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. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “opposite to mouthpiece end” in line 2 which appears to be a typographical error and should be replaced with --opposite to a mouthpiece end--. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 7 -9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “ not visually identified ” in claim 7 renders the claim indefinite. The term “ not visually identified ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a definition , and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if Applicant intends for a gap between layer s to be “ not visually identified ” to the unaided eye, under a certain level of magnification, etc. Claims 8 and 9 recite the limitation "the wrapper" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 , 3, 10, 11, 13- 1 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Reevell (WO 2019/110747) . Claim 1. Reevell discloses an aerosol-generating article 10 (flavor source-containing rod) comprising a rod of aerosol-generating substrate 12, a hollow cellulose acetate tube 14, a spacer element 16, and a mouthpiece filter 18 (at the mouthpiece end) (Figure s 1 and 4 ; Page 12, lines 36-37). These four elements are arranged sequentially and in coaxial alignment and are circumscribed by a substrate wrapper 20 to form the aerosol-generating article 10. The aerosol-generating article 10 has a mouth end 22 and a distal end 24 located at the opposite end of the article to the mouth end 22 (Figure s 1 and 4 ; Page 13, lines 1-6). The rod 12 comprises dual plugs of homogenized tobacco material: a fast release plug 26 (flavor source filler) provided at the downstream end of the rod 12 and a slow release plug 28 (cap member) provided at the upstream end of the rod 12 ( Figure s 1 and 4 ; Page 13, lines 10-15). Each of the fast release plug 26 and the slow release plug 28 is formed of a gathered sheet of homogenized tobacco material (sheet including natural fiber) (Figure s 1 and 4 ; Page 13, lines 16-19). The gathered sheet of homogenized tobacco material is arranged such that a principal surface of the sheet is substantially parallel to a longitudinal direction of the article 10 (flavor source-containing rod) (Figures 2 and 3). Claim 3. Reevell discloses that the rod of aerosol-generating substrat e (which comprises fast release plug 26 (flavor source filler) and the slow release plug 28 (cap member)) is circumscribed by a wrapper, wherein the wrapper secures the plugs of homogenised tobacco material together (Figures 2 and 3; Page 11, lines 6-11). Claim s 10 and 11 . Reevell discloses that each of the fast release plug 26 and the slow release plug 28 is formed of a gathered sheet of homogenized tobacco material (plant pulp) (Figures 1 and 4; Page 13, lines 16-19). Claim 13 . Reevell discloses a mouthpiece filter 18 (another cap member) disposed downstream of the fast release plug 26 (flavor source filler) (Figure 1). Claim 14 . Reevell discloses that the fast release plug 26 (flavor source filler) of the aerosol-generating substrate is formed from one or more sheets of homogenised tobacco material (Page 8, lines 17-22). Claim 15 . Reevell discloses that the fast release plug 26 (flavor source filler) of the aerosol-generating substrate is formed from one or more sheets of homogenised tobacco material which may comprise other additives including, but not limited to, tobacco and non-tobacco fibres, aerosol-formers, humectants, plasticisers, flavourants, fillers, aqueous and non-aqueous solvents and combinations thereof (Page 8, line 17-Page 9, line 7). Claim 16 . Reevell discloses that the sheets of homogenised tobacco material for use in the aerosol- generating substrate may comprise other additives including, but not limited to, tobacco and non-tobacco fibres (Page 9, lines 1-7)/ Claim 17 . Reevell discloses that s uitable extrinsic binders for inclusion in sheets of homogenised tobacco material which make up the the fast release plug 26 (flavor source filler) of the aerosol-generating substrate are known in the art and include, but are not limited to: gums such as, for example, guar gum, xanthan gum, arabic gum and locust bean gum; cellulosic binders such as, for example, hydroxypropyl cellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, methyl cellulose and ethyl cellulose; polysaccharides such as, for example, starches, organic acids, such as alginic acid, conjugate base salts of organic acids, such as sodium-alginate, agar and pectins; and combinations thereof (Page 9, lines 8-14). Claim 18 . Reevell discloses aerosol-generating devices for consuming or smoking heated aerosol-generating articles such as that of claim 1 . Such devices include, for example, electrically heated aerosol-generating devices in which an aerosol is generated by the transfer of heat from one or more electrical heater elements of the aerosol-generating device to the aerosol-generating substrate of a heated aerosol-generating article (Figure 4; Page 1, lines 16-21). 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2 , 5 - 9, and 1 9 -20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (WO 2019/110747) in view of Sebastian et al. (US 2020/0154784). Claim 2. Reevell discloses the rod of claim 1 wherein t he sheets of homogenised tobacco material may be produced by casting, extrusion, paper making processes or other any other suitable processes known in the art (Page 3, lines 17-25). Reevell does not explicitly disclose that the sheet includes a dry-laid or wet-laid nonwoven fabric. Sebastian et al. discloses an aerosol source member comprising a substrate sheet which can be formed of a single layer of nonwoven fibers. A layer of fibers can be formed by any suitable method, such as wet-laid methods and dry-laid methods (e.g., carding or air-laid methods) ([0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the sheets of homogenised tobacco material of Reevell may be made from wet-laid methods or dry-laid methods which are notoriously well known in the art as evidenced by Sebastian et al. Claim s 5 and 6 . Reevell discloses the rod of claim 3 wherein the one or more sheets of homogenised tobacco material may advantageously be crimped or similarly treated. As used herein, the term “crimped” denotes a sheet having a plurality of substantially parallel ridges or corrugations (Reevell Figure 2; Page 8, lines 23-27 ) . Reevell does not explicitly disclose that the sheet is a dry-laid nonwoven fabric. Sebastian et al. discloses an aerosol source member comprising a substrate sheet which can be formed of a single layer of nonwoven fibers. A layer of fibers can be formed by any suitable method, such as wet-laid methods and dry-laid methods (e.g., carding or air-laid methods) ([0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the sheets of homogenised tobacco material of Reevell may be made dry-laid methods which are notoriously well known in the art as evidenced by Sebastian et al. Claim 7. Modified Reevell discloses the rod of claim 2 but does not explicitly disclose that a gap is not visually identified between layers of the dry-laid nonwoven fabric at an end surface of the cap member in an axial direction of the cap member. However, Reevell teaches that the density of each plug can be readily adjusted by the skilled person to provide the required differential between the plugs. For example, the density of the homogenised tobacco material forming the plug may be different for each plug. Alternatively or in addition, the arrangement of the homogenised tobacco material within the plug may be different for each plug such that the proportion of free space within the plug may be different for each plug. Preferably, the slow release plug (cap member) has a higher resistance to draw than the fast release plug (flavor source filler) (Figure 1 and 2; Page 6, line 33 – Page 7, line 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the density of the slow release plug 28 (cap member) may be adjusted such that a gap is not visually identified between layers of the dry-laid nonwoven fabric at an end surface of the cap member because the resistance to draw /airflow resistance is a result effective variable that can be modified by adjusting the density of the plug (compression rate) (See MPEP § 2144.05(II)). Claim 8 . Modified Reevell discloses the rod of claim 2 wherein the density of each plug can be readily adjusted by the skilled person to provide the required differential between the plugs. For example, the density of the homogenised tobacco material forming the plug may be different for each plug. Alternatively or in addition, the arrangement of the homogenised tobacco material within the plug may be different for each plug such that the proportion of free space within the plug may be different for each plug. Preferably, the slow release plug (cap member) has a higher resistance to draw than the fast release plug (flavor source filler) (Figure 1 and 2; Page 6, line 33 – Page 7, line 2). Reevell does not disclose a volume occupancy that is 1 0% or more and less than 6 0% as calculated by the formula in claim 8 , however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the volume occupancy is 10% or more and less than 60% , since Reevell teaches that the resistance to draw/airflow resistance is a result effective variable that can be modified by adjusting the density of the plug ( volume occupancy ) (See MPEP § 2144.05(II)). Claim 9 . Modified Reevell discloses the rod of claim 2 wherein the sheet is a wet-laid nonwoven fabric (Sebastian et al. [0056]) which is gathered and folded such that a ridge line formed by the gathering process is substantially parallel to an axial direction of the slow release plug 28 (cap member) (Reevell Figure 2; Page 13, lines 16-36). Claim 19 . Modified Reevell discloses that the rod of aerosol-generating substrate is circumscribed by a wrapper, wherein the wrapper secures the plugs of homogenised tobacco material together (Reevell Figure 2; Page 11, lines 6-11). Claim 20 . Modified Reevell discloses the rod of claim 4 wherein the one or more sheets of homogenised tobacco material may advantageously be crimped or similarly treated. As used herein, the term “crimped” denotes a sheet having a plurality of substantially parallel ridges or corrugations (Reevell Figure 2; Page 8, lines 23-27). Reevell does not explicitly disclose that the sheet is a dry-laid nonwoven fabric. Sebastian et al. discloses an aerosol source member comprising a substrate sheet which can be formed of a single layer of nonwoven fibers. A layer of fibers can be formed by any suitable method, such as wet-laid methods and dry-laid methods (e.g., carding or air-laid methods) ([0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the sheets of homogenised tobacco material of Reevell may be made dry-laid methods which are notoriously well known in the art as evidenced by Sebastian et al. Claim s 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (WO 2019/110747) . Claim 4 . Reevell discloses the rod of claim 3 wherein the density of each plug can be readily adjusted by the skilled person to provide the required differential between the plugs. For example, the density of the homogenised tobacco material forming the plug may be different for each plug. Alternatively or in addition, the arrangement of the homogenised tobacco material within the plug may be different for each plug such that the proportion of free space within the plug may be different for each plug. Preferably, the slow release plug (cap member) has a higher resistance to draw than the fast release plug (flavor source filler) (Figure 1 and 2; Page 6, line 33 – Page 7, line 2). Reevell does not disclose a compression rate that is 20% or more and less than 100% as calculated by the formula in claim 4, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the compression rate is 20% or more and less than 100%, since Reevell teaches that the resistance to draw /airflow resistance is a result effective variable that can be modified by adjusting the density of the plug (compression rate) (See MPEP § 2144.05(II)). Claim 12. Reevell discloses the rod of claim 1 wherein the density of each plug can be readily adjusted by the skilled person to provide the required differential between the plugs. For example, the density of the homogenised tobacco material forming the plug may be different for each plug. Alternatively or in addition, the arrangement of the homogenised tobacco material within the plug may be different for each plug such that the proportion of free space within the plug may be different for each plug. Preferably, the slow release plug (cap member) has a higher resistance to draw than the fast release plug (flavor source filler) (Figure 1 and 2; Page 6, line 33 – Page 7, line 2). While Reevell does not disclose a particular value for the airflow resistance value, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the airflow resistance may be between 2 and 30 mmH 2 O, since Reevell teaches that the resistance to draw /airflow resistance is a result effective variable that can be modified by adjusting the density of the plug (See MPEP § 2144.05(II)). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Katherine A Will whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0516 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 10:00AM-6:00PM(EST) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Wilson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /KATHERINE A WILL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747