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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2026 February 4 has been entered.
Claims 16, 18-30, and 32-37 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 16, 19-21, 26-29, and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malgat (US 20160353802 A1) in view of Li (CN 109414078 A with reference made to machine translation) and Bleloch (US 20150320116 A1 cited on an IDS).
Claims 16 and 32: Malgat teaches a cartridge (fig. 3 and [87]) for an aerosol-generating system, the cartridge comprising:
a porous body (36) exemplified as ceramic [25];
and a mesh heater ([88], #46) engaged with the porous body (36), the mesh heater (46) including a plurality of apertures,
each aperture having a preferred dimension between 25 microns and 75 microns [14],
wherein the mesh heater (46) is planar,
and wherein the porous body (36) is configured to supply a liquid aerosol-forming substrate (36 is soaked in liquid and abuts 46) to the mesh heater (46).
Malgat does not explicitly teach that each aperture has a dimension between 50 microns and 250 microns, that the porous body is a ceramic having a porosity of between 30% and 65%, and that the mesh heater is a hybrid mesh heater comprising an interwoven network of wires and fibers, the fibers having a different material composition from the wires.
Malgat’s aperture range overlaps with the claimed aperture range. The courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The courts have held that prior art teaching a layer “not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]” renders obvious a claim reciting a layer between “50 to 100 Angstroms”. In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941). The courts have held that prior art renders obvious a claim reciting an overlapping endpoint, particularly when there is no showing of criticality of the claimed range.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to dimension Malgat’s apertures to a dimension between 50 microns and 200 microns, because doing so is taught by overlapping ranges.
Li teaches a porous body (fig. 4 and [47], #42) exemplified as ceramic [52] having a porosity between 50-60% [54], wherein porosity is a result-effective variable that controls conduction of liquids at different viscosities [53], such that the ceramic will not react with tobacco liquid [52], the ceramic can withstand high temperatures [52], the ceramic is easy and cheap to manufacture [52], and the ceramic conducts liquid well to prevent dry burning [54].
Malgat’s porous body (fig. 3 and [87], first capillary material #36) withstands high temperatures [23], and Li’s porous body withstands high temperatures [52] to yield expectation to succeed.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use, from Malgat’s preferred list of porous bodies that includes ceramic, Li’s specific porous body that is ceramic having a porosity routinely optimized to between 30-65% and otherwise exemplified at 50-60%, because doing so would make the ceramic not react with tobacco liquid, withstand high temperatures, be easy and cheap to manufacture, and conduct liquid well to prevent dry burning.
Bleloch teaches a hybrid mesh heater ([57], wick element shaped as interwoven mesh) comprising an interwoven network of wires (heating wires) and fibers (wicking wires), the fibers (wicking wires) having a different material composition from the wires (heating wires), such that the hybrid mesh heater heats more evenly within a smaller range [14] in order to improve over a separated heater and wick that heat at a higher temperature than is required [4].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Bleloch’s wicking fibers to Malgot’s heating wires, because doing so would enable the heater to heat more evenly within a smaller range in order to improve over a separated heater and wick that heat at a higher temperature than is required.
Claim 19: modified Malgat teaches the cartridge according to claim 16, wherein the mesh heater (fig. 3, #46) is engaged with the porous ceramic body (36) over substantially an entirety of a face of the mesh heater (46).
Claim 20: modified Malgat teaches the cartridge according to claim 19, wherein the mesh heater (fig. 3, #46) is in contact with the porous ceramic body (36) over substantially the entirety of the face of the mesh heater (46).
Claim 21: modified Malgat teaches the cartridge according to claim 16, wherein the porous ceramic body comprises pores with a most preferred average pore size of 4 microns [27].
Claim 26: modified Malgat teaches the cartridge according to claim 16, wherein the mesh heater (fig. 3 and [88], #46) is located between the porous ceramic body (36) and a covering layer (42).
Modified Malgat does not explicitly teach that the covering layer is a second ceramic.
Malgat teaches, in an alternative embodiment, a covering layer (fig. 2 and [85], #42) that is ceramic.
Both embodiments of Malgat’s covering layer (fig. 2-3 and [85 and 88], #42) contact the heater (46) through electrical contacts (42) to yield expectation to succeed. One of ordinary skill would immediately envisage applying [85]’s ceramic material to [88]’s layer having the same structure and function.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use, as Malgat’s covering layer of generic material, Malgat’s alternative covering layer that is ceramic, because doing so would predictably house electrical contacts to connect to the heater.
Claim 27: modified Malgat teaches the cartridge according to claim 26, wherein the mesh heater (fig. 3, #46) is attached (42 sandwiches 46 onto 36) to the porous ceramic body (36) by the covering layer (42) of the second ceramic.
Claim 28: modified Malgat teaches an aerosol-generating system (fig. 1A and [74]), comprising an aerosol-generating device (10) and a cartridge (20) according to claim 16.
Claim 29: modified Malgat teaches the aerosol-generating system according to claim 28, wherein the aerosol-generating device (fig. 1A, #10) comprises a power supply ([76], #14) configured to supply power to the mesh heater to resistively heat the mesh heater [52].
Claim 33: modified Malgat teaches the cartridge according to claim 16, wherein the wires (fig. 3, #46) lie in a single plane.
Claim 34: modified Malgat teaches the cartridge according to claim 16, wherein:
the mesh heater (fig. 3, #46) is substantially parallel to a first surface (topmost surface of 36) of the porous ceramic body (36), the mesh heater (46) is adjacent the first surface (topmost surface of 36) of the porous ceramic body (36), the porous ceramic body (36) comprises a second surface (bottommost surface of 36) substantially opposing the first surface (topmost surface of 36),
and in use, the liquid aerosol-forming substrate travels (46 vaporizes liquid which is replaced by new liquid traveling upward towards 46) from the second surface (bottommost surface of 36) to the first surface (topmost surface of 36) through the porous ceramic body (36).
Claim 35: modified Malgat teaches the cartridge according to claim 16, wherein, in use, a bulk liquid aerosol-forming substrate direction of travel (fig. 3, #46 vaporizes liquid which is replaced by new liquid traveling upward towards #46) is substantially perpendicular to a plane (plane along which 46 extends) of the mesh heater (46).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malgat (US 20160353802 A1) in view of Li (CN 109414078 A with reference made to machine translation) and Bleloch (US 20150320116 A1 cited on an IDS) as applied to claim 16 in further view of Dickens (US 20170188629 A1).
Claim 18: modified Malgat teaches the cartridge according to claim 16.
Modified Malgat does not explicitly teach a material of the fibers.
Dickens teaches a sheet of heating material ([46], first layer that heats) abutting a web of wicking fibers (second layer that forms a capillary structure) exemplified as glass, such that the web of wicking fibers can deliver liquid through the capillary effect while being non-conductive and inert [46].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use, as Malgat’s generic fiber material, Dickens’ specific glass material, because doing so would deliver liquid while keeping the fibers non-conductive and inert.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malgat (US 20160353802 A1) in view of Li (CN 109414078 A with reference made to machine translation) and Bleloch (US 20150320116 A1 cited on an IDS) as applied to claim 16 in further view of Li (US 20150335073 A1, hereinafter Li 2).
Claims 22-23: modified Malgat teaches the cartridge according to claim 16.
Modified Malgat does not explicitly teach that the porous ceramic body comprises a first portion and a projection,
wherein the projection is located at a periphery of the first portion and extends around substantially a whole of the periphery of the first portion.
Li 2 teaches a porous ceramic [16] body (fig. 5 and [22], #132) comprising a first portion (topmost flange of 132) and a projection (bottommost cylinder of 132) that is located at a periphery of the first portion (topmost flange of 132) and extends around substantially a whole of the periphery of the first portion (topmost flange of 132), such that the porous ceramic body fixes [22] a liquid storage portion (150) against a housing (130).
Malgat’s wicking structure comprises a porous body (fig. 3 and [87], #36) abutting a liquid storage portion ([23], second capillary material #38 holds more liquid than first capillary material #36) and a housing (24), and Li 2’s wicking structure comprises a porous body (fig. 5 and [22], #132) abutting a liquid storage portion (150) and a housing (130) to yield expectation to succeed.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to reshape Malgat’s porous ceramic body into comprising a first portion and a projection that is located at a periphery of the first portion and extends around substantially a whole of the periphery of the first portion, because doing so would enable the porous ceramic body to fix a liquid storage portion against a housing.
Claims 24 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malgat (US 20160353802 A1) in view of Li (CN 109414078 A with reference made to machine translation) and Bleloch (US 20150320116 A1 cited on an IDS) as applied to claim 16 in further view of Hejazi (US 20190350256 A1 cited on an IDS).
Claim 24: modified Malgat teaches the cartridge according to claim 16.
Modified Malgat does not explicitly teach that the porous ceramic body comprises a channel extending therethrough, the channel having a diameter of between 300 microns and 800 microns.
Hejazi teaches a porous body (fig. 2 and [70], #240) comprising channels (270) extending therethrough, the channels having diameters between 100 microns and 900 microns and exemplified at 350 microns [70], wherein the channel diameters are a result-effective variable that controls aerosol release [70], such that the channels increase a surface area from which aerosol can be generated [70].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Hejazi’s channels to Malgat’s porous ceramic body, wherein the channel diameter is routinely optimized to between 300 microns and 800 microns and otherwise exemplified at 350 microns, because doing so would increase a surface area of the porous ceramic body from which aerosol can be generated.
Claims 36-37: modified Malgat teaches the cartridge according to claim 16, wherein, in use, a bulk liquid aerosol-forming substrate direction of travel (fig. 3, #46 vaporizes liquid which is replaced by new liquid traveling upward towards #46) is substantially parallel with a direction of an air flow (fig. 1d and [76], air flows upward to #15) to a user,
wherein a mouthpiece (12) comprises an air inlet (13) and an air outlet (15), the air inlet (13) being in fluid communication with the air outlet (15), in use, there is an air flow through the air inlet (13), then past the mesh heater (46), then through the air outlet (15).
Modified Malgat does not explicitly teach that the cartridge comprises an air inlet and an air outlet, the air inlet being in fluid communication with the air outlet, in use, there is an air flow through the air inlet, then through or past the mesh heater, then through the air outlet, and in use, a bulk liquid aerosol-forming substrate direction of travel is substantially parallel with a direction of the air flow through or past the mesh heater.
Hejazi teaches a cartridge (fig. 1 and [40-41], #104) comprising an air inlet (inlet through which air enters 104; [46], #118 can be formed on #104) and an air outlet ([40-41], #128), the air inlet (inlet through which air enters 104) being in fluid communication with the air outlet (128), in use, there is an air flow through the air inlet (inlet through which air enters 104), then past a heater (134), then through the air outlet (128),
and in use, a bulk liquid aerosol-forming substrate direction of travel (134 vaporizes liquid which is replaced by new liquid traveling rightward towards 134) is substantially parallel with a direction of the air flow (air flows rightward towards 128) past the heater (134), such that air can flow through a porous body (fig. 2 and [70], #240) in order to increase surface area from which liquid can be vaporized [70].
Malgat’s air flows past a heater through holes in a mouthpiece (fig. 1D and [76], #13) that houses a cartridge (20), and Hejazi’s air flows past a heater through holes in a cartridge (fig. 1, hole through which air enters #104; [46], #118 can be formed on #104). Integrating Malgat’s two-piece mouthpiece and cartridge into Hejazi’s one-piece cartridge would predictably maintain airflow past the heater and towards a user, absent evidence contrary to the understandings of the art. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(B): In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The courts have held that "the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice" absent insight contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to integrate Malgat’s two-piece mouthpiece and cartridge into Hejazi’s one-piece cartridge such that the cartridge comprises an air inlet and an air outlet, the air inlet being in fluid communication with the air outlet, in use, there is an air flow through the air inlet, then through or past the mesh heater, then through the air outlet, and in use, a bulk liquid aerosol-forming substrate direction of travel is substantially parallel with a direction of the air flow through or past the mesh heater, because doing so would be a simple substitution of housing and airflow structures between aerosol-generating devices that would increase a contact surface area of the porous body from which liquid can be vaporized, and would otherwise be a patentably indistinct integration of parts.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malgat (US 20160353802 A1) in view of Li (CN 109414078 A with reference made to machine translation) and Bleloch (US 20150320116 A1 cited on an IDS) as applied to claim 16 in further view of Davis (US 20190053539 A1).
Claim 25: modified Malgat teaches the cartridge according to claim 16.
Modified Malgat does not explicitly teach a segment of metal located between the porous ceramic body and the mesh heater.
Davis teaches adhering a heater ([32], heating element) to a porous body (liquid transport element) by a segment of metal (metal ribbon), such that the heater and the porous body are combined [32].
Bleloch teaches combining a heater and a porous body for the benefit of heating more evenly within a smaller range [14], and Davis teaches combining and adhering together a heater and a porous body to yield expectation to succeed.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to adhere Malgat’s mesh heater to Malgat’s porous ceramic body by an adhering technique such as applying a metal ribbon, because doing so would combine and adhere the heater and the porous body.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malgat (US 20160353802 A1) in view of Li (CN 109414078 A with reference made to machine translation) and Bleloch (US 20150320116 A1 cited on an IDS) as applied to claim 28 in further view of Cadieux (US 20150245669 A1).
Claim 30: modified Malgat teaches the aerosol-generating system according to claim 28, wherein the aerosol-generating device (fig. 1A, #10) comprises a power supply ([76], #14).
Modified Malgat does not explicitly teach that the cartridge or the aerosol-generating device comprise an inductor, and the power supply and the inductor are configured to inductively heat the mesh heater.
Cadieux teaches an aerosol-generating device (fig. 1 and [114], #60) comprising an inductor (35) and a power supply (72) configured to inductively heat a hybrid mesh heater (fig. 8 and [151], #14 and #28) comprising interwoven heating wires (14) and wicking fibers (28), such that the mesh heater can be kept electrically separate from the power supply [153 and 159], thereby protecting electrical connections.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Cadieux’s inductor to Malgat, because doing so would keep the mesh heater electrically separate from the power supply, thereby protecting electrical connections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 2026 February 4 have been carefully considered. Upon further search and consideration necessitated by applicant’s amendments, a new ground of rejection is made for claim 16 over Malgat in view of Li and Bleloch.
Applicant’s arguments against Force, Ding, and Buchberger (p. 9-16) are rendered moot by the new ground of rejection which does not rely on Force, Ding, or Buchberger.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tobey C. Le whose telephone number is (703)756-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30-18:30 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 at 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.
/TOBEY C LE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747