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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments entered on 8/3/2026 have been accepted. Claims 15, 17-19, 26-28 are amended. Claims 15-28 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections in the non-final office action dated 4/2/2026. Applicant’s amendments to the claims and drawings/specification have overcome the objections previously set forth.
Claim Objections
Claims 27-28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claims 27-28, the limitation of “providing each of the two moisture angles as the two density-independent moisture values of the two resonance modes” is now required in independent claim 15 of which these claims depend, such that this limitation does not appear to be necessary in each of claims 27-28. It is recommended that this repetitive limitation is removed from claims 27 and 28 to improve clarity of the claim.
Claim 27 line 4 should read “…determining each moisture angle…”, as there are two moisture angles.
Claim 28 line 3 should read “…wherein each moisture angle…”, as there are two moisture angles.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitations which are considered new matter are: “…determining a glycerol content (g) depending on the moisture angles by applying a stored calibration relationship assigned to the single-layer tobacco paper” and “outputting the determined glycerol content (g) as a measurement signal for monitoring or controlling production of the tobacco paper”. The specification as originally filed does discuss having a calibration equation which is utilized to determine glycerol content [pgs. 7-9 of originally filed specification]. However, the specification is silent on “applying a stored calibration relationship assigned to the single-layer tobacco paper”. This limitation goes beyond what is either explicitly stated or reasonably suggested to the person of ordinary skill in the art. It is not clear from the originally filed specification if this calibration would be done during each measuring of the additive content, whether this calibration would be prestored prior to any determinations being made, whether each different tobacco paper would have a different stored calibration relationship, etc., such that it cannot be considered that applicant was in possession of the invention as claimed at the time of filing. Additionally, the instant specification appears to be completely silent as to the “outputting” step in the final paragraph of claim 15. The specification is silent as to any measurement signals that are sent out of the determined glycerol content. The instant specification does detail that density-independent moisture value may be used to control an amount of water/glycerol to the pulpy mass [see claim 26], but the amended claim 15 final paragraph includes limitations that go beyond what is reasonably suggested by the specification, as it details that the determined glycerol content is being output as a measurement signal for the steps of monitoring/controlling, which is different from the density-independent moisture value controlling the amount of water/glycerol to add to the pulpy mass. As such, both limitations identified above are considered to be new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method comprising “measuring the tobacco paper using at least one microwave resonator having two resonance modes with two resonant frequencies, wherein a lower of the two resonant frequencies is in a range that is less than 1GHz and a higher of the two resonant frequencies is in a range that is more than 2 GHz”, “determining, from resonance parameters of the at least one microwave resonator measured on the single-layer tobacco paper, a density-independent moisture value for each of the two resonance modes”, and “determining a glycerol content (g) depending on the moisture angles by applying a stored calibration relationship assigned to the single-layer tobacco paper”.
Claim 15 is rejected based on the following analysis:
Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract ideas.
The examiner finds that each of the quoted sections of claim 15 (“measuring”, “determining”, and “determining”) recites mathematical operations, and also a mental process because the processes may be performed by a human using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Measuring is data gathering and needs a tool so can’t be performed mentally, therefore it is not an abstract idea. That being said both of the determining steps certainly are. Determining density is either an evaluation or math and determining the content “depending on” certainly is an evaluation. Based upon the evidence, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments that the “determining” steps cannot be performed in the human mind or with a pen and paper, as each of these determinations may be determined as such and no convincing evidence has been provided to the contrary. Arguing that the mental process would be difficult is not sufficient for overcoming the limitation being an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Has the abstract idea been integrated into a particular practical application?
The final paragraph of the claim requires “outputting the determined glycerol content (g) as a measurement signal for monitoring or controlling production of the tobacco paper”. This is not considered to be an integration of the exception into a practical application of the exception. "Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception". MPEP 2106.05(g). An example of "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. An example of a post-solution activity is "an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent" MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims in this case are an example of "extra-solution activity" which are insignificant post-solution steps. The addition of the limitations of outputting the determined glycerol content are merely post-solution activities that are not integrated to the claim as a whole, in the same way that the printer merely outputs the result of the fraudulent transactions. And as noted in further detail below, it is well-known and understood in the art to use glycerol content to control/regulate the addition of glycerin [WO2017080982A1].
The claim recites the step of “measuring the single-layer tobacco paper…”. This is not considered to be an integration of the abstract idea into a particular practical application. This step is essentially data gathering to be used in the abstract idea which is insignificant pre-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011), wherein the step of obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions was considered to be mere data gathering with insignificant extra-solution activity.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea?
No. The measuring step is an insignificant extra solution activity and does not lend itself to being significantly more. The “outputting” step is an insignificant extra solution activity and does not lend itself to being significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are considered to be merely adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception MPEP 2106.05(g), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use 2106.05(h). And additionally, it is noted that the monitoring or controlling production of the tobacco paper based upon a determined property is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. See for example WO2017080982A1, wherein glycerol and/or water are added to the tobacco pulp dependent upon the determined frequencies and glycerol content thus determined. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding dependent claims 16-19 and 27-28, these claims do not resolve any of the issues above, and additionally recite further details of the mathematical concepts and/or mental processes. These claims are additionally rejected based on their dependency to claim 15.
Regarding dependent claims 19-25, these claims recite either conventional sensors or conventional places for the tobacco paper to be measured. In both regards, this is merely the general linking of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP2106.05(h). And additionally, each of these aspects are very well understood in the art. See WO2017080982A1, wherein the claimed sensors and placement of the measuring are both well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. See MPEP 2106.05(d). As such, Claims 19-25 are similarly rejected.
Regarding dependent claim 26, while this claim does recite “adding an amount of at least one of water and glycerol to the pulpy mass takes place depending on at least one density-independent moisture value”, it is noted that this action is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. See for example WO2017080982A1, wherein glycerol and/or water are added to the tobacco pulp dependent upon the determined frequencies and glycerol content thus determined. See MPEP 2106.05(d). As such, claim 26 is merely adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception MPEP2106.05(g) or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use 2106.05(h) and similarly rejected.
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 15-16, 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (WO2017080982A1, of record) in view of Yanchev (US2015/0012228A1, of record).
Regarding claim 15, Muller teaches a method for measuring an additive content in a tobacco paper (see title, with the method being tied to determining an additive in a substance containing tobacco) for electric cigarettes (this is considered to be an intended use of the method/tobacco paper that imparts no specific limitations onto the claimed method or tobacco paper, as any tobacco paper may be utilized in electronic cigarettes), produced from a pulpy mass of additives, water, flavoring substances, and tobacco that is dried to form a tobacco paper having a single-layer (Muller discloses several machines/method for forming the tobacco paper, see Figs. 4-6 for example. The tobacco sheet “40” is made from a mushy mass of biogenic material [pg. 7 of machine translation] which is considered akin to the pulpy mass. The pulpy mass would naturally include tobacco and water/moisture [pg. 7 of machine translation], as well as additives such as glycerol and flavoring agents [pg. 3 of machine translation]. As in Figs. 4-6, the tobacco sheet is formed as a single layer which is dried wherein it undergoes several treatment processes to reach the final preparation of the tobacco [Fig. 4], including through drying cylinders “101” and “102” which dry the tobacco [pg. 7 of machine translation]), comprising:
Measuring the tobacco paper using at least one microwave resonator (the sensor arrangements are based upon microwave resonators [pg. 5 of machine translation]. The sensor arrangements “29” comprise at least two, and possibly 3 or 4 microwave sensors 51, 52, 53 which are clearly measuring the tobacco paper [Fig. 4, pg. 5 of machine translation]), having two resonance modes with two resonant frequencies wherein a lower of the two frequencies is in a range less than 1GHz and the higher is in a range of 2 GHz (the measurement frequencies are both in the microwave range [pg. 5 of machine translation]. One of the frequencies may preferably range from 1-30GHz, and the other frequency may preferably range from 100kHz to 300MHz [Pg. 3 of machine translation]. Therefore, the higher frequency clearly overlaps with a range of greater than 2GHz, and the lower frequency would be less than 1GHz. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to work within the given ranges of Muller and landed upon frequencies within the suggested ranges, so as to be able to measure the moisture content and weight proportions of the additive [pg. 3 of machine translation]).
Muller suggests that the data obtained by its sensors may be utilized to determine the glycerol content, for example through minimum error squares or other methods [pg. 3 of machine translation]. Muller’s tobacco sheet may also be considered as a single-layer along the processing of the sheet as in Fig. 4. The tobacco sheet is fed to drying cylinders “101” and “102” which cooperate with dryers “105” and “106” to extract moisture from the sheet [pg. 7 of machine translation, Fig. 4]. Therefore, the sensors which are located as in “29” are located at a place where the tobacco paper is a single layer. Muller does not explicitly limit the method of utilizing the sensor data, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize other understood methods in the art for determining moisture/glycerol content. Yanchev discloses a method for the measurement of a plasticizer in an endless filter rod in tobacco manufacturing (title), wherein a plasticizer is a type of additive akin to the glycerol of Muller. Yanchev includes a microwave resonator “10” which may be installed in the process, which measures a resonance frequency shift A and the line broadening B of the resonance curve [0049]. It is well understood in microwave measurements that a dielectric material located in a resonator cavity causes a shift in the resonance frequency and a widening of the resonance curve compared to an empty resonator cavity. Yanchev suggests that a linear relationship of A and B may be assumed, such that the mass per unit length of the plasticizer (i.e., Additive content) may be calculated according to: MW = k0 + k1*A + k2*B + P() [0019]. As in Fig. 5, the trend of the arctan quotient of B and A is shown for 4 separate examples. This figure/calculation shows that the quotient of B/A is independent of filter tow quality and denier, such that a humidity value as determined is independent of density.
Yanchev therefore suggests a method/calculation of utilizing microwave resonator frequencies so as to calculate a density independent moisture value and similarly using these calculations to calculate an additive (glycerol) content dependent upon those values. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize this calculation method of Yanchev with the multiple resonance frequencies of the microwave resonator as detailed in Muller. One would have been motivated so as to determine an independent moisture value and thus also calculate the glycerol content thereof [0053, 0029-0032], wherein the value would be considered the moisture angle as claimed. It being noted that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (that being the calculation method of Muller to the calculations of Yanchev) would have been an obvious alternative to determine density-independent moisture values and additive contents thereof, as the methods of Yanchev are known within the art for providing alternative methods to obtain this data in tobacco making processes. See MPEP 2143. And further, the claimed “stored calibration relationship” which is applied to the paper may be considered to be the relationship that Yanchev suggests for determining the glycerol content. Yanchev states that the coefficients are determined by a one-time calibration procedure [0055-0060], such that the determined glycerol content would be determined by applying this stored calibrated relationship which Yanchev suggests.
Modified Muller further makes obvious outputting the determined glycerol content as a measurement signal for monitoring or controlling production of the tobacco paper (from the different signals output by the sensor arrangement “29” which are a part of the resonant frequencies, the moisture and percentage by weight of glycerol are determined, where “it is then possible, for example, to control and/or regulate the addition of glycerin in the machine 10 on the basis of the thus determined glycerol content” [pg. 6 of machine translation, Muller]. Therefore, Muller reasonably suggests the glycerol content being output so as to monitor/control the production, such that a measurement signal of some sort would necessarily be present such that the control and/or regulation is able to occur).
Regarding claim 16, modified Muller makes obvious the method wherein the additives at least partially comprise glycerol (the additive glycerol is mixed into the tobacco processed in the manufacturing machine [Muller, pg. 6 of machine translation]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Muller makes obvious the method wherein the at least one microwave resonator comprises a planar sensor (the term “planar sensor” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as the specification does not provide any definition for this term. As such, any sensor used to detect data in the plane, such as in the tobacco sheet running through the machine “100”, may be considered to be a planar sensor. Therefore, the sensors “29” as in Figs. 3-6 of Muller, which sense data from the thin tobacco sheet that runs through them, would reasonably be considered a planar sensor which is a part of the microwave resonator. See also pg. 5 of machine translation, wherein any sensor may be utilized in the invention).
Regarding claim 21, modified Muller makes obvious the method wherein the at least one microwave resonator comprises a gap sensor (the term “gap sensor” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as the specification does not provide any definition for this term. As such, any sensor which either has a gap in it or measures gaps is considered to be a gap sensor. As the sensors of the microwave resonator, such as “29” in Figs. 3-4 of Muller, have a gap they would reasonably be considered to be gap sensors. Additionally, it is noted that these sensors or additional sensors may be utilized for obtaining the thickness of the tobacco sheet [pg. 7 of machine translation]. See also pg. 5 of machine translation, wherein any sensor may be utilized in the invention).
Regarding claims 22, modified Muller makes obvious the method wherein the measuring the tobacco paper takes place at the single layer (The tobacco sheet “40” is made from a mushy mass of biogenic material [pg. 7 of machine translation] which is considered akin to the pulpy mass. The tobacco sheet is considered as a single-layer along the processing of the sheet as in Fig. 4. The tobacco sheet is fed to drying cylinders “101” and “102” which cooperate with dryers “105” and “106” to extract moisture from the sheet [pg. 7 of machine translation, Fig. 4]. Therefore, the sensors which are located as in “29” are located at a place where the tobacco paper is a single layer).
Regarding claim 23, modified Muller makes obvious the method where the tobacco has been wound up into a bobbin (Muller suggests that the winding apparatus may be, for example, a bobbin changer or bobbin feeder [pg. 4 of machine translation]. Muller suggests that its sensors may be located between the suture plate and the knife apparatus, in front of the seam plate, behind the knife apparatus, in the distributor, or in the filter piece [pg. 5 of machine translation], and may also be located either upstream or downstream of an unwinding device and/or further processing machines [pg. 4 of machine translation]. Muller therefore essentially suggests that its sensor arrangement “29” comprising the microwave resonators with the different frequencies may be located at any location throughout the tobacco sheet making process, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the sensors at a point where the paper is wound up into a bobbin, in order to obtain data on moisture and additive content [pg. 3 of machine translation].
Regarding claim 24, modified Muller makes obvious the method wherein the measuring the tobacco paper takes place at or downstream of a dryer (The tobacco sheet is fed to drying cylinders “101” and “102” which cooperate with dryers “105” and “106” to extract moisture from the sheet [pg. 7 of machine translation, Fig. 4]. Muller suggests that its sensors may be located between the suture plate and the knife apparatus, in front of the seam plate, behind the knife apparatus, in the distributor, or in the filter piece [pg. 5 of machine translation], and may also be located either upstream or downstream of an unwinding device and/or further processing machines [pg. 4 of machine translation]. Muller therefore essentially suggests that its sensor arrangement “29” comprising the microwave resonators with the different frequencies may be located at any location throughout the tobacco sheet making process, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the sensors at a point in or after the dryer, in order to obtain data on moisture and additive content [pg. 3 of machine translation], as this would have been an obvious location to have these sensors as this is where the moisture content of the tobacco sheets are controlled).
Regarding claim 25, modified Muller makes obvious the method wherein the measuring the tobacco paper takes place upstream of a crimping apparatus (“The sensor arrangement can advantageously be provided in the region between an up/unwinding device and/or a tobacco foil production or further processing machine on the one hand and a distributor or a strand unit of a cigarette production machine or a crimping unit on the other” [pg. 4 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the sensors at this upstream location of the crimping apparatus as suggested by Muller in order to obtain data on moisture and additive content [pg. 3 of machine translation]).
Regarding claim 26, modified Muller makes obvious the method further comprising adding an amount of at least one of water and glycerol to the pulpy mass takes place depending on at least one density-independent moisture value (from the different signals output by the sensor arrangement “29” which are a part of the resonant frequencies, the moisture and percentage by weight of glycerol are determined, where “it is then possible, for example, to control and/or regulate the addition of glycerin in the machine 10 on the basis of the thus determined glycerol content” [pg. 6 of machine translation]).
Regarding claim 27, modified Muller makes obvious the method comprising a moisture angle as the moisture value and determining the moisture angle as a quotient of a broadening of a full width at half maximum (B) and a resonant frequency shift (A), wherein an empty and a filled resonator are compared with one another in each case (as in the rejection of claim 15 above, the moisture angle is considered to be akin to the moisture value. Yanchev suggests that the amount of additive may be calculated based upon the frequency shift A and the line broadening B of the resonance curve which is obtained from the microwave resonator [0049]. Using A and B, the dielectric material located in the resonator cavity results in a shift in the resonance frequency compared to the empty resonator cavity, and in a broadening of the resonance curve compared to the empty resonator cavity [0015]. The quotient of A and B is φ and is similarly used to determine the material amounts. The quotient of B/A may thus be utilized where this depends on moisture and the mass of the additive [0019], such that Yanchev clearly suggests the method of the determining the moisture angle based upon the quotient of B/A with empty and filled resonators).
Regarding claim 28, modified Muller makes obvious the method comprising a moisture angle as the moisture value wherein the moisture angle results as an arc tangent of a quotient of a broadening of a full width at half maximum (B) and a resonant frequency shift (A) (as in the rejection of claim 15 above, the moisture angle is considered to be akin to the moisture value. Yanchev suggests that instead of the quotient B/A, a function may be utilized for determining the moisture/additive content that depends on the arctan (B/A) [0019, 0056-0058], where A is the resonance shift and B is the line broadening, which are considered akin to how the claim defines these terms).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (WO2017080982A1, of record) in view of Yanchev (US2015/0012228A1, of record), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Chen (CN111830067A).
Regarding claim 17, Muller does not explicitly show a content of the additives depending linearly upon both density-independent moisture values and an offset value. However, it is known within the art that such values may be utilized to determine an additive content thereof. Chen, for example, discloses a microwave detection system which may be used with tobacco products/processing [see Fig. 1, and 0004-0005]. The microwave system may be utilized to determine the content of additives such as glycerol [0006]. The content can be obtained via a linear function of formula 2, wherein R = A{b(0)-b(L)/f(L)-f(0)}+B(2), wherein A and B are calibration constants with the same densities, b(0)-b(L) is the resonance bandwidth difference, and f(L)-f(0) is the resonance frequency difference [0032-0039]. In this way, the frequencies of f(L) and f(0) act as the two different resonance frequencies that are taken of the rods to determine the content [0063-0068]. Therefore, as the stated equation depends on both high and low frequency values and thus the humidity/moisture thereof to determine the content of additives, as well as an offset value (such as from the calibration constant B), Chen reasonably suggests a calculation method of the additives which depends linearly on both of the moisture values at the different frequencies and the offset value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to additionally utilize the equations/suggestions as suggested by Chen. One would have been motivated so as to reliably determine the additive content in real time so as to reliably control production [0076-0080].
Regarding claim 18, modified Muller makes obvious measuring a moisture content for the tobacco paper depending on the density-independent moisture value at the higher resonant frequency (Muller suggests that the exact choice of measurement frequencies is chosen depending upon the relaxation frequencies of glycerol, tobacco, and of water [pg. 6 of machine translation], and that the frequencies are made to differ significantly from each other, as detailed in the rejection of claim 15 above, so as to accurately determine the different aspects of the water, additive, etc. Therefore, Muller reasonably suggests the measurement of the moisture of the tobacco paper at high frequencies).
Regarding claim 19, modified Muller makes obvious determining the content (g) of the additives independently of a mass of the tobacco paper (as detailed in the rejection of claim 15 above, Yanchhev suggests a calculation equation MW = k0 + k1*A + k2*B + P() [0019]. As in Fig. 5 of Yanchev, the trend of the arctan quotient of B and A is shown for 4 separate examples, wherein this shows that the quotient of B/A is independent of filter tow quality and denier. In other words, Yanchev discloses the calculation of an additive content independent of the quantity of the tobacco. And additionally, Chen’s suggested calculation, as in the rejection of claim 17 above, similarly suggests an equation wherein the additive content r is a linear function of the humidity values and an offset value, such that it is independent of the amount of tobacco paper).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pgs. 8-9 of the filed Remarks dated 8/3/2026, Applicant argues against the 101 rejection. Applicant argues that the amended claim 15 is not directed to a mathematical concept or mental process, or even if they did that the claim integrates the relationship into a practical application.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is considered that the added aspects to independent claim 15 are merely pre-solution activity and post-solution activity, and/or are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. And regarding the abstract idea, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Determining density is either an evaluation or math and determining the content “depending on” certainly is an evaluation. Based upon the evidence, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments that the “determining” steps cannot be performed in the human mind or with a pen and paper, as each of these determinations may be determined as such and no convincing evidence has been provided to the contrary. Arguing that the mental process would be difficult is not sufficient for overcoming the limitation being an abstract idea, as this does not preclude the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof from being performed in the mind. See the updated 101 rejection for greater details.
Applicant argues on pgs. 9-10 of their filed remarks that the updated claims overcome the prior art rejections. Applicant argues that Muller does not suggest a pair of discrete measurement frequencies. Applicant argues that Yanchev’s disclosure is in a different context but does not suggest the concrete implementation required.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is noted that several of the aspects that Applicant argues do not appear to have written support in the originally filed specification. See the 112(a) rejection above for further details. Regarding Muller, the different frequencies having the different ranges are suggested by the ranges provided by Muller [see pg. 3 of machine translation], and wherein as set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). No specific evidence of criticality nor of unexpected results have been provided as to the discrete measurement frequencies. As such, the selection of frequencies of less than 1GHz and higher than 2GHz would have been obvious given the suggested ranges of Muller.
In response to applicant's argument that Yanchev is essentially nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor' s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Yanchev is in the same field of endeavor of tobacco manufacturing [title] dealing with resonance frequencies and curves [0049]. Yanchev provides specific support for a linear relationship between these components, wherein such a modification would calculate a density independent moisture value and a glycerol content [0029-0032, 0053]. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The arguments against the reference of Yanchev individually is therefore not convincing, as the rejection is based upon the combination of Muller and Yanchev.
And regarding the other aspects of the amended claim 15, it is considered that Yanchev’s calibration and equation reasonably suggested the “stored calibration relationship” which would be assigned to the single-layer tobacco paper of Muller, as detailed in the rejection above. And the other disputed aspects are reasonably suggested by the combination of Muller and Yanchev (as detailed in the rejections of record), as Applicant does not specifically point to the prior art and how/why these aspects are lacking in the combination.
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 THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights