DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehling (US 5,097,851) in view of King (US 4,306,358).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 15, Ehling teaches a method for manufacturing a tobacco sheet for a non-combustion heating-type flavor inhaler, the method comprising the steps of: forming a mixture containing a tobacco raw material and a moisturizer (aerosol-generating agent) into a sheet shape [col. 8, l. 19-40]; and drying the mixture formed into the sheet shape [col. 10, l. 43-57]. Ehling does not specify the moisture reduction rate. However, Ehling does teach the drying takes place by hot air blown on onto the mixture formed into the sheet shape at a temperature of 300
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
°C (flash drying) [col. 10, l. 43-57], as claimed. The moisture reduction rate is considered a result of the air temperature and air velocity. Ehling is silent to the air velocity. King teaches an air drying apparatus for a tobacco sheet [col. 3, l. 6-16] wherein hot air blown has a preferred air velocity of 3,400 ft/min [col. 7, l. 14-19], or 17 m/s. This velocity is considered a known technique that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to apply to the method of Ehling to yield predictable results. The drying of modified Ehling, thereby having both the claimed air temperature and velocity, is interpreted to inherently result in the claimed moisture reduction rate.
Regarding claims 5 and 16-18, Ehling teaches an amount of moisture in the mixture formed into the sheet shape before the drying is 40% WB, and the amount of moisture in the mixture formed into the sheet shape after the drying is 14% WB [col. 10, l. 43-57].
Regarding claim 7, Ehling teaches a proportion of the tobacco raw material contained in 100% by mass of the mixture is 86% to 98% by mass on a dry basis [col. 5, l. 8-11].
Regarding claim 8, Ehling teaches the aerosol-generating agent is glycerine or propylene glycol [col. 4, l. 56-59].
Regarding claim 9, Ehling teaches a proportion of the moisturizer (aerosol-generating agent) contained in 100% by mass of the mixture is 1% to 6% by mass on a dry basis [col. 3, l. 55-56]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claims 10-12, Ehling teaches a proportion of carboxymethyl cellulose binder (polysaccharide forming agent) contained in 100% by mass of the mixture is 1% to 8% by mass on a dry basis [col. 4, l. 60 to col. 5, l. 13].
Claims 6, 13, 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehling and King as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Jarriault (US 2020/0323255).
Regarding claims 6, 19, and 20, Ehling teaches the tobacco raw material tobacco particles (powder) [col. 3l l. 36-37] but does not teach that it is from leaf tobacco, midribs, or residual stems. Jarriault teaches a tobacco sheet comprising tobacco particles from tobacco leaves or stems [0109]. Tobacco particles from tobacco leaves or stems is considered a known element that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to apply to the tobacco particles in the sheet of modified Ehling to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, modified Ehling does not teach the mixture further contains a fibrous material as a reinforcing agent. Jarriault teaches a tobacco sheet comprising the addition of cellulose fibers to the slurry increase tensile strength, acting as a strengthening agent [0086]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include cellulose fibers in the mixture of modified Ehling for strengthening purposes as suggested by Jarriault. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the proportion of fibrous material through routine experimentation to achieve the desired strength effects.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights