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 23-35 and 45 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claim 23 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-14, filed 03/17/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 23-35 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are but they are not persuasive.
Claim 23 has been amended to add the limitation: wherein the atomizer is provided within a cartridge for the electrically heatable aerosol-generating system.
Applicant argues, pages 10-11, that the prior art of Taurino does not disclose a planar fluid-permeable heating element extending in a longitudinal direction (the direction of the airflow passage) within the cartridge.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Taurino teaches that the cartridge of the aerosol generating system has an air flow channel that extends longitudinally along the length of the cartridge. The heater assembly that houses the air flow passage is described by Taurino as being “a tubular or cylindrical a heater assembly.” [0085] The distinction made by the prior art that the shape can be cylindrical or tubular in shape would lead a person of ordinary skill to consider that the shape of both the heating assembly and thus the air flow passage could be other shapes including those that would have a flat and planar interior, e.g. a heater assembly that was rectangular in shape. The examiner further notes that a change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Applicant argues, pages 11-12, that it would not have been obvious to modify the teaching of Taurino and Dia using the teachings of Yilmaz since Yilmaz does not teach or suggest:
1) a filter disposed within an airflow passage of a cartridge, nor a filter positioned upstream of a heating element within the same airflow passage as recited in Applicant's claim language.
2) the use of the air inlet filter to prevent liquid escaping such an airflow passage or even consider the problem of liquid leakage from a cartridge.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Taurino teaches the desire to prevent leakage of the device by inhibiting premature leakage of the aerosol-forming substrate from the cartridge. [0003-0004] Taurino teaches that the barrier layer material is designed to reduce or prevent leakage of the liquid aerosol-forming substrate during storage. [0009] The prior 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] However, Taurino does not teach how the use of the barrier material would be implemented in these configurations.
Dia is used to modify Taurino by teaching the location of a membrane that is located in designed to prevent liquids from leaking from the mouthpiece. [0030]
Neither Taurino nor Dia teach that the use of an inlet filter,
Yilmaz is used to modify the teaching of Taurino and Dia; teaching the use of an inlet filter. Yilmaz also teaches that a possibility exists for the wick can leak liquid into the portion of the device that houses the heating element. [0069] Yilmaz teaches that a mesh or filter that is located across the air inlet of the cartridge. [0087] As such it would be obvious to modify the teachings of Taurino and Dia to include a barrier layer/ membrane material/ filter element at the air inlet to the device. This barrier inlet filter would not only prevent the liquid that could leak into heating element area from being expelled though the air inlet, it would have the added benefit of preventing foreign material from entering the device.
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments made to 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 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 Dai, et al (US20150272216A1) and Yilmaz (US20200383379A1)
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.
Dai, directed to the design of vaporizers containing liquid, teaches the use of a membrane located near the mouthpiece. [0030]
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 an mouthpiece filter/membrane as taught by Dai because both Taurino and Dai are directed to aerosol generating devices containing liquid, Dai teaches the membrane may catch liquids in the vapor so that liquid may not leak from the mouthpiece opening [0030], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Neither Taurino nor Dai teach that a filter would be located upstream at the inlet of the device.
Yilmaz, directed to the design of aerosol generating devices containing liquid aerosol generating substrate, teaches a filter that is located at the air inlet of the cartridge. (p8 ln 5-7)
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 and Dia by adding an inlet filter as taught by Yilmaz because Taurino, Dai, and Yilmaz are directed to aerosol generating devices containing liquid, Yilmaz teaches the filter prevents dust or other particles or objects from being drawn in through the air inlet (p8 ln 5-7), 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), Dai, et al (US20150272216A1), and Yilmaz (US20200383379A1), 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), Dai, et al (US20150272216A1), and Yilmaz (US20200383379A1), 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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