DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1-7 are withdrawn as detailed below. Claims 8-10 are pending for examination. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 8-10 in the reply filed on 07/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/20/2026.
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.
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.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campitelli et al. (WO 2023281017 A1), hereinafter CAMPITELLI .
Regarding Claim 8, CAMPITELLI (see Exhibit 113, Page 31) discloses a method of forming a hollow tubular aerosol generating article. This method comprises providing slurry that includes a medium and casting the slurry into the shape of a hollow tubular aerosol-forming substrate (Exhibit 113, Page 31). The cast slurry is then dried to form the hollow tubular substrate. Additionally, the method involves coupling a first filter segment (Figure 1, element 46) upstream of the medium segment (Figure 1, element 12) and coupling a second filter segment (Figure 1, element 42) downstream of the medium segment (Figure 1). Within this process, the medium slurry comprises between 40 and 90 wt. % water (see Exhibit 120, Page 32). Although CAMPITELLI does not explicitly recite a moisture content of the slurry greater than or equal to 30 percent and less than 60 percent, the disclosed range of 40-90 wt. % water clearly overlaps with the claimed range of 30 to less than 60 percent. It is well established that a prior art reference disclosing an overlapping range creates a prima facie case of obviousness See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the water content within the overlapping range (specially, between 40 wt. % and less than 60 wt. %) through routine experimentation to achieve the desired structural integrity and desired drying characteristics of the hollow tubular substrate.
Regarding Claim 9, CAMPITELLI discloses every element of claim 8. Furthermore, CAMPITELLI explicitly teaches the molding of the medium slurry into a tube configuration, wherein the medium slurry is extruded into a tubular shape (see Exhibit 114, Page 31).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campitelli et al. (WO 2023281017 A1), hereinafter CAMPITELLI, in view of Lanzillotti et al. (US 4347855 A) hereinafter LANZILLOTTI.
Regarding Claim 10, CAMPITELLI discloses the elements of claim 8. CAMPITELLI further teaches the molding of the medium slurry into a tube shape (Exhibit 113, Page 31). CAMPITELLI does not explicitly disclose a multi-part molding apparatus featuring a second jig with a through hole corresponding to an outer shape of the medium segment, where the medium segment coupled to a first jig comprising a rod member with an outer shape corresponding to a hollow of the medium segment, the medium slurry is filled between the through hole of the second jig and the rod member, and the medium slurry molded into the tube shape is separated from both jigs.
However, LANZILLOTTI discloses an apparatus and method of making tubular smoking articles from an extrudable composition using a multi-part die assembly (Figures 6 & 7). LANZILLOTTI further teaches a die head comprising a second jig (hollow outer mandrel 116) featuring a short cylindrical guide surface that corresponds to the outer shape of the extruded medium segment, which is coupled to a first jig (inner mandrel 121) that extends centrally (Figure 7). The first jig is spaced internally from the second jig to define an annular passage where the material medium is filled and compressed between the outer through-hole and the central first jig, after which the continuous tubular extrude is separated from the die parts at the exit (Col 5, L38-58; Col 8, L26-L51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art at the time the invention was made to modify the tube-molding apparatus of CAMPITELLI by incorporating the multi-part die and jig assembly as taught by LANZILLOTTI. One of ordinary skills in art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to produces an extrudate having sufficient porosity to occlude gas flow (Col 2, L5-20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRADEEP PAUDEL whose telephone number is (571)429-6993. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:30-5:00 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, 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.
/PRADEEP PAUDEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights