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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/27/24 has been entered.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuber et al. (US 2014/0305448).
Claims 1, 4, and 7. Zuber et al. discloses an aerosol-generating article 10 comprising four elements arranged in coaxial alignment: an aerosol-forming substrate 20 (tobacco rod), a support element 30 (second air flow delivery element), an aerosol-cooling element 40, and a mouthpiece 50 ([0178]; Figure 1). Aerosol-forming substrate 20 comprises a gathered sheet of crimped homogenised tobacco material circumscribed by a wrapper ([0180]). The aerosol-generating article may comprise a front-plug (first air flow delivery element) upstream of the aerosol-forming substrate, wherein the front plug is penetrable by a heating element of an aerosol-generating device ([0022]). The front-plug may be formed from cellulose acetate tow. The permeability (first porosity) of the front-plug may be varied to help control resistance to draw of the aerosol-generating article ([0031]). The support element 30 is located immediately downstream of the aerosol-forming substrate 20 and abuts the aerosol-forming substrate 20. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, the support element is a hollow cellulose acetate tube ([0181]).
Zuber et al. does not explicitly disclose that the porosity of the front plug (first air flow delivery element) is greater than or equal to 10% and less than 30% and that the porosity of the support element 30 (second air flow delivery element) is greater than that of the front plug (first air flow delivery element). However, since Zuber et al. identifies the permeability (porosity) of the front plug as a result effective variable (“The permeability of the front-plug may be varied to help control resistance to draw of the aerosol-generating article” ([0031]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that a permeability (porosity) of the front plug of greater than or equal to 10% and less than 30% may be achieved through routine experimentation in order to achieve a higher resistance to draw in the smoking article. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the support element 30 (second air flow delivery element) being a hollow cellulose acetate tube ([0181]) would have greater permeability (porosity) than the front plug (first air flow delivery element).
Zuber et al. teaches that the front plug is penetrable by a heating element of an aerosol-generating device ([0022]) but does not explicitly disclose that the cross-section of the front plug (first air flow delivery element) comprises a Y-shaped empty space. However, changes in shape are considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B)).
Claim 3. Zuber et al. does not explicitly disclose that the ratio of the second porosity to the first porosity is greater than or equal to 1 and less than 3. However, since Zuber et al. identifies the permeability (porosity) of the front plug as a result effective variable (“The permeability of the front-plug may be varied to help control resistance to draw of the aerosol-generating article” ([0031]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that a ratio of the porosity of the support element 30 (second air flow delivery element) to the permeability (porosity) of the front plug is greater than one and less than 3 may be achieved through routine experimentation in order to achieve a desired resistance to draw in the smoking article. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the support element 30 (second air flow delivery element) being a hollow cellulose acetate tube ([0181]) would have greater permeability (porosity) than the front plug (first air flow delivery element), thus the ratio of porosities would necessarily be greater than 1.
Claims 5 and 6. Zuber et al. discloses that the support element (second air flow delivery element) may have an external diameter of between approximately 5 millimetres and approximately 12 millimetres, for example of between approximately 5 millimetres and approximately 10 millimetres or of between approximately 6 millimetres and approximately 8 millimetres. In a preferred embodiment, the support element has an external diameter of 7.2 millimetres +/-10% ([0093]; Figure 1). Zuber et al. also teaches that the support element (second air flow delivery element) is a hollow cellulose acetate tube ([0181]) but does not explicitly disclose the inner diameter of the hollow cellulose acetate tube. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the inner diameter of the hollow tube is a result effective variable which may be increased through routine experimentation to achieve a lower resistance to draw in the support element (second air flow delivery element) (See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuber et al. (US 2014/0305448) in view of Liu (US 2013/0014772).
Claim 8. Zuber et al. discloses an aerosol-generating article 10 comprising four elements arranged in coaxial alignment: an aerosol-forming substrate 20 (tobacco rod), a support element 30 (second air flow delivery element), an aerosol-cooling element 40, and a mouthpiece 50 ([0178]; Figure 1). Aerosol-forming substrate 20 comprises a gathered sheet of crimped homogenised tobacco material circumscribed by a wrapper ([0180]). The aerosol-generating article may comprise a front-plug (first air flow delivery element) upstream of the aerosol-forming substrate, wherein the front plug is penetrable by a heating element of an aerosol-generating device ([0022]). The front-plug may be formed from cellulose acetate tow. The permeability (first porosity) of the front-plug may be varied to help control resistance to draw of the aerosol-generating article ([0031]). The support element 30 is located immediately downstream of the aerosol-forming substrate 20 and abuts the aerosol-forming substrate 20. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, the support element is a hollow cellulose acetate tube ([0181]). The aerosol-generating article 10 illustrated in FIG. 1 is designed to engage with an aerosol-generating device comprising a heating element in order to be smoked or consumed by a user. In use, the heating element of the aerosol-generating device heats the aerosol-forming substrate 20 of the aerosol-generating article 10 to a sufficient temperature to form an aerosol, which is drawn downstream through the aerosol-generating article 10 and inhaled by the user ([0186]). The aerosol-generating device comprises a heating element 120. As shown in FIG. 2, the heating element 120 is mounted within an aerosol-generating article receiving chamber of the aerosol-generating device 110. In use, the user inserts the aerosol-generating article 10 into the aerosol-generating article receiving chamber of the aerosol-generating device 110 such that the heating element 120 is directly inserted into the aerosol-forming substrate 20 of the aerosol-generating article 10 as shown in FIG. 2. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 2, the heating element 120 of the aerosol-generating device 110 is a heater blade ([0188]; Figure 2). The aerosol-generating device 110 comprises a power supply and electronics that allow the heating element 120 to be actuated ([0189]). A controller 150 is connected to the heating element 120, the electrical energy supply 140, and a user interface 160, for example a button or display. The controller 150 controls the power supplied to the heating element 120 in order to regulate its temperature ([0195]).
Zuber et al. does not explicitly disclose that the porosity of the front plug (first air flow delivery element) is greater than or equal to 10% and less than 30% and that the porosity of the support element 30 (second air flow delivery element) is greater than that of the front plug (first air flow delivery element). However, since Zuber et al. identifies the permeability (porosity) of the front plug as a result effective variable (“The permeability of the front-plug may be varied to help control resistance to draw of the aerosol-generating article” ([0031]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that a permeability (porosity) of the front plug of greater than or equal to 10% and less than 30% may be achieved through routine experimentation in order to achieve a higher resistance to draw in the smoking article. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the support element 30 (second air flow delivery element) being a hollow cellulose acetate tube ([0181]) would have greater permeability (porosity) than the front plug (first air flow delivery element).
Zuber et al. teaches that the front plug is penetrable by a heating element of an aerosol-generating device ([0022]) but does not explicitly disclose that the cross-section of the front plug (first air flow delivery element) comprises a Y-shaped empty space. However, changes in shape are considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B)).
Zuber et al. does not explicitly disclose that the aerosol-generating device further comprises a vaporizer configured to generate an aerosol by vaporizing a liquid composition and delivering the aerosol into the cigarette through the front-end plug.
Liu discloses an atomization device 20 (vaporizer) comprising an atomizing housing 22 loaded with oil absorbent 21, a heating coil 23 (first heater), a top electrode 24, metal external thread 25 and a top insulation ring 26. The oil absorbent 21 inside the atomizing housing 22 is connected to the storage tank 10 ([0028]; Figures 2 and 3). The storage tank is filled with extractant (liquid composition) ([0022]; Figures 2 and 3). A connection tube 50 (airflow passage) connects atomization device 20 (vaporizer) to connection joint 60. A top opening of the connection joint 60 is engaged into a bottom opening of the metal tube 32a ([0028]; Figures 2 and 3). The extractant in the oil absorbent absorbed from the storage tank 10 is atomized by the generated heat. The atomized extractant passes through the through-hole of the lower electrode 28, the through-hole of the top electrode 24, the insulation connection tube 50 and the connection joint 60 before it reaches the metal tube 32a in the device for flue-curing tobacco 30 ([0032]; Figures 2 and 3). The device further comprises a device for flue-curing tobacco 30, which includes a heating mechanism 31 (heater) and a heated chamber 32 for loading cigarette or tobacco ([0022]; Figures 2 and 3). The nicotine and the atomized extractant are mixed together and then inhaled into smokers' lungs through the opening for suction nozzle ([0032]; Figures 2 and 3). The device further comprises a heater circuit and atomization circuit arranged on a circuit board 80 (controller) ([0028]), the heater circuit controlling the heating element 311 and the atomization circuit controlling the heating coil 23 ([0032]).
Liu teaches that the device allows for the nicotine in the cigarette or tobacco is vaporized by the device for flue-curing tobacco at the temperature of 100.degree. C. to 580.degree. C., so that the nicotine and the extractant is mixed together into a substance in the form of atomization, while the tar and other harmful impurities still remain in the tobacco. In this way, the harm of smoking to human health is reduced as the smokers only inhale the substance in the form of atomization composed of the nicotine and the extractant into their lungs when smoking ([0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the smoking article of Zuber et al. be heated and smoked via the device of Liu in order to reduce the harm of smoking as taught by Liu.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/29/24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments concern claim amendments that are addressed in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine A Will whose telephone number is (571)270-0516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00AM-6:00PM(EST).
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 Wilson can be reached on (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.
/KATHERINE A WILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights