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 Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, and 17 are currently amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 16 recites the limitation “an area near a downstream end of the tobacco containing segment”. This limitation was previously introduced in claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 requires a tobacco sheet for a heat-not-burn flavor inhaler, comprising tobacco powder. The tobacco powder is claimed as having a cumulative 90% particle size (D90) in a particle size distribution on a volume basis, measured by dry laser diffractometry, is greater than or equal to 200 µm (micron).
Neither claim 1, nor the present Specification define what D90 means. This is understood to be knowledge that is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner is not familiar with the term, and thus has relied on a later published evidentiary reference to inform the understanding of the D90 limitation, which is further supported by a prior art reference from before the Application’s earliest effective filing date, Zero Instrument Just Measure It (evidentiary reference with a 2026 copyright) and Deforel et al. (WO 2020/074525 A1) (prior art).
Deforel discloses that in a D90 distribution, 90% if the particles by number are of a diameter less than or equal to the given D90 value and 10% of the particles by number are of a diameter measuring greater than the given D90 value, ([pg 5 lines 1-5]). While the prior art discloses this is by number of particles, this is considered equivalent to by volume, since a particular number of particles will always have a particular volume, assuming a well-mixed fraction of particles. This understanding is confirmed by the evidentiary reference, (pg 4 lines 5-6).
Thus, D90 is interpreted to require 90% of the particles to be sized less than the D90 value and 10% of the particles to be sized equal to or greater than the D90 value.
Claim 1 allows the D90 to be set an any value greater than or equal to 200 µm (micron). The present Specification suggests first that the upper range is not limited but in the same sentence provides an example that is less than or equal to 2000 µm (micron), ([0030]). Thus, while there is some evidence to suggest the D90 value has no upper limit, this Imitation is interpreted to have an upper value that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect could be workable for a tobacco particle size to be incorporated into a tobacco sheet, rather than a size that truly has no upper limit that could require further indefinite and scope of enablement analysis.
Thus, because the meaning and application of the D90 limitation is considered to be known to one of ordinary skill in the art, applied to mean a particle distribution where 90% of the particles are sized to be less than the D90 value and 10% of the particles are sized to be equal to or greater than the D90 value, and the upper bound of the D90 value is considered to be limited to a particle size distribution of particles that could be incorporated into a tobacco sheet with a reasonable expectation of success, the claim is considered definite and the scope enabled, and the claim is subject to this interpretation.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Deforel et al. (WO 2020/074535 A1), as evidenced by Mastersizer 3000 Product Catalogue.
Regarding claim 1, Deforel discloses:
A tobacco sheet for a heat-not-burn flavor inhaler, ([pg 1 lines 6-7] disclosing an aerosol generating article, considered to meet the limitation of a flavor inhaler, in which an aerosol generating substrate, such as a tobacco containing substrate, is heated rather than combusted]), considered to meet the required heat not burn attribute and the requirement of flavor (tobacco), and also disclosing a homogenized sheet made from particles such as tobacco particles, made into a sheet by a casting process, ([pg 3 lines 7-21]). Deforel further discloses that the particulate plant material, which includes particulate tobacco material (meeting the limitation of a tobacco powder) may have any D90 value from 20 microns to D90 300 microns, disclosing in particular that the D90 value may be equal to 300 microns, ([pg 5 lines 6-15]), although the distribution is disclosed as being on a particle number basis instead of a volume basis, this is considered equivalent to a volumetric basis, because the particles will have a defined volume. Deforel does not disclose how the D90 value was established, and the claim requires that the D90 particle size distribution be measured by dry laser diffractometry, but because Deforel discloses that the D90 particle size distribution of the tobacco in the sheet may be 300 microns, this limitation is considered to be met, since if the particle size distribution is D90, the limitation requiring this attribute should be inherently met regardless of how the D90 value is established.
However, in the event that the D90 particle size distribution must be established by dry laser diffractometry, Mastersizer 3000 evidences that dry laser diffractometry is a known technique for measuring particle size distributions from 10 nm to 3.5 mm, which uses laser diffraction, (pg 4), with devices that support dry powder measurements, ([pg 8]). Thus, even though it is not disclosed by Deforel how the D90 measurement is made, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of applying the known technique evidenced by Mastersizer 3000, and it would be obvious to use this known technique to make the D90 measurement.
Regarding claim 2, Deforel discloses the tobacco sheet according to claim 1. Deforel further discloses that the term “tobacco material” material encompasses ground or powdered tobacco leaf lamina, ground or powdered tobacco leaf stems, tobacco dust, tobacco fines, and other particulate tobacco by products formed during the treating, handling and shipping of tobacco, ([pg 4 lines 30-33]), and that specific portions of the tobacco plant may be selected and ground to the desired size, ([pg 5 lines 31-32]), specifically disclosing that tobacco lamina (leaves) may be ground to form the particulate tobacco material, ([pg 5 lines 32-33]).
Regarding claim 3, Deforel discloses the tobacco sheet according to claim 1. Deforel discloses the composition of several tobacco sheets, where the tobacco mass contained in the sheet is between 45% to 95% total dry weight mass of the sheet, ([pg 27 Table 1 samples A, B, and D]). Although these sheets were formed from tobacco particles with a D90 of 120 micron, based on the earlier description stating that a particle distribution D90 value of 300 micron could be used, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately envisage a sheet formed with the percentage values disclosed by samples A, B, and D, formed from tobacco particles with a D90 value of 300 microns.
Regarding claim 4-6, Deforel discloses the tobacco sheet according to claim 1. Deforel discloses the composition of several tobacco sheets comprising an aerosol generator, glycerin, in an amount of 17.7%, ([pg 27 table 1 samples A, B, and D]). Although these sheets were formed from tobacco particles with a D90 of 120 micron, based on the earlier description stating that a particle distribution D90 value of 300 micron could be used, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately envisage a sheet formed with the percentage values disclosed by samples A, B, and D, formed from tobacco particles with a D90 value of 300 microns.
Regarding claim 7-9, Deforel discloses the tobacco sheet according to claim 1. Deforel discloses the composition of several tobacco sheets comprising a forming agent, guar gum, in an amount of 2.3%, ([pg 27 table 1 samples A, B, and D]). Although these sheets were formed from tobacco particles with a D90 of 120 micron, based on the earlier description stating that a particle distribution D90 value of 300 micron could be used, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately envisage a sheet formed with the percentage values disclosed by samples A, B, and D, formed from tobacco particles with a D90 value of 300 microns.
Regarding claim 10, Deforel discloses a heat not burn flavor inhaler comprising a tobacco segment including the tobacco sheet according to claim 1, ([pg 23 lines 28-32] Fig 4a-b).
Regarding claim 11, Deforel discloses a heat not burn flavor inhaler of claim 10. The flavor inhaler comprises a mouthpiece segment, the tobacco containing segment comprises two segments, where one segment contains the tobacco sheet according to claim 1, and another segment contains cloves and an aerosol generator, and the mouthpiece segment includes a cooling segment and a filter segment, ([pg 23-24 lines 28-11] Fig 4a-b).
Regarding claim 12, Deforel discloses a heat not burn flavor inhaler of claim 11. The flavor inhaler comprises a mouthpiece segment, the tobacco containing segment comprises two segments, where the first segment contains cloves and an aerosol generator, the first downstream plug, ([pg 23-24 lines 28-11] Fig 4a-b), where plug is understood to include the sheet of primarily clove particles (considered to include plant fiber) gathered transversely and circumscribed with a wrapper, ([pg 11 lines 2-4]).
Regarding claim 17, Deforel discloses a heat not burn flavor inhaler of claim 10. Deforel discloses the substrates of the invention are suitable with an aerosol generating device comprising a heating element, ([pg 2 lines 10-11]), and the invention provides an aerosol generating system comprising an aerosol generating device comprising a heating element for use with an aerosol generating article according to the invention, ([pg 19 lines 16-18]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deforel et al. (WO 2020/074535 A1), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of SEO et al. (US 2021/0000168 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Deforel discloses a heat not burn flavor inhaler of claim 10. Deforel discloses that the aerosol generating article may comprise a rod, where the rod comprises the substrate of the invention in one or more plugs, and may optionally include one or more filter segments, ([pg 13 lines 5-8]). Deforel discloses that the article may comprise a mouthpiece downstream of the aerosol generating substrate, and other filter segments including a hollow acetate tube, spaces, or aerosol cooling element, ([pg 17 lines 18-19]), and the filter may comprise one or more filtration materials including cellulose acetate tow, ([pg 17 lines 20-24]). Deforel does not disclose the fiber circumferential cross section has a Y-shape, or the range of values that a single fiber denier may be equal to or within the range of 8-12.
Seo teaches a tobacco rod including an aerosol generating substrate wrapped with a wrapper and a filter through which aerosol generated from the aerosol generating substrate passes, ([0012]), and is thus within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Seo teaches the filter may include cellulose acetate tow having a Y-shaped cross sectional area, ([0017]), and the filter may include a cellulose acetate tow having a mono denier in the range of 10-12, ([0019]), may have a mono denier of 11.7, ([0020]), and may have a mono denier of 9, ([0021]). SEO teaches that the second segment of the filter may be made of cellulose acetate having a preferred mono denier in the range of 8-10, where the cross section of the filament is Y-shaped, ([0083]Fig 5 ref 322). SEO teaches that using a tow with a Y-shaped cross section, there is an advantage in that the harmful substances such as tar coming out of the filter may be minimized, ([0097]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Deforel according to the techniques taught by SEO. This is the use of a known technique to improve a similar product in the same way. MPEP 2143 I. Examples of Rationales (C). Deforel teaches a base product upon which the claimed invention, which further requires the fiber to have a Y-shaped cross section and mono denier value equal to or within the range of 8-12 can be seen as an improvement. Seo teaches a comparable product that while not the same as the base product, has been improved with a filter comprising fibers having a Y-shaped cross section and having a preferred mono denier value of 8-10. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique in the same way to the base product, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to apply this technique, because Seo teaches that tow with a Y-Shaped cross sectional area improves tar filtration from the aerosol passing through the filter.
Regarding claim 14, modified Deforel discloses a heat not burn flavor inhaler of claim 13. Deforel does not disclose the density of the filter element is a value equal to or within values comprising the range of 0.09 – 0.14 g/cm3.
Seo teaches a filter having a fiber with a y-shaped cross-sectional area, having a mono denier value of 9, with a length of 96 mm, a mass of 395 mg, and a circumference of 21.99, table 5 first row, ([0101]). The formula for the volume of a cylinder is considered to be well known and is V = pi * h * R2. Where V = volume, pi is a constant that may be provided as 3.14, h is height or length and R is radius of the cross section of the cylinder. The formula for the circumference of a circle is considered to be well known, and is C = 2 * pi * R. By describing the filter as having a circumference of 21.99mm, Seo is teaching the radius of the filter is 3.50 mm. By teaching the filter has a length of 96 mm, Seo is further teaching that the volume of the filter is 3696 mm3. The density of an object is well known to be its mass divided by its volume, D = m / V. The mass of the filter divided by its volume disclosed by Seo is 0.107 mg/mm3, which converts to 0.107 g/cm3. Thus, Seo teaches using a filter element having a density within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 15, modified Deforel discloses a heat not burn flavor inhaler of claim 10. Deforel discloses that the aerosol generating article may comprise a rod, where the rod comprises the substrate of the invention in one or more plugs, and may optionally include one or more filter segments, ([pg 13 lines 5-8]). Deforel discloses that the article may comprise a mouthpiece downstream of the aerosol generating substrate, and other filter segments including a hollow acetate tube, spaces, or aerosol cooling element, ([pg 17 lines 18-19]), and the filter may comprise one or more filtration materials including cellulose acetate tow, ([pg 17 lines 20-24]). Deforel discloses that the segments may be arranged sequentially to form an aerosol generating article, and wrapped by a cigarette paper, ([pg 22 lines 24-25]), see also Fig 4a with a tobacco containing segment 4020a, a cooling segment, a hollow cellulose acetate tube 1030, a space element 1040, and a mouthpiece filter 1050 wrapped by a cigarette wrapping paper 1060, where the reference number descriptions are provided, ([pg 22 lines 22-23]). The wrapping material is not disclosed as having a high heat transfer portion having higher heat conductivity than a wrapper member with which the wrapper contacts, where the high heat transfer portion wraps an aera near a downstream end of the tobacco containing segment.
Seo teaches a tobacco rod including an aerosol generating substrate wrapped with a wrapper and a filter through which aerosol generated from the aerosol generating substrate passes, ([0012]), and is thus within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Seo teaches the tobacco rod may be surrounded by a heat conducting material that may be, but is not limited to a metal foil such as aluminum foil, which may improve a thermal conductivity applied to the tobacco rod by evenly dispersing the heat transferred to the tobacco rod, an thus improving tobacco taste, ([0066]). Seo discloses that the cigarette may be wrapped by at least one wrapper, ([0075]), reasonably disclosing articles wrapped with one wrapper. Seo discloses a wrapper may be a metal foil aluminum foil bonded to a general filter wrapping paper, ([0077]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have improved the heat not burn flavor inhaler with the wrapper of Seo comprising a metal foil bonded to a general filter wrapping paper. This is the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, MPEP 2143 I. (B). Deforel discloses a product which differs from the claimed device by the substitution of a wrapping paper with improved heat transfer portion compared to a wrapped member with which the wrapping paper contacts, and where the high heat transfer portion wraps an area near a downstream end of the tobacco containing segment. Seo discloses a wrapper comprising a metal foil bonded to a general filter wrapping paper, and a technique of wrapping the article with one wrapper, further disclosing the metal foil improves heat distribution to the tobacco rod. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the general cigarette wrapping paper in Deforal for the foil backed cigarette paper of Seo, to obtain a wrapped cigarette where the tobacco portion predictably had improved heat transfer throughout the surfaces of the tobacco portion.
Regarding claim 16, modified Deforel discloses a heat not burn flavor inhaler of claim 15.
Because Seo teaches that the article may be wrapped by a single wrapper, and teaches that the wrapper may be a metal backed foil, the heat transfer portion would roll to wrap the entire article, meeting the narrower limitation requiring the high heat transfer portion to wrap an aera neat the downstream end of the tobacco containing segment to an aera near an upstream end of the adjacent member.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-6, 10 and 17 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, and 4-7 of copending Application No. 18591667 (reference application, claim set of 03/21/2024). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, 18591667 discloses: A tobacco sheet for a heat-not-burn flavor inhaler, comprising tobacco powder of which a cumulative 90% particle size (D90) in a particle size distribution on a volume basis, measured by dry laser diffractometry, is greater than or equal to 200 µm, claim 1 including all of these limitations.
Regarding claim 4, 18591667 discloses: The tobacco sheet for a heat-not-burn flavor inhaler according to claim 1, further comprising an aerosol generator, required by claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, 18591667 discloses: The tobacco sheet for a heat-not-burn flavor inhaler according to claim 4, wherein the aerosol generator is at least one selected from the group consisting of glycerin, propylene glycol, and 1,3-butanediol, met by claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, 18591667 discloses: The tobacco sheet for a heat-not-burn flavor inhaler according to claim 4, wherein a percentage of the aerosol generator contained in 100mass% of the tobacco sheet ranges from 4mass% to 50mass%, overlapped by the range in claim 4.
Regarding claim 10, 18591667 discloses: A heat-not-burn flavor inhaler comprising a tobacco-containing segment including the tobacco sheet for a heat-not-burn flavor inhaler according to claim 1, met by claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, 18591667 discloses: A heat-not-burn flavor inhaling system comprising: the heat-not-burn flavor inhaler according to claim 10; and a heating device that heats the tobacco-containing segment, met by claim 7.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 10, and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of copending Application No. 18493443 (reference application claims filed 03/29/2024). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, 18493443 discloses: A tobacco sheet for a heat-not-burn flavor inhaler, comprising tobacco powder of which a cumulative 90% particle size (D90) in a particle size distribution on a volume basis, measured by dry laser diffractometry, is greater than or equal to 200 µm, claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, 18493443 discloses: A heat-not-burn flavor inhaler comprising a tobacco-containing segment including the tobacco sheet for a heat-not-burn flavor inhaler according to claim 1, claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, 18493443 discloses: A heat-not-burn flavor inhaling system comprising: the heat-not-burn flavor inhaler according to claim 10; and a heating device that heats the tobacco-containing segment, claim 9.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1-10 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-12 of copending Application No. 19162416 (reference application claims filed 09/05/2025). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, 19162416 discloses: A tobacco sheet for a heat-not-burn flavor inhaler, comprising tobacco powder of which a cumulative 90% particle size (D90) in a particle size distribution on a volume basis, measured by dry laser diffractometry, is greater than or equal to 200 µm, claim 11.
Regarding claim 2, 19162416 discloses: The tobacco sheet for a heat-not-burn flavor inhaler according to claim 1, wherein the tobacco powder is at least one tobacco raw material selected from the group consisting of leaf tobacco, leaf midrib, and stalk, claim 3.
Regarding claim 3, 19162416 discloses: The tobacco sheet for a heat-not-burn flavor inhaler according to claim 1, wherein a percentage of the tobacco powder contained in 100mass% of the tobacco sheet ranges from 45mass% to 95mass%, claim 4.
Regarding claim 4, 19162416 discloses: The tobacco sheet for a heat-not-burn flavor inhaler according to claim 1, further comprising an aerosol generator, claim 5.
Regarding claim 5, 19162416 discloses: The tobacco sheet for a heat-not-burn flavor inhaler according to claim 4, wherein the aerosol generator is at least one selected from the group consisting of glycerin, propylene glycol, and 1,3-butanediol, claim 6.
Regarding claim 6, 19162416 discloses: The tobacco sheet for a heat-not-burn flavor inhaler according to claim 4, wherein a percentage of the aerosol generator contained in 100mass% of the tobacco sheet ranges from 4mass% to 50mass%, claim 7.
Regarding claim 7, 19162416 discloses: The tobacco sheet for a heat-not-burn flavor inhaler according to claim 1, further comprising a forming agent, claim 8.
Regarding claim 8, 19162416 discloses: The tobacco sheet for a heat-not-burn flavor inhaler according to claim 7, wherein the forming agent is at least one selected from the group consisting of polysaccharide, protein, and synthetic polymer, claim 9.
Regarding claim 9, 19162416 discloses: The tobacco sheet for a heat-not-burn flavor inhaler according to claim 7, wherein a percentage of the forming agent contained in 100mass% of the tobacco sheet ranges from 0.1 mass% to 15mass%, claim 10.
Regarding claim 10, 19162416 discloses: A heat-not-burn flavor inhaler comprising a tobacco-containing segment including the tobacco sheet for a heat-not-burn flavor inhaler according to claim 1, claim 12.
Regarding claim 17, 19162416 discloses: A heat-not-burn flavor inhaling system comprising: the heat-not-burn flavor inhaler according to claim 10; and a heating device that heats the tobacco-containing segment, claim 13.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chida et al. EP2957183 A1 disclosing the technique of laser diffraction scattering method for determining particle size, ([0026]).
Rousseau et al. US20200275688 A1 disclosing alternate smoking materials comprising plant fibers, ([0006]-[0008]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL E VAKILI whose telephone number is (571)272-5171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 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, Michael H. Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. 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.
/D.E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747