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 .
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.
_______________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LISAUSKAS et al. (US 2015/0374030) in view of KUERSTEINER et al. (EP 3021698 B1).
With respect to claim 1, LISAUSKAS et al. discloses a cigarette filter tow (Abstract; Title) formed of a plurality of lyocell fibers (Paragraphs [0012], [0060], [0064], [0109]) and a binder to bond the fibers together (Paragraphs [0007]-[0031]). LISAUSKAS et al. does not explicitly disclose that the filter has the claimed hardness.
KUERSTEINER et al. discloses smoking article having a paper wrapper, tobacco rod and filter segment (Paragraphs [0001]-[0003]). The filter segment is designed to provide an improved sensor experience for consumers (Paragraph [0007]). This is done by providing a “hardness” of 90% or more (Paragraphs [0009]-[0012]) when measured by a DD60A densimeter manufactured by Borgwaldt GmbH, Germany (e.g., the same device being claimed), and equation hardness(%)= Dd/DS * 100 (Paragraph [0012]-[0019]). The tested segment is tested across the center of the segment (Paragraph [0081]; Figure 5) (e.g., airflow-direction central part)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the filter of LISAUSKAS et al. with a hardness of 90% or more as taught by KUERSTEINER et al. so as to improve the user sensory experience.
With respect to claim 2, KUERSTEINER et al. discloses smoking article having a paper wrapper, tobacco rod and filter segment (Paragraphs [0001]-[0003]). The filter segment is designed to provide an improved sensory experience for consumers (Paragraph [0007]). This is done by providing a “hardness” of 90% or more (Paragraphs [0009]-[0012]) when measured by a DD60A densimeter manufactured by Borgwaldt GmbH, Germany (e.g., the same device being claimed), and equation hardness(%)= Dd/DS * 100 (Paragraph [0012]-[0019]). The tested segment is tested across the center of the segment (Paragraph [0081]; Figure 5) (e.g., airflow-direction central part)
While KUERSTEINER et al. does not explicitly disclose that the hardness remains above 80 % even under the claimed conditions, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to ensure that the hardness of the filter is 90% or more under all conditions (including the claimed conditions) so that the user is always provided with an improved sensory experience.
With respect to claim 3, KUERSTEINER et al. discloses smoking article having a paper wrapper, tobacco rod and filter segment (Paragraphs [0001]-[0003]). The filter segment is designed to provide an improved sensor experience for consumers (Paragraph [0007]). This is done by providing a “hardness” of 90%, and up to 94% (Paragraphs [0009]-[0012]) when measured by a DD60A densimeter manufactured by Borgwaldt GmbH, Germany (e.g., the same device being claimed), and equation hardness(%)= Dd/DS * 100 (Paragraph [0012]-[0019]). The tested segment is tested across the center of the segment (Paragraph [0081]; Figure 5) (e.g., airflow-direction central part)
The “hardness” is the resistance to deformation. Thus, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, to prevent a collapse of 6% or more (e.g., amount of deformation due to having a hardness of 94%) as taught by KUERSTEINER et al. under any conditions (including the claimed condition) so that the user is always provided with an improved sensory experience.
______________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LISAUSKAS et al. (US 2015/0374030) in view of KUERSTEINER et al. (EP 3021698 B1) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of BURKE et al. (US 2011/0162667).
With respect to claim 4, LISAUSKAS et al. does not explicitly disclose that the binder includes polyester. BURKE et al. discloses a tobacco smoke filter (Abstract; Title). The binder within the filter is composed of a polyester binder (Paragraphs [0038] and [0039]) in order to hold the filter in its molded shape (Paragraph [0023] and [0024]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the binder of LISAUSKAS et al. as a polyester, as taught by BURKE et al. so as to hold the fibers of the filter together.
With respect to claim 9, BURKE et al. discloses that the binders comprises 1-99 wt% of the filter (Abstract; Paragraph [0025]).
_________________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LISAUSKAS et al. (US 2015/0374030) in view of KUERSTEINER et al. (EP 3021698 B1) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of UCHIDA et al. (US 2009/0246525).
With respect to claim 10, LISAUSKAS et al. does not explicitly disclose that the binder also includes hydroxypropyl methylcellulose. UCHIDA et al. discloses a cigarette filter (Paragraph [0053]). The binder also includes hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (Paragraph [0044]) in order to bond individual fibers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to also provide hydroxypropyl methylcellulose as the binder of LISAUSKAS et al., as taught by UCHIDA et al. for the purposes of binding the fibers together.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 5, BURKE et al. does not disclose that the polyester is a copolymer of an aromatic monomer and an aliphatic monomer, per se.
With respect to claim 6, the art does not identify the particular viscosity of the binder, per se, in addition to the binder being the claimed polyester.
With respect to claim 11, the art does not disclose the claimed ratio, per se.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX B EFTA whose telephone number is (313)446-6548. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights