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 .
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Thesing (US 5,012,829).
Claim 1: Thesing teaches a filter segment 12 (“for an aerosol generating article”-- it is submitted that this claim limitation refers to an intended use of the claimed device and is not considered to provide a structural feature to the claimed device (i.e. claimed structure)), the filter segment 12 comprising: an outer portion 22 comprising a filter; and an inner portion disposed inside the outer portion 22 (col3 Lns9-14) and comprising an airflow barrier 20 surrounded by the filter and configured to retard or block airflow (col3 Lns30-35; Fig1). Other locations within reference may be included in the above recited locations (paragraphs, drawing, abstract, claims) to demonstrate further the features in the reference as claimed in the instant claims.
Claim 2: Thesing teaches the filter segment 12 of claim 1, wherein the airflow barrier 20 is disposed in a central portion of the filter segment 12 (Fig1).
Claim 3: Thesing teaches the filter segment 12 of claim 1, wherein the airflow barrier 20 extends in a longitudinal direction of the filter segment 12 (Fig1).
Claims 4-5: Thesing teaches the filter segment 12 of claim 1 (for claim 4; claim 4 for claim 5), wherein the airflow barrier 20 comprises a solid material such as a cellulose acetate tow (col3 Lns65-67).
Claim 7: Thesing teaches an aerosol generating article 10 (col3 Lns9-20) comprising: a first segment comprising a medium (medium = filter material) (see annotated Figure 1 below -- as an example); and a second segment disposed downstream of the first segment (see annotated Figure 1 below -- as an example), wherein the second segment comprises a filter segment 12, wherein the filter segment 12 comprises: an outer portion 22 comprising a filter; and an inner portion disposed inside the outer portion 22 (col3 Lns9-14) and comprising an airflow barrier 20 surrounded by the filter and configured to retard or block airflow (col3 Lns30-35; Fig1). The aerosol generating article comprises a tobacco rod 14 (col3 Lns9-20). Other locations within reference may be included in the above recited locations (paragraphs, drawing, abstract, claims) to demonstrate further the features in the reference as claimed in the instant claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
343
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thesing.
Claim 6: Thesing teaches the filter segment of claim 1. With respect to the claim limitation of that the diameter of the airflow barrier 20 is substantially equal to or less than half a diameter of the filter segment 12, the diameter of the airflow barrier 20 relative to the diameter of the first segment 12, to which one skilled in the art would consider, is a function of, among other variables, the density of the material making up the different parts of the filter segment 12, the length of the cigarette 10 (col3 Ln9), the amount of and type of tobacco of the tobacco rod 14 (col3 Lns9-11), flavor material used (col3 Lns21-23), and desired cigarette firmness. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have optimized the diameter of the airflow barrier 20 relative to the diameter of the first segment 12, to which one skilled in the art would consider, based on known variables, such as those listed for example; and thus, the claimed relative diameter cannot be considered critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum and workable ranges by routine experimentation,” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 195). “It is a well settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same this as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results that prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thesing in view of Fleischhauer (US 5,591,368).
Claim 8: Thesing teaches an aerosol generating article 10 (col3 Lns9-20) comprising: a first segment comprising a medium (medium = filter material) (see annotated Figure 1 below -- as an example); and a second segment disposed downstream of the first segment (see annotated Figure 1 below -- as an example), wherein the second segment comprises a filter segment 12, wherein the filter segment 12 comprises: an outer portion 22 comprising a filter; and an inner portion disposed inside the outer portion 22 (col3 Lns9-14) and comprising an airflow barrier 20 surrounded by the filter and configured to retard or block airflow (col3 Lns30-35; Fig1). The aerosol generating article comprises a tobacco rod 14 (col3 Lns9-20). Other locations within reference may be included in the above recited locations (paragraphs, drawing, abstract, claims) to demonstrate further the features in the reference as claimed in the instant claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
343
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 8: Thesing does not teach combining the aerosol generating article 10 with an aerosol generating system wherein the aerosol generating system comprises an aerosol generating device comprising a first housing, a second housing disposed within the first housing and configured to accommodate the aerosol generating article, and a heater disposed around the second housing and configured to heat the first segment.
Fleischhauer teaches combining an aerosol generating article 23 having filters 63 and 65 and tobacco at webs 57 (col7 Lns29-35; col8 Lns1-4). Fleischhauer teaches combining the aerosol generating article 23 with an aerosol generating system 25 (col5 Lns24-25) wherein the aerosol generating system 25 comprises an aerosol generating device 37 (col5 Lns33-43) comprising a first housing (the space inside the heater fixture 39) (col5 Lns1-3; col6 Lns24-30), a second housing (the space surrounded by heater blades 120 positioned cylindrically inside the aerosol generating system 25) (col10 Lns58-64) disposed within the first housing (Fig1 Fig3) and configured to accommodate the aerosol generating article 23 (col10 Lns58-64) and a heater (comprising the heater blades 120) (col6 Lns1-19) disposed around the second housing (Fig1 Fig3) and configured to heat the tobacco at the webs 57 which necessarily the heats filter 65 -- by being in direct contact therewith and/or by the heated air in cavity 79 which is in direct contact therewith and/or by heated air flowing therethrough. The aerosol generating system 25 provides many benefits -- such as to a smoker -- the smoker being provided with the ability to suspend and resume its use as desired (col3 Lns47-49) .
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary kill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provided in Thesing combining the aerosol generating article 10 with the aerosol generating system of Fleischhauer (wherein the aerosol generating system comprises an aerosol generating device comprising a first housing, a second housing disposed within the first housing and configured to accommodate the aerosol generating article, and a heater disposed around the second housing and configured to heat the first segment) in that the aerosol generating system of Fleischhauer provides many benefits -- such as to a smoker -- the smoker being provided with the ability to suspend and resume its use as desired.
Prior Art of Record
The following prior art is made of record: Adams teaches a cigarette lighter having a cavity to receive the cigarette. Berger teaches a two piece smoke filter. JP2011528900A teaches a smoking article having different airflow resistance at different points in the filter. Cheong teaches a heater within a housing to heat a smoking article.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA GRAY whose telephone number is (571) 272-5778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 AM to 5:30 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, Phil Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/LINDA L GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745