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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-3 and 5-18 in the reply filed on 7/10/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 24-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7/10/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the abbreviation “FIG.” is not used as required by 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) when multiple views are present. Corrected drawing sheets 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is fewer than 50 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “for use with a non-consumable aerosol provision device,” which is considered to be a statement regarding the intended use of the claimed article. The Courts have held that, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required an article that could be used with a non-consumable aerosol provision device.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the ventilation area is configured such that when the mouth end section is placed between a user’s lips and an aerosol generated by the aerosol generating material is drawn into the user’s mouth through the tubular element and the mouth end section, air is drawn into the mouth end section through the ventilation area to cool the mouth end section,” which is considered to be a limitation regarding the intended use of the claimed article. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required an article that could be held by a user’s lips to inhale aerosol in the claimed manner.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the porous wrapper is configured to be partially blocked by a user’s lips during use to control the amount of air entering the mouth end section through the ventilation area,” which is considered to be a statement regarding the intended use of the claimed article. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required an article where the user could partially block a wrapper with his lips during use.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the at least one slot is configured to be partially blocked by a user’s lips during use to control the amount of air entering the mouth end section through the ventilation region,” which is considered to be a limitation regarding the intended use of the claimed article. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required an article where a user could cover a slip with his lips during use.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 and 5-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims begin with the indefinite article “A” rather than the definite article “The.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-12 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.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear whether the claim requires all of the holes or only one hole to be a slot in the event that multiple holes are present. The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required all holes present to be slots. Claims 11 and 12 are indefinite by dependence.
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)(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 1-3, 5-6, 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seo (US 12,102,122).
Regarding claim 1, Seo discloses an aerosol generating article from which vapor is produced (abstract) having a medium portion (figure 3, reference numeral 110), a hollow support structure (figure 3, reference numeral 120), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a tubular element, a cooling structure (figure 3, reference numeral 130) and a mouthpiece (column 4, lines 46-53, figure 3, reference numeral 140). The cooling structure and mouthpiece together are considered to meet the claim limitation of a mouth end section. The medium portion includes an aerosol forming substrate that generates an aerosol when heated (column 5, lines 1-7), and is therefore considered to meet the claim limitation of an aerosol generating material. Perforations are formed through the cooling structure to allow air to enter the cool structure from the outside (column 10, lines 30-49, figure 3, reference numeral 160), which are considered to define a ventilation area.
Regarding claim 2, it is evident that a user could place his lips over some of the perforations and draw air in the claimed manner. Seo discloses that air flows from the perforations to the mouthpiece (figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Seo discloses that the article is wrapped by a wrapper along its entire length, including the mouthpiece (column 4, lines 46-53, figure 3, reference numeral 150). Air flows from the perforations to the mouthpiece (figure 3), and it is evident that a user could place his lips over some of the perforations and draw air in the claimed manner.
Regarding claim 5, the perforations of Seo are considered to define at least one hole.
Regarding claim 6, Seo discloses that the perforations are in the form of holes that are equally spaced along the circumference of the article (figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, Seo discloses that the article is wrapped by a wrapper along its entire length, including the mouthpiece (column 4, lines 46-53, figure 3, reference numeral 150), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a wrapper. Air flows from the perforations to the mouthpiece (figure 3), indicating that the wrapper is porous.
Regarding claim 14, Seo discloses that the perforations provide access to a cross section of the thickness of the wrapper (figure 1), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of exposed.
Regarding claim 16, Seo discloses that the cooling structure has a hollow (column 6, lines 46-54, figure 3, reference numeral 130H) in which the aerosol and outside air mix (column 7, lines 14-30).
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-11, 13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2024/0180235).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an aerosol generating article (abstract) having a tobacco medium portion ([0052], figure 1, reference numeral 110) that includes aerosol generating material [0065], and is therefore considered to meet the claim limitation of an aerosol generating material. A second cooling segment ([0083], figure 9, reference numeral 133) and a filter portion are located downstream of all other components ([0084], figure 9, reference numeral 150), and are therefore considered to meet the claim limitation a mouth end section. A tubular first cooling segment is located between the tobacco medium portion and the second cooling segment ([0091], figure 9, reference numeral 131), and is therefore considered to meet the claim limitation of a tubular element. A plurality of openings allow external air to reach the inside of the second cooling segment ([0106], figure 9, reference numeral 60), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a ventilation area.
Regarding claim 2, it is evident that a user could place his lips over some of the perforations and draw air in the claimed manner. Lee discloses that air flows from the perforations to the filter portion [0106].
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses that the article is wrapped by a wrapper along its entire length, including the mouth end section ([0132], figure 9, reference numeral 170). flows from the perforations to the filter portion [0106], and it is evident that a user could place his lips over some of the perforations and draw air in the claimed manner.
Regarding claim 5, the openings of Lee are considered to meet the claim limitation of a hole.
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses that the openings are arranged circumferentially and equally spaced apart around the second cooling section ([0106], figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, the openings of Lee are considered to meet the claim limitation of a slot since they extend through the wrapper.
Regarding claim 11, it is evident that a user could place his lips over some of the perforations and draw air in the claimed manner. Lee discloses that air flows from the perforations to the filter portion [0106].
Regarding claim 13, the wrapper of Lee is considered to be porous since it has openings within it.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Lee discloses that the filter is made from filaments of cellulose acetate tow [0101], which applicant’s specification teaches is a fibrous material (page 7, lines 8-18).
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 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffitt (US 7,163,015) in view of Crooks (US 2014/0305455) and Seo (US 12,102,122).
Regarding claim 1, Moffitt discloses an electrically heated cigarette (abstract) having a tobacco plug (figure 1A, reference numeral 30), a filter tube portion (figure 1A, reference numeral 40) and with a void between them (column 3, lines 63-67, column 4, lines 1-40, figure 1A, reference numeral 46), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a tubular element since it is defined by a tubular wrapper on its outside. The device heats the tobacco to form an aerosol (column 1, lines 26-36), indicating that the tobacco plug forms an aerosol and is therefore an aerosol generating material. Moffitt does not explicitly disclose a ventilation area at the filter.
Crooks teaches a smoking article (abstract) having air dilution means that extend through outer wrapping layers to a filter element ([0047], figure 4, reference numeral 281).
Seo teaches an aerosol generating article (abstract) in which mainstream smoke is cooled through air that enters the device through perforations so that the smoke is delivered at a lower temperature (column 13, lines 61-67, column 14, lines 1-13).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cigarette of Moffitt with the diluting perforations of Crooks. One would have been motivated to do so since Seo teaches cooling mainstream smoke using perforations that dilute the smoke.
Regarding claim 5, the perforations of Crooks are considered to meet the claim limitation of a hole.
Regarding claim 6, Crooks teaches that the perforations are evenly spaced along the circumference of the filter ([0017], figure 1, reference numeral 110).
Regarding claim 13, Moffitt discloses that the sections of the cigarette are covered by a tobacco mat layer along its entire length (column 4, lines 41-50, figure 1A, reference numeral 50). It is evident that the tobacco mat layer of the combination would have perforations, and therefore meet the limitation of a porous wrapper, since Crooks teaches that the perforations extend through multiple wrapping layers around the filter (figure 4).
Regarding claim 14, Moffitt discloses that an overwrap of cigarette paper surrounds the tobacco mat layer along its entire length (column 4, lines 41-50, figure 1A, reference numeral 60), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a wrapper. It is evident that the tobacco mat layer would be exposed through the perforations of the overwrap since Crooks teaches that the perforation extends straight through multiple wrapping layers (figure 4).
Regarding claim 15, the perforation is considered to be a split in the overwrap.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moffitt (US 7,163,015) in view of Crooks (US 2014/0305455) and Seo (US 12,102,122) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Osmalov (US 3,490,461).
Regarding claim 7, modified Moffitt teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Moffitt does not explicitly teach channels extends along the length of the filter.
Osmalov teaches a cigarette having a filter section (figure 1, reference numeral 16) having a filter medium that is surrounded by a mouthpiece (figure 1, reference numeral 18) having grooves in its surface that provide flow paths for ventilating air that are segregated from the smoke flow (column 4, lines 14-52, figure 1, reference numeral 22). Osmalov additionally teaches that segregating ventilation air from smoke flow maximizes filtration of the smoke and improves the flavor and taste experience for the smoker (column 1, lines 50-72, column 2, lines 1-4).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ventilated filter of modified Moffitt with the mouthpiece having channels of Osmalov. One would have been motivated to do so since Osmalov teaches a mouthpiece that maximizes filtration of the smoke and improves the flavor and taste experience for the smoker.
Regarding claim 8, Osmalov teaches that the grooves are evenly spaced around the mouthpiece (figure 6).
Regarding claim 9, Osmalov teaches that the grooves are aligned with perforated openings in line with the grooves (column 4, lines 53-75, column 5, lines 1-10), indicating that such alignment would also be present in the combination.
Regarding claim 10, modified Moffitt teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Moffitt does not explicitly teach channels extends along the length of the filter.
Osmalov teaches a cigarette having a filter section (figure 1, reference numeral 16) having a filter medium that is surrounded by a mouthpiece (figure 1, reference numeral 18) having grooves in its surface that provide flow paths for ventilating air that are segregated from the smoke flow (column 4, lines 14-52, figure 1, reference numeral 22). Osmalov additionally teaches that segregating ventilation air from smoke flow maximizes filtration of the smoke and improves the flavor and taste experience for the smoker (column 1, lines 50-72, column 2, lines 1-4).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ventilated filter of modified Moffitt with the mouthpiece having channels of Osmalov. One would have been motivated to do so since Osmalov teaches a mouthpiece that maximizes filtration of the smoke and improves the flavor and taste experience for the smoker.
Regarding claim 11, it is evident that a user could place his lips over some of the perforations and draw air in the claimed manner, and that air flows through the perforations of Crooks to be inhaled through the mouthpiece, since cigarette mouthpieces are known to allow drawing by a user’s mouth through the article.
Regarding claim 12, Osmalov teaches that the grooves are aligned with perforated openings in line with the grooves (column 4, lines 53-75, column 5, lines 1-10), indicating that such alignment would also be present in the combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 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, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights