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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on November 11, 2024 and October 14, 2025, have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 28. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 5 and 10. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 11, 19, 21-25, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2016/0207688 (Sebastian et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Sebastian discloses a sheet material having desiccant properties (humidity control) and capable of absorbing moisture from its surrounding environment (see paragraphs 0043-0044), the sheet material comprising a base material (nonwoven fibrous substrate, or alternate interpretation where base material is nonwoven fibrous substrate and paper it is laminated to) and a hygroscopic material (hygroscopic powder) (see paragraphs 0015 and 0026).
Regarding claim 3, Sebastian also discloses that the hygroscopic material may be an oxide, alkali metal salt, alkaline earth metal salt, mono- and disaccharides, sugar alcohols and polybasic acids and salt thereof, sodium salt, potassium salt, magnesium salt, calcium salt, ammonium salt or lithium salt (see paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 5, Sebastian also discloses that the hygroscopic material may be sodium nitrite, sodium chloride, sodium bromide, sodium iodide, potassium nitrite, potassium chloride, potassium bromide, potassium iodide, potassium sulphate, potassium carbonate, potassium hydroxide, ammonium nitrate, ammonium chloride, ammonium sulphate, ammonium carbonate, calcium chloride, sucrose, fructose, glucose, galactose, sorbitol, xylitol, mannitol, citric acid and salts thereof, malic acid and salts thereof, and succinic acid and salts thereof (see paragraph 0019-0020).
Regarding claim 6, Sebastian also discloses that the base material may be paper (see paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 7, Sebastian also discloses that the hygroscopic material is a powder incorporated into the base material (see paragraph 0017).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Sebastian also discloses that the sheet material may comprise cellulose or cellulose derivative fibers (ethylcellulose, cellulose acetate) (see paragraph 0018), where the substrate fibers dispersed with hygroscopic powder are subjected to heating and compacting (see paragraph 0042). In such a configuration, the cellulose acetate would act as a “binder” immobilizing the hygroscopic powder material disperse therein, meeting the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 19, Sebastian also discloses a pack comprising the sheet material as recited in claim 1, wherein the relative humidity within the pack is maintained over time (see paragraphs 0034-0037).
Regarding claim 21, Sebastian also discloses a pack wherein the sheet material is incorporated into the pack as a box, an inner frame, an inner wrapper or an insert (see paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 22, Sebastian also discloses a pack, defining a chamber for receiving one or more consumables (see paragraph 0034). It is not specifically stated that the consumable is for use in a non-combustible aerosol provision system; however, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 23, Sebastian also discloses a pack comprising one or more consumables (see paragraph 0034). It is not specifically stated that the consumable is for use in a non-combustible aerosol provision system; however, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 24, Sebastian also discloses a method for manufacturing a sheet material as recited in claim 1, wherein the hygroscopic material is incorporated during or after formation of a sheet from the base material (see paragraphs 0039-0042).
Regarding claim 25, Sebastian also discloses a method as recited in claim 24, wherein the hygroscopic material is applied on at least a portion of at least one surface of a sheet of base material; or added to the base material and the mixture is formed into the sheet material (see paragraphs 0039-0042).
Regarding claim 27, Sebastian also discloses that the sheet material may be used for maintaining the relative humidity within a pack comprising the sheet material (see paragraphs 0034-0037). Sebastian also discloses that the relative humidity is maintained within the range of 1-99% (see paragraph 0032), overlapping the optional range of 5 to 30%.
Regarding claim 29, Sebastian also discloses that the sheet material may be used for maintaining the moisture content of a consumable below a desired threshold (see paragraph 0034-0037). It is not specifically stated that the consumable is for use in a non-combustible aerosol provision system; however, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 19, 21-25, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2018/0370204 (Ose et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Ose discloses a sheet material having desiccant properties and capable of absorbing moisture from its surrounding environment, the sheet material comprising a base material (hygroscopic molded article layer (11) or alternative interpretation where base material is base material layer (13) with release sheet (15)) attached to the hygroscopic molded article layer (11) (see paragraphs 0009 and 0076, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Ose also discloses that the hygroscopic material may be an oxide (calcium oxide) (see paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 6, Ose also discloses that the base material may comprise paper (see paragraph 0077 where it is stated the release sheet (which has been interpreted as part of the base layer) may comprise paper).
Regarding claim 7, Ose also discloses that the hygroscopic material is a powder incorporated into the base material (see paragraphs 0032-0033).
Regarding claim 10, Ose also discloses that the sheet material further comprises a resin (see paragraph 0043-0044), which would perform the function of a binder (see paragraph 0044 where it is explained that the fluororesin becomes porous and the hygroscopic agent is carried and fixed therein).
Regarding claims 19, 21-23, 27 and 29, Ose discloses that the sheet material may be used to absorb moisture and maintain humidity over time in various applications (see paragraphs 0027 and 0038). It is not specifically stated that the sheet is used in a pack; however, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The sheet material of Ose is capable of being used in a pack to absorb moisture.
Regarding claim 24, Ose also discloses a method for manufacturing a sheet material as recited in claim 1, wherein the hygroscopic material is incorporated during or after formation of a sheet from the base material (see paragraph 0069).
Regarding claim 25, Ose also discloses a method as recited in claim 24, wherein the hygroscopic material is applied on at least a portion of at least one surface of a sheet of base material; or added to the base material and the mixture is formed into the sheet material (see paragraphs 0069-0072).
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 11, 19, 21-25, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2020/0095039 (Siitonen).
Regarding claim 1, Siitonen discloses a sheet material having desiccant properties and capable of absorbing moisture from its surrounding environment, the sheet material comprising a base material (base board) and a hygroscopic material (metal salt) (see paragraphs 0011-0012).
Regarding claim 3, Siitonen also discloses that the hygroscopic material may be a sodium salt (sodium chloride), potassium salt (potassium chloride), calcium salt (calcium chloride) (see paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 5, Siitonen also discloses that the hygroscopic material may be sodium chloride, potassium chloride, calcium chloride or sodium nitrate (see paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 6, Siitonen also discloses that the base material may comprise paper, paperboard, or cellulose fibers (see paragraphs 0010 and 0026).
Regarding claim 7, Siitonen also discloses that the porosity of the base material allows for the surface treatment composition which contains the hygroscopic powder to be incorporated into the base material (see paragraphs 0013).
Regarding claim 10, Siitonen also discloses that the sheet material comprises a binder (carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC)) (see paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 11, Siitonen also discloses that the binder is a cellulose derivative (carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC)) (see paragraph 0010).
Regarding claim 19, Siitonen also discloses a pack comprising the sheet material of claim 1, wherein the relative humidity within the pack is maintained over time (see paragraphs 0005-0006).
Regarding claim 21, Siitonen also discloses that the sheet material is incorporated into the pack as a box or an insert (see paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 22, Siitonen also discloses a pack, defining a chamber for receiving one or more consumables (see paragraphs 0005-0006). It is not specifically stated that the consumable is for use in a non-combustible aerosol provision system; however, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 23, Siitonen also discloses a pack comprising one or more consumables (see paragraph 0041). It is not specifically stated that the consumable is for use in a non-combustible aerosol provision system; however, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 24, Siitonen also discloses a method for manufacturing a sheet material as recited in claim 1, wherein the hygroscopic material is incorporated during or after formation of a sheet from the base material (see paragraphs 0052 and 0057).
Regarding claim 25, Siitonen also discloses that the hygroscopic material is applied on to at least a portion of at least one surface of a sheet of base material, or added to the base material and the mixture is formed into the sheet material (see paragraphs 0045-0046).
Regarding claim 27, Siitonen also discloses the use of a sheet material as recited in claim 1, for maintaining the relative humidity within a pack comprising the sheet material (see paragraphs 0005-0006).
Regarding claim 29, Siitonen also discloses the use of a sheet material for maintaining the moisture content of a consumable (see paragraphs 0005-0006). It is not specifically stated that the consumable is for use in a non-combustible aerosol provision system; however, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0207688 (Sebastian et al.).
Sebastian discloses a sheet material as discussed above.
Regarding claim 2, Sebastian discloses that the sheet material comprises from 1-50 wt% hygroscopic material, based on the total weight of the sheet material (see paragraph 0022), which overlaps the claimed range of 25 to 70 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 20, Sebastian also discloses that the relative humidity within the pack is maintained within the range of 5 to 95% (see paragraph 0035), which overlaps the claimed range of about 9 to about 14%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0207688 (Sebastian et al.) in view of JP 60-161719 (Nakamura), machine translation attached.
Sebastian discloses a sheet material as discussed above. Sebastian also discloses that the sheet material may comprise from 50 to 99 wt% of porous nonwoven fibrous substrate, based on the total weight of the base material (see paragraph 0023), which overlaps the claimed range of 25 to 50% by weight. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Sebastian discloses cellulose derivatives as the porous nonwoven fibrous substrate material (see paragraph 0018), but does not specify natural cellulose; however, in the analogous field of desiccants, Nakamura teaches that cellulose fiber has a large surface area and the rate of moisture absorption can be increased (see lines 21-32 machine translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize cellulose as the porous nonwoven fibrous substrate material for the Sebastian substrate, as the large surface area would assist in holding the metal salt and the cellulose would contribute to desiccation properties of the sheet.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0207688 (Sebastian et al.) in view of US 2005/0087460 (Bruhn et al.).
Sebastian teaches a sheet material as discussed above. Sebastian does not state the grammage, thickness, tensile strength, wet tensile strength, bending resistance or moisture content of the sheet material; however, it is disclosed that the sheet material may be used for forming a cigarette pack (see paragraph 0034). In the analogous field of cigarette packs, Bruhn teaches that sheet materials having a basis weight (grammage) of 120 to 150 g/m2, which is within the claimed range of 20 to 250 g/m2, provide a high level of flexibility allowing them to be bent without scoring (see paragraph 0023). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the sheet material of Sebastian with a basis weight (grammage) of 120 to 150 g/m2, in order to form a cigarette pack that is flexible and allows for bending without scoring, as taught by Bruhn.
Claims 2, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0370204 (Ose et al.).
Ose discloses a sheet material as discussed above.
Regarding claim 2, Ose also discloses a sheet material comprising 30 to 95% by weight hygroscopic material (see paragraph 0050), based on the total weight of the sheet material, which overlaps the claimed range of 20 to 70 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 12, Ose also discloses that the sheet material may comprise from 5 to 70% by weight binder (resin) (see paragraph 0050), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.05 to 30% by weight. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 13, Ose also discloses that the sheet material has a thickness from about 100 to 800 micrometers (see paragraph 0056), which overlaps the claimed range of 30 to 500 micrometers. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0370204 (Ose et al.) in view of US 2017/0144821 (Galet et al.).
Ose discloses a sheet material as discussed above. Ose also discloses that the hygroscopic material may include a hygroscopic agent other than calcium oxide-based particles, including magnesium sulfate, and the like (see paragraph 0041). In the analogous field of sheet materials having desiccant (hygroscopic) properties, Galet teaches that calcium chloride, potassium chloride, ammonium chloride, and citric acid are known alternative hygroscopic materials to magnesium sulfate (see paragraph 0013). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use calcium chloride, potassium chloride, ammonium chloride, or citric acid as a substitute for magnesium sulfate as the additional hygroscopic material of Ose based on this teaching of equivalence by Galet. Such a substitution would constitute the predictable use of a known material.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0370204 (Ose et al.) in view of US 2013/0260072 (Schultz et al.).
Ose discloses a sheet material as discussed above. Ose also discloses that the sheet of the hygroscopic molded article layer is attached to a base layer and attached to a paper release sheet (the base layer with the paper release sheet has been interpreted as the base material) (see paragraphs 0076-0077). The base material layer of Ose does not include cellulose, and Ose does not state the percent weight of cellulose fibers in the paper release sheet; however, in the analogous field of sheet materials, Schultz discloses a universal paper release sheet having a preferred range of 5 to 95 wt% cellulose fibers (see paragraphs 0004 and 0008), based on the total weight of the base material, which overlaps the claimed range of 25 to 50 wt%. Schultz teaches that such a release sheet is produced efficiently and at low cost (see paragraph 0004). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the Schultz release sheet as the release sheet of Ose, in order to utilize an efficiently produced low coat material. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0095039 (Siitonen).
Siitonen discloses a sheet material as discussed above.
Regarding claim 12, Siitonen also discloses that the sheet material comprises 2 to 10 wt% of the binder, based on the total weight of the treatment solids (see paragraph 0010). Siitonen also discloses the base board is 50-500 g/m2 (see paragraph 0010), the treatment comprises 10-150 g/m2 (see paragraph 0023), and the treatment total dry content comprises 2 to 40% (see paragraph 0022), yielding a binder content based on the total weight of the sheet material ranging from 0.0008 to 5.45 wt% (Minimum calculation: 500 g/m2 board, 10 g/m2 treatment, 2% solids, 2% CMC (binder) = 10 x 0.02 x 0.02 = 0.004 g/m2, 0.004/(500+0.2) x 100 = 0.0008 wt%; Maximum calculation: 50 g/m2 board, 150 g/m2 treatment, 40% solids, 10% CMC (binder) = 150 x 0.40 x 0.10 = 6 g/m2, with 60 g/ m2 total treatment solids, 6/(50+60) x 100 = 5.45 wt%), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.05 to 30 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 13, Siitonen also discloses that the sheet material has a grammage from 110 to 500 g/m2 (see paragraph 0026), which overlaps the claimed range of 20 to 250 g/m2. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0095039 (Siitonen) in view of 7,967,952 (Williams et al.).
Siitonen discloses a sheet material as discussed above. Siitonen does not disclose the weight percent of cellulose fibers in the base material; however, it is disclosed that the base material may be any type of paper, paper board or cellulose based material (see paragraph 0049). Williams discloses a conventional paperboard substrate material that is durable and cost effective (see column 1, lines 21-38), which has a cellulose fiber content ranging from 5 to 90 wt% of cellulose fibers (see column 3, lines 11-19). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the paperboard substrate material disclosed by Williams as the base material for the Siitonen sheet, in order to utilize a durable and cost effective material. Upon utilizing the Williams base material, the sheet material would have around 4.998 to 89.964 wt% of cellulose fibers based on the total weight of the base material (for the disclosed 500 g/m2 baseboard of Siitonen, at 5 wt% 500 x 0.5 = 25 g/m2,
25/500.2 x 100 = 4.998 wt%; and at 90 wt% 500 x 0.90 = 450 g/m2 , 450/500.2 x 100 = 89.964 wt%), which overlaps the claimed range of 25 to 50 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENDY L BOSS whose telephone number is (571)272-7466. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-6:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/WENDY L BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights