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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12-18-2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the Applicants’ arguments/remarks filed 12-18-2025
Claims 1-2, 6-10, 13, 16-17, and 20-21 are presently examined.
Claims 1 is amended.
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 1-2 and 6-10, 17, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogi (EP2893820A1), Jordil (TW201731397A1), English machine translation relied upon, and Grandjean (WO2018185014A1), and Ozden (Cellulose Chem. Technol., 43 (1-3), 51-55 (2009)).
Regarding Claim 1, Ogi teaches an article (FIG 4, part 27) for use in a non-combustible aerosol provision system, the article comprising:
an aerosol generating material (cut tobacco) comprising at least one aerosol forming material (cut tobacco); and
a mouthpiece (filter 22) connected to the aerosol generating material (see FIG 4, mouthpiece, the mouthpiece comprising an upstream end adjacent to the aerosol generating material (see FIG 4, upstream end is adjacent to the aerosol generating material) and
a downstream end distal from the aerosol generating material (see FIG 4, downstream end of mouthpiece is distal to the aerosol generating material),
the mouthpiece comprises a hollow tubular element (hollow filter 11, see FIG 4 and page 9 line 9) formed from filamentary tow (Ogi discloses cellulose acetate fibers are used in the hollow filter 11, [0048], FIG 3, cellulose acetate fibers are filamentary tow) at the downstream end of the mouthpiece (see FIG 4, part 11 is at the downstream end).
Ogi teaches the hollow tubular element comprises a first hollow tubular element and teaches a second filter upstream of the first hollow tubular element (see FIG 4, part 31)
However, Ogi fails to explicitly disclose that the mouthpiece comprises a second hollow tubular element upstream of the first hollow tubular element, however it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the hollow tubular element to include a first and a second hollow tubular element, with a reasonable expectation of success. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI B.
Additionally, Grandjean teaches two hollow tubular elements and teaches that the mouthpiece comprises a second hollow tubular element upstream of the first hollow tubular element of the mouthpiece, see Grandjean annotated FIG 2 below, the tube runs all the way toward the mouthpiece upstream of the mouthpiece.
PNG
media_image1.png
668
985
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Grandjean teaches the internal diameter of the second hollow tubular element is larger than the internal diameter of the first hollow tubular element (See annotated FIG 2, see also page 3 lines 26-31, the first hollow tubular element diameter is therefore smaller than the second tubular element); and wherein
Grandjean also teaches the second hollow tubular element allows cooling of aerosol which passes through the second hollow tubular element (the tubular elements are cooler than the heated aerosol and would inherently allow cooling of the aerosol through simple thermal diffusion), such that a temperature of the aerosol which exits the second hollow tubular element is lower than a temperature of the aerosol which enters the second hollow tubular element (an ordinary artisan would appreciate thermodynamics, this cooling would be inherent to thermodynamics as the gas would get cooler as thermal energy diffuses and conducts through cooler parts, all parts would inherently be cooler than the heating section.
Grandjean also teaches the first hollow tubular element section is easily deformable so that a flavor/scent unit can be inserted and is easily retained in the larger second hollow tubular element, and that this provides the benefit of preventing the insert unit from exiting the mouthpiece, see page 3 lines 25-36, and FIG 2 part 50) which allows a consumer to conveniently customize their smoking experience by selecting whether or not to introduce one of more insert units into the mouthpiece of the smoking article (page 4 lines 15-21)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the smoking device of Ogi with the teachings of Grandjean for the benefit of additional cooling and choice regarding customization of the smoking experience as taught by Grandjean and because one of ordinary skill in the art understands that an additional cooling structure upstream of the mouthpiece would not lead to new and unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Ogi teaches an internal diameter of greater than 3.0 mm and an internal diameter of greater than 3.0mm, (the diameter of the core 11a for the hollow filter may be 2.4mm to 4.7mm (see e.g., line 1 page 5), In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).)
Ogi fails to explicitly disclose the hollow tubular element comprises a density between 0.25g/cc and 0.75g/cc.
However, Jordil teaches a similar smoking article with a hollow tubular section in the filter and teaches suitable densities for such filters and teaches the filter has a density of at least 0.6g/cc (see Jordil, claim 4) which overlaps with the claimed range the hollow tubular element comprises a density between 0.25g/cc and 0.75g/cc. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Jordil also teaches the tubular section provides an unrestricted flow passage extending from the downstream end of the filter to the mouth end of the filter. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the aerosol provisioning system of modified Ogi with the smoking article of Jordil to provide an unrestricted flow passage extending from the downstream end of the filter to the mouth end of the filter.
Ogi fails to explicitly disclose the hollow tubular element comprises a minimum wall thickness of greater than 0.9 mm,
However, Jordil teaches the hollow tubular element comprises a minimum wall thickness of greater than 0.9 mm.
Specifically, Jordil teaches the wall thickness is no more than about 0.9mm (emphasis added, see page 4, 1st new paragraph. It would be understood by an ordinary artisan before the filing date of the claimed invention, that about 0.9mm includes +/- 5-10% of 0.9mm and would therefore include a top end wall thickness of 0.95mm which overlaps with the claimed range the hollow tubular element comprises a minimum wall thickness of greater than 0.9 mm. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). e.g., Jordil teaches about 0.9 mm is understood to reasonably include just above and just below 0.9 mm (e.g., + or minus 10%) therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to interpret about 0.9 mm and to further modify 0.9 mm to include 0.99 mm (0.9mm + 10%) which falls in the range of greater than 0.9 mm.
Ogi discloses the hollow tubular element can have a suitable length of 84 mm [0054] but fails to teach the mouthpiece comprises a cavity having an internal volume greater than 450 mm3.
However, Grandjean teaches the second hollow tubular element has a diameter of about 6.9 mm. (see page 10 lines 4-5), although Grandjean alone fails to explicitly disclose the internal volume of the second hollow tubular element is greater than 450mm3. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the diameter of the hollow tube of Ogi with the suitable diameter recommended by Grandjean of about 6.9 mm, which in combination with the length of 84 mm taught by Ogi teaches in an internal volume of 579.6 mm3, which falls within the claimed range of having an internal volume of greater than 450 mm3.
Ogi teaches tipping paper is used to attach the filter to the cigarette [0014], see also FIG 4, a person of ordinary skill would appreciate the mouthpiece portion comprises tipping paper. Ogi also teaches a plug wrap or forming paper 32, see also FIG 4 and [0018], therefore Ogi also teaches the mouthpiece comprises a plug wrap.
Ogi fails to explicitly disclose ventilation is provided into the second hollow tubular element via one or more perforations extending through the tipping paper and the plug wrap.
Ozden teaches known suitable designs for cigarettes and teaches the filter should be wrapped with a porous plug wrap and tipping paper and also teaches perforations should in the mouthpiece portion of the cigarette and teaches the mouthpiece is perforated to reduce the smoke and tar content of the smoke. (see page 52 column 1 paragraph 3 (see also Ozden FIG 1), the high porosity pores of the plug wrap are interpreted to be perforations, additionally it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the perforation ventilation holes in the tipping paper of Ozden to additionally extend through the plug wrap as taught by Ozden in paragraph 3 which teaches the mouthpiece (which includes tipping paper and plug wrap) is perforated to reduce the amount of smoke and the tar content of the smoke)
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the smoking article of Ogi with the perforated mouthpiece teachings of Ozden so that the mouthpiece is perforation to reduce the amount of smoke and tar content of the smoke.
Although Ogi fails to explicitly disclose there is a temperature differential of at least 40° C between the aerosol entering the second hollow tubular element and the aerosol exiting the second hollow tubular element modified Ogi teaches the same second hollow tubular element as claimed above with an internal volume of 579.6 mm3, which falls within the claimed range of having an internal volume of greater than 450 mm3. Therefore, it would be obvious that the same structure would also have a result dependent temperature differential of at least 40° C between the aerosol entering the second hollow tubular element and the aerosol exiting the second hollow tubular element (which temperature drop is a known principle of thermodynamic of expansion of gasses (Ideal Gas Law, 1st Law of thermodynamics), e.g., a greater than 450mm3 expansion chamber would inherently experience the same or greater cooling as claimed).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Ogi teaches the limitations of the claims as set forth above. Ogi inherently discloses the aerosol generating material (tobacco) comprises aerosol forming material (i.e., cut tobacco [0041]). As Ogi discloses the aerosol forming material is cut tobacco the aerosol forming material inherently comprises at least 5% by weight of the aerosol generating material (tobacco is at least 5% tobacco). (See alternate below)
Regarding Claim 6, modified Ogi teaches the limitations of the claims as set forth above. Ogi fails to explicitly disclose the first hollow tubular element comprises a density between 0.35g/cc and 0.65g/cc.
However, Jordil teaches a similar smoking article with a hollow tubular section in the filter that has a density of at least 0.6g/cc (see Jordil, claim 4) which overlaps with the claimed range. It would have been obvious to select a density of e.g., 0.6g/cc to 0.65g/cc.
In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I). Jordil also teaches the tubular section provides an unrestricted flow passage extending from the downstream end of the filter to the mouth end of the filter. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the aerosol provisioning system of Ogi with the smoking article of Jordil to provide an unrestricted flow passage extending from the downstream end of the filter to the mouth end of the filter.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Ogi teaches the limitations of the claims as set forth above. Furthermore, Ogi teaches the filamentary tow has a total fineness of 23000 to 70000 denier [0013] in the filter core and the filter core sheath has a total fineness of 10000 to 47000 denier [0013]. The range taught by Ogi overlap with the claimed range.
In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a denier of less than 45000 denier from the ranges taught by Ogi. More specifically it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the range 23000 to 45,000 denier from Ogi, which overlaps with the claimed range. Therefore, Ogi teaches the total fineness comprises a total denier of less than 45,000.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Ogi teaches the limitations of the claims as set forth above. Furthermore, Ogi teaches the filamentary tow comprises a denier per filament of greater than 3. Specifically, Ogi teaches the single fiber fineness is 4 denier [0048], which lies inside the claimed range of greater than 3, which anticipates the claim limitation.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Ogi teaches the limitations of the claims as set forth above. Furthermore, Ogi teaches the hollow tubular element comprises
an internal diameter of greater than 3.5mm, (Ogi teaches the diameter of the core 11a for the hollow filter may be 2.4mm to 4.7mm (see e.g., line 1 page 5, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a diameter of greater than 3.5mm from the range taught by Ogi of 2.4mm to 4.7mm, e.g., 3.5mm to 4.7mm), In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).)
Regarding Claim 10, modified Ogi teaches the limitations of the claims as set forth above. Furthermore, Ogi teaches the hollow tubular element comprises 15% to 22% by weight of plasticizer. Specifically, Ogi teaches “15 to 35%” plasticizer (page 5 line 6).
Thus, Ogi teaches the shared endpoint of the claimed range of 15% with a similar range which overlaps with the range taught by Ogi. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a range taught by Ogi within 15-35% such as 15-22% as claimed. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claims 17, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogi (EP2893820A1), Jordil (TW201731397A1), English machine translation relied upon, and Grandjean (WO2018185014A1), and Ozden (Cellulose Chem. Technol., 43 (1-3), 51-55 (2009)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhuang (US20080163877A1).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Ogi teaches the limitations of the claims as set forth above. However, Ogi teaches the mouthpiece comprises a body of material upstream of the hollow tubular element, but fails to explicitly disclose the body of material comprises an aerosol modifying agent.
Zhuang teaches the mouthpiece comprises a body of material upstream of the mouthpiece (see Zhuang Annotated FIG 2 below ) that comprises an aerosol modifying agent (e.g., flavorant, see [0015]). Specifically, the aerosol modifying agent is the flavorant contained within the capsule in the body of material which is upstream from the mouthpiece, see Zhuang Annotated FIG 2 below and [0015] and [0026], see also claim 1,
PNG
media_image2.png
422
745
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Zheng also teaches that the concentration of flavorant within each capsule can be adjusted or modified to provide the desired amount of flavorant.
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aerosol generating material of Ogi with the smoking article of Zhuang so that the concentration of flavorant within each capsule can be adjusted or modified to provide the desired amount of flavorant.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Ogi teaches the limitations of the claims as set forth above. However, Ogi fails to explicitly disclose the aerosol modifying agent is encapsulated within a capsule and wherein the body of material is in the form of a cylinder having a longitudinal axis, the article comprising a capsule embedded within the body of material such that the capsule is surrounded on all sides by the material forming the body, the capsule having a shell encapsulating the aerosol modifying agent, and wherein the largest cross sectional area of the capsule measured perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis is less than 28% of the cross sectional area of the body of material measured perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis.
Zhuang teaches the aerosol modifying agent is encapsulated within a capsule [0015] and wherein the body of material is in the form of a cylinder having a longitudinal axis (see Zhuang Annotated FIG 2 above),
the article comprising a capsule embedded within the body of material such that the capsule is surrounded on all sides by the material forming the body (see Zhuang Annotated FIG 2, the capsule is surrounded on all sides by the material and area forming the body).
the capsule having a shell (outer shell 80) encapsulating the aerosol modifying agent (see FIG 4 and [0026], flavorant 72), and wherein the largest cross-sectional area of the capsule measured perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis is less than 28% of the cross-sectional area of the body of material measured perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis.
The capsules from FIG 2 have a minimum diameter of 2 mm [0019]. The rod and by extension the body of material has a minimum diameter of 7mm [0019].
Thus, the largest cross sectional area of the capsule measured perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of this embodiment of Zhuang is 8.2% of the cross sectional area of the body of material measured perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis, which falls inside the claimed range of the largest cross sectional area of the capsule measured perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis is less than 28% of the cross sectional area of the body of material measured perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis; and thus anticipates the claim limitation.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Ogi teaches the limitations of the claims as set forth above. However, Ogi teaches cut tobacco but fails to explicitly disclose the aerosol modifying agent comprises a flavorant.
However, Zhuang teaches the aerosol modifying agent comprises a flavorant (see [0026], the liquid in the capsule is the aerosol modifying agent and it contains a flavorant.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogi (EP2893820A1), Jordil (TW201731397A1), English machine translation relied upon, and Grandjean (WO2018185014A1), and Ozden (Cellulose Chem. Technol., 43 (1-3), 51-55 (2009)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thorens (US20180007974A1).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Ogi teaches the limitations of the claims as set forth above. Ogi inherently discloses the aerosol generating material comprises aerosol forming material (i.e., Ogi teaches tobacco and tobacco inherently contains nicotine) but fails to explicitly disclose the aerosol forming material comprises at least 5% by weight of the aerosol generating material.
However, Thorens teaches the aerosol generating agent material comprises 20% aerosol forming material [0117], which lies inside the range claimed, which anticipates the claim limitation. Thorens teaches a similar smoking article that includes a tobacco component, with an aerosol generating material that includes an aerosol forming material. Thorens also teaches the device is more hygienic because the disclosed e-cig is disposed after one or two uses [0188].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the aerosol provisioning system of Ogi with the e-cigarette of Thorens to have a more hygienic device that can be disposed after one or two uses.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogi (EP2893820A1), Jordil (TW201731397A1), English machine translation relied upon, and Grandjean (WO2018185014A1), and Ozden (Cellulose Chem. Technol., 43 (1-3), 51-55 (2009)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2018505687A1 (hereafter ‘687, primary inventor not listed), English machine translation relied upon.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Ogi teaches the limitations of the claims as set forth above. However, Ogi fails to explicitly disclose an outer circumference of between 19mm and about 23mm, and is silent to suitable outer circumferences.
‘687 teaches the smoking device can have an outer circumference of about 19-22mm (page 3 paragraph 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hollow tube of Ogi, to have an outer circumference of 19mm-22mm as taught by ‘687, because both Ogi and ‘687 are directed to smoking articles, Ogi is silent in regards to suitable outer circumferences suitable for use in smoking articles and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable outer circumferences for a similar smoking device. ‘687 teaches known outer circumferences for a similar smoking device, and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogi (EP2893820A1), Jordil (TW201731397A1), English machine translation relied upon, and Grandjean (WO2018185014A1), and Ozden (Cellulose Chem. Technol., 43 (1-3), 51-55 (2009)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brooks (DK159042B), English machine translation relied upon.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Ogi teaches the limitations of the claims as set forth above. However, Ogi fails to explicitly disclose the mouthpiece comprises a ventilation level of between 50% and 80% of aerosol drawn through the article. Ogi is completely silent as to ventilation levels that would be suitable.
Brooks teaches the mouthpiece comprises a ventilation level of between 50% and 80%. Specifically, Brooks teaches a mouthpiece with a ventilation level of preferably 60-80% (see claim 1) which meets the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the smoking device of Ogi to have a mouthpiece with a ventilation level of between 60 and 80% as taught by Brooks, because both Ogi and Brooks are directed to smoking articles, Ogi is silent in regards to suitable ventilation levels for mouthpieces for use, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable ventilation levels of mouthpieces. Brooks teaches known ventilation levels for mouthpieces, and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, and claim amendments filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections regarding currently amended claim 1 have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of record has been withdrawn and a new rejection is set forth as explained above in view of Ogi (EP2893820A1), Jordil (TW201731397A1), English machine translation relied upon, and Grandjean (WO2018185014A1), and Ozden (Cellulose Chem. Technol., 43 (1-3), 51-55 (2009)) as set forth above.
Applicant argues on page 7:
PNG
media_image3.png
252
575
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This is found persuasive and the reliance on Xue to teach the cooling cavity has been withdrawn. However a new rejection is set forth as explained above and repeated in part for clarity.
Although Ogi fails to explicitly disclose that the mouthpiece comprises a second hollow tubular element upstream of the first hollow tubular element, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the hollow tubular element to include a first and a second hollow tubular element, with a reasonable expectation of success. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI B.
Ogi discloses the hollow tubular element can have a suitable length of 84 mm [0054] but fails to teach the mouthpiece comprises a cavity having an internal volume greater than 450 mm3.
However, Grandjean teaches the second hollow tubular element has a diameter of about 6.9 mm. (see page 10 lines 4-5), although Grandjean alone fails to explicitly disclose the internal volume of the second hollow tubular element is greater than 450mm3. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the diameter of the hollow tube of Ogi with the suitable diameter recommended by Grandjean of about 6.9 mm, which in combination with the length of 84 mm taught by Ogi teaches in an internal volume of 579.6 mm3, which falls within the claimed range of having an internal volume of greater than 450 mm3.
Similarly, Applicant argues on page 8:
PNG
media_image4.png
317
567
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This is found persuasive for the reasons set forth above and the rejection has been withdrawn because of its reliance on Xue, however a new rejection is set forth as explained above.
Applicant lastly argues starting the bottom of page 8:
PNG
media_image5.png
271
564
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The arguments regarding Jordil are not found persuasive because about 0.9 mm is understood to reasonably include just above and just below 0.9 mm (e.g., + or minus 10%) therefore it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to interpret about 0.9 mm and to further modify 0.9 mm to include 0.99 mm (0.9mm + 10%) which falls in the claimed range of greater than 0.9 mm.
Regarding the temperature gradient/differential, Although Ogi fails to explicitly disclose there is a temperature differential of at least 40° C between the aerosol entering the second hollow tubular element and the aerosol exiting the second hollow tubular element modified Ogi teaches the same second hollow tubular element as claimed above with an internal volume of 579.6 mm3, which falls within the claimed range of having an internal volume of greater than 450 mm3. Therefore, it would be obvious that the same structure would also have a result dependent temperature differential of at least 40° C between the aerosol entering the second hollow tubular element and the aerosol exiting the second hollow tubular element (which temperature drop is a known principle of thermodynamic of expansion of gasses (Ideal Gas Law, 1st Law of thermodynamics), e.g., a greater than 450mm3 expansion chamber would inherently experience the same or greater cooling as claimed).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael T Fulton whose telephone number is (703)756-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 - 4:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H Wilson can be reached on 571-270-3882. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747