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 information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 10/24/2023, 1/18/2024, 2/07/2025, 11/10/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “18” has been used to designate both transport rollers and tobacco paper as in Fig. 2, as detailed in pg. 7 of the instant specification. Corrected drawing sheets and/or corrected specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 17-18 and 27-28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites “…wherein a content (g) of the additives…”. Because claim 15 similarly has the glycerol content followed by “(g)”, it appears that both the “glycerol content (g)” and the “content (g) of the additives” is referring to the same components by the use of the letter in the parenthesis. If this is intended, the terms of glycerol content and content of the additives should be made consistent so that it is clear that these are referring to the same aspect (such that claim should be changed to “the glycerol content (g)”). If this is not intended, then the parenthesis following each of these aspects should be removed or changed so as to refer to different signs.
Claim 19 has the same objections as claim 17 above.
Claim 18 recites “The method according to any one of claim 17…”. The claim should be amended to read “The method according to
Claim 27 should recite “…providing the moisture angle as the moisture value”, as this was previously introduced.
Claim 28 should recite “…providing the moisture angle as the moisture value”, as this was previously introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 a density-independent moisture value for each of the two resonance modes”, and “determining a glycerol content (g) depending on two moisture angles”.
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.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Has the abstract idea been integrated into a particular practical application?
No. Once the evaluation takes place (including the steps of “measuring’, “determining”, and “determining”), there is no additional action that takes place. Therefore, there is no particular practical application.
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 claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not recite additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 16-25 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 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 § 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 15-28 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 15 last line recites “…depending on two moisture angles”. The moisture angles are lacking antecedent basis, and it is not clear from the recited claims what the moisture angles are and how they relate to the density-independent moisture values. The dependent claims specify that the moisture angle may be the moisture value (see claims 27-28 for example), but in the case where the moisture angle is not required to be the moisture value (as in claim 15), it is not clear what the moisture angle is nor how it relates to the moisture value or the method of determining a glycerol content (or what the moisture angle can be if it is not the moisture value). Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. Claims 16-28 are rejected for relying upon a rejected claim. The claim will be examined as if the moisture angles are the moisture values.
Claims 27 and 28 each recite “…providing a moisture angle as the moisture value”. However, claim 15 of which both claims depend each introduce two moisture values and angles. As such, it isn’t clear whether both moisture angles are required to be the moisture values, or if only one of the two is required to meet the claim limitation (and if so, which of the two is required?). Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. Each of claim 27 and 28 will be examined as if they recite “providing each of the two moisture angles as the two density-independent moisture values of the two resonance modes”.
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, 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (WO2017080982A1).
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]).
The method of Muller utilizes the two resonant frequencies in order to determine a moisture value of the tobacco sheet, in addition to the additive weight amount of the tobacco sheet [pg. 3 of machine translation], wherein glycerol is recognized as being a type of additive in tobacco paper. These factors are each determined based upon the resonant frequencies that are utilized to measure the tobacco sheet by determining the best solution of an overdetermined equation system [pg. 3 of machine translation]. As the independent claim merely requires the limitations of “determining” a moisture value of the resonance modes and a glycerol content depending on the two moisture angles without any specific equations/models/relationships/etc. being tied to the determination method or specifically required by the claim language, it is considered that Muller meets the required limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Muller reasonably suggests the method of utilizing two resonant frequencies for determining the moisture values and thus the glycerol content [pg. 3 of machine translation].
Regarding claim 16, 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 [pg. 6 of machine translation]).
Regarding claim 20, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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]).
Claims 15-16, 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller (WO2017080982A1) in view of Yanchev (US2015/0012228A1).
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 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]. 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.
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 [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, 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, 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) in view of Yanchev (US2015/0012228A1), 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).
Conclusion
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