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Claims 10-18 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 21, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment to claim 1. Applicant amended claim 1 to require, among other things, a first forming agent selected from the recited classes, a different second forming agent selected from protein or synthetic polymer, and respective amounts of 0.1–15 mass% for each forming agent.
Although limitations relating to the first and second forming agents and their amounts were previously recited in dependent claims, the amendment is not merely a formal incorporation of those claims into claim 1. The dependent claims previously presented those limitations according to their respective dependencies and did not require the rejection of claim 1 to establish the presently claimed combination as a whole. Amended claim 1 now requires the same tobacco sheet to simultaneously contain the particular first forming agent, the different second forming agent, and the recited amount of each forming agent. Thus, the amendment changes the combination of limitations that must be established by the prior art and changes the scope and factual basis of the rejection.
Accordingly, the prior rejection is withdrawn. However, in view of the amended scope of claim 1, a new ground of rejection is made below based on newly cited prior art that addresses the limitations now required in combination.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Monte (U.S. 3,613,693) in view of Emmett et al. (WO 2016/050873 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Monte teaches a tobacco sheet comprising a tobacco raw material (tobacco particles shaped and subsequently dried to a shaped sheet; Monte, claim 1);
a first forming agent, wherein the first forming agent is at least one selected from the group consisting of polysaccharide, protein, and synthetic polymer (ethylhydroxyethyl cellulose, a cellulose ether corresponding to a polysaccharide; Monte, claim 1);
wherein a percentage of the first forming agent contained in 100 mass% of the tobacco sheet ranges from 0.1 mass% to 15 mass% (0.3–2.5 wt.% ethylhydroxyethyl cellulose based on the nonsolvent ingredients; Monte, claim 1);
a second forming agent, wherein the second forming agent is at least one selected from the group consisting of protein and synthetic polymer and is different from the first forming agent (a separate foaming agent selected from water-dispersible proteins or synthetic gums including polyvinyl alcohol, which is different from ethylhydroxyethyl cellulose; Monte, claim 2); and
wherein a percentage of the second forming agent contained in 100 mass% of the tobacco sheet ranges from 0.1 mass% to 15 mass% (the foaming agent present in an amount between 3 and 15 wt.% of the nonsolvent ingredients; Monte, claim 2).
Monte does not explicitly teach wherein the tobacco sheet has a corrugated shape in a cross section taken in a thickness direction of the tobacco sheet.
Emmett teaches a web of reconstituted tobacco having a corrugated configuration comprising folds or parallel and alternating ridges and grooves (Emmett, p. 3, ll. 16–23).
Emmett further teaches that the corrugated configuration provides a greater percentage of voids, thereby lowering the overall density and improving the filling power of the tobacco material (Emmett, p. 4, ll. 20–25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reconstituted tobacco sheet of Monte to include the corrugated configuration taught by Emmett in order to increase the percentage of voids, reduce the overall density, and improve the filling power of the tobacco sheet, as taught by Emmett.
Claims 2–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Monte (U.S. Patent No. 3,613,693) in view of Emmett et al. (WO 2016/050873 A1) and further in view of Matarazzo (US 2022/0287357 A1).
Regarding claims 2–4, Monte in view of Emmett teaches the tobacco sheet of claim 1 as set forth above. Monte further teaches that optional additives may be incorporated into the tobacco composition, including humectants and plasticizers, and expressly teaches that the particular additives employed depend upon the particular properties required in the final smoking article (Monte, col. 4, ll. 27–34). However, Monte does not explicitly teach that the tobacco sheet comprises an aerosol generator comprising glycerin, propylene glycol, or 1,3-butanediol in the claimed amount.
Matarazzo teaches adding propylene glycol to tobacco as a substance for formation of an aerosol, in an amount of about 6–30 wt.%, preferably about 10–21 wt.%, on an anhydrous basis of the tobacco material (Matarazzo, ¶ [0069]).
Matarazzo further teaches that propylene glycol is advantageous because its relatively low boiling point permits formation of a suitable aerosol while reducing removal of aromatic and volatile tobacco substances, allows more precise extraction of nicotine without denaturation, and permits heating at a lower temperature, thereby limiting energy consumption (Matarazzo, ¶ [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tobacco sheet of Monte, as modified by Emmett, to include propylene glycol as an aerosol generator in an amount of about 6–30 wt.% as taught by Matarazzo, because Monte expressly contemplates selecting additives based on the properties desired in the final smoking article, and Matarazzo teaches that propylene glycol provides aerosol formation at a lower heating temperature while reducing loss of aromatic and volatile tobacco substances, permitting more precise nicotine extraction, and limiting energy consumption. The disclosed propylene glycol meets the aerosol generator of claims 2 and 3, and the disclosed amount of about 6–30 wt.% falls within the 4–50 mass% range of claim 4.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Monte (U.S. 3,613,693) in view of Emmett et al. (WO 2016/050873 A1) and further in view of Keritsis et al. (U.S. 4,625,737).
Regarding claim 19, Monte in view of Emmett teaches the tobacco sheet of claim 1 as set forth above. Monte teaches ethylhydroxyethyl cellulose as the first forming agent and a separate foaming agent selected from, inter alia, water-dispersible proteins and synthetic gums such as polyvinyl alcohol as the second forming agent (Monte, claim 2). Monte further teaches the second forming agent in an amount between 3 and 15 wt.% of the nonsolvent ingredients, which overlaps the claimed range of greater than 5 mass% and no more than 15 mass% (Monte, claim 2).
Monte also teaches that additives may be incorporated into the tobacco composition and that the particular additives employed depend upon the particular properties required in the final smoking article (Monte, col. 4, ll. 27–34). However, Monte teaches the ethylhydroxyethyl cellulose first forming agent at only 0.3–2.5 wt.% and thus does not explicitly teach the first forming agent in an amount greater than 5 mass% and no more than 15 mass%.
Keritsis teaches tobacco compositions containing a cellulosic binder in an amount of about 2–40 wt.%, preferably about 2–20 wt.%, and identifies suitable cellulosic binders including hydroxypropyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, ethyl cellulose, and mixtures thereof (Keritsis, col. 5). Keritsis specifically demonstrates the use of 15 wt.% hydroxyethyl cellulose in a tobacco composition (Keritsis, Example 3).
Keritsis further teaches that the binder provides adhesive activity and that increased adhesive activity results in greater binding and a more rigid product, thereby demonstrating that the amount and effectiveness of the cellulosic binder are selected according to the desired properties of the tobacco article (Keritsis, cols. 7–8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tobacco sheet of Monte, as modified by Emmett, by employing the cellulose-derived first forming agent in an amount greater than 5 mass% and no more than 15 mass%, as taught by Keritsis, because Monte expressly teaches selecting additives according to the properties required in the final smoking article and Keritsis teaches that cellulose-derived binders are conventionally employed at amounts within the claimed range to provide desired adhesive activity, binding, and rigidity. Monte’s second forming agent range of 3–15 wt.% overlaps the claimed greater-than-5-to-15 mass% 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 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