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, 15, 21-23, 25, and 27-40 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claims 1, 15, 22-23, 25, and 27 are withdrawn. Claims 2-14, 16-20, 24, and 26 are canceled. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 21 and 28-40 in the reply filed on 07/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Figures 3 and 4: #305
Figure 5: #1, #3, #7, #9
Figure 6: #1 and #3
Figure 7: #1
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg. 27, Line 11: "filter segment 103" should read "filter segment 109"
Pg. 35, Line 24: "mouth end segment 111, 313" should read "mouth end segment 111, 311"
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 21, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papakyrillou (WO 2021110540 A1), and further in view of Burnett (US 4632131 A).
With regard to Claim 21, Papakyrillou teaches (i) an aerosol-generating article for use in an electrically operated (Pg. 20, Para. 8, Lines 7-8} aerosol-generating device, wherein the aerosol-generating article may comprise an aerosol-generating substrate (Pg. 3, Para. 2, Lines 1-3). (ii) The aerosol generating substrate may comprise homogenized tobacco material (Pg. 7, Para. 2) comprising aerosol-former material (Pg. 7, Para. 2, Line 6), one or more binders (Pg. 7, Para. 2, Lines 1-4), and fillers (Pg. 7, Para. 2, lines 4-7). Papakyrillou teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however Papakyrillou is silent to:
The aerosol-generating material comprising chitosan
Burnett, directed to smoking articles, teaches a smoking article that may comprise chitosan as a stiffening agent (Col. 7, Lines 61-66) to improve stiffness of the smoking article while maintaining favorable smokable properties (Col. 1, Lines 46-51 & Col. 4, Lines 57-61).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aerosol-generating material of Papakyrillou to comprise chitosan because both Papakyrillou and Burnett are directed to improved aerosol generation. Burnett teaches using chitosan to improve stiffness of the smoking article while maintaining favorable smokable properties (Col. 1, Lines 46-51 & Col. 4, Lines 57-61) and this merely involves the use of a known material to improve similar aerosol generating products in the same way.
With regard to Claim 28, modified Papakyrillou teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Papakyrillou is silent to:
Wherein the aerosol-generating material comprises chitosan in an amount of about 0.01-10 wt% of the aerosol-generating material on a dry weight basis
Burnett, directed to smoking articles, teaches a smoking article that may comprise chitosan as a stiffening agent in a range of 0.1 to about 40 wt% (Col. 7, Lines 61-66) included in a dry blend (Claim 30). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to apply this weight to the chitosan of modified Papakyrillou to improve stiffness of the smoking article while maintaining favorable smokable properties (Col. 1, Lines 46-51 & Col. 4, Lines 57-61). The range of Burnett overlaps with the range of the claimed invention and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aerosol-generating material of modified Papakyrillou to wherein the aerosol-generating material comprises chitosan in an amount of about 0.01-10 wt% of the aerosol-generating material on a dry weight basis because both Papakyrillou and Burnett are directed to improved aerosol generation. Burnett teaches using chitosan in a range of 0.1 to 40 wt% to improve stiffness of the smoking article while maintaining favorable smokable properties (Col. 1, Lines 46-51 & Col. 4, Lines 57-61) and this merely involves applying a known amount of material to known aerosol generating material ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 29, Papakyrillou teaches wherein the aerosol former material may include propylene glycol, triethylene glycol, and other suitable aerosol-formers (Pg. 7, Para 5, Lines 4-9).
With regard to Claim 32, Papakyrillou teaches wherein the one or more binders may include polysaccharides such as pectins and starches, cellulose, gums such as guar gum, and other materials (Pg. 7, Para. 3, Lines 1-7).
With regard to Claim 33, Papakyrillou teaches wherein the one or more binders may include guar gum, cellulose, and starches (Pg. 7, Para. 3, Lines 1-7).
With regard to Claim 34, Papakyrillou teaches wherein the one or more binders may include cellulosic binders such as hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose, and other cellulosic materials (Pg. 7, Para. 3, Lines 4-5).
With regard to Claim 35, Papakyrillou teaches wherein the one or more binders may include guar gum, and starches (Pg. 7, Para. 3, Lines 3-7).
With regard to Claim 39, Papakyrillou teaches wherein the aerosol generating substrate may comprise homogenized tobacco material (Pg. 7, Para. 2)
With regard to Claim 40, Papakyrillou teaches wherein the aerosol-generating substrate may be produced from shreds, strands, or strip of tobacco material (Pg. 5, Para. 6, Liens 1-2). A rod of aerosol generating substrate may also be formed from one or more gathered sheets of tobacco material and strands of homogenized tobacco material, wherein the material may be formed by casting, rolling, calendaring, or extruding a mixture (Pg. 5, Para. 6, Lines 3-11). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the sheet of homogenized tobacco material in shredded form and blended because Papakyrillou already teaches forming the tobacco material from a mixture comprising tobacco and using shreds as alternative physical forms of tobacco material for the same substrate. The disclosed sheet in shredded form merely involves selecting from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 30, 31, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papakyrillou (WO 2021110540 A1) and Burnett (US 4632131 A), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Kontarev (WO 2020169566 A1).
With regard to Claim 30, modified Papakyrillou teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Papakyrillou is silent to:
Wherein the aerosol-generating material comprises aerosol-former material in a total amount of about 35-65 wt% on a dry weight basis
Kontarev, directed to a vapor generating article, teaches wherein vapor generating components may have an aerosol-former content of about 5-50% dry weight (Pg. 13, Lines 26-29), having significant amount of overlap of the range in the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the range of Kontarev to modified Papakyrillou to release volatile compounds including flavoring or nicotine efficiently (Pg. 13, Lines 29-30) and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aerosol-generating material of modified Papakyrillou to wherein the aerosol-generating material comprises aerosol-former material in a total amount of 35-65 wt% on a dry weight basis because both Papakyrillou and Kontarev are directed to aerosol generating articles with aerosol former materials. Kontarev teaches an aerosol-former material in a range of 5-50 wt% on a dry weight basis to release volatile compounds including flavoring or nicotine efficiently (Pg. 13, Lines 29-30) and this merely involves applying a known amount to an aerosol generating material ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 31, modified Papakyrillou teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Papakyrillou is silent to:
Wherein the aerosol-generating material comprises aerosol-former material in a total amount of about 40-60 wt% on a dry weight basis
Kontarev, directed to a vapor generating article, teaches wherein vapor generating components may have an aerosol-former content of about 5-50% dry weight (Pg. 13, Lines 26-29), having significant amount of overlap of the range in the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the range of Kontarev to modified Papakyrillou to release volatile compounds including flavoring or nicotine efficiently (Pg. 13, Lines 29-30) and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aerosol-generating material of modified Papakyrillou to wherein the aerosol-generating material comprises aerosol-former material in a total amount of 40-60 wt% on a dry weight basis because both Papakyrillou and Kontarev are directed to aerosol generating articles with aerosol former materials. Kontarev teaches an aerosol-former material in a range of 5-50 wt% on a dry weight basis to release volatile compounds including flavoring or nicotine efficiently (Pg. 13, Lines 29-30) and this merely involves applying a known amount to an aerosol generating material ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 36, modified Papakyrillou teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Papakyrillou is silent to:
Wherein the aerosol-generating material comprises the additional binder in a total amount of about 5 to 50 wt% of the aerosol-generating material on a dry weight basis
Kontarev teaches wherein a binder is present in an amount between approximately 1-15 wt% (Pg. 4, Lines 15-16) to aide in forming the structure of the vapor generating components (Pg. 4, Lines 11-12). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that upon removing water in the amount between 2 wt% and 20 wt% (Pg. 4, Lines 17-18), to calculate the amount of binder on a dry weight basis, the resulting range of weight for the binder is approximately 1 wt% to 18.75 wt%. Thus, the range of Kontarev overlaps with the range of the claimed invention and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aerosol-generating material of modified Papakyrillou to wherein the aerosol-generating material comprises the additional binder in a total amount of about 5 to 50 wt% of the aerosol-generating material on a dry weight basis because both Papakyrillou and Kontarev are directed to aerosol generating articles with binder materials. Kontarev teaches a binder in a range from 1 to 18.75 wt% on a dry weight basis to aide in forming the structure of the vapor generating components (Pg. 4, Lines 11-12) and this merely involves applying a known amount to an aerosol generating material ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papakyrillou (WO 2021110540 A1) and Burnett (US 4632131 A), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Ballesteros (US 20190380379 A1).
With regard to Claim 37, modified Papakyrillou teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Papakyrillou is silent to:
Wherein the filler comprises (or is) wood pulp
Ballesteros, directed to a smoking article, teaches wherein a filler may be a non-tobacco fiber such as wood fiber or pulp [0117] to provide a desired consistency for the tobacco material to be processed efficiently [0146] and act as support for other substances [0147].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filler of modified Papakyrillou to wherein the filler comprises or is wood pulp because both Papakyrillou and Ballesteros are directed to smoking articles with filler materials. Ballesteros teaches a filler made of wood pulp to provide a desired consistency for the tobacco material to be processed efficiently [0146] and act as support for other substances [0147] and this merely involves applying a known material type to a known filler ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 38, modified Papakyrillou teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Papakyrillou is silent to:
Wherein the aerosol-generating material comprises filler in a total amount of at least 15 wt% of the aerosol-generating material on a dry weight basis
Ballesteros teaches wherein a filler component of a tobacco composition may be present in an amount of 0 to 20% by weight of the tobacco composition [0117], where amounts are given in a dry weight basis [0123] to provide a desired consistency for the tobacco material to be processed efficiently [0146] and act as support for other substances [0147]. The range of Ballesteros overlaps with the range of the claimed invention and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filler of modified Papakyrillou to wherein the aerosol-generating material comprises filler in a total amount of at least 15 wt% of the aerosol-generating material on a dry weight basis because both Papakyrillou and Ballesteros are directed to smoking articles with filler materials. Ballesteros teaches a filler present in an amount of 0 to 20% by weight of the tobacco composition to provide a desired consistency for the tobacco material to be processed efficiently [0146] and act as support for other substances [0147] and this merely involves applying a known amount of filler to a known composition ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWATOSIN O DIYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 am - 6 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.
/O.O.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights