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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 14 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 101999751) in view of KR 20090109532.
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses a tobacco sheet comprising: a fibrous material (such as tobacco shred) and an inulin (fructan) (Abstract [0025] [0032]). Huan does not expressly discloses the amount of fructan in the tobacco sheet. KR’532 discloses a sheet comprising fibrous material and polysaccharide (includes fructan) with weight about 1% to about 10% and up to 50% by weight (pages 3 and 5) overlapping with the claimed range. In case of overlapping ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range for the amount of fructan in the tobacco sheet of Huang.
Regarding claim 3, Huang discloses inulin-type fructan [0035].
Regarding claims 6 and 14, it would have been obvious to use the tobacco sheet paper by the combination of Huang and KR’532 taken together as a whole as fillers in a tobacco containing segment. Furthermore, KR’532 discloses microfibers including hemicellulose and lignin (page 3) with preferred weight ranges from about 1% to about 15% (page 14) overlapping with the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range.
Regarding claim 21, Huang discloses levan-type fructan [0035].
Claim(s) 4-5, 7-9, 12, 15-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 101999751) in view of KR 20090109532 and further in view of Ishikawa et al. (WO 2020202254).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Huang does not expressly disclose palmitic acid as a flavor additive. Ishikawa (see document, [0109], [0115]) discloses palmitic acid (having molar mass within the claimed range) can be used as a flavor component in a tobacco sheet wherein the preferred amount of flavor component is usually 10000 ppm to 50000 ppm overlapping with the claimed range (in case of overlapping ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pick the claimed range). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add palmitic acid as a flavor additive as taught by Ishikawa to the tobacco sheet of Huang.
Regarding claim 5, Ishikawa discloses palmitic acid corresponding to the claimed a single compound.
Regarding claims 15-16, KR’532 discloses microfibers including hemicellulose and lignin (page 3) with preferred weight ranges from about 1% to about 15% (page 14) overlapping with the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range.
Regarding claims 7 and 18-20, Ishikawa discloses the paper containing an aerosol-generating agent [0002].
Regarding claim 8, Ishikawa discloses a non-combustion heating-type flavor inhaler, comprising: a tobacco-containing segment containing the tobacco sheet for the non-combustion heating-type flavor inhaler (Abstract and fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Ishikawa discloses a non-combustion heating-type flavor inhalation system, comprising: the non-combustion heating-type flavor inhaler; and a heating device (by reference sign 104, fig. 1) configured to heat the tobacco-containing segment (Abstract and fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 4/21/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Applicant essentially argues that the prior arts of Huang and Ishikawa do not expressly discloses the weight range of the fructan in the amended claim 1. However, as explained above, KR’532 discloses a sheet comprising fibrous material and polysaccharide (includes fructan) with weight about 1% to about 10% and up to 50% by weight (pages 3 and 5) overlapping with the claimed range. In case of overlapping ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range for the amount of fructan in the tobacco sheet of Huang.
Regarding the weight range for lignin and hemicellulose, KR’532 also discloses microfibers including hemicellulose and lignin (page 3) with preferred weight ranges from about 1% to about 15% (page 14) overlapping with the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHU H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5931. 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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 5712703882. 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.
/PHU H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights