to the filter portion (as taught by BEARD at [0048]). Being limited to a defined portion, this generally makes obvious at the granules being present a) closer to the tobacco medium portion, b) closer to the filter portion, c) perfectly/half-way between the tobacco medium portion and the filter portion.
MA, as modified by BEARD to arrive at the granules being present a) closer to the tobacco medium portion, b) closer to the filter portion, c) perfectly/half-way between the tobacco medium portion and the filter portion, makes obvious wherein the tobacco medium is non-uniformly disposed in the tubular cooling portion along a longitudinal direction of the tubular cooling portion (claim 3).
MA, as modified by BEARD to arrive at granules being present a) closer to the tobacco medium portion, makes obvious 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 portion is greater than at an outlet side of the tubular cooling portion adjacent to the filter portion (claim 4) and 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 (claim 7).
MA, as modified by BEARD to arrive at granules being present b) closer to the filter portion, makes obvious 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 portion is less than at an outlet side of the tubular cooling portion adjacent to the filter portion (claim 5) and 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 (claim 7).
MA, as modified by BEARD to arrive at granules being present c) perfectly/half-way between the tobacco medium portion and the filter portion, makes obvious 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 (claim 6).
Accordingly, MA, as modified by BEARD, makes obvious claims 4–7.
As to claim 11, MA discloses the aerosol-generating article of claim 1.
MA fails to disclose wherein the tobacco medium of the tubular cooling portion is in a form of granule.
BEARD teaches a smoke altering medium of a tubular cooling portion is in a form of granules (Fig. 2; [0048] and [0057]). See reproduction below:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of BEARD into the generic disclosure of MA and arrive at wherein the tobacco medium of the tubular cooling portion is in a form of granule for the benefit of providing additional flavor to the smoke stream as it passes from the tobacco medium portion to the filter portion (as taught by BEARD at [0048]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MA CN 212877579 (“MA”) (of record and with reference made to the attached machine translation) in view of BEARD US 20120255569 (“BEARD”), as applied in the rejection of claim 11 above, and in further view of TAKEUCHI US 20040226568 (“TAKEUCHI”) and as evidenced by Sieve Analysis Appendix 4–8 https://jplwater.nasa.gov/Docs/NAS710656_4-8_Sieve%20Analysis.pdf (retrieved online 1/10/2026) (“NASA”).
As to claim 12, MA and BEARD make obvious discloses the aerosol-generating article of claim 11.
MA further discloses wherein the tobacco medium portion comprises tobacco medium in the form of granules (Figs. 1–2, Page 7 “the smoking section 1 takes the granular tobacco raw material as the aerosol generating substrate”). See below:
PNG
media_image9.png
222
485
media_image9.png
Greyscale
While MA and BEARD make obvious both granules in the tobacco medium of the tobacco medium portion and the tubular cooling portion, MA and BEARD fail to explicitly disclose wherein the granules of the tobacco medium of the tobacco medium portion are larger than the granules of the tubular cooling portion (for example, MA is silent to the size of the granules in the tobacco medium portion).
BEARD teaches wherein the granules of the tubular cooling portion have “a particle size of between about 8x16 mesh to about 30x70 mesh using the U.S. sieve system.” ([0049]). NASA evidences that a particle size of between about 8x16 mesh to about 30x70 mesh using the U.S. sieve system is a particle between 0.2 and 2.38 mm in size. See below:
Nasa at 7. Accordingly, BEARD teaches, as evidenced by NASA, granules of the tubular cooling portion have a particle size between about 0.2 to 2.38 mm in width.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of BEARD into the generic disclosure of MA and arrive at wherein the tobacco medium of the tubular cooling portion is in a form of granule for the benefit of providing additional flavor to the smoke stream as it passes from the tobacco medium portion to the filter portion (as taught by BEARD at [0048]).
MA fails to explicitly disclose the size of the granules within the tobacco medium portion.
TAKEUCHI teaches:
PNG
media_image11.png
467
336
media_image11.png
Greyscale
the size of the granules 151 [of the granules of the tobacco medium of the tobacco medium portion] is preferably set such that the ratio between the major diameter (d) [of the granules of the tobacco medium of the tobacco medium portion] and the inner diameter (D) of the [aerosol-generating article] 11 (D/d) is 3.5 to 16, or more preferably 4 to 15. When the ratio is smaller than 4, the heat capacity per granule 151 increases, and therefore there is a tendency that the amount of flavor delivered at the initial stage of the smoking is decreased. On the other hand, when the ratio is larger than 15, the suction resistance is increased, and therefore the suction tends to become difficult. Therefore, when the inner diameter (D) of the cylindrical member 11 is about 7 to 8 mm as in the case of ordinary cigarettes, the major diameter of the granules 151 should preferably be set in a range of about 2.0 to 0.5 mm.
Id. at [0041]. (annotation and underline added) The above establishes uniformity of the delivery of flavor from the granules in the tobacco medium is a result effective variable of the ratio of the size the granules of the tobacco medium portion to the diameter of the aerosol-generating material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of TAKEUCHI in the generic disclosure of MA for the benefit of balancing amount of flavor delivered without increasing suction resistance too much (as taught by TAKEUCHI at [0041]).
Taken together, the obvious combinations arrive at modified MA comprising:
1) granules of the tobacco medium of the tobacco medium portion within a range of at 2.0 to 0.5 mm (however, lager particles would also be obvious as a matter of routine optimization, e.g., where aerosol-generating articles have inner diameters larger than 8mm—as taught by TAKEUCHI at [0041]); and
2) granules of the tubular cooling portion within a range of at 0.2 to 2.38 mm in width (as taught by BEARD at [0048] and evidenced by NASA at 7).
Accordingly, modified MA makes obvious many combinations of granules of the tobacco medium of the tobacco medium portion and granules of the tubular cooling portion that fall within the claimed range of “wherein the granules of the tobacco medium of the tobacco medium portion are larger than the granules of the tubular cooling portion.” See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) (explaining “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”) (annotation added)
Claim(s) 13–14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TANG CN 112568489 A (“TANG”) (of record and with reference made to the attached machine translation) and MA CN 212877579 (“MA”) (of record and with reference made to the attached machine translation)
As to claim 13, TANG discloses the aerosol-generating article of claim 1.
TANG fails to disclose wherein the tobacco medium portion comprises a plurality of segments.
MA teaches wherein a tobacco medium portion (Fig. 5, 1 and 11) comprises a plurality of segments (1 and 11).
PNG
media_image6.png
272
507
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of MA into the disclosure of TANG for the benefit of a tobacco medium portion with both raw granular tobacco material and reconstituted sheet-shaped smoke material (as taught by MA in the first full paragraph on page 8).
As to claim 14, TANG discloses the aerosol-generating article of claim 13.
TANG fails to disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of segments comprises a tobacco medium.
MA teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of segments comprises a tobacco medium (first full paragraph on page 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of MA into the disclosure of TANG for the benefit of a tobacco medium portion with both raw granular tobacco material and reconstituted sheet-shaped smoke material (as taught by MA in the first full paragraph on page 8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JUNG US 20220264943 (“JUNG”) discloses an aerosol-generating article comprising:
PNG
media_image12.png
345
358
media_image12.png
Greyscale
a tobacco medium portion (Fig. 2A, 210; [0041]);
a tubular filter portion (230/240) disposed to be spaced apart from the tobacco medium portion ([0041]); and
PNG
media_image13.png
285
344
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
284
360
media_image14.png
Greyscale
a cooling portion (220; [0041])) disposed between the tobacco medium portion and the filter portion, wherein the cooling portion comprises a wall comprising a tobacco medium ([0051]).
However, the above cooling portion of JUNG, while cylindrical after the tobacco composition is crimped or wound, is not a “tubular” cooling portion consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation when read in light of Applicant’s Specification filed on 09/26/2023 (“Specification”), which illustrates round hollow tubular cooling portions. See e.g., id. at Figs. 3–4 and 8–10.
US 20210315264’s FIG. 6 shows a second embodiment of a consumable 1a′ which is the same as that shown in FIG. 5 except that the aerosol-cooling element 6a′ is formed of granules/chips/pellets of extruded tobacco. ([0586]). However, the aerosol-cooling element 6a′ is not a tubular. Where tubular cooling portions are disclosed, e.g., Fig. 9 at 6b, they made of cardboard—a non-tobacco medium.
US 20200093177 A1 discloses cooling structures of various shapes. These are manufactured from fibre with strands in various arrangements. FIG. 38A illustrates a cooling structure 4710 may be filled with granules formed of polylactic acid, cut leaves, or charcoal. ([0430]) Also, the granules may be fabricated by using a mixture of polylactic acid, cut leaves, and charcoal ([0430]). Please see below:
PNG
media_image15.png
405
304
media_image15.png
Greyscale
US 20200093177, Fig. 38A (illustrating granular tobacco 4712 within a non-tubular cooling section).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANLEY L CUMMINS IV whose telephone number is (571)272-1060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. (CST).
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.
/MANLEY L CUMMINS IV/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747