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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04 August 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 23-35 and 45-46 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claim 23 has been amended. Claim 46 has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-14, filed 08/04/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 23-35 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of previously applied art and newly found art.
Claim 23 has been amended to add the limitation: wherein the inlet filter and the outlet filter comprise identical meshes,
Claim 46 has been added.
Applicant argues, pages 10-12, that the prior art of Taurino does not teach a leakage prevention arrangement including both an upstream and downstream arrangement made of identical meshes. Specifically, page 11, Applicant notes that the materials taught in the Final Office Action of Dia and Yilmaz are different materials used to form the inlet and mouthpiece filters and thus does not read on the amended claim 23.
The Examiner agrees with this argument and as such the rejection of claim 23, with respect to the prior art of Dia and Yilmaz, has been withdrawn. However, newly found prior art cures the deficiencies of Taurino that Dia and Yilmaz failed to overcome.
Rogers, directed to the design of vaporizers with leak protection, teaches a similar device to that of Taurino. Rogers teaches the aerosol generating device has upstream [0024] and downstream [0034] liquid barriers that can be made of the same mesh material. ([0030], [0044])
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 23-26, 29-33, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taurino, et al (US20210386118A1) and further in view of Rogers, et al (US20190124983A1)
Regarding claim 23, Taurino teaches an aerosol generating device that is comprised of a cartridge portion and a base unit. [0002]
The base unit of the aerosol generating system includes a battery, control circuitry, and connections for connecting the cartridge. [0075]
The cartridge contains a heater assembly that is connected to the power supply of the base unit [0052] and a liquid storage compartment that are contained in a housing. [0086] The inlet for air is located on the side of the housing and allows the air to flow through an airflow passage, that extends through the cartridge, to the mouthpiece opening. ([0092], Figure 2)
The heating element of the cartridge can be a fluid permeable heating element that can be flat or in various shapes. [0022-0023] Taurino teaches that the heating element can extend in a longitudinal direction. (Figure 3)
The heater is connected to the liquid storage compartment using a heater mount (figure 2).
Taurino teaches the use of a barrier materials used to prevent leakage of the liquid aerosol-forming substrate [0001] and that the barrier layer may be a thin impermeable film or a hydrophobic coating. [0007] The art teaches that in some embodiments the barrier layer can be disposed downstream of the heater, the barrier layer is disposed upstream of the heater, or that he barrier layers may be disposed at any combination of the locations discussed above. [0008]
Taurino teaches that the barrier is located in proximity to the liquid storage compartment and is silent with respect to the barrier being an upstream inlet filter or a down-stream outlet filter.
Rogers, directed to the design of vaporizers with leak protection, teaches a similar device to that of Taurino. The vaporizer of Rogers is comprised of a reservoir containing a vaporizable liquid, a main body, a heating element, an air inlet port, an exit passage, and an air flow pathway that that extend in a longitudinal direction between the air inlet and the exit passage. ([0020-0021], Fig. 3)
Rogers teaches the vaporizer device includes a liquid barrier that is located at the air inlets of the device and is positioned to inhibit or prevent the vaporizable liquid from flowing out through the air inlets. [0024] The liquid barrier is taught as being a porous material that could be a or include a simple screen or mesh. [0030] Rogers also teaches a downstream liquid barrier to inhibit liquid from passing between the exit passage and the vaporization chamber in either direction while allowing the passage of air and vaporized products from the vaporization chamber. [0034] Rogers notes that the liquid barrier material of the upstream liquid barrier and the material of the downstream liquid barrier may be formed of the same materials. [0044]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Taurino by adding a liquid barrier at the air inlet port and the chimney (exit passageway between the heater and mouthpiece) as taught by Rogers because both Taurino and Rogers are directed to aerosol generating devices containing liquid, Rogers teaches these materials are selected to provide a desired combination of liquid inhibition and airflow permeability or impedance [0044], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Taurino teaches the cartridge has a heater assembly including a fluid permeable heating element is held in the heater mount. [0080] The heater mount and the surface of the upper storage compartment housing may form the side and top walls of the airflow passage. [0083] Taurino teaches the cartridge has a heater mounting portion and the heater is attached to the mounting portion and that the heating element forms a cavity at the center to facilitate airflow. [0092]
Regarding claim 26, Taurino teaches the liquid storage compartment has a first portion and a second portion. The liquid storage compartment may further be defined by an upper storage compartment housing, a heater mount, and an end cap. A heater assembly including a fluid permeable heating element is held in the heater mount. [0080] Taurino discloses that the second portion of the liquid compartment where the heater mount is inserted and the heater attached. The heater and mount are then covered by an end cap. (Figure 2) The configuration where the heater mount and heater are inserted into the liquid storage compartment and then covered by an end cap are considered to read on the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 29, Taurino teaches that the housing or cover includes an elongate housing, which is preferably rigid. [0061] The cartridge has an external housing extending from the mouth end to a connection end opposite the mouth end. [0080] Taurino teaches that the housing of the cartridge is a single piece, including the mouthpiece, that extends to end of the cartridge where it is joined to the base unit.
Regarding claims 30 and 31, Taurino teaches that the cartridge portion is comprised of a housing or cover that cooperates with the cartridge to for an air flow path. ([0060], [0080]) The art further teaches that the cover extends over the cartridge and may be connected to the cartridge in any suitable manner, such as threaded engagement, snap-fit engagement, interference-fit engagement, magnetic engagement, or the like. [0058] Taurino discloses that the cartridge is inserted into the housing in a longitudinal direction. (Figure 2 and 3)
Regarding claim 32, Taurino teaches that the housing may form a mouthpiece that defines the mouth end of the aerosol generating system. [0059]
Regarding claim 33, Taurino teaches that an airflow passage extends through the cartridge from an air inlet formed on a side of the housing, past the heater assembly, and from the heater assembly to a mouthpiece opening formed at the mouth end of the housing. [0077] The art discloses that the airflow passage through the device is a straight line between the inlet and outlet. (Figure 2 and 3)
Regarding claim 35, Taurino teaches that the fluid permeable heating element can be planar. [0082] A person having ordinary skill would understand that planar elements have a length, width and thickness.
Regarding claim 45, Taurino teaches that it is known for heaters to be formed of a planar mesh. ([0002], [0025])
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taurino, et al (US20210386118A1) and Rogers, et al (US20190124983A1), as applied to claim 23, and further in view of Mironov, et al (US20170027226A1).
Regarding claims 27 and 28, Taurino teaches that the heater is electrically operated [0002], [0009] and that the cartridge is coupled to a base unit, containing a power supply, via contacts on the cartridge. [0052] [0075] and that the power supply supplies power to the heater assembly. [0079]
However Taurino is silent with respect to the specifics of the electrical contact with the heating element.
Mironov, directed to the design of aerosol generating systems, teaches a pair of electrical contacts fixed to the substrate (end cap) and separated from each other by a gap, connected to the heating mesh filaments in the cartridge. [0077] Mironov further teaches that the exposed portions of the electrical contacts contact the electrical connectors. [0080]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Taurino using the cover to hold the cartridge and create the electrical connections as taught by Mironov because Taurino and Mironov are directed to directed to the design of aerosol generating systems, Mironov teaches this is done to “ensure that a good electrical contact between the contacts 52 and the connectors 59 is maintained whatever the orientation of the system with respect to gravity” (p 6 [0091]), and this involves using a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taurino, et al (US20210386118A1) and Rogers, et al (US20190124983A1), as applied to claim 23, and further in view of Mironov, et al (US20170347715A1).
Regarding claim 34, Taurino teaches that the cartridge (atomizer) but is silent with respect to the shape.
Mironov, directed to the design of atomizers, teaches a cartridge that has a rectangular shape ([0066]; Fig 8) orthogonal to the longitudinal axis.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Taurino by selecting a known shape, such as rectangle, as taught by Mironov because Taurino and Mironov are directed to directed to the design of aerosol generating systems. Mironov discloses that rectangular systems are known in the art and would be a generally known design selection.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taurino, et al (US20210386118A1) and Rogers, et al (US20190124983A1), as applied to claim 23, and further in view of Jain, et al (WO2018055334A1) and Davis, et al (US20190053539A1).
Regarding claim 46, Taurino, as modified by Rogers, teaches the structures that could be used for the liquid barrier material include metal fibers. [0030] However, Taurino is silent as to specifics of the mesh material.
Jain, directed to the design of aerosol generating devices with liquid flow restriction, teaches a liquid flow restrictor comprised of a metal mesh having a surface layer of hydrophobic material. The mesh is taught to have a pore size of 100 micrometers or less and a gauge of 200 or higher (p2 ln 20-22) A person having ordinary skill would recognize the relationship between the gauge of a material (wire) and the diameter of the wire and as such would understand the teaching of 200 gauge material for the mesh material is equivalent to a diameter size of 50 microns. Additionally Jain teaches the metal used for the mesh can be stainless steel. (p10 ln 5)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to Taurino and Rogers by using a mesh with the physical characteristic parameters, i.e. pore diameter and wire diameter, as taught by Jain because Taurino, Rogers, and Jain are directed to aerosol generating devices having liquid flow restriction, Jain teaches used to prevent the transmission of liquid to areas outside the cartridge/vaporizer assembly (Abstract) while trying to prevent adverse pressure changes in the atomizing chamber. (p10 ln 29-32), and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Jain teaches the mesh material would have a hydrophobic surface layer (coating) but is silent with respect to the specific chemical possible chemical in the coating material. The hydrophobic materials noted is a commercially available example product and the prior art notes a caveat to the possible hydrophobic material would be that is us certified for food and/or medical industry use (p10 ln 13-20); however, the prior art does not discuss the specific components of the hydrophobic material.
Davis, directed to the design of microtextured elements in aerosol delivery devices, teaches the use of silicon carbide as a protective layer in aerosol generating devices. Davis teaches the protective material is preferably substantially chemically non-reactive with the various compounds that may be included in the aerosol precursor material [0078] and thus teaches the protective layer can be a silicon-based material, such as silicon dioxide, silicon nitride or silicon carbide. [0078]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to Taurino, Rogers, and Jain by using a silicon carbide as a hydrophobic, non-reactive, protective coating as taught by Davis because Taurino, Rogers, Jain, and Davis are directed to aerosol delivery devices, Davis teaches this material is a protective material that is preferably substantially chemically non-reactive with the various compounds that may be included in the aerosol precursor material [0078], and this involves the combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRGINIA R BIEGER whose telephone number is (703)756-1014. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7:30-4:30.
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, Phillip Louie can be reached at (571)270-1241. 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.
/V.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights