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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) which requires that when multiple drawing views are used the word “Figure” should be replaced with the abbreviation “FIG.”, e.g., FIG. 1A, FIG 1B…etc.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an long edge” is suggested to grammatically be changed to “a long edge”.
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 3, 4, and 14-19 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.
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).
Claim 3 recites the broad recitation “at least 1.5 times”, and the claim also recites “at least 2 times”, “at least 3 times”, and “at least 4 times.” Which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. For the purposes of compact prosecution and this office action the claim is interpreted to require at least 1.5 times which is the broadest requirement and includes the nested alternatives which is consistent with the claim.
Claim 4 recites the broad recitation “less than about 70 degrees”, and the claim also recites “less than about 60 degrees”, “less than about 50 degrees” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. For the purposes of compact prosecution and this office action the claim is interpreted to require less than about 70 degrees which is the broadest requirement and includes the nested alternatives, which is consistent with the claim.
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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "at least one of the braided and/or helically wound strips". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 from which claims 14 depends recites “at least one helically wound strip”. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 14 is intended to refer to the elected “at least one helically-wound strip” of claim 1 (group 1), or to a separate newly introduced braided strip embodiment, or to both. The claims therefore fail to distinctly set forth the subject matter regarded as the invention.
For the purposes of this office action and compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted to disclose “at least one helically wound strip” which is consistent with the elected group 1 and claim 1 to which the claim 14 depends.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "at least one of the braided and/or helically wound strips". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 from which claims 15 depends recites “at least one helically wound strip”. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 15 is intended to refer to the elected “at least one helically-wound strip” of claim 1 (group 1), or to a separate newly introduced braided strip embodiment, or to both. The claims therefore fail to distinctly set forth the subject matter regarded as the invention.
For the purposes of this office action and compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted to disclose “at least one helically wound strip” which is consistent with the elected group 1 and claim 1 to which the claims 15 depends.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "at least one of the braided and/or helically wound strips". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 from which claims 16 depends recites “at least one helically wound strip”. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 16 is intended to refer to the elected “at least one helically-wound strip” of claim 1 (group 1), or to a separate newly introduced braided strip embodiment, or to both. The claims therefore fail to distinctly set forth the subject matter regarded as the invention.
For the purposes of this office action and compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted to disclose “at least one helically wound strip” which is consistent with the elected group 1 and claim 1 to which the claim 16 depends.
Claim 17 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 16.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "at least one of the braided and/or helically wound strips". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 from which claims 18 depends recites “at least one helically wound strip”. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 18 is intended to refer to the elected “at least one helically-wound strip” of claim 1 (group 1), or to a separate newly introduced braided strip embodiment, or to both. The claims therefore fail to distinctly set forth the subject matter regarded as the invention.
For the purposes of this office action and compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted to disclose “at least one helically wound strip” which is consistent with the elected group 1 and claim 1 to which the claim 18 depends.
Claim 18 further recites “at least one of the plurality of braided strips” without first reciting a plurality of braided strips in the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether that phrase refers to one of the at least one helically wound strip, a separate newly introduced braided strip structure, or both, or perhaps some other combination of strips configured in another unclaimed way. For the purposes of compact prosecution, this office action, and the election of group 1, the limitation is interpreted to require at least one helically wound strip which is consistent with elected group 1 and claim 1 to which the claim depends.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "at least one of the braided and/or helically wound strips". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 from which claims 19 depends recites “at least one helically wound strip”. Therefore, it is unclear if claim 19 is intended to refer to the elected “at least one helically-wound strip” of claim 1 (group 1), or to a separate newly introduced braided strip embodiment, or to both. The claims therefore fail to distinctly set forth the subject matter regarded as the invention.
For the purposes of this office action and compact prosecution, the limitation is interpreted to disclose “at least one helically wound strip” which is consistent with the elected group 1 and claim 1 to which the claim 19 depends.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reevell (WO 2018162515A1) cited by Applicant via IDS filed 12-18-2023.
Regarding Claim 1, Reevell discloses a component for use in a non-combustible aerosol provision system, the component comprising at least one helically wound strip comprising aerosol- generating material (see page 1 lines 19-30, spirally/helically wound strip of aerosol generating material, central opening in helix suitable for insertion of heating blade, see page 3 lines 6-10).
Regarding Claim 2, Reevell discloses a component according to claim 1, further comprising a cavity extending from a first end of the component (central opening cavity remains after removal of the holder used to form the helix and extends from the first end of the helical component), see page 3 lines 5-10).
Regarding Claim 3, Reevell discloses the strip width is at least 25 mm (p 8 line 17) which is spiraled around pin 64 (p 16 line 3) and leaving the central opening after pin removal (page 3 lines 5-10) the internal cavity cannot exceed 10mm because the rod has a diameter of 5-10 mm (page 2 lines 7-8), therefore the 25 mm sheet gives a 2.5:1 width to cavity ratio which falls within the claim requirement of the width of the at least one helically-wound strip is at least 1.5 times an internal diameter of the cavity.
Regarding Claim 4, Reevell discloses 1-10 windings per cm (page 8 lines 7-13) and a rod diameter of 5-10 mm (page 2 lines 7-8) (angle = tan-1((pi*d)/(10/n)) (d is diameter and n is number of windings) so a 5mm rod with 1 winding per cm gives a long edge of the helically-wound strip projected onto said axis forms an angle an angle of 57.5 degrees, which falls within the claimed range of a long edge of the helically-wound strip projected onto said axis forms an angle of less than about 70 degrees with the said axis.
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 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (WO 2018162515A1) cited by Applicant via IDS filed 12-18-2023, in view of Mironov (WO2015022321A1) and Lephardt (US4553556).
Regarding Claim 14, Reevell discloses the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Reevell fails to explicitly disclose at least one of the helically wound strips comprises a spacer material, wherein the spacer material has a ridged and/or corrugated structure.
However, Mironov teaches a smoking article with an aerosol forming substrate and teaches spacer elements including strips of paper, for example, wrapped radially around the aerosol forming substrate are useful and suitable to maintain separation (page 9 lines 26-32).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Reevell’s spirally wound aerosol forming sheet with Mironov’s paper spacer strip wrapped around the substrate because Mironov expressly uses the strip spacer to maintain separation between article components with a reasonable expectation of success.
However Mironov fails to explicitly disclose the spacer material is ridged or corrugated and is silent to the structure of the paper spacer.
However, Lephardt teaches a smoking article and teaches there exists a need in the art for the structural rigidity of cigarettes to be independent of the density of the tobacco (see background in column 1) in response to this need Lephardt further teaches the smoking article should implement a corrugated sheet material and explains that corrugations provide structural rigidity (see column 2 lines 34-48).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to implement Lenhardt’s known corrugated sheet form as Mironov’s strip spacer to provide the taught rigidity while spacing the material and because Lephardt teaches corrugations are suitable for providing needed structural rigidity. The modification is a predictable substitution of a known rigid corrugated spacer for a known spacer strip in an aerosol generating article.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Reevell teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. As set forth above modified Reevell teaches the spacer material is arranged between at least one of the helically wound strips comprising aerosol generating material. Accordingly, the spacer material is arranged around (e.g., near) the at least one of the helically wound strips comprising aerosol generating material. (which is consistent with the claim interpretation as set forth above and in view of the election of group 1).
The recited optional feature “optionally wherein the arrangement of the spacer material provides for an air flow path through the component” is expressly optional and is therefore not required by the claim and is therefore not addressed in this office action.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (WO 2018162515A1) cited by Applicant via IDS filed 12-18-2023, in view of Wermers (WO9502646A1).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Reevell teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Wermers teaches smoking articles and suitable adhesives known in the art for assembly of parts of smoking articles that are suitable for use with connecting parts of smoking articles. Wermers specifically teaches applying adhesives to secure seams such as paper seams (See page 1 lines 6-12) and teaches rapid adhesive application and drying on paper (page 1 lines 15-24). It would be obvious for an ordinary artisan to use this suitable and known seam securing technique as taught by Wermers on Reevells rolled sheet because it would predictably retain the sheet in its intended helical form resulting with a reasonable expectation of success resulting in the helically wound sheet comprising a glued surface as claimed.
The recited optional feature “optionally wherein the glued surface connects other braided and/or helically-wound strips in the component.” is expressly optional and is therefore not required by the claim and is therefore not addressed in this office action.
Regarding Claim 17, Additionally Wermers teaches the glued surface comprises an adhesive which is a binding agent (see page 1 lines 6-12),
The recited optional feature “optionally wherein said adhesive or binding agent is selected from a starch-based adhesive or binder, a gum-based adhesive or binder, a polysaccharide-based adhesive or binder, or a carboxymethyl cellulose based adhesive or binder.” is expressly optional and is therefore not required by the claim and is therefore not addressed in this Office Action.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (WO 2018162515A1) cited by Applicant via IDS filed 12-18-2023
Regarding Claim 18, modified Reevell teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Reevell teaches the at least one helically-wound strip is helically wound however Reevell is silent as to whether the resulting helix is left or right handedly wound. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to select left-handed helix as a change in form or shape as a matter of obvious design choice. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
The limitation “the plurality of braided strips is arranged in a right handed helical pattern. (emphasis added for clarity)” Is a non-elected feature (group 2) without antecedent basis as set forth above (see 112b) and is not addressed in this office action.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (WO 2018162515A1) cited by Applicant via IDS filed 12-18-2023 in view of Arndt (US20220218016A1).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Reevell teaches the claim limitations as set forth above.
Reevell further teaches that the aerosol generating material strips require sufficient tensile strength to withstand the rolling operation (page 7 lines 1-5), however Reevell is silent to suitable tensile strengths for the aerosol generating material for use and thus fails to disclose the at least one of the helically wound strips comprises a tensile strength of at least 4N/15mm.
However Arndt teaches an aerosol generating substrate (see title) and teaches suitable tensile strength for aerosol generating material strips suitable for use and teaches each sheet has a machine direction tensile strength at a peak of 280 N/m to 620 N/m which when adjusted to per 15mm gives a tensile strength range of 4.2 -9.3 N/15mm which falls in the claimed range of at least one of the helically wound strips comprises a tensile strength of at least 4N/15mm. Therefore it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tensile strength of the aerosol generating material of Reevell to have a tensile strength of from 4.2 N/15mm to 9.3 N/15mm as taught by Ardnt, because both Reevell and Ardnt are both directed to aerosol generating material tensile strengths, Reevell explains the need to have sufficient tensile strength to withstand rolling operation but is silent to suitable tensile strengths suitable for use, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable tensile strengths for a similar smoking material. Ardnt teaches known tensile strengths for a similar smoking material and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael T Fulton whose telephone number is (703)756-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 571-270-3882. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights