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 the Claims
Claims 1, 3-9, 12, 14-18, 22, 26, 29-36, and 39-40 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1, 3-9, 12, 14-18, 22, 26, and 29-35 in the reply filed on 3/06/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of the entire application would not place a serious burden on the Examiner, and particularly traverses Group II, claim 36, and notes that claim 36 includes all of the features of claim 3. This is not found to be persuasive because the inventions are directed to a component for an article, an article for use or as a combustible aerosol provision system, and a method for forming a component for an article, the examination of which would be expected to involve substantially different search strategies, fields of search and different question of patentability. This would be expected to introduce serious burden into the examination of all inventions presented in this application. Further, while claim 36 includes the component according to claim 3, claim 36 is directed to an article for use in or as a combustible aerosol provision system which would involve a substantially different search strategy, field of search, and a different question of patentability.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 36 and 39-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/06/2026.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation wherein the average spacing between adjacent ridges is greater than about 0.4 mm, and the claim also recites greater than about 0.5 mm or greater than about 0.6 mm, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the recitation of “greater than about 0.5 mm or greater than about 0.6 mm” is considered to not be required of the claim.
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, 3-9, 12, 17-18, and 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura (US 5,979,460).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumura teaches:
A component for an article for use in or as a combustible aerosol provision system (tobacco filter, Col. 9, lines 19-20), the component comprising:
a body of material extending in a longitudinal direction, wherein the body of material comprises crimped sheet material formed having a crimp pattern comprising a series of substantially parallel ridges and grooves (sheet-like material that is creped, Col. 9, lines 21-24).
wherein the average spacing between adjacent ridges is in the range of about 0.3 to 5 mm (Col. 9, lines 35-40, where the pitch of the grooves for creping the sheet of material corresponds to the average spacing between adjacent ridges) which falls within the claimed range of greater than about 0.3 mm.
wherein the average density of said body of material is between about 0.25 to 0.45 mg/mm3 (0.25 to 0.45 g/cm3, Abstract) which overlaps the claimed range of between 0.1 and about 0.25 mg/mm3 and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Matsumura teaches:
A component for an article for use in or as a combustible aerosol provision system (tobacco filter, Col. 9, lines 19-20), the component comprising:
a body of material extending in a longitudinal direction, wherein the body of material comprises crimped sheet material formed having a crimp pattern comprising a series of substantially parallel ridges and grooves (sheet-like material that is creped, Col. 9, lines 21-24).
wherein the crimp amplitude is between 0.1 to 2 mm (Col. 9, lines 35-35, where the depth of the grooves for creping the sheet of material corresponds to the crimp amplitude). The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of less than about 0.7 mm and is therefore prima facie obvious.
wherein the average density of said body of material is between about 0.25 to 0.45 mg/mm3 (0.25 to 0.45 g/cm3, Abstract) which overlaps the claimed range of between 0.1 and about 0.25 mg/mm3 and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Matsumura teaches wherein the average spacing between adjacent ridges is in the range of about 0.3 to 5 mm (Col. 9, lines 35-40, where the pitch of the grooves for creping the sheet of material corresponds to the average spacing between adjacent ridges) which overlaps the claimed range of greater than about 0.4 mm and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Matsumura teaches wherein the body of material comprises crimped fibers (where the sheet-like material comprises fibers, Col. 5, lines 33-50, and sheet-like material is creped, Col. 9, lines 20-25) having a crimp amplitude of between 100 to 2000 um (0.1 to 2 mm, Col. 9, lines 35-35, where the depth of the grooves for creping the sheet of material corresponds to the crimp amplitude) and the range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of less than about 600 um and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Matsumura teaches wherein the average density of said body of material is between about 0.25 to 0.45 mg/mm3 (0.25 to 0.45 g/cm3, Abstract) which is merely close to the claimed range of between about 0.15 mg/mm3 and about 0.2 mg/mm3. The Courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 7, Matsumura teaches wherein the body of material has a circumferential length of 24.5 mm and a length of 10 cm (Col. 10, lines 15-20), which equates to a volume of about 4777 mm3, which falls within the claimed range of at least 100 mm3.
Regarding claim 8, Matsumura teaches wherein the body of material has a circumferential length of 24.5 mm and a length of 10 cm (Col. 10, lines 15-20), which equates to a volume of about 47.77 mm3 per mm of axial length of the body of material, which falls within the claimed range of at least 19 mm3.
Regarding claim 9, Matsumura teaches wherein the body of material has a circumferential length of 24.5 mm and a length of 10 cm (Col. 10, lines 15-20) and a density of about 0.25 to 0.45 mg/mm3 (0.25 to 0.45 g/cm3, Abstract) which equates to a weight of about 11.9 to 21.5 mg per mm of axial length of the body of material, which falls within the claimed range of at least 4 mg per mm of axial length of the body of material.
Regarding claim 12, Matsumura teaches wherein the sheet material has a basis weight of about 10 to 40 g/m2 (Col. 8, lines 49-67), which overlaps the claimed range of at least 20g/m2 and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 17, Matsumura teaches wherein the closed pressure drop across the body of material is about 200 to 500 mm water gauge (WG) and the body of material has a length of 10 cm (Col. 10, lines 15-20) which equates to the closed pressure drop across the body of material being 2 to 5 mmH2O per mm of longitudinal length, and therefore falls within the claimed range of at least 1.0 mmH2O per mm of longitudinal length.
Regarding claim 18, Matsumura teaches wherein the closed pressure drop across the body of material is about 200 to 500 mm water gauge (WG) and the body of material has a length of 10 cm (Col. 10, lines 15-20) which equates to the closed pressure drop across the body of material being 2 to 5 mmH2O per mm of longitudinal length, and therefore overlaps the claimed range of less than 3.0 mmH2O per mm of longitudinal length and is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 34, Matsumura teaches wherein the sheet material comprises fibers having an average length of 1 to 10 mm (Col. 5, lines 50-55) which overlaps the claimed range of 2 mm to 6 mm and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 35, Matsumura teaches the sheet has a density of about 0.25 to 0.45 mg/mm3 (0.25 to 0.45 g/cm3, Abstract) and a basis weight of about 10 to 40 g/m2 (Col. 8, lines 49-67), and using the equation provided for sheet density (Col. 11, lines 44-45), the sheet thickness equates to a thickness of between about 22 to 160 um, which overlaps the claimed range of between about 50 and about 100 um and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura (US 5,979,460) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Papakyrillou (US2017/0360087).
Regarding claim 14, Matsumura teaches that the body of material has a circumferential length of 24.5 mm (Col. 10, lines 15-20). Matsumura is silent to the extended width of the sheet material.
However, Papakyrillou, directed to a filter for a smoking article, teaches:
A filter with a crimped sheet of material ([0027]) that has a width of 50 to 300 mm prior to crimping (i.e. extended width) in order to give a circumferential length of between 15 and 30 mm ([0026]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the filter of Matsumura have an extended width of 50 to 300 mm as taught by Papakyrillou in order to provide the body of material with the disclosed circumferential length of 24.5 mm. The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of between 120 mm and 200 mm and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Matsumura does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the sheet material comprises paper.
However, Papakyrillou, directed to a filter for a smoking article, teaches:
The filter material comprises paper that exhibits hydrophobic properties ([0020]) which can inhibit the transfer, absorption and accumulation of humectant, water and staining of the filter element that occurs when the smoking article is stored ([0022]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to make the filter of Matsumura comprise paper as taught by Papakyrillou, because both Matsumura and Papakyrillou are directed to filters for smoking articles, Papakyrillou teaches paper has hydrophobic properties which can inhibit staining of the filter during storage, and this merely involves the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use.
Claim(s) 16, 26, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura (US 5,979,460) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Pan (US2015/0001148).
Regarding claim 16, Matsumura does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the sheet material comprises reconstituted tobacco.
However, Pan, directed to a filter element, teaches:
The filter element may comprise a base web of reconstituted tobacco ([0042]).
Reconstituted tobacco paper filters biodegrade at a faster rate ([0099]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to make the filter element of Matsumura comprise reconstituted tobacco as taught by Pan, because both Matsumura and Pan are directed to filters for smoking articles, Pan teaches reconstituted tobacco paper filters biodegrade faster, and this merely involves the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use.
Regarding claim 26, Matsumura does not appear to explicitly disclose an aerosol-former material applied to the body of material, wherein the aerosol-former material comprises one or more of glycerine, glycerol, propylene glycol, diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, tetraethylene glycol, 1,3-butylene glycol, erythritol, meso-Erythritol, ethyl vanillate, ethyl laurate, a diethyl suberate, triethyl citrate, triacetin, a diacetin mixture, benzyl benzoate, benzyl phenyl acetate, tributyrin, lauryl acetate, lauric acid, myristic acid, and propylene carbonate.
Pan, directed to a filter element, teaches:
The filter element comprises additives which reduce and minimize the dry, astringent, harsh, wood, paper, irritation, and bitter taste normally associated with paper filters when incorporated into a smoking article ([0032]).
The additive may comprise monopropylene glycol, sorbitol, glycerin, triacetin, or mixtures thereof ([0015]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to make the filter element of Matsumura comprise an aerosol-former such as monopropylene glycol, sorbitol, glycerin, triacetin, or mixtures thereof as taught by Pan, because both Matsumura and Pan are directed to filters for smoking articles, Pan teaches the filter element comprises additives that minimize irritation and bitter taste, and this merely involves incorporation of a known additive for a filter element to a similar filter element to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 29, Pan further teaches the additive may be present on the base web in an amount from about 1% to about 30% by weight based on the weight of the base web ([0015]). Therefore as Matsumura teaches wherein the body of material has a circumferential length of 24.5 mm and a length of 10 cm (Col. 10, lines 15-20) and a density of about 0.25 to 0.45 mg/mm3 (0.25 to 0.45 g/cm3, Abstract), assuming a homogeneous distribution thereof, this equates to about 0.12 mg to 6.45 mg of aerosol former material applied to the body of material per 1 mm axial length, which falls within the claimed range of at least 0.02 mg per mm of axial length of the body of material.
Regarding claim 30, Pan further teaches the additive may be present on the base web in an amount from about 1% to about 30% by weight based on the weight of the base web ([0015]). Therefore as Matsumura teaches wherein the body of material has a circumferential length of 24.5 mm and a length of 10 cm (Col. 10, lines 15-20) and a density of about 0.25 to 0.45 mg/mm3 (0.25 to 0.45 g/cm3, Abstract), assuming a homogeneous distribution thereof, this equates to about 0.12 mg to 6.45 mg of aerosol former material applied to the body of material per 1 mm axial length, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 mg or less per mm of axial length of the body of material and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Claim(s) 22 and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura (US 5,979,460) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Dube (US2004/0261807).
Regarding claim 22, Matsumura does not appear to explicitly disclose an aerosol-modifying agent release component comprising an aerosol-modifying agent disposed within the body of material, wherein the aerosol-modifying agent release component comprises a capsule and wherein the capsule comprises a solid shell and a liquid core, the liquid core comprising the aerosol-modifying agent.
Dube, directed to a filtered cigarette, teaches:
A smoking article comprising a filter element, with a breakable capsule incorporated into its filter element ([0011]).
An aerosol-modifying agent release component (i.e. breakable capsule) comprising an aerosol-modifying agent ([0012]: inner region of capsule composed of a compound that is intended to introduce some change to the nature of the mainstream smoke drawn through the filter element) disposed within the body of material ([0012]: the filter element incorporates the capsule), wherein the aerosol-modifying agent release component comprises a capsule and wherein the capsule comprises a solid shell and a liquid core, the liquid core comprising the aerosol-modifying agent ([0012]: an outer shell and an inner region that incorporates a suitable liquid carrier).
It would be desirable to provide a cigarette that is capable of releasing an agent for enhancing the sensory attributes of the mainstream smoke (e.g., by flavoring that smoke) ([0010]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter element of Matsumura by incorporating a breakable capsule as taught by Dube, because both Matsumura and Dube are directed to filters for smoking articles, Dube teaches the capsule has a flavorant that enhances sensory attributes of the smoke, and this merely involves incorporating a known filter element for a smoking article (i.e. capsule) to a similar filter element for a smoking article to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 31, Matsumura does not appear to explicitly disclose a tubular element located within the body of material, the tubular element comprising a cavity.
Dube, directed to a filtered cigarette, teaches:
A smoking article comprising a filter element, with a breakable capsule incorporated into its filter element ([0011]).
It would be desirable to provide a cigarette that is capable of releasing an agent for enhancing the sensory attributes of the mainstream smoke (e.g., by flavoring that smoke) ([0010]).
The filter segment comprises a tubular shaped segment that possesses the ability to receive and maintain in position at least one breakable capsule ([0015]), which defines a tubular element located within the body of material, the tubular element comprising a cavity.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter element of Matsumura by incorporating a breakable capsule and a tubular element comprising a cavity to receive the capsule as taught by Dube, because both Matsumura and Dube are directed to filters for smoking articles, Dube teaches the capsule has a flavorant that enhances sensory attributes of the smoke, and this merely involves incorporating a known filter element for a smoking article (i.e. capsule) to a similar filter element for a smoking article to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 32, modified Matsumura does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the tubular element comprise paper.
However, Matsumura teaches that the filter material (and therefore the tubular element) is formed of paper so that rapid disintegrating or dispersion is insured when wetted with rainwater (Col. 8, lines 25-40).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to make the tubular element of modified Matsumura comprise paper, as Matsumura teaches the filter being formed of paper insures rapid disintegrating or dispersion when wetter with rainwater, and this merely involves the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura (US 5,979,460) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Grzonka (US2006/0102188).
Regarding claim 33, Matsumura teaches wherein the component is wrapped in a wrapper (Col. 9, lines 25-30, wrapped up with a wrapping tissue or paper). However, Matsumura is silent to the basis weight of the wrapper.
Grzonka, directed to a filter for cigarettes, teaches:
A filter wrapping in a tipping paper or other wrapper ([0015]).
The basis weight of the tipping or other wrapper is advantageously within the range of 25-45 g/m.sup.2 ([0031]).
The filter tip economises on material without requiring serious changes to the manufacturing process and to the materials used [0013].
Therefore it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the wrapper around the filter component of Matsumura have a basis weight of between 35 and 45 g/m2 as taught by Grzonka, as both Matsumura and Grzonka are directed to filters for smoking articles that are wrapped in a wrapper, Grzonka teaches this allows not requiring serious changes to the manufacturing process, and this merely involves discovering optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
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.
Claim 1, 3-9, 12, 14-18, 22, 26, 29-35 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-9 12, 14-18, 22, 26, and 29-36 of copending Application No. 18/550495 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 is rejected by claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 3 is rejected by claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 4 is rejected by claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 5 is rejected by claim 5 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 6 is rejected by claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 7 is rejected by claim 7 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 8 is rejected by claim 8 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 9 is rejected by claim 9 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 12 is rejected by claim 12 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 14 is rejected by claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 15 is rejected by claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 16 is rejected by claim 16 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 17 is rejected by claim 17 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 18 is rejected by claim 18 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 22 is rejected by claim 22 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 26 is rejected by claim 26 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 29 is rejected by claim 29 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 30 is rejected by claim 30 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 31 is rejected by claim 31 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 32 is rejected by claim 32 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 33 is rejected by claim 33 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 34 is rejected by claim 34 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 35 is rejected by claim 35 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1, 3-9, 12, 14-18, 22, 26, 29-35 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-9 12, 14-18, 22, 26, and 29-36 of copending Application No. 18/550495 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 is rejected by claims 1 and 2 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 3 is rejected by claims 1 and 3 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 4 is rejected by claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 5 is rejected by claim 5 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 6 is rejected by claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 7 is rejected by claim 7 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 8 is rejected by claim 8 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 9 is rejected by claim 9 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 12 is rejected by claim 12 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 14 is rejected by claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 15 is rejected by claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 16 is rejected by claim 16 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 17 is rejected by claim 17 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 18 is rejected by claim 18 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 22 is rejected by claim 22 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 26 is rejected by claim 26 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 29 is rejected by claim 29 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 30 is rejected by claim 30 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 31 is rejected by claim 31 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 32 is rejected by claim 32 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 33 is rejected by claim 33 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 34 is rejected by claim 34 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
Claim 35 is rejected by claim 35 of copending Application No. 18/550495.
The co-pending claims and the rejected claims differ in that the features of the rejected independent claim are in multiple claims of the co-pending application. However, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine features of the dependent claims to arrive at the instantly claimed application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 24, and 28 of copending Application No. 18/718555 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application teaches:
A component for an article for use in or as a combustible aerosol provision system, the component comprising (claim 1)
a body of material extending in a longitudinal direction (claim 24)
wherein the body of material comprises crimped sheet material formed having a crimp pattern comprising a series of substantially parallel ridges and grooves (claim 24)
wherein the average spacing between adjacent ridges is greater than about 0.3 mm (claim 24)
and wherein the average density of said body of material is between about 0.1 and about 0.25 mg/mm3 (claim 28)
The co-pending claims and the rejected claims differ in that the features of the
rejected independent claim are in multiple claims of the co-pending application.
However, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine features of
the dependent claims to arrive at the instantly claimed application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicole A Szumigalski whose telephone number is (703)756-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 4:30 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, Philip Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1241. 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.
/N.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755