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 § 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 1-3 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.
The terms “fast refill” and “fast discharge” in claim 1, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fast refill” and “fast discharge” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 requires “said tablet containing a plant-source tobacco part of Virginia or flue-cured, oriental or sun cured, burley or air-cured, dark-cured, American blend, etc. tobaccos, etc., and their blends and varieties”. This is indefinite because it is unclear if the tablet contains each of these materials, or one or more of them. The listing of materials is an improper Markush grouping.
This is further indefinite because “etc.” creates unclear meets and bounds for the types of material used in the tablet.
Also, “their blends and varieties” also creates unclear meets and bounds for the types of material used in the tablet.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "preferably of strands having a width… and an average length…" (emphasis added) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05.
Claim 1 recites “("scraps" with a size between 5 and 8 US mesh)”. This is indefinite because it is unclear if this is an example of the polygonal shapes to be included, or if these are a suggestion of the type that may be included. Thus, the meets and bounds of the polygonal shapes is unclear.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the raw material" in paragraph 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "reconstituted tobacco" in paragraph 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “deveining” in claim 1, paragraph 2 is used by the claim in a manner that is not defined. It appears to have an ordinary definition of “to remove the dark dorsal vein from (shrimp) (Merriam-Webster dictionary). It is unclear how Applicant has defined the term.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the absorption" in paragraph 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “which is in turn suitable for the addition of chemical products, and we call it PPM 1”. It is unclear if the claimed suitability is merely a suggestion of the physical reconditioning or a functional aspect of said physical reconditioning.
Claim 1 includes periods “.” in paragraphs 3, 4 5, 7, 12 and 13, prior to the end of the claim. This is indefinite because the claim should be the object of a single sentence. See, MPEP 608.01(m).
The term “gradually” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the chemical treatments" in paragraph 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites, “(treatment application ratio, given by the final volume of the sauce to be applied per module/batch and its density)” in paragraph 3. It is unclear if this is the suggested ratio calculation or if this is the calculation by which the ratio is determined.
Claim 1, paragraph 3 recites a ratio of 30 to 40. This is indefinite because there are no units associated with this ratio.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the material" in paragraph 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “significant” in claim 1, paragraph 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “significant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the desired" in paragraph 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the characterization" in paragraph 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the application" in paragraph 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the room" in paragraph 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "i.e." in paragraph 10 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the group" in paragraph 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the raw" in paragraph 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the final shape" in paragraph 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “Same claim as 1 wherein the porous tablet contains a plant material other than tobacco such as, by way of example and not limitation, cocoa, coffee, eucalyptus, marcela, mint, linden, cannabis, etc., pre-processed or not.” This is indefinite because it is unclear what the scope of “same claims as 1” includes. It is unclear if the tablet also contains non tobacco components, or if the tablet does not contain tobacco materials. This limitation is generally contradictory to the preceding limitations in that the plant material contains tobacco material.
Claim 2 is indefinite because the scope includes limitations that would be rejected under 35 U.S.C 112, fourth paragraph. Claim 2 includes plant material (in claim 1) that is “other than” tobacco.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “fast” in claim 3is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fast” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 3 recites “("scraps" with a size between 5 and 8 US mesh)”. This is indefinite because it is unclear if this is an example of the polygonal shapes to be included, or if these are a suggestion of the type that may be included. Thus, the meets and bounds of the polygonal shapes is unclear.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
RAKER et al. (US 4,924,887) discloses a tobacco containing cigarette filter plugs that comprise strands of tobacco material bound by a binding agent (Abstract). The tobacco material is formed into particles having a desirable particle size (Column 4, lines 40-65). The binders and particles are placed into a drum and mixed (Column 6, lines 6-30) and placed in a humidity chamber to adjust the humidity thereof (Column 7, lines 10-40).
ALBINO et al. (US 2010/0206317) discloses a reduced risk tobacco material (Abstract) that comprises burley, flue-cured, or other types of tobacco material (Paragraphs [0009]- [0012]). The various tobacco components are then mixed in a turning drum (Paragraph [0106]).
KAWATA et al. (US 2014/0020692) discloses a tobacco composition (Abstract) that comprises a tobacco raw material, water, additive and other materials (Abstract). The size is adjusted by using a forming drum (Paragraph [0100]).
TAMAKI et al. (US 3,710,805) discloses a process for producing a smokable material (Abstract). The process comprises culturing a fragment of plant body, and adding components (e.g., aromatics, binders and tobacco components) to form a paste having a moisture content (Abstract). The mixture of tobacco component are dried in a drum dryer (Column 2, lines 1-30).
RAINER et al. (US 4,388,933) discloses a process for tobacco treatment (Abstract; Title) where various tobacco materials are prepared, conditioned, provided with a moisture content and drying in a drum (Column 4, lines 1-45).
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
