DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues the prior art does not teach or suggest the seal and the first flow restrictor being configured to allow both the first end of the seal and the second end of the seal to accept the first flow restrictor. The Examiner disagrees. In the embodiment of Fig. 6, Lord teaches the flow restrictor is in the shape of a cylindrical body. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to alternatively use a flow restrictor having this shape in the embodiment of Fig. 5 to achieve the same, predictable result of providing the desired RTD. Thus, the seal and the first flow restrictor would be configured to allow both the first end of the seal and the second end of the seal to accept the first flow restrictor.
Regarding claims 8-10 and 25, Applicant argues that Liu does not teach or suggest a flow restrictor made of a hard material that is fitted into a seal made of a resilient material. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Lord teaches the seal is flexible and is connected with the flow restrictor via a press fit. As Liu teaches a press fit can involve a flexible material and a metal material, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used metal for the flow restrictor of Lord to achieve a press fit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not disclose inserting the first flow restrictor occurs after the inserting of the seal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1, 3-6, 11-22, 24, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord (US 2016/0106154) in view of Newton (US 2013/0228191) and White (US 6,164,287).
Regarding claim 1, Lord teaches a method, comprising: inserting a seal 20 into a first end of a first housing of a first e-vaping section (upper part of two part housing, above hatched line X shown in Fig. 2) [0024, 0042]; a second housing (lower part of two part housing, below hatched line X shown in Fig. 2) defining at least one inlet 7 [0026]; inserting a flow restrictor 35 into an end of the seal to control a RTD of the first e-vaping section, the flow restrictor defining a first air passage 36 in communication with the at least one inlet [Fig. 5; 0031]; and providing a releasable coupling along hatched line X shown in Fig. 2 [0042], i.e. connecting a connector to the first end.
Lord does not teach the inlet is at least partially defined by the first housing. Newton teaches an electronic cigarette wherein the inlet 16 is at least partially defined by the first housing [Fig. 1-3; 0032-0034]. As this is a conventional inlet location known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to Lord to achieve the same, predictable result of allowing airflow into the device.
Modified Lord does not teach an airflow cross-sectional area of the first passage is less than a combined airflow cross-sectional area of the at least one inlet. White teaches a smoking article wherein the size of air inlets defined in the housing is adjusted to provide the smoker with appropriate draw resistance [col. 9, l. 1-9]. The first air passage is also recognized by Lord as affecting resistance to draw [0031]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the cross-sectional area of both the one or more air inlets and the first air passage as a matter of routine experimentation to achieve the desired resistance to draw.
Lord does not teach the seal and the first flow restrictor being configured to allow both the first end of the seal and the second end of the seal to accept the first flow restrictor. However, in another embodiment, Lord teaches the flow restrictor is in the shape of a cylindrical body [0032; Fig. 6]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to alternatively use a flow restrictor having this configuration in the embodiment of Fig. 5 to achieve the same, predictable result of providing the desired RTD.
Regarding claims 3 and 21, in modified Lord as applied to claim 1 above wherein the seal comprises a cylindrical body as suggested by Fig. 6 of Lord, the seal would encompass the flow restrictor and the flow restrictor would have a uniform external diameter along a second longitudinal length of the flow restrictor. As shown in Fig. 5 of Lord, the flow restrictor is inserted within a second air passage defined by the seal (central air passage of seal 20), the second air passage having a uniform internal diameter along a first longitudinal length of the second air passage.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Lord teaches defining a reservoir 18/19 within the first housing, the reservoir being configured to contain a pre-vapor formulation; configuring a wick 15 to communicate the pre-vapor formulation from the reservoir to a heater 16; and arranging the heater to at least partially volatize the pre-vapor formulation to entrain a vapor in a inner tube 11 (second air passage) that is in communication with the first air passage [Fig. 2-3; 0019, 0028].
Regarding claim 5, Lord teaches the second air passage 11 is downstream of the first air passage 36 relative to a direction of a normal airflow through the first e-vaping section during an operational use of the first e-vaping section [Fig. 2 and 5].
Regarding claim 6, Lord does not teach an electrical terminal held within the connector is electrically connected to the heater. However, this configuration is taught by Newton (electrical coupler 22) [Fig. 5; 0036, 0042], and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include with Lord for providing an electrical connection to the heater.
Regarding claims 11-12, Lord teaches an outer surface of the seal seals with an interior surface of the first housing [0024], the seal being flexible so that it can be easily manipulated into housing [0023], i.e. a gasket made of a resilient material.
Regarding claim 14, Lord teaches an outer surface of the seal seals with an interior surface of the first housing and the seal contacts at least a portion of the inner tube, the seal at least partially sealing a third end of the inner tube [0024].
Regarding claim 15, Lord does not specify the type of connector. Newton teaches a threaded connector [0034], which one of ordinary skill in the art to use in Lord to achieve the same, predictable result of connecting the two housings. The connector is interpreted to seal the first end to some degree. It is noted that the seal of both the instant invention and of Lord is what seals the first end.
Regarding claim 16, Lord teaches connecting a mouth-end insert 6 to the first e-vaping section to seal a fourth end of the first e-vaping section [0024].
Regarding claims 17-20, Lord teaches connecting a second e-vaping section to the first end to form an e-vaping device, the second e-vaping section including a power source 8, so that the power source is operationally connected to a heater 16 to energize the heater during an operational use of the e-vaping device, the heater being in the first e-vaping section, control circuitry 9 is configured to control a supply of electrical power from the power source to a heater during an operational use of the e-vaping device, the control circuitry being in the second e-vaping section, the heater being in the first e-vaping section [0028, 0042; Fig. 2]. In modified Lord, a second housing of the second e-vaping section and the first housing collectively define the at least one inlet [Newton Fig. 1].
Regarding claim 22, Lord teaches as shown in Fig. 2 the seal 20 and the flow restrictor 35 are both downstream of the connector (located at hatched lined X) relative to a normal direction of airflow through the first e-vaping section during an operational use of the first e-vaping section.
Regarding claim 24, the connector of Lord is located at hatched line X in Fig. 2 [0042], which would close an end of the first e-vaping section.
Regarding claims 27-29, in modified Lord as applied to claim 1 above wherein the seal comprises a cylindrical body as suggested by Fig. 6 of Lord, the seal would encompass the flow restrictor and the flow restrictor would be capable of being inserted into either end of the seal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to insert the flow restrictor into the upstream end of the seal to achieve the same, predictable result of providing the desired RTD. Although modified Lord does not specifically teach inserting the flow restrictor occurs after the inserting of the seal, this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve predictable results. See in re Burhans, 154 F.2d 6960, 69 USPC 330 (CCPA 1946} (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results}.
Claims 8-10 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lord, Newton, and White as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Liu (US 2014/0216450).
Lord teaches the flow restrictor is press fitted into the seal [0031] and that the seal is flexible and made of silicon for example (resilient material) [0023] but is silent to specific materials for the flow restrictor. Liu teaches an electronic cigarette comprising a press-fit engagement between a flexible material such as silica gel and a stem made of metal [0030, 0040]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use metal for the flow restrictor of Lord to achieve the same, predictable result of press-fitted engagement. Thereby the flow restrictor is made from a first material that is harder than a second material for the annular seal.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Philip 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.
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755