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 without traverse of group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 6/2/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 25-26, 29-30, 33-34 and 51 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/2/2026.
Specification
The use of the term Drambuie (page 12, line 17), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim recites the broad recitation 0.01-10 mm, and the claim also recites various smaller ranges, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as if it required only the broad statement of the range.
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 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balboni (US 2023/0389597, hereafter referred to as Balboni ‘597) in view of Roberts (US 3,656,484) and Fletcher (US 198,593).
Regarding claim 1, Balboni ‘597 discloses an apparatus for manufacturing a component of an aerosol generating article [0001] in the form of a rod [0014]. The apparatus has a funnel (figure 3, reference numeral 60), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a rod forming portion, that channels a sheet of crimped aerosol forming substrate to form a rod ([0134], figure 3, reference numeral 40). A device contacts the crimped sheet ([0133], figure 3, reference numeral 1) and applies an additive to the sheet [0126]. The additive is triacetin plasticizer [0053] that is applied to a band of material [0045] that is cellulose acetate [0070]. Balboni ‘597 does not explicitly disclose (a) flowing heated air over the material and (b) flowing the air through a nozzle.
Regarding (a), Roberts teaches a filter formed from fibers and formed into a coherent article by activating a bonding agent (abstract) in which heated air is passed over the flock to activate the bonding agent (column 3, lines 66-75, column 4, lines 1-4) to form a coherent cylindrical structure (column 3, lines 61-65). The bonding agent is triacetin and the flock is cellulose acetate (column 4, lines 32-42). The air enters a heating chamber with the flock through a pipe (column 3, liens 61-65, figure 1, reference numeral 28). It is evident that there must a heating arrangement associated with the air since the air would otherwise fail to become heated.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the apparatus of Roberts to heat the material of Balboni ‘597 such that the triacetin plasticizer bonds. One would have been motivated to do so since Roberts teaches that heating triacetin causes it form into a coherent cylindrical structure.
Regarding (b), Fletcher teaches a blow pipe (left column, first paragraph) in which air is heated prior to passing through a nozzle to increase the heating power of the jet of air being delivered (left column, second paragraph).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the pipe of Roberts with the nozzle of Fletcher. One would have been motivated to do so since Fletcher teaches a nozzle that produces a jet of heated air having increased power.
Regarding claim 2, modified Balboni ‘597 teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Balboni ‘597 additionally discloses that the funnel a first open end that receives material and a second open end through which the material exits [0011], and Roberts additionally teaches that the heated air is provided in two separate heating chambers (column 3, lines 61-65, figure 1, reference numerals 28, 30), indicating that the bonding does not occur instantly upon heating. Modified Balboni ‘597 does not explicitly teach one of the heating chambers being located at the entrance to the funnel.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate a heating chamber of Roberts at the entrance to the funnel of Balboni ‘597. One would have been motivated to do so since Roberts teaches that the bonding occurs as the material travels the multiple heating chambers as the coherent structure is formed and the funnel of Balboni ‘597 forms the rod.
Regarding claim 6, Balboni ‘597 discloses that the device body has a contact surface ([0127], figure 3, reference numeral 15) has a plurality of holes that form nozzles through which the additive is ejected from the device to the material ([0128], figure 5, reference numeral 22).
Regarding claim 7, modified Balboni ‘597 teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Balboni ‘597 does not explicitly teach a dimension of the nozzles of the device.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the nozzles of the device of modified Balboni ‘597 to have the claimed dimension. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Claims 1 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balboni (US 2023/0371577, hereafter referred to as Balboni ‘577) in view of Roberts (US 3,656,484) and Fletcher (US 198,593).
Regarding claim 1, Balboni ‘577 discloses a converging device for a sheet material that forms the sheet material into a rod shape and inserts an additive into the sheet [0004]. A pipe supplies a liquid additive from a reservoir to the sheet [0084]. Balboni ‘577 does not explicitly disclose (a) flowing heated air over the material and (b) flowing the air through a nozzle.
Regarding (a), Roberts teaches a filter formed from fibers and formed into a coherent article by activating a bonding agent (abstract) in which heated air is passed over the flock to activate the bonding agent (column 3, lines 66-75, column 4, lines 1-4) to form a coherent cylindrical structure (column 3, lines 61-65). The bonding agent is triacetin and the flock is cellulose acetate (column 4, lines 32-42). The air enters a heating chamber with the flock through a pipe (column 3, liens 61-65, figure 1, reference numeral 28). It is evident that there must a heating arrangement associated with the air since the air would otherwise fail to become heated.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the apparatus of Roberts to heat the material of Balboni ‘597 such that the triacetin plasticizer bonds. One would have been motivated to do so since Roberts teaches that heating triacetin causes it form into a coherent cylindrical structure.
Regarding (b), Fletcher teaches a blow pipe (left column, first paragraph) in which air is heated prior to passing through a nozzle to increase the heating power of the jet of air being delivered (left column, second paragraph).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the pipe of Roberts with the nozzle of Fletcher. One would have been motivated to do so since Fletcher teaches a nozzle that produces a jet of heated air having increased power.
Regarding claim 12, Balboni ‘577 discloses that heater is located along the pipe to heat the additive within the pipe [0094].
Regarding claim 13, the heater of Balboni ‘577 is considered to meet the claim limitation of a heating element since the heater must generate heat using some structure or material that produces heat.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balboni (US 2023/0389597, hereafter referred to as Balboni ‘597) in view of Roberts (US 3,656,484) and Fletcher (US 198,593) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Conrady (US 11,304,439).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, modified Balboni ‘597 teaches all the claim limitations set forth above. Modified Balboni ‘597 does not explicitly teach (a) the funnel having a stem portion and (b) the stem portion receiving a heated flow of air.
Regarding (a), Conrady teaches an apparatus for folding a sheet to form a rod of an aerosol generating article (column 1, lines 12-22) in which the rod is formed by a funnel that has a downstream stem portion (abstract, figure 4, reference numeral 16) that is well known in the art (column 6, lines 20-26).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the funnel of Balboni ‘597 for the funnel of Conrady. One would have been motivated to do so since Balboni ‘597 discloses and Conrady teaches funnels that form a sheet into a rod of an aerosol generating article. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP § 2143, B.
Regarding (b), Roberts additionally teaches that the heated air is provided in two separate heating chambers that define a cylindrical area for the flock (column 3, lines 61-65, figure 1, reference numerals 28, 30), indicating that bonding does not occur instantly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the downstream heating chamber of Roberts with the non-tapering downstream portion of the funnel of Conrady. One would have been motivated to do so since Conrady teaches that the heating chambers are located in an area where the flock is being passed along a cylindrical path.
Regarding claim 5, Balboni ‘597 discloses that the apparatus has a second device located upstream of the first device that applies a different type of additive to the crimped sheet ([0138], figure 4, reference numeral 401).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balboni (US 2023/0371577, hereafter referred to as Balboni ‘577) in view of Roberts (US 3,656,484) and Fletcher (US 198,593) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Balboni (US 2023/0389597, hereafter referred to as Balboni ‘597).
Regarding claim 6, modified Balboni ‘577 teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Balboni ‘577 additionally discloses that the pipe has a dispensing end ([0085], figure 2, reference numeral 33) located within a funnel (figure 2, reference numeral 15) of the converging device ([0082], figure 2, reference numeral 13). Modified Balboni ‘577 does not explicitly teach the dispensing opening having a nozzle.
Balboni ‘597 teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a component of an aerosol generating article having a device that has a nozzle that applies additive to a band of material (abstract). Balboni ‘597 additionally teaches that this nozzle sprays the additive onto the surface of the band of material [0036].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the dispensing end within the funnel of Balboni ‘577 with the nozzle of Balboni ‘597. One would have been motivated to do so since Balboni ‘577 teaches a dispensing end within the funnel and Balboni ‘597 teaches a nozzle that sprays additive onto the surface of a band of material.
Regarding claim 8, Balboni ‘577 discloses that the pipe has a straight end section that extends into the funnel ([0085], figure 2, reference numeral 29), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a shaft.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balboni (US 2023/0371577, hereafter referred to as Balboni ‘577) in view of Roberts (US 3,656,484) and Fletcher (US 198,593) and Balboni (US 2023/0389597, hereafter referred to as Balboni ‘597) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Conrady (US 11,304,439).
Regarding claim 9, modified Balboni ‘577 teaches all the claim limitations set forth above. Modified Balboni ‘577 does not explicitly teach (a) the funnel having a stem portion and (b) the straight end extending into the stem portion.
Regarding (a), Conrady teaches an apparatus for folding a sheet to form a rod of an aerosol generating article (column 1, lines 12-22) in which the rod is formed by a funnel that has a downstream stem portion (abstract, figure 4, reference numeral 16) that is well known in the art (column 6, lines 20-26).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the funnel of Balboni ‘577 for the funnel of Conrady. One would have been motivated to do so since Balboni ‘577 discloses and Conrady teaches funnels that form a sheet into a rod of an aerosol generating article. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP § 2143, B.
Regarding (b), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the straight end section of modified Balboni ‘577 in the stem portion of the funnel. One would have been motivated to do since there is no evidence that the specific location of the end section within the funnel is critical. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 10, Balboni ‘577 discloses that the funnel and straight end section are coxial (figure 2).
Regarding claim 11, Balboni ‘597 teaches that the outlets through which the additive is released form nozzles that have longitudinal axes in the direction in which the liquid is released ([0128], figure 5, reference numeral 22), and Balboni ‘577 discloses that the dispensing opening is coaxial with the end section (figure 2). It is therefore evident, in the combination, the nozzle would also be coaxial with the shaft.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights