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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tang et al. (CN 112568489).
Regarding claim 1, Tang discloses an aerosol-generating article comprising:
a tobacco medium portion (1, fig. 2);
a filter portion (3, fig. 2) disposed to be spaced apart from the tobacco medium portion; and
a tubular cooling portion (2, fig. 2) disposed between the tobacco medium portion and the filter portion, wherein the tubular cooling portion comprises a body including a cooling material (Abstract) and a central through-hole formed in the body (22, fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (CN 112568489) in view of Minzoni (US Pub. No. 2019021392).
Regarding claim 2, Tang does not expressly disclose the cooling material comprises activated carbon. Minzoni discloses the cooling portion arranged between the aerosol forming substrate and the mouthpiece filter comprises activated carbon [0006 and 0065]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the cooling material comprises activated carbon ad taught by Minzoni.
Regarding claim 4, Minzoni discloses the activated carbon has a surface area in a range [0051] overlapping with the claimed range of 600 to 3,000 m2/g; in case of overlapping ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range.
Regarding claims 5-6, Minzoni suggests the cooling material is disposed in the tubular cooling portion along a longitudinal direction of the tubular cooling portion by incorporating the particles during manufacture of the filaments [0073-0074]. Since there are a finite number of solutions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the cooling material uniformly disposed or non-uniformly disposed (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claim 7, similar to the discussion above, there is a binary choice for the concentration of the cooling material between the inlet side and the outlet side of the tubular cooling portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a concentration of the cooling material 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 (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claim 8, similar to the discussion above, there is a binary choice for the concentration of the cooling material between the inlet side and the outlet side of the tubular cooling portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a concentration of the cooling material 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 (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claim 9, similar to the discussion above, there is a binary choice for the concentration of the cooling material between a central region of the tubular cooling portion and an opposite end region of the tubular cooling portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a concentration of the cooling material at a central region of the tubular cooling portion is greater than at opposite end regions of the tubular cooling portion (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claim 10, similar to the discussion above, there is a binary choice for the concentration of the cooling material between a central region of the tubular cooling portion and an opposite end region of the tubular cooling portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a concentration of the cooling material at a central region of the tubular cooling portion is less than at opposite end regions of the tubular cooling portion (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claim 11, Minzoni discloses the tubular cooling portion comprises a cellulose acetate tow [0065] [0073].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (CN 112568489) in view of Minzoni (US Pub. No. 2019021392) as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Carpenter et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20110271968).
Regarding claim 3, Tang does not expressly disclose the mesh size of the activated carbon. Carpenter discloses particle sizes can be about 30 mesh to 200 mesh ([0003] and [0042]) overlapping with the claimed range of 20 to 100 mesh. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use activated carbon with the particle size taught by Carpenter for its adsorbent property in the device of Tang and Minzoni; in case of overlapping ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (CN 112568489) in view of Ademe et al. (US Pub. No. 20170164654).
Regarding claims 12-13, Tang does not expressly disclose the tobacco medium portion comprises a plurality of segments of tobacco medium. Ademe discloses an aerosol generating article comprises a tobacco medium portion wherein the tobacco medium portion comprises a plurality of segments wherein at least one of the plurality of segments comprises a tobacco medium (101, fig. 1) and at least another one of the plurality of segments does not comprise the tobacco medium (85, fig. 1) so that various combinations and varieties of flavoring agents can be incorporated in the aerosol generating article [0039-0040]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the article of Tang with the plurality of segments as taught by Ademe for the flexibility of flavor combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/6/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHU H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5931. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 5712703882. 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.
/PHU H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights