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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5-29-2026 has been entered.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because should be between 50 and 150 words and the abstract is less than 50 words as set forth in MPEP 608.01(b). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the Applicants’ arguments/remarks filed 5-29-2026
Claims 1, 7-11, and 13-14 are currently amended.
Claims 1-2, and 5-14 are presently examined.
Claims 3-4 are canceled.
Claim 15 is withdrawn.
Claim interpretation
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “a second sealing member arranged above the liquid delivery element such that the sealing member presses the liquid delivery element”, which is considered to be a limitation regarding the intended use of the sealing member and liquid delivery element. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office Action, the claim will be interpreted as if it required a structure in which the claimed position of the second sealing member arranged above the liquid delivery element could occur.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “disk shape” in claim 14 line 2 is used by the claim to mean “ring shape,” because the claim requires the another sealing member “surrounds the liquid delivery element”; while the accepted meaning is “solid flat circular object.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For the purposes of compact prosecution and this office action, the another sealing element member is interpreted to be near the liquid delivery element which is consistent with the claim language.
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 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200086068) in view of Cai (US20140100311A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches an aerosol-generating device comprising:
a battery (11000);
an atomizer (10000) configured to generate an aerosol by atomizing an aerosol- generating material [0041]; and
a sealing member (20 see [0136] and FIG 11) disposed on one end of the atomizer (see FIG 11)
the atomizer includes a first heating element (13000, FIG 1) and a cigarette insertion passage (see FIG 1, the cigarette is inserted into the passage),
the first heating element is configured to heat a cigarette inserted into the cigarette insertion passage [0044], and
the aerosol-generating device includes a support part (30) for supporting the first heating element (10), and the sealing member (20) is in contact with both the first heating element and the support part (see FIG 11 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
530
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches the sealing element 20 is made of a heat-resistant polymer material [0076] but is silent to suitable specific heat-resistant polymers (and their respective properties) for use in sealing elements and therefore fails to explicitly disclose the thermoplastic elastomer has a melt flow index of 12.5 g/10 min to 66.0 g/10 min, a hardness of 20 shore A to 85 shore A, and a tensile strength of 0.2 kg/mm2 to 1.1 kg/mm2,
Cai teaches known suitable heat resistant polymer materials that include thermoplastic elastomers with properties well known in the art that are suitable for sealing elements and teaches that it would be desirable to provide high performance thermoplastics [0018]-[0019]. Cai teaches suitable thermoplastic elastomers that are suitable for use in sealing elements (various seals [0118]) and teaches suitable properties for such thermoplastics for use.
Specifically, Cai’s Example #3 (Ex. 3) in Table 2 teaches the thermoplastic elastomer has a melt flow index of 41.5 g/10 min which falls within the claimed range of 12.5 g/10 min to 66.0 g/10 min (see Ex. 3, Table 2 on page 15),
a hardness of 34 A, see Ex. 3 table 2 on page 15, see also [0124], 34 A is 34 Shore A, which falls within the claimed range of a hardness of from 20 shore A to 85 shore A, and
a tensile strength of 362 psi which is about 0.255 kg/mm2 which falls within the range of a tensile strength of from 0.2 kg/mm2 to 1.1 kg/mm2,
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 sealing member of Lee to have the thermoplastics taught by Cai such as those used in Ex. 3 in table 2 page 15, because both Lee and Cai are drawn to thermoplastic elastomeric sealing members, Lee is silent to suitable melt flow indexes for use in sealing members, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable melt flow indexes for a similar sealing member, Cai teaches known melt flow indexes for a similar sealing member, and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Lee teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee fails to explicitly disclose the thermoplastic elastomer as set forth above.
However, Cai teaches the thermoplastic elastomer includes at least one of thermoplastic styrenic copolymer [0028], thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) [0029].
Regarding Claim 5, modified Lee teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Lee teaches the sealing member has an O-ring shape with a hollow formed in a center thereof, and the sealing member surrounds the first heating element (see FIG 1).
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200086068) and Cai (US20140100311A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Potter (US20180007962A1).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Lee teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Lee fails to explicitly disclose teaches the atomizer includes a cartridge, wherein the cartridge includes: a liquid storage containing a liquid composition; a second heating element; and a liquid delivery element.
Potter teaches a similar aerosol generating device with a tobacco rod [0035] inserted into a tobacco rod insertion passageway 430 and also teaches the atomizer includes a cartridge (200, [0033], see also FIG 1), wherein
the cartridge includes: a liquid storage 200 containing a liquid composition 20, see [0033].
a second heating element (240, see [0050]); and
a liquid delivery element (at least one wick, [0051]).
Potter teaches a hybrid arrangement in which aerosol produced from a liquid cartridge passes through tobacco material [0033], which is beneficial because it causes tobacco components to become entrained in the aerosol flow which adds to the taste of the aerosol. Thus it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the smoking device of Lee to include the liquid storage cartridge of Potter upstream of the tobacco rod insertion portion of Lee while maintaining the primary portions of Lee as taught by Potter in order to cause the tobacco components to become entrained in the aerosol flow and add to the taste of the aerosol with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Lee teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. As set forth above, Lee teaches the sealing member is arranged under the cigarette, although Lee does not explicitly disclose a second sealing element it would be obvious to duplicate the sealing element to include a second sealing element to further increase the sealing ability of Lee. 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.
As taught by Potter the cartridge is upstream of the cigarette. An ordinary artisan would appreciate that during use, modified Lee can be oriented or held in such a way by the user that the second sealing member (which is a duplicate of the first sealing member) would be above the liquid delivery element and that the sealing member presses the liquid delivery element, see Potter FIG 1, although Potter doesn’t explicitly disclose the sealing member presses the liquid delivery element, Potter teaches that a seal must be maintained to substantially prevent leakage of aerosol or loss of pressure from the device [0079]. Accordingly it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure the second sealing member in such a way that it prevents liquid from leaking the liquid delivery element. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sealing member so that it presses the liquid delivery element to prevent the leakage of liquid therefrom and prevent loss of pressure by pressing the sealing member to the liquid delivery element with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Lee teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. As set forth above, Lee teaches the sealing member under the cigarette. Although Lee does not explicitly disclose a third sealing element it would be obvious to duplicate the sealing element to include a third sealing element to further increase the sealing ability of Lee. 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.
An ordinary artisan would appreciate the purpose of the seal is to seal an airflow in the cigarette insertion passage. Therefore, the sealing member obstructs a flow of a generated aerosol in a predetermined direction (through the cigarette and out the device).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Lee teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, as explained above, Lee is modified by Robinson and teaches a movement passage through which the generated aerosol moves toward outside of the aerosol-generating device (e.g., the cartridge of Robinson generates aerosol which passes towards the cigarette insertion chamber, the passage between the cartridge of Robinson and the cigarette insertion passage is the movement passage), wherein
the cartridge includes an outlet for discharging the aerosol toward the movement passage (e.g., aerosol travels from the cartridge to the cigarette), wherein
the third sealing member is disposed between the movement passage (the exit from the cartridge) and the outlet.
Regarding 10, modified Lee teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Robinson teaches a movement passage (space between cartridge and cigarette rod) through which the generated aerosol moves toward outside of the aerosol-generating device (aerosol on its way out), wherein
at least one hole (air passageway is the at least one hole) is formed in an inner wall of the movement passage, wherein a sealing member is arranged to surround the at least one hole (e.g., Robinson teaches the cartridge is positioned before the tobacco rod, therefore an ordinary artisan would appreciate the vapor from the cartridge would need to enter the cigarette in the cigarette insertion passage and its corresponding airflow, therefore it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the movement passage to include at least one air passageway to allow the vapor from the cartridge to contribute vapor to the cigarette in the cigarette insertion passage.
Although Robison does not explicitly disclose a fourth sealing element it would be obvious to duplicate the sealing element of Lee as modified by Robison to include a fourth sealing element to further increase the sealing ability of Lee. 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.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Lee teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Robinson teaches a movement passage through which the generated aerosol moves toward outside of the aerosol-generating device, wherein the sealing member has a hollow formed in a center thereof (it has a hole that accommodates the heating element, see FIG 11 above), and is in contact with an inner wall of the movement passage (the air passes through the inner wall to enter the cigarette insertion passage.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200086068) and Cai (US20140100311A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Robinson (US 7726320 B2) and Yamada (US20190247598A1).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Lee teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However Lee fails to explicitly disclose the atomizer includes:
a liquid storage containing a liquid composition;
Robinson teaches a similar aerosol generating device to Lee with a tobacco rod inserted into a cigarette insertion passageway and also teaches the atomizer includes a cartridge (see column 6 line 63), wherein
the cartridge includes: a liquid storage containing a liquid composition (aerosol generating material, (cartridge, see column 6 line 63-64; liquid, see column 13 lines 53-54); Robinson teaches that the aerosol forming material can produce a visible aerosol upon application of sufficient heat to an aerosol generating material that produces a smoke like aerosol using the aerosol generating liquid (see column 13 lines 29-43) and a liquid delivery element/wick (soaked within absorbent fibrous materials or sponge like materials (column 13 lines 55-56, see also column 16 line 20, wick).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the smoking device of Lee to include the liquid storage cartridge of Robinson in order for the aerosol produced to produce a visible aerosol upon application of sufficient heat to the material that produces a smoke like aerosol using the aerosol generating liquid.
Lee, Cai, and Robinson fails to explicitly disclose a vibrator; a vibration-receiving unit.
However, Yamada teaches an aerosol generating device that includes a liquid storage (116) containing a liquid composition [0098]; a vibrator (See [0101], notifying part 108);
a vibration-receiving unit (the body of the device receives the vibrations from the vibrator)
Yamada also teaches the notifying part 108 is configured to perform some notification to the user with vibration according to necessity [0101], and teaches that a problem exists of notifications being received by a user if they are not looking at a visual indicator at the time of a notification being generated via LED or other visual indication [0004] and that a need exists to deliver notifications to a user even in situations such as inhaling aerosol from the device.
Therefore it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of modified Lee with the vibrator system of Yamada to provide notifications to a user even while the user is inhaling aerosol from the device [0004] and [0101].
Regarding Claim 13, modified Bless teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Bless teaches another sealing member is disposed on one end of the liquid delivery element, see annotated FIG 4, the sealing member is disposed on one end of the liquid delivery element (e.g., not in the mouthpiece end).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Bless teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Bless teaches the another sealing member has a disc shape (See FIG 4, the sealing member part 518 has a shape similar to a disk brake and therefore has a disk shape) and surrounds the liquid delivery element (when assembled the liquid delivery element which is wrapped around by the heating element is surrounded by the sealing member part 518) and at least a portion of the vibrator (Bless teaches that the sealing member is wrapped around the heating element, and since modified Bless comprises the ultrasonic atomizer/vibrator, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to conclude that the sealing member of Bless would surround at least a portion of the vibrator.)
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ Arguments and most specifically amendments to the claims received on 5/29/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 112(a) rejections have been considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, and most specifically claim amendments see Applicant Arguments/Remarks and claim amendments, filed 5/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee and Cai as set forth above.
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
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights