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 1-25 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-23, drawn to an article for use as or as part of a non-combustible aerosol provision system.
Group II, claim(s) 24, drawn to a method of forming an article according to claim 1.
Group III, claim(s) 25, drawn to a non-combustible aerosol provision system.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I-III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of an article comprising: an aerosol generating material comprising at least one aerosol forming material; a hollow tubular member disposed downstream of the aerosol generating material; a first substantially cylindrical body disposed downstream of the hollow tubular member; and a second substantially cylindrical body adjacent to and downstream of the first substantially cylindrical body, the second substantially cylindrical body being disposed at a mouth end of the article, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Lord et al. (US-20210315264-A1).
Lord discloses an article comprising:
An aerosol forming substrate 3 comprising at least one component for aerosolizing (i.e., aerosol-generating material) ([0023]-[0028]);
A hollow filter element 4 (i.e., hollow tubular element) disposed downstream of the aerosol generating material (Figure 3 and [0567]);
A cardboard spacer tube 6 (i.e., first substantially cylindrical body) disposed downstream of the hollow tubular member (Figure 3 and [0568]); and
A hollow filter element 5 (i.e., second substantially cylindrical body) adjacent to and downstream of the first substantially cylindrical body and disposed at a mouth end of the article (Figure 3, [0490], and [0567]).
Since the “special technical feature” linking Groups I-III is disclosed by Lord, the “special technical feature” lacks novelty and does not make contribution over the prior art. Therefore, no single general inventive concept exists and restriction is appropriate.
During a telephone conversation with Daniel Bruzzone on 3/4/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-23. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 24-25 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 9-11, 13, 16, and 21-23 are 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.
Claim 9 is rejected for being indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation of a length of the first cylindrical body is between 7 mm and 13 mm, and the claim also recites between 9 mm and 11 mm or approximately 10 mm, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as the first cylindrical body has a length between 7 and 13 mm.
Claim 10 is rejected for being indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation of a length of the second cylindrical body is between 3 and 9 mm, and the claim also recites between 5 mm and 7 mm or approximately 6 mm, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as the first cylindrical body has a length between 3 and 9 mm.
Claim 11 is rejected for being indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation of a combined length of the first cylindrical body and the second cylindrical body is between 10 and 20 mm, and the claim also recites between 12 mm and 18 mm or approximately 16 mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For purposes of examination the claim’s combined length is being interpreted as between 10 mm and 20 mm.
Claim 13 is rejected for being indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation of one or more ventilation areas are provided between 10 mm and 20 mm, and the claim also recites between 18 mm and 19 mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as the one or more ventilation areas are provided between 12 and 20 mm.
Claim 16 is rejected for being indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation of a ventilation level is between 40% and 80%, and the claim also recites or between 50% and 70% or approximately 60% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as a ventilation level between 40% and 80%.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the cylindrical body" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1 recites a “first substantially cylindrical body” and a “second substantially cylindrical body.” As such, it is unclear whether the recitation “the cylindrical body” is directed to the first, the second, or some unrecited cylindrical body.
For purposes of examination, the cylindrical body is being interpreted as the second substantially cylindrical body, in view of the specification.
Claim 21 is indefinite for reciting “the cylindrical body is substantially continuous through a volume” because it is unclear what is substantially continuous. It seems in accordance with the instant specification that the second substantially cylindrical body actually extends substantially continuously throughout its volume. It is further unclear what “substantially continuously” means as there is no definition provided in the instant specification.
For purposes of examination, “substantially continuously” is being interpreted as the second substantially cylindrical body extends to a downstream end.
Claim 22 is rejected for being indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 22 recites the broad recitation of the aerosol generating material having a length of between 22 mm and 30 mm, and the claim also recites the length can be between 24 mm and 28 mm, or approximately 26mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as the aerosol generating material having a length of between 22 mm and 30 mm.
Claim 23 is rejected for being indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 23 recites the broad recitation of the hollow tubular member has a length of between 17 mm and 26 mm, and the claim also recites the length can be between 18 mm and 24 mm, between 24mm and 26mm or between 20 mm and 22 mm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as hollow tubular member has a length of between 17 mm and 26 mm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 is not further limiting for reciting “wherein the first total denier value is different from the second total denier value” because claim 7 depends from claim 5 which recites the total denier for the first and second substantially cylindrical bodies are the same. As written the first and second substantially cylindrical bodies both have different total denier values and the same total denier values, which is not possible and therefore does not further limit the claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
For purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as depending from claim 4 and therefore recites the total denier value is different for both substantially cylindrical bodies.
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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 11, 17-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lord et al. (US-20210315264-A1).
In regards to claim 1, Lord directed to a smoking substitute consumable, discloses a smoking substitute article, such as a HNB consumable (i.e., non-combustible aerosol provision system) ([0023]), the article comprising:
An aerosol forming substrate 3 comprising at least one component for aerosolizing (i.e., aerosol-generating material) ([0023]-[0028]);
A hollow filter element 4 (i.e., hollow tubular element) disposed downstream of the aerosol generating material (Figure 3 and [0567]);
A cardboard spacer tube 6 (i.e., first substantially cylindrical body) disposed downstream of the hollow tubular member (Figure 3 and [0568]); and
A hollow filter element 5 (i.e., second substantially cylindrical body) adjacent to and downstream of the first substantially cylindrical body and disposed at a mouth end of the article (Figure 3, [0490], and [0567]).
It is further noted by the Examiner that Lord also teaches additional embodiments wherein the spacer cardboard tube 6 may be provided between the aerosol-forming substrate and the upstream filter element and/or between the two filter elements ([0067]). Therefore the cardboard spacer tube could also act as the hollow tubular segment and the hollow filter element 4 would then be the first substantially cylindrical body. This additional embodiment will be relied upon for dependent claims 12 and 19.
In regards to claims 2-3, Lord discloses the second substantially cylindrical body is formed of cellulose acetate tow ([0564]).
In regards to claim 8, Lord discloses the first cylindrical body is longer than the second cylindrical body ([0059], [0068], and [0565]-[0566]).
In regards to claim 11, Lord discloses a combined length of the first and second cylindrical bodies can be between 10 and 20 mm ([0059] and [0068]).
In regards to claim 17, Lord discloses the first cylindrical body is disposed immediately downstream of and adjacent to the hollow tubular member (Figures 3-6).
In regards to claim 18, Lord discloses the hollow tubular element is formed from cellulose acetate tow (filamentary tow) ([0564]).
In regards to claim 20, Lord discloses the wrapping layer may be embossed ([0488]) and circumscribes each of the cylindrical bodies ([0492]).
In regards to claim 21, Lord discloses the second cylindrical body continues throughout the article to the mouth end of the article (Figure 3).
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 9-10 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord et al. (US-20210315264-A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 9, Lord discloses the length of the first cylindrical body may be between 10 and 15 mm ([0068]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the axial length of the first substantially cylindrical body being between 7 and 13 mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 10, Lord discloses the second cylindrical body can have a length between 8 and 15mm ([0059]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the axial length of the second substantially cylindrical body being between 3 and 9 mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 23, Lord discloses the length of the hollow tubular member may be less than 20 mm ([0220]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the axial length of the hollow tubular member being between 17 and 26 mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord et al. (US-20210315264-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seo (US-20210000168-A1).
In regards to claim 4, Lord discloses the cylindrical bodies comprising cellulose acetate tow ([0564]) but is silent regarding the denier per filament value and the total denier value of the first and second substantially cylindrical bodies, and therefore does not explicitly disclose a denier per filament and total denier value of the cylindrical bodies.
However, since Lord discloses the cylindrical bodies comprising filamentary tow, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the cylindrical bodies would have a denier per filament and a total denier value and therefore is considered prima facie obvious.
In addition, Seo directed to a cigarette for an aerosol generating device discloses two separate cylindrical bodies (321 and 322) comprising filament cellulose acetate tow (i.e., filamentary tow), which is the same filamentary tow used in Lord and discloses each of the cylindrical bodies have a mono denier (denier per filament) and a total value denier ([0079]-[0084]).
Seo further discloses the denier of each filament is a value that can be changed within a specific range, thereby increasing an atomization amount of the cigarette for an aerosol generating device ([0088]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lord by specifying the cellulose acetate tow of both cylindrical bodies having a denier per filament and a total denier value, as taught by Seo, because both are directed to aerosol generating devices comprising articles, Lord teaches the same filamentary tow material, cellulose acetate ([0564]), Seo teaches the denier range increases the atomizing amount of the cigarette for an aerosol generating device ([0088]), and this involves specifying the same filamentary tow as having denier values of similar articles to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 5, Modified Lord discloses both cylindrical bodies, 321 and 322, can comprise the same denier per filament and total denier value because the total and mono denier values overlap in range (Seo [0079]-[0084).
In regards to claim 6, Modified Lord also discloses mono denier value of both the first and second substantially cylindrical bodies can have different values (Seo [0079]-[0083]).
In regards to claim 7, Modified Lord discloses the total denier value of both the first and second substantially cylindrical bodies can have different values (Seo [0079]-[0084]).
Claims 12-16, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord et al. (US-20210315264-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uthurry (US-20220015414-A1).
In regards to claim 12, In the alternative embodiment detailed in claim 1, Lord discloses the hollow tubular member comprises ventilation apertures 15ag and 15bg (i.e., one or more ventilation areas) (Figure 42 and [0731]).
However, in the primary embodiment Lord does not explicitly disclose the hollow tubular member comprises ventilation.
Uthurry directed to an aerosol-generating article with a ventilated hollow segment, discloses the aerosol-generating article comprising a rod of an aerosol-generating substrate, a mouthpiece and a plug of filtration material, wherein the mouthpiece is arranged downstream and the mouthpiece further defines a cavity extending all the way through the mouthpiece segment ([0010]).
Uthurry further discloses the aerosol-generating article further comprises a ventilation zone at a location along the hollow tubular segment ([0010]) and the ventilation zone creates a satisfactory cooling of the stream of aerosol generated upon heating the article ([0030]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to modify Lord by applying the ventilation zone of Lord to the hollow tubular element, as taught by Uthurry, because both are directed to aerosol generating articles, Uthurry teaches the hollow tubular element is known in the art to comprise ventilation areas and the ventilation area creates satisfactory cooling of the air drawn by the user ([0030]), and this merely involves adjusting a location of the ventilation areas of a similar article to a location known in the art to yield predictable results.
In regards to claims 13-14, Modified Lord discloses a wide range of lengths for the hollow tubular segment and the entire length of the article, including lengths within the claimed range (Uthurry [0094]). While Modified Lord does not explicitly disclose a ventilation area at approximately 18.5 mm or approximately 15 mm from the downstream end of the article, Lord does disclose the length of the first cylindrical body can be 10 mm ([0068]) and the second cylindrical body can have a length of 8 mm ([0059]). Since the hollow tubular segment directly abuts the first cylindrical body, Modified Lord discloses the ventilation is provided in the hollow tubular segment, and the total length of the first and second cylindrical bodies can be 18 mm, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the ventilation would be somewhere 18mm or greater which overlaps the claimed ventilation being 18.5 mm from a downstream end of the article and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 15, Lord discloses the ventilation areas are apertures ([0731]).
In regards to claim 16, Modified Lord discloses ventilation into the hollow tubular element, and Lord teaches a cavity (Figure 3), but Lord is silent to a ventilation level of the cavity.
However, Uthurry discloses a ventilation level from about 30 percent to about 60 percent ([0083]), and therefore Modified Lord teaches the aerosol-generating article has a ventilation level from about 30 percent to about 60 percent (Uthurry [0083]).
The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the mouthpiece comprises a ventilation level of 40 to 80% of aerosol drawn through the article and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Uthurry further discloses the inventors have found that the temperature drop caused by the admission of cooler, external air into the hollow tubular segment via the ventilation zone may have an advantageous effect on the nucleation and growth of aerosol particles ([0084]) and that it is advantageously possible to adjust the ventilation level of the aerosol-generating article by adjusting the ventilation perforations in size or number of perforations ([0092]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to further modify Modified Lord by making the ventilation level 40 to 80%, as taught by Uthurry, because one of ordinary skill in the art would look to a similar reference for a ventilation level known in the art of a similar aerosol-generating device, especially when the original prior art is silent to one, Uthurry2’ teaches the ventilation level can be varied ([0092]) and the ventilation level has an advantageous effect on the nucleation and growth of aerosol particles ([0084]), and this merely involves applying a known ventilation level of a similar aerosol generating article to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 19, Lord discloses in the alternative embodiment described in claim 1, the hollow tubular element as the spacer tube, which comprises carboard/paper ([0067] and [0351]).
Lord further discloses the thickness of the aerosol-forming substrate may be less than about 0.5 mm ([0404]), but is silent to a thickness of the hollow tubular element and therefore does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the hollow tubular element being less than 0.5mm.
Uthurry directed to an aerosol-generating article with a ventilated hollow segment, discloses the aerosol-generating article comprising a rod of an aerosol-generating substrate, a mouthpiece and a plug of filtration material, wherein the mouthpiece is arranged downstream and the mouthpiece further defines a cavity extending all the way through the mouthpiece segment ([0010]).
Uthurry further discloses the hollow tubular segment 16 is provided as a cylindrical tube having a length of about 18 millimeters and a thickness of the tube wall is about 100 micrometers (0.1 mm) ([0139]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the wall thickness of the hollow tubular element being less than 0.5 mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Uthurry further discloses the hollow tubular segment 16 may for example be formed from a paper ([0140]).
Therefore, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to modify Lord by making the wall thickness of the hollow tubular section less than 0.5 mm, as taught by Uthurry, because one of ordinary skill in the art would look to a similar reference for a wall thickness of a similar hollow tubular element comprising the same materials, especially when the original reference is silent to one, and this merely involves applying a known wall thickness of a similar hollow tubular element to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 22, Lord discloses the aerosol generating material is a rod of aerosol generating material ([0008]) and has a length between 10 and 15 mm.
Lord further discloses “many equivalent modifications and variations will be apparent to those skilled in the art when given this disclosure. Accordingly, the exemplary embodiments of the invention set forth above are considered to be illustrative and not limiting. Various changes to the described embodiments may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention” ([0734], but does not explicitly disclose a length of the aerosol generating material being from 22 and 30 mm.
Uthurry directed to an aerosol-generating article with a ventilated hollow segment, discloses the aerosol-generating article comprising a rod of an aerosol-generating substrate, a mouthpiece and a plug of filtration material, wherein the mouthpiece is arranged downstream and the mouthpiece further defines a cavity extending all the way through the mouthpiece segment ([0010]).
Uthurry further discloses the inventors have surprisingly found how the favorable effect of enhanced nucleation may significantly counter the less desirable effects of dilution, such that satisfactory values of aerosol delivery are consistently achieved with aerosol-generating articles in accordance with the invention. This is particularly advantageous with “short” aerosol-generating articles, such as ones wherein a length of the rod of aerosol-generating substrate is less than about 40 millimeters and preferably less than 25 millimeters ([0034]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the aerosol generating material having a length of between 22 and 30 mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lord by lengthening the aerosol generating material to between 22 and 30 mm, as taught by Uthurry, because both are directed to aerosol generating articles, Uthurry teaches shorter articles are more favorable ([0034]), Lord teaches the embodiments are not limited and many modifications can be made ([0734]), and this merely involves lengthening a similar aerosol generating material of a similar article to a known length in the art to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELEINE PAULINA DELACRUZ whose telephone number is (703)756-4544. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, 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.
/MADELEINE P DELACRUZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755