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
Claims 7-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8-3-2026.
Applicants’ election without traverse of group 1 (corresponding to claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 8-3-2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should be between 50 and 150 words and the abstract is less than 50 words, which fails to meet MPEP 608.01(b). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP 608.01(b).
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 4 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 4, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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, 3-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stefani (US20210307381A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Stefani discloses an article (14) for use in a non-combustible aerosol provision system [0033], see also FIG 1, the article comprising:
a rod (14) comprising a column of aerosol-generating material (22) [0034],
the column of aerosol generating material being at least partially wrapped in a wrapper (26) (with low combustion characteristics in accordance with the present disclosure [0036]), wherein
at least a portion of a surface of the wrapper (base web wrapper [0041]) comprises
a coating comprising a combustion retarding salt (the burn control agent is deposited onto the base web wrapper [0051]-[0052]. The base web is treated with a burn control flame retardant that may comprise an alkali metal salt [0052], which meets combustion retarding salt as claimed).
Regarding Claim 3 Additionally Stefani teaches the combustion retarding coating comprises a binder and lists suitable binders for use [0067]-[0068], at least one of the binders from the list disclosed by Stefani is consistent with the instant specification list of ingredients considered binders in the instant specification, page 6 lines 5-10.
Regarding Claim 4, Stefani discloses the composition can include binder ingredients such as starch, Guar gum, polysaccharides (an ordinary artisan would appreciate starch and cellulose are polysaccharides), cellulose fibers, and cellulose derivatives [0068]. The instant specification on page 6 lines 5-10 discloses that suitable binders include ingredients such guar gums, starches, pectins, gelatin, polysaccharides, pectins, cellulose, etc. Therefore, these ingredients taught by Stefani meet the binder limitation as they are consistent with the instant specification on page 6 lines 5-10.
Regarding Claim 6, Stefani discloses alkaline earth metal salt [0052] but is silent to suitable examples of alkaline earth metal salts in the same paragraph. However, Stefani later discloses the composition includes calcium chloride that be included in the composition [0068] which is a metal halide salt. Although Stefani does not explicitly describe calcium chloride as a combustion retarding salt, the instant specification discloses ingredients considered suitable combustion retarding salts; to include calcium chloride (instant specification page 4 line 28). Accordingly, an ordinary artisan would appreciate Stefani discloses the combustion retarding salt is a metal halide salt.
The limitation optionally selected from the group consisting of: sodium chloride, potassium chloride, sodium bromide, potassium bromide, and combinations thereof is explicitly optional and is therefore not included in this office action.
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 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefani (US20210307381A1) as applied to claim 1, and in view of Zawadski (US 20020179105A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Stefani discloses the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Stefani fails to explicitly disclose the coating comprises comprising from about 3 wt% to about 70 wt% of at least one combustion retarding salt (dry weight basis).
However, Zawadski teaches a cigarette wrapper with a burn rate retarding substance coating applied thereto (see [0036] treated area 22) and teaches the substance has an example suitable composition of 18.17 wt% starch binder (Flokote), e.g., an ordinary artisan would appreciate the starch is the binder in the composition, 1.01 wt% monoammonium phosphate burn (combustion) rate retarding salt, and 80.81 wt% water [0102], after removal of water resulting with 19.19 parts, 1.01/19.19= 5.26 wt% burn rate retarding salt. Thus Zawadski teaches the dried wrapper coating comprises about 5.26 wt% combustion retarding salt, which falls within the claimed range that the coating comprises about 3 wt% to about 70 wt% of at least one combustion retarding salt. (see also [0105], starch and monoammonium phosphate at this percentage is an effective combustion retarding material (effective at reducing ignition propensity (IP))
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combustion retarding salt composition of Stefani with the ignition retarding salt wt% of Zawadski to reduce the ignition propensity of the smoking device of Stefani with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 5, Stefani discloses the claim limitations as set forth above. Stefani teaches a binder such as carboxymethyl cellulose or guar gum [0079], see also [0068], starch, etc, the instant specification on page 6 lines 5-10 discloses that suitable binders include ingredients such guar gums, starches, pectins, gelatin, polysaccharides, pectins, cellulose, etc.,
However, Stefani is silent to the specific suitable wt% of binder in the coating.
Zawadski teaches the coating comprises from about 30 wt% to about 97 wt% of at least one binder. E.g., example 7A’s dry coating contains 18.18 parts starch out of 19.19 total dry solids, 18.18/19.19 = 94.74 wt% starch which falls within the claimed range from about 30 wt% to about 97 wt% of at least one binder [0102].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use Zawadski’s known aqueous starch/burn retarding salt coating composition in Stefanis salt-wrapper treatment, because both Stefani and Zawadski are directed to smoking articles comprising wrappers treated/coated with combustion retarding salts, Stefani is silent in regards to suitable wt% binder compositions for use in wrapper coatings and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable wt% for binders for use for a similar wrapper composition. Zawadski teaches known wt% binder compositions for use 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