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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3,5-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grishchenko (WO 2021/123843 A1), which was provided in an IDS filed 11/6/2023. US 2023/0025403, in the same patent family, is used for citations herein.
. Claims 1 and 3: Referring to Figs. 1-3, Grishchenko discloses an aerosol generating article (smoking article) (Abs, [0001], [0003], [0139]) comprising an aerosol-generating material 3 (corresponds to the claimed moisture accommodation portion) positioned on one side of a body of material 6 ([0140], [0142]). In some embodiments, the body of material 6 is formed from a crimped, folded or gathered sheet of reconstituted tobacco 6A having a width of at most 240 mm, preferably at most 230 mm, 220 mm, 210 mm or 200 mm ([0032]-[0034], [0170], [0172], [0174]-[0175], [0194]) and a basis weight of preferably at least 20 gsm, 25 gsm, 30 gsm, 35 gsm, 40 gsm, 45 gsm or 50 gsm ([0178]-[0179]). The body of material 6 reads on the claimed medium accommodation portion.
In an embodiment, Grishchenko discloses a tubular element 8 downstream of the body of material 6 formed from filamentary tow such as cellulose acetate and disposed on another side of the body of material. The tubular element is either hollow or surrounds a cylindrical body of filter material ([0057], [0278], [0282], [0288]) and corresponds to a filter portion. Cellulose acetate tow is a common filter forming material in the art.
Grishchenko does not disclose a plurality of reconstituted tobacco sheets. However, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Absent convincing evidence of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of reconstituted tobacco sheets in the body of material 6 with reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a suitable aerosol generating article.
Claim 2: Grishchenko does not directly disclose the thickness of the tobacco sheets. However, Grishchenko discloses that the body of reconstituted tobacco has a density of at least 0.15 mg/mm3 [0199], and a preferable basis weight in the range of 20 to 50 gsm [0198].The thickness can be calculated by dividing the basis weight by the density with appropriate unit conversions. As an example, using a basis weight of 20 gsm and a density of 0.2 g/mm3, each of which lies in the disclosed range, a thickness of 100 mm is calculated, which is within the claimed range Absent convincing evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form reconstituted tobacco sheets having a the claimed thickness, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a suitable aerosol generating article.
Claim 5: Grishchenko discloses that, in some embodiments, an aerosol-former material is applied to the sheet material of the body of material 6 prior to being folded to form the body of material 6. An unfolded sheet reads on a flat sheet. Application is by brushing, spraying or dipping [0180]. In some embodiments, the aerosol generating material comprises nicotine, which reads on a tobacco medium ([0102], [0104], [0270]). Therefore, the tobacco sheets are coated with a tobacco medium in these embodiments. Coating a flat sheet multiple times with the tobacco medium prior to being folded would have been obvious. As noted above, duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Claims 6: Grishchenko discloses that suitable aerosol formers also include glycerine and propylene glycol [0181].
Claim 7: Grishchenko discloses that at least 0.05 mg of aerosol formers and less than about 0.5 mg is applied to the body of material 6 per mm of axial length [0182]. The disclosed amount of aerosol formers applied overlays the claimed range or, at least, it would have been obvious to apply a claimed amount of glycerine as part of the coating applied to the body of material 6 absent unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims.
Claim 8: Grishchenko discloses that the aerosol-generating material may comprise one or more aerosol-former materials, such as glycerine, propylene glycol, etc. ([0121]-[0122]). Grishchenko also discloses that the aerosol-generating material can include but does not require nicotine material ([0102], [0104]). It would have been obvious to include claimed aerosol-formers materials in the aerosol-generating material absent convincing evidence of unexpected results.
Claim 9: As described above, Grishchenko discloses a tubular element 8 downstream of the body of material 6 formed from filamentary tow such as cellulose acetate and disposed on another side of the body of material. The tubular element is either hollow or surrounds a cylindrical body of filter material ([0058], [0278], [0282], [0288]). The tubular body constitutes a first filter portion comprising a cavity, while the cylindrical body of filter material surrounded by the tubular body constituted the second filter portion filled with filtration material.
Claim 10: Grishchenko discloses that the body of material 6 is circumscribed by a plug wrap 7 [0226], which corresponds to a segment wrapper. The aerosol-generating material 3 is also wrapped by a wrapper [0068], which corresponds to a segment wrapper. Tubular portion 4 is formed from a plurality of layers of paper which are parallel wound, with butted seams, to form a hollow tube [0144]. The outer layer of paper wraps the tube and can be considered to be a segment wrapper..
Claim 11: Grishchenko discloses that tubular portion 4a and body of material 6 are combined using a second plug wrap 9 wrapped around both sections [0144], which corresponds to a segment wrapper around a plurality of segments. A tipping paper 5 is wrapped around the full length of the mouthpiece 2 and over part of the rod of aerosol generating material 3 [0144]. The tipping paper corresponds to the claimed total wrapper wrapping the aerosol-generating material 3, body of material 6 and tubular element 8.
Alternatively, including a second layer of tipping paper would have been obvious for reasons stated above. As noted above, duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. One layer corresponds to the segment wrapper wrapping the plurality of segments and the second layer corresponds to a total wrapper.
Claim 13: Grishchenko discloses a non-combustible aerosol provision device (aerosol-generating device) used to receive the inventive article heat the aerosol generating material 3 in the inventive article and provide an aerosol ([0348].-[0349], [0352], [0370]).
Claim 14: referring to Figs. 7 and 9, the non-combustible aerosol provision device 100 of Grishchenko comprises a receptacle (elongated cavity) 132 within which aerosol generating material is received (accommodated), a heater (inductor coils 124 and 126) to heat a replaceable article of the invention comprising the aerosol generating medium, described herein, to generate an aerosol or other inhalable medium which is inhaled by a user of the device 100 [0370]. The body of material 6 is exposed to volatilized components from aerosol-generating material 3 lowered in temperature by at least 100 ºC by passing through the cooling section 4 [0244] to protect the temperature sensitive body of material 6. One of ordinary skill in the art would still expect body of material 6 to be heated some by the volatilized components, therefore the body of material 6 is indirectly heated by the heater of the device. The device further comprises a controller electrically connected to the heater ([0380]-[0381]).
Claim 15: As discussed above, Grishchenko discloses an aerosol generating article as claimed in Claim 1 or at least making the claimed aerosol generating article would have been obvious.from the disclosure of Grishchenko. Grishchenko also discloses a non-combustible aerosol provision device (aerosol-generating device) used to receive the inventive article heat the aerosol generating material 3 in the inventive article and provide an aerosol. The aerosol generating article and non-combustible aerosol provision device constitute an aerosol-generating system.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grishchenko as evidenced by Bowen et al (US 5374869).
Grishchenko does not disclose the pressure drop (also resistance to draw or RTD) of the aerosol-generating material 3, but does disclose the pressure drop across the body of material 6 to be in a range of at least 2 mmWG to less than 25 mmWG ([0207]-[0208]). The contribution of the tubular portion 4 to the RTD is near zero as there is no significant obstacle to passage of air through the section. The remaining contribution to the overall RTD of the article is provided by the aerosol-generating material 3.
It is also known to those of ordinary skill in the art that a resistance to draw of about 70 to about 150 mmWG is a level acceptable to smokers in North America, more preferably towards the upper end of this range (see Bowen et al, col 6, line 65 to col 7, line 9).
Therefore, in order to provide an acceptable overall RTD, the RTD of the aerosol-generating material 3 of the article would be expected to range from about 45 to greater than 100 mmWG.
The disclosed RTD values include an RTD of the body of material 6 of ¼ the RTD of the aerosol-generating material 3 or, at least, absent convincing evidence of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims, it would have e obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain an RTD of the body of material 6 of ¼ the RTD of the aerosol-generating material 3, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a suitable aerosol generating article.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grishchenko in view of D’ambra et al (US 20230078050)
Grishchenko does not expressly disclose the pressure drop across the body of material 6 in the claimed range,, but does disclose the pressure drop across the body of material 6 in some embodiments to be in a range of at least 2 mmWG, or at least 23 mmWG [0207].
D’ambra et al teaches what is generally known to one of ordinary skill in the art, that the overall RTD of the article can advantageously be fine-tuned by adjusting the length and density of the rod of aerosol-generating substrate or the length and optionally the length and density of a segment of filtration material forming part of the mouthpiece or the length and density of a segment of filtration material provided upstream of the aerosol-generating substrate and the susceptor element. [0118]. Thus, the overall RTD of an aerosol-generating articles is adjustable to obtain a desired overall RTD. .
Absent convincing evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the body of material 6 to have a pressure drop in the claimed range with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a suitable aerosol generating article.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS R CORDRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-8244. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM (EST).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/DENNIS R CORDRAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748