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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruscio (US 2022/0225674 A1) in view of Ballesteros Gomez et al. (US 2024/0090565 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ruscio teaches a non-combustion-heating-type flavor inhalation product (Fig. 1) comprising an electrical heating type device (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 200) and a non-combustion-heating-type flavor inhalation article (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 2) used together with the electrical heating type device. The electrical heating type device comprises an inductor (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 240) for electromagnetic induction heating, a power source (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 250) that supplies operation power to the inductor, and a heating chamber (Fig.1, Ref. Num. 220) into which the non-combustion-heating-type flavor inhalation article can be inserted via an insertion slot. There are at least two protrusions (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 10) are provided on a side wall that forms a cavity of the chamber (Para. [0091]) and a height of the protrusions from the side wall is 0.1 to 1.5 mm (Para. [0051]), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.3 to 2 mm which is a prima facie case of obviousness. Finally, Ruscio teaches that the non-combustion-heating-type flavor inhalation article includes a flavor-generating segment (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 24) that includes a flavor-generating-segment filler containing an aerosol-source material (Para. [0067]) and a plate-shaped susceptor (Para. [0089]) for electromagnetic induction heating of the flavor-generating-segment filler, and a mouthpiece segment (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 21, 22) for inhaling a flavor component. However, Ruscio does not teach the compression change rate of the segments.
In an analogous art, Ballesteros Gomez teaches an inhalation article (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 1) where the compression rate (hardness) (Para. [0086] – [0091]) is at least 70% (Para. [0085], [0102], [0112], [0120]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ruscio with Ballesteros Gomez to have the compression rate of the segments be at least 70%. This modification will allow the segments to withstand compressive forces (Ballesteros Gomez; Para. [0084], [0112]).
Regarding claim 2, Ruscio teaches that the mouthpiece segment includes a cooling segment (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 22) and a filter segment (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 21) where the cooling segment is positioned upstream from the filter segment and a lining sheet including a first sheet material (Para. [0089]) that wraps all of the segments. However, Ruscio does not teach a second sheet.
In an analogous art, Ballesteros Gomez teaches an inhalation article (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 1) with a second sheet material (plug wrap) (Fig. 1a, Ref. Num. 13) disposed outside the first sheet material (Fig. 1a, Ref. Num. 11) wrapping the entire filter segment (Fig. 11, Ref. Num. 18) and the entire cooling segment (Fig. 1a, Ref. Num. 16). The second sheet will come into contact with at least two of the protrusions when the non-combustion-heating-type flavor inhalation article is inserted so as to reach a bottom surface that is the deepest portion of the cavity as it is the outermost layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ruscio with Ballesteros Gomez to add a second sheet to the mouthpiece. This modification will allow the segments to have the proper rigidity (Ballesteros Gomez; Para. [0103]).
Regarding claim 3, Ruscio teaches that there may be up to 12 protrusions (Para. [0013]), which means at least three will come into contact with the second sheet when the non-combustion-heating-type flavor inhalation article is inserted so as to reach a bottom surface that is the deepest portion of the cavity.
Regarding claim 4, Ruscio teaches that flavor-generating-segment filler comprises a tobacco containing material (Para. [0067]), but does not specify the form tobacco. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the loose tobacco in form of sheets as Ballesteros Gomez shows that it is known in the art to provide the tobacco as sheets (Para. [0043]) for similar aerosol generating devices.
Regarding claim 7, modified Ruscio teaches that the mouthpiece includes a filter segment (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 21) with wrapping paper (Ballesteros Gomez; Fig. 1a, Ref. Num. 13) that has a thickness of 80 to 200 µm (Para. [0103]) and a basis weight of 70 to 120 GSM (Para. [0103]), both of which overlap the claimed ranges which are prima facie cases of obviousness.
Regarding claim 8, Ruscio teaches that the non-combustion-heating-type flavor inhalation article includes an end segment (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 25) and a support segment (Fig. 3, Ref. Num. 23), but does not teach that the segments are made out of cellulose acetate fibers.
In an analogous art, Ballesteros Gomez teaches that the segments of the non-combustion-heating-type flavor inhalation article contain cellulose acetate fibers (Para. [0074], [0081], [0105], [0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ruscio with Ballesteros Gomez in order to have the end and support segments contain cellulose acetate fibers. This modification will help maintain the appropriate hardness (Ballesteros Gomez; Para. [0084]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ruscio teaches that the end, support, and filter segments are a solidified member containing cellulose acetate fibers and a plasticizer (Ballesteros Gomez; Para. [0058]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruscio (US 2022/0225674 A1) and Ballesteros Gomez et al. (US 2024/0090565 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Fursa (US 2019/0124981 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ruscio teaches that the filler comprises a tobacco sheet (Ballesteros Gomez; Para. [0043]), but does not teach that the sheet is gathered after being crimped. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to crimp and gather the tobacco sheets as it is known in the art and is a preferrable way to insert the tobacco as shown by Fursa (Para. [0037], [0078]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruscio (US 2022/0225674 A1) and Ballesteros Gomez et al. (US 2024/0090565 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Osawa et al. (US 2021/0045433 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ruscio does not teach the filling density of the tobacco.
In an analogous art, Osawa teaches that the filling density of the flavor-generating-segment filler tobacco is 0.25 g/cm3 to 0.52 g/cm3 (Para. [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Ruscio with Osawa to have the filling density be 0.25 g/cm3 to 0.52 g/cm3. This modification will secure performance and impart good smoke taste (Osawa; Para. [0086]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J WEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-2664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:30pm.
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.
/N.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights