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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/10/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 03/10/2026 is acknowledged.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Emmett et al. (WO 2016/050873).
Regarding claim 1, Emmett teaches a tobacco sheet for a heat-not-burn flavor inhaler, the tobacco sheet comprising a tobacco raw material (web of reconstituted tobacco sheet"… casting of an aqueous slurry or pulp formed from tobacco by-products such as tobacco stems, tobacco stalks, leaf scraps, and tobacco dust produced…; pg. 3 lines 16-25), the tobacco sheet having a corrugated shape (corrugated tobacco sheet comprising a corrugated medium comprising a plurality of flutes; pg. 2 lines 33-34). Regarding the limitation of “in a cross section taken in a thickness direction of the tobacco sheet”, Emmett teaches that the corrugated sheet comprises alternating ridges and grooves (flutes) (pg. 3, lines. 20–23), and defines flute height as the vertical distance from trough to peak (pg. 3, lines. 24–28). Figures 1 and 2 further illustrate the fluted structure with a height (H) extending through the thickness of the sheet (pg. 8, Figs. 1–2).
This demonstrates that, when viewed in a cross section taken in the thickness direction, the sheet has a corrugated (i.e., peak-and-trough) profile.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metrangolo et al. (US 2015/0150302 A1), and further in view of Emmett et al. (WO 2016/050873).
Regarding Claim 1, Metrangolo teaches a tobacco sheet comprising reconstituted tobacco material. Specifically, Metrangolo teaches a homogenised tobacco sheet formed from particulate tobacco material (see, e.g., ¶[0022], ¶[0028]) and used as an aerosol-forming substrate in a heat-not-burn article (¶[0060]–[0065]).
Metrangolo further teaches that the tobacco sheet may be structured or crimped to form a plurality of substantially parallel ridges or corrugations extending across the sheet (¶[0043], ¶[0049]–[0050]), thereby teaching a corrugated tobacco sheet.
However, Metrangolo does not explicitly teach that the corrugations define a corrugated shape in a cross-section taken in a thickness direction of the sheet.
Emmett explicitly disclose a corrugated tobacco sheet formed from a web of reconstituted tobacco shaped into a corrugated configuration comprising a plurality of flutes (p. 3, lines 1–5; p. 5, lines 30–33). Emmett further defines corrugation as folds forming alternating ridges and grooves (p. 3, lines 20–23).
Importantly, Emmett teaches that the corrugated medium has a defined flute height, which is the vertical distance from trough to peak (p. 3, lines 24–30), and a flute pitch, which is the horizontal spacing between adjacent flutes (p. 3, lines 30–35). These parameters describe the geometry of the corrugations in a thickness direction, i.e., a cross-section taken through the sheet shows the alternating peaks and troughs.
Further, Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the fluted corrugated medium, and the description confirms that the medium comprises a plurality of flutes extending between first and second sides of the sheet (p. 8, lines 20–24), reinforcing that the corrugation is a three-dimensional structure extending through the thickness of the sheet.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structured tobacco sheet of Metrangolo to include the corrugated configuration of Emmett, including the fluted geometry defined by flute height and pitch, in order to increase void volume, improve airflow, and enhance aerosol generation efficiency, as expressly suggested by Emmett (p. 4, lines 20–25).
Regarding claim 2-3, Metrangolo in view of Emmett hereinafter modified Metrangolo teaches further comprising an aerosol generator at least one selected from the group consisting of glycerin, propylene glycol, and 1,3-butanediol (Metrangolo ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Metrangolo teaches aerosol-forming compound may be present in specific amounts including 5% by weight and 10% by weight glycerine (¶ [0037]) thereby reading on the limitation of “wherein a percentage of the aerosol generator contained in 100mass% of the tobacco sheet ranges from 4mass% to 50mass%”.
Regarding claim 5, Metrangolo teaches that homogenised tobacco materials include a plurality of additives such as binders, plasticisers, and fillers [0039].
Metrangolo further teaches that a first tobacco material and a second tobacco material may comprise different additives ¶ [0040] and different proportions of additives ¶ [0041].
Accordingly, each tobacco material includes multiple additives, including forming agents, thereby teaching a first tobacco material comprising a first and second forming agent and a second tobacco material comprising a first and second forming agent.
Regarding claim 6, Metrangolo teaches that tobacco sheets comprise forming agents in the form of binders. , ¶[0090]–[0091].
Metrangolo further teaches that suitable binders include gums, cellulose derivatives, starches, alginates, agar, and pectins ( ¶[0091]).
These materials are polysaccharides and/or polymeric materials, which fall within the claimed group consisting of polysaccharide, protein, and synthetic polymer.
Accordingly, Metrangolo discloses that the forming agent (binder) is selected from the claimed group.
Regarding claim 7, Metrangolo teaches that homogenised tobacco materials include additives such as binders (p. 3, ¶[0039]). Binders are forming agents used to form tobacco sheets, as further described in p. 5, ¶[0090]–[0091].
Metrangolo further teaches that a rod comprises a first tobacco material and a second tobacco material (p. 3, ¶[0042]), and that the first tobacco material comprises different additives than the second tobacco material (¶[0040]).
Because binders are additives used in forming homogenised tobacco sheets, and because the first and second tobacco materials comprise different additives, Metrangolo teaches that the first tobacco material includes a first forming agent (binder) and the second tobacco material includes a second forming agent (binder) that is different from the first.
Thus, Metrangolo teaches a first forming agent and a second forming agent different from the first forming agent, as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Metrangolo teaches that homogenised tobacco materials include a plurality of additives such as binders and fillers ¶ [0039]. Metrangolo further teaches that such additives may be present in different compositions and proportions¶ [0040]–[0041], thereby indicating that multiple additives are included in the material, each having a corresponding concentration.
Metrangolo further teaches that non-tobacco fibres, including cellulose-based materials, are incorporated into the tobacco sheet to provide structural integrity ¶ [0092]–[0093], thereby functioning as forming agents. Metrangolo teaches that such materials may be present in an amount between about 1% and about 5% by weight ¶ [0094].
Because Metrangolo discloses multiple additives that function as forming agents, these correspond to a first forming agent and a second forming agent as recited in claim 5, each having a respective concentration within the tobacco sheet. The disclosed range of 1% to 5% falls within the claimed range of 0.1% to 15%.
Therefore, Metrangolo teaches a first forming agent present in the claimed amount, and discloses the limitations of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Metrangolo teaches that homogenised tobacco materials include multiple additives, including binders and fibre-based materials¶ [0039], and that such additives may be present in differing compositions and proportions ¶ [0040]–[0041], indicating that multiple components are present, each with a corresponding concentration.
Metrangolo further teaches that non-tobacco fibres, such as cellulose fibres used to provide structural strength to the sheet, are present in an amount between about 1% and about 5% by weight¶ [0092]–[0094], corresponding to forming agents.
Because Metrangolo discloses multiple forming agents within the tobacco sheet, these correspond to the first forming agent and the second forming agent recited in claim 5, each present in the disclosed range, which falls within the claimed range of 0.1% to 15%.
Therefore, Metrangolo teaches a second forming agent present in the claimed amount, and discloses the limitations of claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights