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 1-12 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claims 9-12 are withdrawn. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 05/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaughlin (US 20200113227 A1, as cited in IDS dated 11/17/2023), and further in view of Gage (US 20200128880 A1) and Susilo (EP 3075272 A2).
With regard to Claim 1, McLaughlin directed to a tobacco-containing consumable, teaches (i) a mouth end filter (Fig. 1: #3) disposed at an upstream end of the consumable. (ii) A distal end filter (Fig. 1: #1) is disposed downstream relative to the mouth end filter (Fig. 1: #3, [0048]). (iii) A tobacco derived portion (Fig. 1: #2) is located between the mouth end filter (Fig. 1: #3) and the distal end filter (Fig. 1: #1). (iv) The tobacco portion (Fig. 1: #2). (iv) The tobacco derived tobacco portion (Fig. 1: #2) may include granulated tobacco and flavor agents [0031]. McLaughlin teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however McLaughlin is silent to:
Wherein the cavity segment is filled with medium pulp
Wherein the cavity segment is filled with flavoring agent pulp
In regards to i., Gage, directed to a smoking article cartridge, teaches wherein a carrier (Fig. 1: #110) comprises reconstituted material comprising tobacco pulp [0052] to improve a user’s smoking experience [0006].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cavity segment of McLaughlin to wherein the cavity segment is filled with medium pulp because both McLaughlin and Gage are directed to tobacco based aerosol generating articles. Gage teaches tobacco pulp to improve a user’s smoking experience [0006] and this merely involves simple substitution of a known tobacco form for another to obtain predictable results.
In regards to ii., Susilo, directed to a tobacco material containing rods, teaches wherein spices and flavors are mixed into a pulp before processing [0130] to improve the taste of the tobacco material [0051]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the form of the flavoring agent of modified McLaughlin with the pulp form of Susilo to improve the quality of the aerosol generating article [0051].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the flavoring agent of modified McLaughlin to wherein the cavity segment is filled with flavoring agent pulp because both McLaughlin and Susilo are directed to flavored aerosol generating articles. Susilo teaches flavors mixed into a pulp to improve the quality and taste of the aerosol generating article [0051] and this merely involves simple substitution of a known flavoring form for another to obtain predictable results.
With regard to Claim 2, McLaughlin teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified McLaughlin is silent to:
Wherein a proportion of the medium pulp is 50% or more of a total amount of pulp included in the cavity segment
Gage teaches wherein the reconstituted material may comprise about 51.8% of tobacco pulp [0052] to improve a user’s smoking experience and limit burning of tobacco to a significant degree [0006]. The range has a significant amount of overlap in the range of the claimed invention and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the medium pulp of modified McLaughlin to wherein a proportion of the medium pulp is 50% or more of a total amount of pulp included in the cavity segment because both McLaughlin and Gage are directed to tobacco based aerosol generating articles. Gage teaches tobacco pulp to limit burning of tobacco to significant degree [0006] and this merely involves applying a known measurement to a known tobacco composition ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 7, McLaughlin teaches wherein the article may comprise a pH modifier [0018] including basic agents like metal carbonates, metal hydrogen carbonates, and metal hydroxides [0066]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the pH modifier of McLaughlin with the medium pulp of modified McLaughlin to improve volatility of the substrate [0065].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaughlin (US 20200113227 A1, as cited in IDS dated 11/17/2023), Gage (US 20200128880 A1), and Susilo (EP 3075272 A2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sashide (US 20130019884 A1).
With regard to Claim 3, McLaughlin teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified McLaughlin is silent to:
Wherein the medium pulp and the flavoring agent pulp have a same density or a same particle size
Sashide, directed to a cigarette, teaches wherein a flavor containing material can be cut into a similar size to cut tobacco and then added to the cut tobacco [0029]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the shared size principle of Sashide to the medium pulp and flavoring agent pulp particles of modified McLaughlin to improve a desired amount of flavoring inhaled by a user [0005].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the medium pulp and flavoring agent pulp of modified McLaughlin to wherein the medium pulp and the flavoring agent pulp have a same density or a same particle size because both McLaughlin and Sashide are directed to flavor delivery in aerosol generating articles. Sashide teaches a flavoring material and cut tobacco that are cut into the same size to improve a desired amount of flavoring inhaled by a user [0005] and this merely involves applying a known sizing technique to a known aerosol generating article, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaughlin (US 20200113227 A1, as cited in IDS dated 11/17/2023), Gage (US 20200128880 A1), and Susilo (EP 3075272 A2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (WO 2020091394 A1, hereinafter citations referring to English language equivalent US 20210267266 A1).
With regard to Claim 4, McLaughlin teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified McLaughlin is silent to:
A filter rod disposed downstream of the second filter segment
Wherein the filter rod comprises a cooling segment and a mouthpiece segment
Park, directed to an aerosol generating item, teaches (i) a filter portion (Fig. 1: #20) disposed downstream of a front end filter (Fig. 1: #26, [0098]). (ii) The filter portion (Fig. 1: #20) comprises a cooling filter (Fig. 1: #22) and a mouthpiece filter (Fig. 1: #24, [0047]), relating to the separate segments of the filter rod. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to apply the filter rod of Park downstream the second filter segment of modified McLaughlin to allow a user to inhale the aerosol at an appropriate temperature [0095].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the article of modified McLaughlin to wherein a filter rod is disposed downstream of the second filter segment and wherein the filter rod comprises a cooling segment and a mouthpiece segment because both McLaughlin and Park are directed to filtered aerosol generating articles. Park teaches a filter portion with a cooling filter and mouthpiece filter to allow a user to inhale the aerosol at an appropriate temperature [0095] and this merely involves applying a known filter component to a known aerosol generating article ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 5, McLaughlin teaches wherein the mouth end filter portion (Fig. 1: #3) can include flavorants [0051].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaughlin (US 20200113227 A1, as cited in IDS dated 11/17/2023), Gage (US 20200128880 A1), Susilo (EP 3075272 A2), and Park (WO 2020091394 A1, hereinafter citations referring to English language equivalent US 20210267266 A1), as applied to claims 1, 4, and 5 above, and further in view of Han (EP 3616535 A1).
With regard to Claim 6, McLaughlin teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified McLaughlin is silent to:
Wherein the mouthpiece segment comprises a transfer jet nozzle system (TJNS) filter
Wherein the TJNS filter is flavored with the flavoring agent material
Han, directed to an aerosol generating method and apparatus, teaches (i) wherein a mouth tip (Fig. 1: #120) may include a TJNS filter [0037]. (ii) The TJNS filter may be manufactured by adding a flavoring component to the article [0040] to provide an improved smoking experience to users [0004].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mouthpiece segment of modified McLaughlin to wherein the mouthpiece segment comprises a transfer jet nozzle system (TJNS) filter and wherein the TJNS filter is flavored with the flavoring agent material because both McLaughlin and Han are directed to aerosol generating articles with flavor. Han teaches a TJNS filter manufactured with flavor to provide an improved smoking experience to users [0004] and this merely involves applying a known filter to a known aerosol generating article, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaughlin (US 20200113227 A1, as cited in IDS dated 11/17/2023), Gage (US 20200128880 A1), and Susilo (EP 3075272 A2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu (CN 107772530 A, hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation).
With regard to Claim 8, McLaughlin teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified McLaughlin is silent to:
Wherein the flavoring agent pulp is manufactured by a fluidized bed granulation process
Hu, directed to a composite cigarette filter tip, teaches wherein a fragrance substrate is granulated using a fluidized bed method [0029]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the same method to the flavoring agent pulp of modified McLaughlin to improve the aroma and taste of new cigarettes [0005-0006].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the flavoring agent pulp of modified McLaughlin to be manufactured by a fluidized bed granulation process because both McLaughlin and Hu are directed to providing an improved taste experience for users using flavoring. Hu teaches wherein a fragrance substrate is granulated using a fluidized bed method to improve the aroma and taste of new cigarettes [0005-0006] and this merely involves the use of a known technique to improve a similar article in the same way.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWATOSIN O DIYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 am - 6 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, 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.
/O.O.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights