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 1-14 and 16-18 are pending and subject to this Office Action. Claims 1-14 and 16-18 have been amended. Claims 9-14 and 16 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claim 15 has been cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 26 June 2026 is acknowledged.
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 6 recites the limitation "the casing" in page 3 claim 6 ln 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in 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.
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 1-6, 8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalijura, et al (US20100269839A1) and further in view of Sirois, et al (US20190320710A1) and Manalang, et al (US20220160021A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kalijura teaches a method of making a smoking article having closed ends and the apparatus used to perform the method of manufacture. The prior art taches article to be closed is comprised of a tobacco rod wrapped in cigarette paper. (Abstract) Kalijura discloses previous designs, known in the art, that are used to close cigarettes (smoking articles). One method that is utilized includes the griping and rotation, thus twisting, of a filled article to close a cigarette. Another known method that in known and utilized is using paper that overhangs the edges of the cigarette by mechanical means, i.e. tuckers, plates, or blades depending on the device, to fold the paper over the ends of the smokable material. [0003]
Kalijura teaches an apparatus that has two dispirit closing assemblies that can have two different forms of closure. The prior art teaches an apparatus that is used for making a smoking article that is comprised of multiple sub-apparatus components:
First sub apparatus attaches an outer paper to the smoking article
Second sub apparatus closes the outer paper around the smoking article. [0039-0040] The prior art teaches this closure can be accomplished via multiple types of folds including a “pinch and twist fold” where the foldable paper is pinched into a point and the folds are then twisted round to lay flat against the end surface of the smoking article. [0134] This closing method and apparatus is considered to read on the first closing assembly.
Third sub-apparatus that receives the article from the first sub-apparatus that also folds the paper around the smoking article. ([0040], [0093]) This sub-assembly folds the paper using a plough sheet to fold the circumscribing paper. The third sub-assembly is considered to read on the second closing assembly.
Kalijura is silent with respect to the apparatus being able to select the type of closure, twist or fold, and only preform one and not the other.
Sirois, directed to the design of closure apparatuses for closing smoking articles, teaches an apparatus used in the production of smoking articles for closing the article. The devices may implement twisting as a means of closure. Sirois teaches that after the step of twisting the end can be trimmed by a trimming device. ([0020],[0072]
Sirois, directed to the design of closure apparatuses for closing smoking articles, teaches an apparatus used in the production of smoking articles for closing the article. The apparatus, taught by Sirios, can either twist [0020] or fold [0025] an end of an aerosol generating article similar to the processes of the second and third sub-apparatuses taught by Kalijura. Sirois teaches the system has a cone holder that holds and carries the aerosol generating article. [0008] The holder has an indicator that is readable by the control system of the closing apparatus that has the ability to select the type of closure, twist or fold, that is automatically selected by a control system based on the article holder that is selected. [0080] This ability to select the closure method in an apparatus that can close the smoking article by both twisting and folding is considered to red on the type of closure being selectively activatable and on the first operating mode and second operating mode unable to be used in conjunction with one another.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kalijura by using an indicator on the article that would allow a control system to close the article by either twisting or folding as taught by Sirios because both Kalijura and Sirios are directed to apparatuses for closing smoking articles, Sirios teaches the use of a control system that interacts with smoking article holder allows for the control system to automatically select operating parameters suitable for that holder. [0080], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Kalijura teaches once the article is closed the remaining paper can be removed by trimming off the excess material to provide a clean appearance. [0028] Sirois also teaches a device that uses trimming to remove the excess paper from a smoking article once it has been closed. [0020] Sirois teaches that the twisting device includes a trimming device that is designed to remove the twisted upper end of the closed article. [0072] However, Sirois does not teach that the cutting/ trimming device would be a separate assembly in the overall assembly and located downstream of the first closing assembly.
Manalang, directed to the design of filled smoking articles, teaches an apparatus that is comprised of a cone closing portion that has a tip gripper for twisting the filled cone to close.
The tip snipper configured with cutting surfaces to cut or snip a tip off of a cone following closure by twisting. [0032] The prior art teaches that after the article is twisted closed the article is trolly that holds the article is moved into positions to be trimmed by the tip snipper. ([0034], [0044])
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kalijura and Sirois by using an separate apparatus for trimming the article as taught by Manalang because Kalijura, Sirios, and Manalang are directed to apparatuses for closing smoking articles, Manalang teaches having a separate trimming apparatus allows for the system to automatically close and trim pre-filled cones based on the sensed height of material and close the article using the so as to prevent potential damage or rupture of the article while being processed. [0026], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 2, Kalijura, as modified by Sirois, teaches that the end of the article would be gathered to a point and twisted (Kalijura [0134]) and that the twisting force would be done via rotational force.(Sirois [0007])
Regarding claim 3, Kalijura teaches the pinched to hold the material before the folds are “twisted round”. [0134] This is considered to read on a rotatable gripper.
Regarding claim 4 and 6, Kalijura teaches the smoking article is moved via rotating drums with vacuum flutes which are widely used in smoking article manufacture. [0010] These rotating drums with vacuum flutes are used to move/transfer the smoking article through the apparatus. ([0077] , Fig 2) The art teaches that multiple rotating drums that are arranged in sequence from right to left and positioned adjacent to one another so that the smoking articles carried thereon can be transferred from a flute on one drum to a flute on the next drum by appropriately timed switching of the vacuum suction. [0110] The art describes how the article travels past multiple drums throughout the process from one fold to another. ([0110] Fig 12, [0118] Fig 14, [0120] Fig 15) As such a person having ordinary skill would recognize that apparatus having a first sub-apparatus, second sub-apparatus, and a third sub-apparatus would use means such as the rotating drums having vacuum flutes to transfer the smoking articles between sub- assemblies.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed in claim 1, the apparatus taught by Kalijura can comprise a third sub-apparatus that is used to fold the smoking article end closed. Kalijura teaches the end can be folded using a plough fold where the edge (of the folding device) engages the overhanging paper at the side of the smoking article, and gradually pushes it inwards and over against the end of the tobacco rod as this end passes against the surface of the folder. [0093] [0097]
Regarding claim 8, as discussed in claim 1 the modified apparatus of Kalijura includes a control system that has the ability to select the type of closure, twist (first mode) or fold (second mode), that is automatically selected by a control system based on the article holder that is selected. Sirois, also teaches that the controller of the apparatus can operate an electromechanical system such as the gripper and that is can allow the used to receive user input for operation and control of the apparatus. [0087-0088]
Regarding claim 17, Kalijura, as modified by both Sirois and Manalang, teaches that the first method of closing may be a twist and fold method, discussed in claim 1, where the end portion of the closure is trimmed after the article is closed via being twisted (Sirois [0020], Manalang (Abstract))
Regarding claim 18, Kalijura teaches a that the paper wrapping the aerosol generating article can be trimmed before the final folding by trimming off some or all of the remaining, unfolded paper. This reduces the amount of overlapping paper in the folded end, making the smoking article easier to light. [0028]
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalijura, et al (US20100269839A1), Sirois, et al (US20190320710A1) and Manalang, et al (US20220160021A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Holderman (US20200010283A1).
Regarding claim 7, a Kalijura teaches the smoking article comprises a tobacco rod circumscribed by a foldable paper [0005] and has a filter attached to the tobacco rod opposite the end to be lit [0031] which is the opposite end to the folded end of the smoking article. [0034] Thus the tobacco rod would be located in the central zone of the smoking article.
As discussed in claim 1, Kalijura, as modified by Manalang, teaches a cutting/trimming unit that is configured to teaches the cutting unit that is configured with a height sensor that determines the fill height and then use that height plus an offset height to determine where to trim the overlong material. ([0057], Fig.8)
Kalijura teaches the use of suction/vacuum for the smoking article transport through the apparatus but is silent with respect to the trimming unit having a suction unit to remove discarded cut material.
Holderman, directed to the design of packing apparatus and system for packing loose article into conical containers, teaches the use of a vacuum system attached in the packing system to remove any stray material being packed thereby preventing unnecessary buildup [0009] While Holderman teaches that the vacuum system would be used to remove material that was not packed in the article, a person having ordinary skill would recognize that this design could be used to remove any unwanted material that was fell from the article in the closed apparatus.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kalijura, Sirois, and Manalang by using suction/vacuum for material removal as taught by Holderman because Kalijura, Sirios, Manalang, and Holderman are directed to apparatuses for manufacturing packed articles, Holderman teaches keeps the keep the packing station free from a buildup of leaves/unpacked material [0091], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRGINIA R BIEGER whose telephone number is (703)756-1014. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7:30-4:30.
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, Phillip 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.
/V.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights