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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/4/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendment filed 3/4/2026 has been entered and considered. Claims 1-20 and 27 are cancelled. Claims 21-26 and 28-41 are pending. Claim 41 is new. Claim 21 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the present application describes providing tobacco separate from the gel aerosol-forming substrate, the gel receptor receives the gel aerosol-forming substrate without user intervention and is devoid of a frangible capsule or pieces of a broken or ruptured frangible capsule.
Examiner notes THORENS discloses that the aerosol-forming substrate may includes tobacco (emphasis added) (Paragraphs [0112] and [0116]). Thus, the scope of the aerosol forming substrate includes materials other than tobacco. In other words, the scope of the aerosol forming substrate is such that the substrate is devoid of tobacco.
It is further noted that THORENS discloses that in one embodiment, the substrate may be releasably contained within the frangible capsule (Paragraph [0174]). In an alternative embodiment, the substrate may be incorporated into the liquid retention medium immediately prior to use, by injecting the liquid into the liquid retention medium immediately prior to use (Paragraph [0175]). Thus, the scope of THORENS includes embodiments that are devoid of a frangible capsule. So long as the liquid is injected prior to use, a capsule is not required in the broader disclosure of THORENS. The courts have generally held that "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). MPEP 2123.
Even though the disclosure of THORENS is primarily directed to the substrate being held in a frangible capsule, the mere suggestion of an embodiment not using the frangible capsule is enough to teach a system of THORNS devoid of said capsule. Examiner notes that it is this non-preferred embodiment in THORNES that is relied upon for the rejection of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-26 and 28-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 requires “being devoid of tobacco”. The disclosure of the invention, as originally filed, does not provide support for this limitation.
Claim 1 requires “without user intervention”. The disclosure of the invention, as originally filed, does not provide support for this limitation.
Claim 1 requires “devoid of a frangible capsule or pieces of a broken or ruptured frangible capsule”. The disclosure of the invention, as originally filed, does not provide support for this limitation.
The courts have generally held that Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019, 194 USPQ 187, 196 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2173.05(i).
The instant application does not mention “being devoid of tobacco”, “without user intervention” or “devoid of a frangible capsule or pieces of a broken or ruptured frangible capsule” as being explicitly excluded, or as alternative positively recited elements. Thus, their exclusion in the claims is new matter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
______________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THORENS (US 2018/0007972) in view of MIRONOV et al. (US 2018/0352862) and MISHRA et al. (US 2016/0120225)
With respect to claim 21, THORENS discloses a disposable or reusable aerosol generating system (Abstract; Paragraph [0055]) comprising an aerosol generating article (e.g., cartridge) that is inserted into an electrically heated smoking article (Abstract; Fig. 3; Paragraphs [0281], [0307]). The cartridge comprising a liquid composition absorbed in, and soaked in, a liquid retention medium, 210a (Paragraph [0283]-[0286]). The liquid may be in the form of a gel (Paragraph [0189], and contains glycerin, water and other components (Paragraphs [0220], [0221], [0115]). A wrapper surrounding the liquid absorbent material, such as a wax-coated paper (Paragraph [0294]) forming a paper-wrapped and cylindrically shaped cartridge (Paragraph [0145]). The absorbent material is in a cylindrical shape (Paragraph [0283]) and have a length of between 7 and 20 mm (Paragraph [0202]) and a diameter of between 5 and 12 mm (Paragraph [0147]). The absorbent as a rate of absorption in order to absorb enough liquid in the cartridge for between 10 and 150 puffs, and an amount of liquid of 30 to 200 microliters (Paragraphs [0211]-[0212]). The aerosol-forming substrate is vaporized at a temperature in excess of about 200 C (Paragraphs [0182], [0106]). The liquid retention medium is capable of being filled with liquid to 110% capacity (Paragraph [0212]).
THORENS disclose that the liquid retention medium is porous, having open cells, in which the liquid composition is absorbed in (Paragraphs [0063], [0117], [0118]). Thus the aerosol-forming substrate implicitly exists over pores in the absorbent in the cartridge. Moreover, the cartridge is partially filled with the liquid retention medium (Figures 2a-3).
THORENS discloses that the vaporization occurs by heating the smoking article from the external side and the internal side of the smoking article (Paragraphs [0097], [0098], [0155], [0156], [0323]; Figure 5). Thus, the smoking article is heated from the side of the gel receptor around which the wrapping paper is wrapped.
THORENS does not explicitly disclose that the gel contains a gelatin material and exists in a non-fluid form and then changes to a liquid at a temperature of 70 C. MIRONOV et al. discloses a cartridge for an aerosol-generating system (Abstract). The cartridge hold an aerosol-generating material in the form of a gel that is solid at room temperature (Abstract; Paragraph [0032]), and melts at a temperature of at least 50 C (Paragraph [0014]), including about 70C (Paragraphs [0049]-[0051]). The gel includes glycerin and a gelling agent (Paragraphs [0051]-[0056]). When placing the aerosol forming substrate into the cartridge, it is inserted in the form of a liquid then converted to a gel (Paragraphs [0072]-[0074]) so that the inserting of the aerosol forming substrate is facilitated (Paragraph [0074]).
The use of a gel reduces the potential for leakage as compared to using a liquid (Paragraphs [0003]-[0004]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the gel of THORENS in the form of a glycerin and gelling agent mixture that is solid at room temperature and melts at about 70 C, as taught by MIRONOV et al. so as to reduce the likelihood of leaking during times in which the cartridge is not in use. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to load the absorbent will the aerosol forming substrate in the form of a liquid, at the melting temperature, and then gelatin the liquid once inserted so that the loading of the cartridge is facilitated and the interstices of the absorbent are filled.
THORENS does not explicitly disclose that the gelling agent is a gelatin. MISHRA et al. discloses a gel formation for a cartridge of a vaporizer (Abstract). The gelling material may be a gelatin or gellant gum (Abstract; [0007], [0021]), which helps to maintain the gel in a state at ambient temperature that prevents leakage, but allows the gel to form a liquid when heated (Paragraphs [0023], [0057]). Moreover, the mixture is injected directly into the receptor (Paragraph [0092], [0093]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use gelatin as the gelling agent of modified THORENS, as taught by MISHRA et al. so that the gel can remain in a gel state at ambient temperature to prevent leakage.
The courts have generally held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04, III. Thus, filling of the gel receptor with the aerosol-forming substrate automatically (e.g., without user intervention) would be prima facie obvious in order to fill the receptor on a mechanical assembly line.
Examiner notes THORENS discloses that the aerosol-forming substrate may include tobacco (emphasis added) (Paragraphs [0112] and [0116]). Thus, the scope of the aerosol forming substrate includes materials other than tobacco. In other words, the scope of the aerosol forming substrate is such that the substrate is devoid of tobacco.
It is further noted that THORENS discloses that in one embodiment, the substrate may be releasably contained within the frangible capsule (Paragraph [0174]). In an alternative embodiment, the substrate may be incorporated into the liquid retention medium immediately prior to use, by injecting the liquid into the liquid retention medium immediately prior to use (Paragraph [0175]). Thus, the scope of THORENS includes embodiments that are devoid of a frangible capsule. So long as the liquid is injected prior to use, a capsule is not required in the broader disclosure of THORENS. The courts have generally held that "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). MPEP 2123.
Even though the disclosure of THORENS is primarily directed to the substrate being held in a frangible capsule, the mere suggestion of an embodiment not using the frangible capsule is enough to teach a system of THORNS devoid of said capsule. Examiner notes that it is this non-preferred embodiment in THORNES that is relied upon for the rejection of the claims.
With respect to claim 22, THORENS discloses that the aerosol forming substrate comprises water (Paragraph [0240]).
With respect to claim 23, MIRONOV et al. discloses that the glycerin is present in an amount of between 30 and 90 wt% (Paragraphs [0054]-[0055]).
__________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THORENS (US 2018/0007972) in view of MIRONOV et al. (US 2018/0352862) and MISHRA et al. (US 2016/0120225) as applied to claims 21-23 above, and further in view of LIU (US 2016/0157523).
With respect to claim 24, modified THORENS discloses that the composition comprises glycerin, water and other components (See rejection of claim 1). The glycerin is present in an amount of 5 to 30 wt% and the water is present in an amount of 10-25 wt% (THORENS; Paragraphs [0115], [0220]). Glycerin has a specific gravity of 1.26 g/ml and water has a specific gravity of 1 g/ml. At 100 grams glycerin and water liquid mixture, there would be 30 grams glycerin (30 wt% glycerin) and 20 grams water (20 wt% water). Converting to volume for each, the glycerin is present in an amount of 37.8 ml while water is present in an amount of 20 ml, for a total liquid volume of 57.8 ml. The volume percentage of glycerin then is about 65 vol% and the water is about 35 vol%. Thus, the liquid claimed overlaps with that disclosed by THORENS.
MIRONOV et al. discloses that the gelling agent is present in an amount of between 0.5 and 5 wt % of the gel (Paragraphs [0054], [0055]). The combined specific gravity of the liquid is about 1.169. Thus, the weight of the liquid is about 116.9 grams. At 2wt% gelling agent, the amount of gelling agent is 2 grams per 116.9 grams of liquid, or 2 grams of gelling agent per 100 ml of liquid, which falls within the claimed range.
Modified THORENS does not explicitly disclose that the glycerin is VG. LIU discloses that the liquid is vegetable glycerin (VG), which is able to be absorbed by a liquid affinity medium (Paragraph [0004]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use vegetable glycerin as the glycerin of modified THORENS, as taught by LIU so that the is able to be soaked into the absorbent and is organic.
__________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THORENS (US 2018/0007972) in view of MIRONOV et al. (US 2018/0352862) and MISHRA et al. (US 2016/0120225) as applied to claims 21-23 above, and further in view of LIU (US 2016/0157523) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of LEVY et al. (US 2015/0053220).
With respect to claim 25, modified THORENS discloses that the absorbent as a rate of absorption in order to absorb enough liquid in the cartridge for between 10 and 150 puffs, and an amount of liquid of 30 to 200 microliters (Paragraphs [0211]-[0212]).
Modified THORENS does not explicitly disclose that the absorbent is able to hold between 70 and 120 mg of liquid.
LEVY et al. discloses that about 4 mg of liquid is vaporized during a puff (Paragraph [0024]) and systems are in place to results in preservation of liquid (Paragraph [0025]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to preserve the amount of liquid used for each puff in modified THORENS, by only vaporizing 4 mg per puff, as taught by LEVY et al. so that more puffs can be had from the same size cartridge.
At 4 mg of liquid per puff, and 10 to 150 puffs present in the cartridge, the amount of liquid within the absorbent of modified THORENS is between 40 mg and 600 mg.
With respect to claim 26, LIU discloses that the glycerin is VG (Paragraph [0004]). LEVY et al. discloses that about 4 mg of liquid is vaporized during a puff (Paragraph [0024]) and systems are in place to results in preservation of liquid (Paragraph [0025]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to preserve the amount of liquid used for each puff in THORENS, by only vaporizing 4 mg per puff, as taught by LEVY et al. so that more puffs can be had from the same size cartridge.
At 4 mg of liquid per puff, and 10 to 150 puffs present in the cartridge, the amount of liquid within the absorbent of THORENS is between 40 mg and 600 mg.
THORENS discloses that the absorbent holds a weight of liquid of between 40 and 600 mg. The inner and outer diameters of the absorbent are known (See rejection of claim 21). The length of the absorbent is between 7 and 20 mm. The with an inner diameter of 8 mm, an outer diameter of 12 mm and a length of 15 mm. The volume of the absorbent is about 3768 mm3. This gives a density of liquid (present in an amount of between 40 and 600 mg) within the absorbent of between 0.010 – 0.15 mg/ mm3.
________________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THORENS (US 2018/0007972) in view of MIRONOV et al. (US 2018/0352862) and MISHRA et al. (US 2016/0120225) as applied to claims 21-23 above, and further in view of BUCHBERGER et al. (US 2017/0127725).
With respect to claim 28, modified THORENS discloses that the absorbent is cylindrical (THORENS; Paragraph [0283]). Modified THORENS further discloses that the outer diameter of the absorbent is between 5 and 12 mm (THORENS; Paragraph [0147]). Moreover, there may be a capsule within the center of the absorbent that has a diameter of between 2 and 8 mm (THORENS; Paragraph [0211]). Thus, the thickness of the absorbent implicitly includes a range between 2 and 3 mm. Specifically, the minimum size of the inner diameter cannot be smaller than the capsule. Thus, the inner diameter of the absorbent appears to be between 2-8 mm. Thus, if the outer diameter is 10 mm, and the inner diameter of the absorbent is 8 mm, then the thickness of the absorbent is 2 mm.
Modified THORENS does not explicitly disclose that the absorbent is a melamine based foam. BUCHBERGER et al. discloses a vaporizer comprising a matrix for retaining a vaporizable fluid (Abstract). The material for retaining the fluid is a melamine foam and allows for release of the liquid when the capillary structure is in contact with the matrix (Paragraphs [0030]-[0032]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a melamine foam as the absorbent of THORENS, as taught by BUCHBERGER et al. so that the liquid can be held under normal environmental conditions but is released when desired.
_________________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THORENS (US 2018/0007972) in view of MIRONOV et al. (US 2018/0352862) and MISHRA et al. (US 2016/0120225) as applied to claims 21-23 above, and further in view of LIU (US 2014/0182611).
With respect to claim 29, modified THORENS discloses that the absorbent is cylindrical (THORENS; Paragraph [0283]), but does not explicitly disclose that the absorbent is a pulp.
LIU discloses an electronic cigarette (Title; Abstract). The liquid storage comprises a component for absorbing and storing liquid. The component functions as a sponge and is made of pulp (Paragraph [0039]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a pulp as the material of the absorbent so that the liquid can be stored and released as desired.
________________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THORENS (US 2018/0007972) in view of LEVY et al. (US 2015/0053220) as applied to claims 17 and 28 above, and further in view of CHEN (US 2016/0374393).
With respect to claim 30, modified THORENS discloses that the absorbent is cylindrical (THORENS; Paragraph [0283]). Modified THORENS does not explicitly disclose that the absorbent comprises a cotton fabric.
CHEN discloses an electronic cigarette atomizer (Abstract; Title). The liquid absorbent material comprises a fabric, such as cotton (Paragraph [0017]) which allows the liquid to be drawn towards the heater (Paragraph [0018]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a cotton fabric as the absorbent of modified THORENS, as taught by CHEN so that the liquid can be stored and readily transported when needed.
_________________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THORENS (US 2018/0007972) in view of MIRONOV et al. (US 2018/0352862) and MISHRA et al. (US 2016/0120225) as applied to claims 21-23 above, and further in view of HON (US 2017/0042242).
With respect to claim 31, modified THORENS discloses that the absorbent is cylindrical (THORENS; Paragraph [0283]), but does not explicitly disclose that the material is bamboo fiber fabric. HON discloses an electronic cigarette, wherein the material that holds and moves liquid comprises fabric and non-woven fabric materials, such as bamboo yarn (Paragraph [0058]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a bamboo yarn fabric as the absorbent of modified THORENS so that the liquid can be readily held and transported as desired.
_______________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THORENS (US 2018/0007972) in view of MIRONOV et al. (US 2018/0352862) and MISHRA et al. (US 2016/0120225) as applied to claims 21-23 above, and further in view of CONNER et al. (US 2012/0067360).
With respect to claim 32, modified THORENS disclose that the wrapping paper comprises an aluminum laminate paper (THORENS; Paragraph [0171]), but does not explicitly disclose that this aluminum is a foil in contact with the absorbent. CONNER et al. discloses a smoking article (Abstract) with an outer wrapping material, that comprises a heat conducting material, such as a foil (Paragraph [0068]) that is laminated to the wrapping paper (Paragraph [0072]) on an interior surface thereof so as to contact the interior contents thereof and transfer heat to these components. The foil is aluminum (Paragraphs [0072]-[0074]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the aluminum of modified THORENS as a foil laminated to the inside of the wrapper, as taught by CONNER et al. so that when in contact with the absorbent, heat can be transferred from the heating source and to the absorbent.
____________________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 33-36, 38, 40 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THORENS (US 2018/0007972) in view of MIRONOV et al. (US 2018/0352862), MISHRA et al. (US 2016/0120225) and MITREV et al. (US 2015/0136154)
With respect to claims 33 and 41, THORENS discloses an electrically heated smoking article (Figure 3; Paragraphs [0308]-[0311]) comprising a filter (Paragraph [0283], [0293]). A gel cartridge, (See rejection of claim 21, incorporated herein in its entirety), 210a, located upstream of the filter, 230a, a porous body located upstream of the liquid cartridge, 210a and the filter, liquid cartridge, and porous substrate are wrapped in a wrapping paper (Fig. 4; Paragraphs [0312]-[0314]) to form a smoking article.
THORENS discloses a disposable or reusable aerosol generating system (Abstract; Paragraph [0055])
THORENS does not explicitly disclose that the porous substrate includes shredded tobacco. MITREV et al. discloses an aerosol generating article (Abstract; Title). The article comprises an end piece substrate, 20, into which the heating blade penetrates, 120, (Paragraphs [0063], [0074], [0116]). The substrate is formed of shredded tobacco (Paragraph [0063]) and is penetrated by the heating element without substantial deformation of the smoking article (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use shredded tobacco in the end substrate of THORENS, as taught by MITREV et al. so that the blade can penetrate of the end substrate without deformation thereof.
With respect to claim 34, THORENS disclose a paper wrapper, (e.g., tube; Paragraphs [0130], [0131]) directly upstream of the filter (Figure 4; Paragraph [0291]).
With respect to claim 35, the rejection of claims 33 and 21 are incorporated herein in their entirety.
THORENS discloses that the device is grippable and portable-sized (Paragraphs [0052], [0160], [0226]), and comprising a cavity in which the smoking article is configured to be inserted (Figures 3 and 5-7; Paragraphs [0277], [0278]). The device further comprises a resistance heater (Paragraph [0308]) configured to heat implicitly either an interior and/or exterior (Paragraphs [0034], [0035], [0097], [0098], [0323], [0324] of the liquid cartridge and filler (Figures 3 and 5-7)
THORENS further disclose that the device further comprises a battery, 350, configured to function as a direct current power source (Paragraphs [0052], [0163], [0228], [0308], [0310]; Figure 3). While THORENS does not explicitly disclose that the battery is rechargeable, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a rechargeable battery so that the user does not have to replace a battery every time it dies, and can then save money by simply recharging the battery through a wall outlet.
THORENS further discloses that the device comprises a control unit, 340, (Paragraph [0308]-[0310]) capable of controlling the heater by receiving the current and directing it to the heater.
THORENS discloses that the vaporization occurs by heating the smoking article from the external side and the internal side of the smoking article (Paragraphs [0097], [0098], [0155], [0156], [0323]; Figure 5).
With respect to claim 36, THORENS discloses that the heater is an invasive heater and is inserted internally into the end substrate (e.g., tobacco filler according to MITREV et al.), 110 (Paragraphs [0074], [0097], [0098], [0155], [0156]).
With respect to claim 38, it is noted that claim 35 doesn’t explicitly require that the induction heater is selected from “at least one of a resistance heater or an induction heater” identified in claim 32. Regardless, THORENS discloses that the heat blade is made of a susceptor material that is inserted into the end substrate (e.g., tobacco filler according to MITREV et al. ) of the smoking article (Paragraphs [0100]-[0109]; Figures 3 and 5-6).
With respect to claim 40, the rejection of claims 33 and 21 are incorporated herein in their entirety.
THORENS discloses that the vaporization occurs by heating the smoking article from the external side and the internal side of the smoking article (Paragraphs [0097], [0098], [0155], [0156], [0323]; Figure 5).
THORENS discloses that the device is provided and comprises (Paragraphs [0052], [0160], [0226]), and comprising a cavity in which the smoking article is configured to be inserted (Figures 3 and 5-7; Paragraphs [0277], [0278]). The device further comprises a resistance heater (Paragraph [0308]) configured to heat implicitly either an interior and/or exterior (Paragraphs [0034], [0035], [0097], [0098], [0323], [0324] of the liquid cartridge and filler (Figures 3 and 5-7)
THORENS further disclose that the device further comprises a battery, 350, configured to function as a direct current power source (Paragraphs [0052], [0163], [0228], [0308], [0310]; Figure 3). While THORENS does not explicitly disclose that the battery is rechargeable, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a rechargeable battery so that the user does not have to replace a battery every time it dies, and can then save money by simply recharging the battery through a wall outlet.
THORENS further discloses that the device comprises a control unit, 340, (Paragraph [0308]-[0310]) capable of controlling the heater by receiving the current and directing it to the heater.
THORENS discloses that the aerosol is generated inside the smoking article by inserting the smoking article into the cavity and electrically heating the cartridge and filler (Paragraphs [0181]-[0188], [0310]).
_______________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 37 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THORENS (US 2018/0007972) in view of MIRONOV et al. (US 2018/0352862), MISHRA et al. (US 2016/0120225) and MITREV et al. (US 2015/0136154) as applied to claims 33-36, 38, 40 and 41 above, and further in view of BRENNEISE (US 2011/0120482).
With respect to claim 37, modified THORENS does not explicitly disclose the claimed sensor. BRENNEISE discloses a portable hand-held vaping device (Abstract; Title). The control circuit is coupled to a control module within the device that comprises a temperature sensor. The sensor monitors the temperature of the output air and regulates the power to the heating element by throttling the current to the heating element. This prevents the heating element from getting to hot and combusting the source material (Paragraph [0041]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a temperature sensor coupled to the controller of modified THORENS, as taught by BRENNEISE so that the temperature can be sensed and based on the temperature the current to the heater can be throttled thereby preventing combustion of the source material.
With respect to claim 39, modified THORENS does not explicitly disclose the claimed temperature obtaining unit. BRENNEISE discloses a portable hand-held vaping device (Abstract; Title). The control circuit is coupled to a control module within the device that comprises a temperature sensor. The sensor monitors the temperature of the output air and regulates the power to the heating element by throttling the current to the heating element. This prevents the heating element from getting to hot and combusting the source material (Paragraph [0041]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a temperature sensor coupled to the controller of modified THORENS, as taught by BRENNEISE so that the temperature can be sensed and based on the temperature the current to the heater can be throttled thereby preventing combustion of the source material. Moreover, this current throttling would implicitly be applied to the coil, given that it controls the temperature created by the susceptor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX B EFTA whose telephone number is (313)446-6548. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745