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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1, 2, 4, 7-8, 10-11, 13) in the reply filed on 4/16/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 14-16 depend from claim 1, and that there is no substantial burden. This is not found persuasive because this is not the standard for determining whether the inventions have unity of invention. As laid out in the restriction requirement dated 2/20/2026, the references of Watanabe (JP2019180323) in view of either Xiahou (US20070102016A1) or Zhao (WO2020232838A1) make obvious the special technical features of claim 1 and of the linking technical features of each of the groups. Therefore, there is no unity of invention between Groups I and Groups II-IV (in addition to Groups V-VI which are not argued by Applicant). While claims 14-16 may depend upon claim 1, they do not have unity of invention, and they are tied to different inventions compared to that of claim 1. Where claim 1 is tied to a mouth piece, filter element or cooling element, claim 14 is specifically tied to a filter, claim 15 is specifically tied to a multiple rod, and claim 16 is specifically tied to an aerosol-generating article, such that these are different inventive entities. And additionally, the arguments pertaining to a lack of burden are not convincing, as these different inventive groups would require further search and consideration, and it would be highly likely that multiple primary references would be necessary to because of the divergent subject matter in these different inventive groups.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-16, 18-19, 24, 27, 29-30, 35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 4/16/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 11/10/2023, 12/10/2025, and 3/30/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg. 11 line 1 of the instant specification should read “…as part of a non-combustible tobacco product”, instead of “con-combustible”.
Pg. 32 line 15 and line 16 of the instant specification should read “…section shown in figures 8 and 9 is similar to that shown in figures 1 to 6, but the first section shown in figures 8 and 9 has a channel 314 having a rectangular transverse cross section”. The original section stating “figures 7 and 8” was incorrect because figure 7 does not depict the rectangular transverse cross section, such that it is clear that this was intended to refer to figures 8 and 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 7-8, 11, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 line 2 should read “…the channel has the transverse cross section”, because a transverse cross section of the channel was already introduced in claim 1 of which this claim depends.
Claim 4 line 3 should read “…the inner surface of the third section defining a channel extending longitudinally from an end of the third section”, as there is an inner surface of both the third section and an inner surface of the first section introduced (in claim 1 of which this claim depends).
Claim 4 line 7 should rad “…the third section channel has the transverse cross section which is a…”, because a transverse cross section of the channel was already introduced in earlier in the claim.
Claim 7 line 5 and claim 8 line 5 both use the phrase “…comprises one or more ridge(s) which extend helically…”. The parenthesis around the “s” in “ridges” should be removed, as the case of a singular ridge is already covered by the “one or more” portion of the limitation, such that the “(s)” is incorrect. The limitations should instead read “…comprises one or more ridges which extend helically…”.
Claim 8 line 3 should read “…the inner surface of the third section defining a channel extending longitudinally from an end of the third section”, as there is an inner surface of both the third section and an inner surface of the first section introduced (in claim 7 of which this claim depends).
Claim 11 line 2 should read “…extends along an entire length of the inner surface”, because this length was not previously introduced.
Claim 13 is missing a comma in line 1 between “piece” and “filter”. The claim should read “The mouth piece, filter element or cooling element…”.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 8, 10, 13 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is noted that this phrase is utilized in both line 4 and line 6 of the claim. The claim will be examined as if the “for example” phrase is an optional component which is not required. Claim 10 is rejected for relying upon a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is noted that this phrase is utilized in line 4 of the claim. The claim will be examined as if the “for example” phrase is an optional component which is not required.
Claim 13 recites “…wherein the filtering material comprises a plasticizer”. However, claim 1 of which this claim depends introduces filtering material of a first section and filtering material of a second section. It is not clear whether claim 13’s limitation requires the first section filtering material, the second section filtering material, or BOTH the first and second filtering materials to comprise a plasticizer. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. The claim will be examined as if either the first or second filtering materials comprise a plasticizer.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 10-11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gregg (WO2021090012A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0378088A1). It being noted that Gregg currently qualifies as prior art under both 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2).
Regarding claim 1, Gregg teaches a mouthpiece/filter element/cooling element (title) for an aerosol generating article [0086-0088], comprising:
A first section comprising a longitudinally extending core of filtering material having an outer surface and an inner surface, where the inner surface defining a channel extending longitudinally from an end of the first section and wherein the channel has a non-circular transverse cross section which varies in the longitudinal direction by rotating about a longitudinal axis of the first section (Gregg specifically teaches that “there is provided a mouth piece or filter element comprising: a longitudinally extending core of filtering material; and one or more channel(s) extending longitudinally from an end of the core; wherein the or each channel has a non-circular transverse cross section which varies in the longitudinal direction by rotating about a longitudinal axis of the mouth piece or filter element, for example the longitudinal axis that extends along the centre of the channel} [0003]. See also Figs. 1-13 showing overlapping embodiments with that of the instant application. Fig. 13 for example shows a channel “404” which rotates along the length of the core [0150]. The “first section” may be considered to be any section of the element which has the channel present, and as in Fig. 2 the outer surface “106” and inner surface “108” are defined [0124])
a second section comprising a longitudinally extending core of filtering material and wherein the first section and the second section are adjacent and integral (the second section may be considered to be any other portion of the element, as the second section does not require any limitations so as to differentiate itself from the first portion. For example, the first portion may be considered the portion of the element “400” closer to the left and the second portion may be considered the portion closer to the right along the longitudinal axis of Fig. 13 of the rotating channel/filter. And given this, the first/second channels may clearly may adjacent and integral to each other).
Regarding claim 2, Gregg teaches an element which has one of the variety of shapes (Fig. 13 includes four ridges “410” which extend helically [0151], as well as a cross-section in the shape of a cross [Fig. 13]. It is also noted that Figs. 2, 4-6, 11-12 show a modified circle and Figs. 7-8 show a rectangular cross section).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Gregg teaches an element comprising a third section comprising a longitudinally extending core of filtering material with an outer/inner surface with the inner surface defining a channel which extends from an end of the third section, and the third section is between the first and third section (as noted in the rejection of claim 1, the sections as claimed may be defined in any manner as there are no claim limitations so as to specifically differentiate from these different sections. Therefore, a first section may be considered a portion closest to the left, the second section considered a middle section, and a third section considered a portion to the rightmost of Fig. 13 of Gregg of the filter element. As such, the third portion would clearly similarly have filtering material, inner/outer surface, and the same channel shapes as defined above in the rejection of claim 1. And all sections would clearly be integral and adjacent as they are all a part of the cooling component).
Regarding claim 11, Gregg teaches the or each ridge extends along the entire length of the inner surface and/or wherein the inner surface comprises two or more ridges (as in Fig. 13, there are included 4 ridges “410” which extend helically about the filter element [0151] and where they extend cross the length of the channel [0150, Fig. 13]).
Regarding claim 13, Gregg teaches the element comprises a plasticizer (the filtering material may include a plasticizer [0016]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gregg (WO2021090012A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0378088A1). It being noted that Gregg currently qualifies as prior art under both 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2).
Regarding claim 7, Gregg teaches a mouthpiece/filter element/cooling element (title) for an aerosol generating article [0086-0088], comprising:
A first section comprising a longitudinally extending core of filtering material having an outer surface and an inner surface, where the inner surface defining a channel extending longitudinally from an end of the first section and wherein the channel has one or more ridges extend helically about a longitudinal axis of the first section (Gregg specifically teaches that “there is provided a mouth piece or filter element comprising: a longitudinally extending core of filtering material; and one or more channel(s) extending longitudinally from an end of the core; wherein the or each channel has a non-circular transverse cross section which varies in the longitudinal direction by rotating about a longitudinal axis of the mouth piece or filter element, for example the longitudinal axis that extends along the centre of the channel} [0003]. See also Figs. 1-13 showing overlapping embodiments with that of the instant application. Fig. 13 for example shows a channel “404” which rotates along the length of the core [0150]. The “first section” may be considered to be any section of the element which has the channel present, and as in Fig. 2 the outer surface “106” and inner surface “108” are defined [0124]. Fig. 13 includes four ridges “410” which extend helically about the longitudinal axis of the filter element [0151])
a second section comprising a longitudinally extending core of filtering material and wherein the first section and the second section are adjacent and integral (the second section may be considered to be any other portion of the element, as the second section does not require any limitations so as to differentiate itself from the first portion. For example, the first portion may be considered the portion of the element “400” closer to the left and the second portion may be considered the portion closer to the right along the longitudinal axis of Fig. 13 of the rotating channel/filter. And given this, the first/second channels may clearly may adjacent and integral to each other).
Regarding claim 8, Gregg teaches an element with a third section comprising a longitudinally extending core of filtering material having an outer and inner surface with the inner surface defining a channel extending longitudinally from an end of the third section (as noted in the rejection of claim 7 above, the sections as claimed may be defined in any manner as there are no claim limitations so as to specifically differentiate from these different sections under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Therefore, a first section may be considered a portion closest to the left, the second section considered a middle section, and a third section considered a portion to the rightmost of Fig. 13 of the filter. As such, the third portion would clearly similarly have filtering material, inner/outer surface, and the same channel shapes as defined above in the rejection of claim 7. And all sections would clearly be integral and adjacent as they are all a part of the cooling component).
Claims 1-2, 4, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao (WO2020232838A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao teaches a mouthpiece/filter element/cooling element (support element “2” comprising cooling component “23” as in Figs. 1-4) for an aerosol generating article (for a heat-not-burn cigarette which produces aerosol [abstract, pg. 2 of machine translation]), comprising:
A first section comprising a longitudinally extending core of filtering material having an outer surface and an inner surface, where the inner surface defining a channel extending longitudinally from an end of the first section (as in Fig. 4, the element clearly extends in a longitudinal section. The cooling component “23” is made from material such as cellulose acetate [pg. 3 of machine translation], which is acknowledged by the instant application to be filtering material [pg. 8]. The outer surface may be considered to be the outer part of the cylindrical portion, and the inner surface may be considered to be the inner portion which forms the inner cavity “22”, wherein the cavity “22” clearly extends along the longitudinal length),
a second section comprising a longitudinally extending core of filtering material (the second section may be considered to be any other portion of the cooling component “23”, as the second section does not require any limitations so as to differentiate itself from the first portion. For example, the first portion may be considered the portion of “23” closer to the left and the second portion may be considered the portion closer to the right along the longitudinal axis of Fig. 4),
wherein the first section and the second section are adjacent and integral (as noted above, the first and second sections may be considered to be adjacent and integral),
wherein the channel has a non-circular transverse cross section which varies in the longitudinal direction by rotating about a longitudinal axis of the first section (see Fig. 4, wherein the channel clearly has a non-circular cross section. The grooves “231” move spirally along the longitudinal axis so as to rotate about it, such that the cross-section would similarly rotate around this axis).
Regarding claim 2, Zhao teaches an element wherein the channel has the transverse cross-section which is one in a variety of possible shapes (Zhao teaches ridges “231” which extend helically along a longitudinal axis thereof [Fig. 4 of Zhao]. Additionally, the cross-section of Zhao may be considered to be a modified circle with protuberant sections extending towards the center of the circle, as identified in annotated Fig. 4 of Zhao below).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Zhao teaches an element comprising a third section comprising a longitudinally extending core of filtering material with an outer/inner surface with the inner surface defining a channel which extends from an end of the third section, and the third section is between the first and third section (as noted in the rejection of claim 1, the sections as claimed may be defined in any manner as there are no claim limitations so as to specifically differentiate from these different sections. Therefore, a first section may be considered a portion closest to the left, the second section considered a middle section, and a third section considered a portion to the rightmost of Fig. 4 of Zhao. As such, the third portion would clearly similarly have filtering material, inner/outer surface, and the same channel shapes as defined above in the rejection of claim 1. And all sections would clearly be integral and adjacent as they are all a part of the cooling component).
Regarding claim 11, Zhao teaches the or each ridge extends along the entire length of the inner surface and/or wherein the inner surface comprises two or more ridges (the grooves “231” may be considered to be ridges which extend in a helical manner [Fig. 4, Zhao]. There are clearly more than two ridges as in Fig. 4 of Zhao, and these extend along the length of the hollow portion [see Figs. 1-4]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao (WO2020232838A1).
Regarding claim 7, Zhao teaches a mouthpiece/filter element/cooling element (support element “2” comprising cooling component “23” as in Figs. 1-4) for an aerosol generating article (for a heat-not-burn cigarette which produces aerosol [abstract, pg. 2 of machine translation]), comprising:
A first section comprising a longitudinally extending core of filtering material having an outer surface and an inner surface, where the inner surface defining a channel extending longitudinally from an end of the first section (as in Fig. 4, the element clearly extends in a longitudinal section. The cooling component “23” is made from material such as cellulose acetate [pg. 3 of machine translation], which is acknowledged by the instant application to be filtering material [pg. 8]. The outer surface may be considered to be the outer part of the cylindrical portion, and the inner surface may be considered to be the inner portion which forms the inner cavity “22”, wherein the cavity “22” clearly extends along the longitudinal length),
a second section comprising a longitudinally extending core of filtering material (the second section may be considered to be any other portion of the cooling component “23”, as the second section does not require any limitations so as to differentiate itself from the first portion. For example, the first portion may be considered the portion of “23” closer to the left and the second portion may be considered the portion closer to the right along the longitudinal axis of Fig. 4),
wherein the first section and the second section are adjacent and integral (as noted above, the first and second sections may be considered to be adjacent and integral),
wherein the inner surface comprises one or more ridges which extend helically about a longitudinal axis of the first section (the grooves “231” may be considered to be ridges which extend in a helical manner [Fig. 4, Zhao]. There are clearly more than one ridge as in Fig. 4 of Zhao, and these extend along the length of the hollow portion and helically around a longitudinal axis [see Figs. 1-4]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhao teaches an element with a third section comprising a longitudinally extending core of filtering material having an outer and inner surface with the inner surface defining a channel extending longitudinally from an end of the third section (as noted in the rejection of claim 7 above, the sections as claimed may be defined in any manner as there are no claim limitations so as to specifically differentiate from these different sections under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Therefore, a first section may be considered a portion closest to the left, the second section considered a middle section, and a third section considered a portion to the rightmost of Fig. 4 of Zhao. As such, the third portion would clearly similarly have filtering material, inner/outer surface, and the same channel shapes as defined above in the rejection of claim 7. And all sections would clearly be integral and adjacent as they are all a part of the cooling component).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP2019180323A) in view of either Xiahou (US2007/0102016A1) or Zhao (WO2020232838A1).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe teaches a mouthpiece/filter element/cooling element (filter member “42” as in Fig. 8) for an aerosol generating article (see title “electronic cigarette cartridge”, which includes aerosol gorming substrate “20” such that this is clearly an aerosol forming article [pg. 1 of machine translation]), comprising:
A first section comprising a longitudinally extending core of filtering material having an outer surface and an inner surface, where the inner surface defining a channel extending longitudinally from an end of the first section (as in Fig. 8, the first section may be considered to be the longitudinally extending portion around the cavity “42a”, as in the annotated Fig. 8 below. The filter has filtering material such as cellulose acetate [pg. 8 of machine translation] which is not present in the cavity “42a”. The longitudinal direction is considered left/right as in Fig. 8 below, which is along the extending direction of the filter. The outer surface and inner surface are defined in the annotated Fig. 8 below, wherein the inner surface defines the cavity portion “42a” which extends along the length of the filter member),
a second section comprising a longitudinally extending core of filtering material (the second section may be considered to be the portion of the filter “42” which is located between the cavity portions “42a” and “42b”, as labeled in the annotated Fig. 8 below. This portion does not have a cavity and only has the filtering material),
wherein the first section and the second section are adjacent and integral (as in the annotated Fig. 8 below, the first and second sections are clearly located adjacent and integral to each other).
PNG
media_image2.png
547
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Watanabe shows that a variety of different cavity arrangements including varying cross-sections may be utilized (see embodiments of Figs. 9-13 for example) and does not limit the shape thereof. Watanabe does not explicitly show the channel having a non-circular transverse cross section which varies by rotating along a longitudinal axis. However, it is known within the art to situate channels within the element as such. Xiahou, for example, teaches a filter tip which is to be used by a cigarette [abstract, title], and where Xiahou and Watanabe are both tied to smoking apparatuses and the associated filter airflows Xiahou would clearly be pertinent prior art to that of Watanabe. Xiahou teaches that the filter tip has a “screw-like tunnel”, wherein the filter has a hole “4” (considered to be a channel) and screw grooves “5” [see Figs. 1-4 of Xiahou], wherein the cross-section would clearly not be circular. And as in Figs 1-4 of Xiahou, the screw-grooves would clearly be helical grooves along the longitudinal length of the channel, and where multiple tunnels/grooves may be included [0005-0010].
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the channels/cavities of Watanabe to have a screw/rotating shape as suggested by Xiahou. One would have been motivated so as to improve the filtering effect [0017-0019].
In the alternate regarding the channels, Zhao teaches a heat-not-burn cigarette with a hollow support element “2” with a hollow cooling component “23” [see Figs. 1-4]. The hollow cooling component is an shown in Fig. 4, wherein it extends along a longitudinal direction wherein aerosol passes through the channel. Fig. 4 has a tube wall “21”, a tube cavity “22”, and grooves “231” extending along the component. As clearly shown in Fig. 4, the hollow component incorporates a non-circular shape cross-section and wherein the shape rotates spirally along the extend of the hollow support element [see pgs. 5-6 of machine translation].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the channels of Watanabe to have the non-circular cross-section which rotates as suggested by Zhao. One would have been motivated so as to ensure that adequate support is given to the channel, to increase contact area, and to increase residence tire of the air flow path [pg. of machine translation].
Regarding claim 2, modified Watanabe makes obvious an element wherein the channel has the transverse cross-section which is one in a variety of possible shapes (when Watanabe is in view of Xiahou with the screw-type shape, there would clearly be at least one helically extending ridge which is the screw surface extending around the longitudinal axis thereof [see Figs. 1-2 of Xiahou and 0017-0020]. And when in view of Zhao at least similarly suggests ridges “231” which extend helically along a longitudinal axis thereof [Fig. 4 of Zhao]. Additionally, the cross-section of Zhao may be considered to be a modified circle with protuberant sections extending towards the center of the circle, as identified in annotated Fig. 4 of Zhao below. And regarding the cross-shape/rectangle, it is noted that it is generally recognized that a change in shape would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. See MPEP 2144.04 IV).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, modified Watanabe makes obvious an element comprising a third section comprising a longitudinally extending core of filtering material with an outer/inner surface with the inner surface defining a channel which extends from an end of the third section (As in the annotated Fig. 8 of Watanabe in the rejection of claim 1 above, the third section is labeled and comprises the cavity “42b” which is considered the third channel. As with the first section, this would comprise the outer surface and the inner surface which defines the cavity “42b”. And while the last 5 lines (after “for example”) are only optionally required in this claim, it is noted that the cavity “42b” of the third section would similarly be obvious to modify in view of either Xiahou or Zhao to have a non-circular transverse section which rotates along a longitudinal axis for the same rationale as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, modified Watanabe makes obvious an element wherein the third section is adjacent to the second section and integral with the second section so that the second section is between the first and third section (see the annotated Fig. 8 of Watanabe in the rejection of claim 1 above which includes what are considered the first, second, and third portions. The second portion is clearly adjacent to the third and is integral to it, and the second portion is also clearly between the first and third sections).
Regarding claim 11, modified Watanabe makes obvious the or each ridge extends along the entire length of the inner surface and/or wherein the inner surface comprises two or more ridges (when in view of Xiahou, the ridges may be considered to be the screw edges under the broadest reasonable interpretation under “ridges”. Xiahou suggests that there may be more than one screw groove [abstract, 0005-0010]. And additionally, the ridges of Xiahou clearly extend along the entire length of the inner surface of the cavity [see Figs. 1-4, with the screw hollow portions “4” and “5” through the filter portion “1”]. And when Watanabe is in view of Zhao, the grooves “231” may be considered to be ridges which extend in a helical manner [Fig. 4, Zhao]. There are clearly more than two ridges as in Fig. 4 of Zhao, and these extend along the length of the hollow portion [see Figs. 1-4]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP2019180323A) in view of either Xiahou (US2007/0102016A1) or Zhao (WO2020232838A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of either Treadaway (US10779564B2) or Ogi (WO2014080516A1).
Regarding claim 13, Watanabe does not explicitly say that the filtering material comprises a plasticizer. However, it is very common within the art to utilize a plasticizer in the filtering material. Treadaway teaches a tobacco smoke filter for smoking articles [title, abstract], wherein the tobacco smoke filtering material may further comprise a plasticizer such as triacetin [Col5 L14-31], wherein Treadaway states that it is known in the art to utilize plasticizer with filtering material [Col3 L53+]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the filtering material of Watanabe to include plasticizer as suggested by Treadaway. One would have been motivated so as to provide enhanced flexibility for the manufacturing process [Col3 L53+].
In the alternate, Ogi teaches a method for producing a filter for a cigarette [title, abstract], Ogi teaches that it is known in the prior art to supply a filter with a high proportion of plasticizer added to cellulose acetate tow [pg. 1 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the filter of Watanabe to include plasticizer as suggested by Ogi. One would have been motivated so as to ensure sufficient hardness is given to the filter [pg. 1 of machine translation, Ogi].
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP2019180323A) in view of either Xiahou (US2007/0102016A1) or Zhao (WO2020232838A1).
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe teaches a mouthpiece/filter element/cooling element (filter member “42” as in Fig. 8) for an aerosol generating article (see title “electronic cigarette cartridge”, which includes aerosol gorming substrate “20” such that this is clearly an aerosol forming article [pg. 1 of machine translation]), comprising:
A first section comprising a longitudinally extending core of filtering material having an outer surface and an inner surface, where the inner surface defining a channel extending longitudinally from an end of the first section (as in Fig. 8, the first section may be considered to be the longitudinally extending portion around the cavity “42a”, as in the annotated Fig. 8 below. The filter has filtering material such as cellulose acetate [pg. 8 of machine translation] which is not present in the cavity “42a”. The longitudinal direction is considered left/right as in Fig. 8 below, which is along the extending direction of the filter. The outer surface and inner surface are defined in the annotated Fig. 8 below, wherein the inner surface defines the cavity portion “42a” which extends along the length of the filter member),
a second section comprising a longitudinally extending core of filtering material (the second section may be considered to be the portion of the filter “42” which is located between the cavity portions “42a” and “42b”, as labeled in the annotated Fig. 8 below. This portion does not have a cavity and only has the filtering material),
wherein the first section and the second section are adjacent and integral (as in the annotated Fig. 8 below, the first and second sections are clearly located adjacent and integral to each other).
PNG
media_image2.png
547
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Watanabe shows that a variety of different cavity arrangements including varying cross-sections may be utilized (see embodiments of Figs. 9-13 for example) and does not limit the shape thereof. Watanabe does not explicitly show the channel having ridge extending helically about a longitudinal axis of the first section. However, it is known within the art to situate channels within the element as such. Xiahou, for example, teaches a filter tip which is to be used by a cigarette [abstract, title], and where Xiahou and Watanabe are both tied to smoking apparatuses and the associated filter airflows Xiahou would clearly be pertinent prior art to that of Watanabe. Xiahou teaches that the filter tip has a “screw-like tunnel”, wherein the filter has a hole “4” (considered to be a channel) and screw grooves “5” [see Figs. 1-4 of Xiahou], wherein the cross-section would clearly not be circular. And as in Figs 1-4 of Xiahou, the screw-grooves would clearly be helical grooves along the longitudinal length of the channel, and where multiple tunnels/grooves may be included [0005-0010]. Any of the surrounding surfaces of the inside of the channel may be considered to be the “ridge” which would necessarily be extending helically because it was in a screw shape, under the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the channels/cavities of Watanabe to have a screw/rotating helical shape as suggested by Xiahou. One would have been motivated so as to improve the filtering effect [0017-0019].
In the alternate regarding the channels, Zhao teaches a heat-not-burn cigarette with a hollow support element “2” with a hollow cooling component “23” [see Figs. 1-4]. The hollow cooling component is an shown in Fig. 4, wherein it extends along a longitudinal direction wherein aerosol passes through the channel. Fig. 4 has a tube wall “21”, a tube cavity “22”, and grooves “231” extending along the component. As clearly shown in Fig. 4, the hollow component incorporates a non-circular shape cross-section and wherein the shape rotates spirally along the extend of the hollow support element [see pgs. 5-6 of machine translation]. The helical ridges may be considered to be the grooves “231” as in Fig. 4 of Zhao which move in a helical manner around the longitudinal axis.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the channels of Watanabe to have the non-circular cross-section which rotates and the helical ridges as suggested by Zhao. One would have been motivated so as to ensure that adequate support is given to the channel, to increase contact area, and to increase residence tire of the air flow path [pg. of machine translation].
Regarding claim 8, modified Watanabe makes obvious a third section comprising a longitudinally extending core of filtering material having an outer and inner surface with the inner surface defining a channel extending longitudinally from an end of the third section (see the annotated Fig. 8 included in the rejection of claim 7 above. The third section may be considered the portion of the element located around the cavity “42b”, such that this third section would clearly have the filter material located between an outer/inner surface and the inner surface defines the cavity “42b”. The limitation in “for example” is not explicitly required, however it is noted that the cavity “42b” of the third section would similarly be obvious to modify in view of either Xiahou or Zhao to have a non-circular transverse section which rotates along a longitudinal axis with the helical ridges for the same rationale as detailed in the rejection of claim 7 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights