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 1, 5, 8-14 and 16-24 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, pages 6-9, dated 02/25/2026 with respect to claims 1, 5, 8-14 and 16-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, page 7-8, Bardelli is not relevant to the claimed subject matter and is non-analogous art to the presently claimed invention. Applicant notes that Bardelli relates to an apparatus for cutting and storing a traditional cigarette while the claimed invention is directed to aerosol provision devices and argues Bardelli provides no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion that would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to adapt a sealing member on a consumable article itself.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Blandino describes that the end member and the closure can be puncturable, openable, or removable [0078] and can be integral with the body [0056]. However, Blandino does not elaborate on how a openable portion could be created, and specifically does not disclose how an integral openable portion would be created. Since the consumable is used to store the aerosol generating material while not in the device for use/consumption and is opened for use, a person of ordinary skill would look to prior art that discusses storage containers in the art to determine the means by which to design an integrated, openable portion for a storage container holding an aerosol generating material.
Applicant argues, page 8-9, Bardelli teaches a snap-on hinge that is comprised of two lid hooks and not a living hinge.
As discussed above, Blandino describes an article that has an openable end member that can be integral to the body. This teaching of an integral, openable end member is considered to read on the living hinge limitation. Bardelli is used to modify Blandino to expressly teach that the end member/ openable portion of the article would be between a first position that covers the opening and a second position that exposes the opening.
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 1, 5, 8, 10-13, 18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worm, et al (US20130037041A1) and further in view of Blandino, et al (US20170055584A1) and Bardelli, et al (US20140202473A1),
Regarding claim 1, Worm teaches a smoking article that is comprised of a control housing and a cartridge.
The cartridge is comprised of a body that is designed to engage the control housing. [0055] The cartridge body can be tubular in shape and made from paper. [0056] The cartridge is tubular in shape [0007] and has an interior space that includes an inhalable substance medium (substrate) that is a solid substrate. [0057] Worm discloses the inhalable substrate material is layered on the inner surface of the cartridge in such a manner that the substrate is near the heating element when inserted into the housing. ([0051], Figure 4)
Worm is silent with respect to the cartridge having a sealing element.
Blandino, directed to the design of aerosol generating articles, teaches an article designed to be inserted into a heating device has an end closure and an end member that at to seal the cavity from the exterior. Blandino teaches that the end member and the closure can be puncturable, openable, or removable [0078] and can be integral with the body. [0056]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Worm by adding a sealing element as taught by Blandino because both Worm and Blandino are directed to aerosol generating articles Blandino teaches the seals can be in a position to close the article form the external air and be opened where air can pass through the cavity containing the heated smokable material [0060] and is used to maintain freshness [0078], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way. As such a modified Worm would have a sealing element that would be constructed out of the same material as the body of the article as the sealing element is taught to be an integral portion of the article body.
However, Worm and Blandino are silent to the positions of the sealing members or the specifics of the opening and closing.
Bardelli, directed to the design of smoking articles, teaches the lid is pivotal between a first position that covers the opening in the first end and a second position that exposes the opening in the first end. [0010]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Worm and Blandino by using a hinged lid to cover the cavity that holds the aerosol generating material as taught by Bardelli because Worm, Blandino, and Bardelli are directed to devices for use with aerosol generating articles, Bardelli teaches this connects the lid to the cavity body [0118] and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 5, Worm teaches that the device allows air to flow into the annular space between the aerosol generating material and the cartridge body.
Worm is silent with respect to the sealing element.
As discussed in claim 1, Blandino teaches that the body has an inlet that allows air to flow through the cavity located in the body to the outlet end of the body when both the end member and the end closure are removed. [0078] When these to sealing members are removed air can flow through the aerosol generating article reading on the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Blandino discloses that the end member can have a plug that is disposed to engage the body by friction fit. ([0056], Fig 2)
Regarding claim 10, as discussed above Blandino teaches that the end member (lid) comprises a plug (fastener) that can be used to seal the first open end of the tubular body by an adhesive or friction. [0056]
Regarding claim 11, Worm does not teach the article has a cover and Blandino teaches does not teach the plug (fastener) contains a thread.
Bardelli teaches that a lid can contain a rib portion on the top cap to allot the cap to use friction to be retained in the opening. [0123] The rib of Bardelli is considered to read on the thread of the instant claim.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Blandino by using a rib or thread on the plug to secure the sealing member to the cavity as taught by Bardelli because both Blandino and Bardelli are directed to devices for use with aerosol generating articles, Bardelli teaches this connects the lid to the cavity body using friction [0123] and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 12, as discussed above Blandino teaches that the end member comprises a plug that can be held in the first open end to the tubular body by friction. [0056] The outer surface of the plug (first engagement surface) portion of the end member would need to engage through physically contacting the inside edge of the body (second engagement surface) in order to seal the first open end by friction as taught by Blandino. This teaching is considered to read on the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 13, Blandino teaches that an adhesive can be used to hold the end member (sealing element) to the tubular body [0056] in a closed (first) position.
Regarding claim 18, Worm teaches that the article is a cartridge that is designed to be inserted into a control housing. The housing heats the aerosol generating material in the cartridge providing the user “puffs.” [0016]
Regarding claim 21, a modified Blandino teaches the user can remove the first and second seals prior to use of the apparatus to allow air to flow through the article. [0102] As discussed above the closed position where the seals block air flow is considered to read on the first position and the removal of the seals so that air can flow through the article is considered to read on the second position.
Regarding claim 22, as discussed in prior claims Blandino discloses the use of a sealing element at the first ends of an aerosol generating article. (see annotated figure 1 above)
Regarding claim 23, Worm teaches that the heating member part of the control housing that the cartridge/article is inserted into and not a component of the cartridge. [0012-0016]
Claim 9 Are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worm, et al (US20130037041A1), Blandino, et al (US20170055584A1), and Bardelli, et al (US20140202473A1), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Tracy, et al (US20120000476A1).
Regarding claim 9, Worm, Blandino, and Bardelli do not teach that the sealing element could be a lid that is dimensioned to surround at least a portion of the body when closed. Bardelli does teach that a ridge portion can be used to hold the lid to the device but does not teach that the sealing element would use a threaded connection.
Tracy, directed to devices for aerosol generating article storage, teaches a cigarette snuffer that comprises a top portion and a bottom portion that are connected to form a cylindrical housing. Tracy teaches that these tow portions can be joined by a lip (ridge) similar to that taught by Bardelli. The top and bottom portions contain threads to for the connection point. [0010] It would be an obvious design choice to have the lid cover the threaded portion of the bottom portion.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Worm, Blandino, and Bardelli by using a threaded lid as taught by Tracy because Worm, Blandino, Bardelli, and Tracy are directed to containers for aerosol generating articles, Tracy teaches the threaded connection between the two portions would be air tight and useful for storage [0011], and this involves the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worm, et al (US20130037041A1), Blandino, et al (US20170055584A1), and Bardelli, et al (US20140202473A1), as applied to claim 13, and in further view of Davidson, et al (US20190001087A1).
Regarding claim 19, Blandino teaches the use of an adhesive but is silent with respect to the adhesive being a pressure-sensitive adhesive or a structural adhesive.
Davidson, directed to vaporizing devices with cartridges, teaches that the opening of the sealing element can be re-sealed using mechanical force, a stamp or roller, to seal the layer that is opened during use. [0159] Davison teaches that the sealant can be a flexible silicone sealant [0156] which is a pressure sensitive sealant as Davidson teaches that the sealing of this used a stamp or roller. Thus the flexible silicone sealant is consider to read on the pressure sensitive adhesive.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Worm, Blandino, and Bardelli by using a pressure sensitive adhesive as taught by Davidson because Worm, Blandino, Bardelli, and Davidson are directed to aerosol generating articles, this type of material allows for the source material to be opened and resealed in a serial manner [0012], and this involves the use of known adhesive sealing material to improve similar product in the same way.
Regarding claim 20, Blandino teaches the use of an adhesive but is silent with respect to where the adhesive is located when the lid is in the open position.
Davidson teaches that the sealant is attached to the lid/leaflet [0012] that can open, close, and be re-sealed. [0159] A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the sealant remaining with the lid/leaflet when the source material is open would require that the adhesive force (first adhesive force) between the sealant and the lid/leaflet would be greater than the adhesive force (second adhesive force) that exists between the sealant and the body covering the source material or the sealant would be transferred to the body portion when the lid/leaflet was opened.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Worm, Blandino, and Bardelli by using a pressure sensitive adhesive that is attached to the lid as taught by Davidson because Worm, Blandino, Bardelli, and Davidson are directed to aerosol generating articles, this is one of many advantageous sealant configurations depending on the materials for the sealing member [0012], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claims 14, 17, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worm, et al (US20130037041A1) and in further view of Blandino, et al (US20170055584A1), and Bardelli, et al (US20140202473A1) and Davidson, et al (US20190001087A1).
Regarding claim 14, Worm teaches a smoking article that is comprised of a control housing and a cartridge.
The cartridge is comprised of a body that is designed to engage the control housing. [0055] The cartridge body can be tubular in shape and made from paper. [0056] The cartridge has an is tubular in shape [0007] and has an interior space that includes an inhalable substance medium (substrate) that is a solid substrate. [0057] Worm discloses the inhalable substrate material is layered on the inner surface of the cartridge in such a manner that the substrate is near the heating element when inserted into the housing. ([0051], Figure 4)
Worm is silent with respect to the cartridge having a sealing element.
Blandino, directed to the design of aerosol generating articles, teaches an article designed to be inserted into a heating device has an end closure and an end member that at to seal the cavity from the exterior. Blandino teaches that the end member and the closure can be puncturable, openable, or removable [0078] and can be integral with the body and can be held in place using adhesive. [0056]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Worm by adding a sealing element as taught by Blandino because both Worm and Blandino are directed to aerosol generating articles Blandino teaches the seals can be in a position to close the article form the external air and be opened where air can pass through the cavity containing the heated smokable material [0060] and is used to maintain freshness [0078], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way. As such a modified Worm would have a sealing element that would be constructed out of the same material as the body of the article as the sealing element is taught to be an integral portion of the article body.
However, Worm and Blandino are silent to the positions of the sealing members or the specifics of the opening and closing.
Bardelli, directed to the design of smoking articles, teaches the lid is pivotal between a first position that covers the opening in the first end and a second position that exposes the opening in the first end. [0010]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Blandino by using a hinged lid to cover the cavity that holds the aerosol generating material as taught by Bardelli because both Blandino and Bardelli are directed to devices for use with aerosol generating articles, Bardelli teaches this connects the lid to the cavity body [0118] and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Worm, as modified by Blandino teaches the use of an adhesive in conjunction with the sealing element. However, the prior art is silent with respect to the type of adhesive that could be used.
Davidson teaches that the sealant is attached to the lid/leaflet [0012] that can open, close, and be re-sealed. [0159] A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the sealant remaining with the lid/leaflet when the source material is open would require that the adhesive force (first adhesive force) between the sealant and the lid/leaflet would be greater than the adhesive force (second adhesive force) that exists between the sealant and the body covering the source material or the sealant would be transferred to the body portion when the lid/leaflet was opened.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Worm, Blandino, and Bardelli by using a pressure sensitive adhesive that is attached to the lid as taught by Davidson because Worm, Blandino, Bardelli, and Davidson are directed to aerosol generating articles, this is one of many advantageous sealant configurations depending on the materials for the sealing member [0012], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 17, Blandino teaches the use of an adhesive but is silent with respect to where the adhesive is located when the lid is in the open position.
Davidson teaches that the sealant is attached to the lid/leaflet [0012] that can open, close, and be re-sealed. [0159] A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the sealant remaining with the lid/leaflet when the source material is open would require that the adhesive force (first adhesive force) between the sealant and the lid/leaflet would be greater than the adhesive force (second adhesive force) that exists between the sealant and the body covering the source material or the sealant would be transferred to the body portion when the lid/leaflet was opened.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Worm, Blandino, and Bardelli by using a pressure sensitive adhesive that is attached to the lid as taught by Davidson because Worm, Blandino, Bardelli, and Davidson are directed to aerosol generating articles, this is one of many advantageous sealant configurations depending on the materials for the sealing member [0012], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 24, Worm teaches that the heating member part of the control housing that the cartridge/article is inserted into and not a component of the cartridge. [0012-0016]
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worm, et al (US20130037041A1), Blandino, et al (US20170055584A1), Bardelli, et al (US20140202473A1) as applied to claim 14, and in further view of Litten, et al (US20170347711A1)
Regarding claim 16, Worm, Blandino, Bardelli, do not teach that the adhesive is a structural adhesive.
Litten, directed to the design of aerosol generating cartridges, teaches the use of adhesives to attach a smokable material to a heating element. Litten teaches that the adhesive can comprise a polysaccharide as an adhesion promoter. [0092] Litten teaches that the polysaccharide is used to bond a smokable material to the heating element [0149] and that the polysaccharide material can be disposed directly onto the electrically conductive material.[0150] The polysaccharide adhesive taught by Litten is considered to be analogous to the structural adhesive of the instant claim.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Worm, Blandino, and Bardelli by using a polysaccharide adhesive material for adhering the cover/leaflet to the heating element and source material as taught by Litten because Worm, Blandino, Bardelli, and Litten are directed to aerosol generating articles, Litten teaches polysaccharides have properties that aid in bonding smokable material to heating elements and are also desirable as they are food grade material making them safer than other materials [0149], and this involves the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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