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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 16-31 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
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 16 -21, 23-26 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alderman et al. (US20200146340 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Alderman, directed to an aerosol-generating smoking article that does not combust tobacco (Abstract), discloses an aerosol-generating article (cigarette 10; [0026], FIG. 1), comprising: a rod (tobacco rod/rod 12; [0026]) of aerosol-generating substrate (smokable filler material; [0026]), wherein the aerosol-generating substrate comprises a tobacco material ([0037]) having a bulk density of less than 350 milligrams per cubic centimeter (100-300 milligrams per cubic centimeter; [0037]); and a downstream section (filter element 20; [0026]) is positioned adjacent to one end of the tobacco rod 12 such that the filter element and tobacco rod are axially aligned in an end-to-end relationship, abutting one another ([0027], see Annotated FIG. 1 below), that corresponds to the arrangement of the downstream section provided downstream of the rod of aerosol-generating substrate.
Alderman further discloses that the downstream section comprises a hollow tubular element (tube/channel 48; [0065] – [0066]), characterized as an open channel that may be devoid of a filter material, or may comprise a filter material in a different embodiment ([0065]). The hollow tubular element extends through an entire length of a filter material 55; [0065] – [0066], FIGs, 8-9). Alderman further illustrated that a single section of filter material 55 extends from the aerosol-generating substrate rod to the ultimate mouth end of the filter element 20, wherein the hollow tubular element extends through the full length of the filter element 55 ([0022], FIG.8), thus the hollow tubular element extends from (i.e., abuts) the aerosol-generating substrate rod to the ultimate mouth end of the filter element 20. Additionally, Alderman disclosed that mainstream smoke exits the aerosol-generating substrate rod and passes through the hollow tubular element ([0066]). The direct smoke passage from the aerosol-generating substrate rod to the hollow tubular element also satisfies the claim limitation that hollow tubular element abuts the downstream end of the aerosol-generating substrate rod.
Alderman further discloses that the downstream section can have an overall length of about 15 mm to about 65 mm ([0010]), or about 7 mm to about 65 mm ([0031]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed length of at least 40 millimeters and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
PNG
media_image1.png
399
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Alderman discloses that the rod of aerosol-generating substrate has a length of about 56mm ([0085]). The length disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed length of at least 17 millimeters and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Alderman discloses that the tobacco material has an average density of 100-300 milligrams per cubic centimeter ([0037]). The density range of the tobacco material taught by the prior art anticipates the claimed density of less than 300 milligrams per cubic centimeter and at least 100 milligrams per cubic centimeter.
Regarding claim 20 and 21, Alderman discloses that total length of cigarette 10 (i.e., the aerosol- generating article) is about 80 mm to about 150 mm ([0030]), and in one example, the rod of aerosol-generating substrate has a length of about 56mm ([0085]). A ratio of the length of the aerosol-generating substrate rod to the total length of the aerosol-generating article in this case will result in a range between 0.37 to 0.7, which overlaps the claimed ratio of at least 0.2 and at least 0.25 and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 23, Alderman discloses that the downstream section can have an overall length of about 15 mm to about 65 mm ([0010]), or about 7 mm to about 65 mm ([0031]). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed length of the downstream section of at least 45 millimeters and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 24, Alderman discloses that the rod of aerosol-generating substrate has a length of about 56mm ([0085]). The length disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of at least 20 millimeters (≥20mm) and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 25, Alderman discloses provision of perforations 48B that are formed in the tube walls 48A ([0063]). Perforations 48B (i.e., ventilation zone) are at a location along the hollow tubular element (tube/channel 48) of the downstream section (FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 26, Alderman discloses the hollow tubular element of the downstream section has a defined a wall thickness ([0061]), it has a thickness of about 0.1 mm to about 0.5 mm ([0062]). The wall thickness of the hollow tubular element disclosed by the prior art anticipates the claimed wall thickness of less than 0.5 millimeters.
Regarding claim 31, Alderman discloses that shreds of tobacco filler are used within the tobacco rod of a cigarette (i.e., aerosol- generating substrate) ([0037]).
Claim 22 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alderman as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Uthurry (WO2020128045 A1 hereinafter cited in the IDS dated 12/27/2024).
Regarding claim 22, Alderman discloses that the rod of aerosol-generating substrate has a length of about 56mm ([0085]).
Alderman doesn’t explicitly disclose that the aerosol-generating substrate rod has a length of less than 30 millimeters.
Uthurry directed an aerosol-generating article 10 for producing an inhalable aerosol when heated (Abstract), discloses an aerosol-generating substrate rod (aerosol-generating substrate 12, Figures 1-3) and a hollow tubular segment 14 & 16 (hollow tubular element; (page 23, line 26-27)) abutting a downstream end of the rod of aerosol-generating substrate (Figure 1-3). Uthurry further discloses varied lengths of an aerosol-generating substrate rod ranging from at least about 5 millimeters to less than 80 millimeters (page 7, line 20-29, Figures 1-3), in a preferred embodiment the rod of aerosol-generating substrate has a length of about 12 millimeters (page 7, line 28-29; page 23, line 34-35). The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed length of an aerosol-generating substrate rod of less than 30 millimeters and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Uthurry further discloses that short aerosol-generating articles, such as the ones with an aerosol-generating substrate rod having a length of less than 40mms, or even less than 20mms are more advantageous in a way aerosol forms in a little time and space making aerosol delivery quickly available to the consumer (page 6, line 26-36).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Alderman by making the length of the aerosol-generating substrate rod less than 30 millimeters as taught by Uthurry, because one of ordinary skill in the art would look to a similar reference for a known length in the art of a similar aerosol-generating article, especially when the original prior art doesn’t disclose the claimed length, and this merely involves applying a known length of a similar aerosol-generating substrate rod to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 27 and 28, Alderman doesn’t explicitly disclose a ratio of a length of the hollow tubular element of the downstream section to a length of the rod of aerosol-generating substrate to be at least 1.5 and at least 0.5.
Uthurry discloses varied lengths of the hollow tubular segment of a downstream section ranging between 10 millimeters to about 30 millimeters (page 17, line 13-20). Uthurry further discloses varied lengths of an aerosol-generating substrate rod ranging from 5 millimeters to less than 80 millimeters (page 7, line 20-29, Figures 1-3). In this case the ratio of the length of the hollow tubular element to the length of the rod of aerosol-generating substrate would result between 0.37-2. The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed ratio range of at least 1.5 and at least 0.5 and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Alderman by optimizing the ratio of a length of the hollow tubular element of the downstream section to a length of the aerosol-generating substrate rod to be at least 1.5 and at least 0.5 as taught by Uthurry, because both Alderman and Uthurry are directed to aerosol generating article, Uthurry teaches that it is known in the art to use aerosol generating articles with varied length ratios hollow tubular element to substrate rod and this merely involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Alderman discloses that the hollow tubular element extends longitudinally the entire length of the section of filter material 55 ([0065] – [0066]; FIGs. 8-9).
Alderman doesn’t explicitly disclose the length of the hollow tubular element having at least 25 millimeters and at least 45 millimeters.
Uthurry discloses varied lengths of the hollow tubular segment ranging between 10 millimeters to about 30 millimeters (page 17, line 13-20). The length disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed length of the hollow tubular element of at least 25 millimeters and at least 45 millimeters and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Alderman by making the length of the hollow tubular element to be at least 25 millimeters and also optimizing it to be at least 45 millimeters as taught by Uthurry, because both Alderman and Uthurry are directed to aerosol generating article, Uthurry teaches that it is known in the art to change the length of the hollow tubular element and this merely involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results. Furthermore, changes in size are prima facie obvious when there is no change in performance of the product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN G GHEBRESELASSIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0196. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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 5712701241. 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.
/HELEN GHEBRESELASSIE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1755
/PHILIP Y LOUIE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights