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
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 01/26/2026.
Claims 1-15 and 17-18 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claims 1 and 18 are amended.
Claims 13-15 and 17 are previously withdrawn.
Examiner Comment
The Examiner notes that amending claims to include differences between the present application and Alarcon, specifically the structural placement of the air channel seal with regards to the air gap may aid in distinguishing over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 0/26/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Claim 1 has been amended to recite newly presented limitations directed to a housing inner tube. Prior art of record Alarcon does not teach the claimed housing inner tube such that “the reservoir surrounds the housing inner tube” as required by amended claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Angell et al. (WO 2019038522 A1).
Applicant’s arguments, sees pages 8-9, filed 01/26/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 18 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Claim 18 has been amended to recite newly presented limitations directed to a housing inner tube. Prior art of record Alarcon does not teach the claimed housing inner tube such that “an air gap surrounds the housing inner tube” as required by amended claim 18. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Angell et al. (WO 2019038522 A1).
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments made to the claim.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Alarcon et al. (WO 2016042409 A1) in view of Angell et al. (WO 2019038522 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Alarcon teaches a cartridge for an aerosol provision system comprising the cartridge and an aerosol provision device, wherein the cartridge (device 101, Fig. 2; [0042]) comprises:
an air channel (air inlet chamber 149, heater coil chamber 122, air path 123, passageway 120; [0092]) extending from an air inlet (air inlet 113; [0092]) for the cartridge to an outlet (mouth piece 102 with outlet 103; [0042]) via an aerosol generation region (heater coil chamber 122);
a heating element (heater coil 124; [0057]) for heating liquid from a reservoir (liquid media storage tank 117) to generate aerosol in the aerosol generation region ([0057]);
an aerosol outlet tube (inner tube 118) having a first end (distal end) and a second end (proximal end), the first end proximate to the aerosol generation region (Fig. 2; [0007], [0057]) and second end configured to fit inside an air channel seal (proximal seal 121) (Fig. 2; [0054]), wherein the air channel seal has an outer flange (Fig. 2);
and a housing (outer tube 105; Fig. 2; [0044]) part having a mouthpiece end (proximal longitudinal end of the outer tube 105 adjacent to mouth piece 102; [0044]) and an interface end (distal longitudinal end of the outer tube 105; [0045]), wherein the mouthpiece end comprises the outlet 103 of the cartridge ([0044]), and the aerosol outlet tube 118 and the air channel seal 121 are positioned distal relative to the outlet (see Fig. 2);
wherein the aerosol outlet tube tapers inwardly from the first end to the second end such that a cross-sectional area of the second end is less than a cross-sectional area of the first end ([0067]);
and wherein the cartridge is configured such that air passing through the air channel is configured to pass from the air inlet, into the aerosol generating region, through the aerosol outlet tube, past the air channel seal and then out from the outlet ([0092])
Alarcon does not explicitly teach (I) that the air channel seal has an inner flange such that the inner flange and the outer flange form a slot therebetween, wherein the slot is the size and shape to receive the second end of the aerosol outlet tube or (II) a housing inner tube located between the air channel seal and the outlet, wherein the reservoir surrounds the housing inner tube.
Regarding (I), in another embodiment of the same device, Alarcon teaches a seal (seal 313) with an inner flange (Fig. 13; [0121]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the air channel seal of Alarcon by having both an inner flange and an outer flange such that the inner flange and the outer flange form a slot therebetween, wherein the slot is the size and shape to receive the second end of the aerosol outlet tube, because one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this configuration would better secure the aerosol outlet tube to the air channel seal, and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Furthermore, changes in shape are prima facie obvious absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant.
Regarding (II), Angell, directed to a cartridge (cartridge 2; Fig. 2; page 4, line 24) for an aerosol provision system (electronic cigarette 1; Fig. 1; page 4, lines 17-18) comprising an air channel extending from an air inlet (page 6, lines 5-10) to an air outlet (vapor outlet 60; page 7, line 31) via an aerosol generation region (vaporization assembly 36), a heating element (heater 40; page 7, line 19) for heating liquid from a reservoir (page 11, lines 1-13), an aerosol outlet tube (38; page 8, lines 14-15) configured to fit to an air channel seal, and a housing part (housing part 32; page 7, line 18) comprising a mouthpiece end and an interface end (page 4, lines 33-36), teaches a mouthpiece with a housing inner tube (housing inner tube 62; Figs. 3A-B; page 7, lines 26-27) located between the air channel seal and the outlet, wherein the reservoir surrounds the housing inner tube and air passes through the housing inner tube to reach the outlet 60.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Alarcon by substituting the mouthpiece for the mouthpiece and inner housing of Angell because both Alarcon and Angell are directed to cartridges comprising air outlet tubes, air channel seals, and mouthpieces, Angell teaches an alternate configuration for the mouthpiece, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this alternate configuration may enable storage of a greater volume of liquid within the reservoir, and this involves substituting one alternative configuration for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Alarcon teaches that the portion of the air channel from the air channel seal 121 to the outlet 103 has a substantially constant cross-sectional area (Fig. 2; as interpreted above, the cross-sectional area is “substantially” constant).
Regarding claim 8, Alarcon teaches that different mouthpiece configurations may be used to produce different user experiences such as a change in aerosol velocity or particle size ([0043]). For example, a channel with a larger diameter would have a decreased flow velocity ([0066]) and a channel with a smaller diameter would have an increased flow velocity ([0106]). As such, the portion of the air channel from the air channel seal to the outlet may influence this user experience ([0106-0108]).
Alarcon does not explicitly teach that the cross-sectional area of the portion of the air channel from the air channel seal to the outlet is less than the cross-sectional area of the second end of the aerosol outlet tube.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Alarcon by making the cross-sectional area of the portion of the air channel from the air channel seal to the outlet less than the cross-sectional area of the second end of the aerosol outlet tube because one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are only three possible relationships in cross-sectional area (greater than, less than, or equal to), each with their own respective effect on velocity, Alarcon teaches that the cross-sectional area may be changed to accommodate user experience, and this involves choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, Alarcon teaches that the aerosol outlet tube may be made of a plastics material ([0096]).
Regarding claim 12, Alarcon teaches that:
the interface end includes an interface for coupling the cartridge to the aerosol provision device ([0045]);
the housing part contains the aerosol outlet tube 118, the air channel seal 121 and the reservoir 117 within the housing part (Fig. 2), the reservoir containing liquid for aerosolization ([0053]),
and the reservoir at least partially surrounds the aerosol outlet tube and the air channel seal (Fig. 2; [0053]).
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alarcon et al. (WO 2016042409 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20190150519 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Alarcon teaches that the aerosol outlet tube tapers inwardly from the first end to the second end.
Alarcon does not explicitly teach that the aerosol outlet tube tapers inwardly from the first end to a position between the first end and the second end according to a first profile, and the aerosol outlet tube tapers inwardly from the position to the second end according to a second profile, wherein the first profile and the second profile are different.
Liu, directed to a cartridge (electronic cigarette atomizer; Fig. 1; [0029]) for an aerosol provision system (Abstract) comprising an air channel (airflow passage 2), an aerosol generating region (ultrasonic atomization piece 10), and an aerosol outlet tube (vent pipe 19), teaches that the outlet tube further comprises a mounting boss (mounting boss 26; [0032]), which tapers inwardly from the first end to a position where it connects with the outlet tube (Fig. 3). It is expected that this mounting boss will better direct airflow from the aerosol generation region through the outlet tube.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Alarcon by adding the mounting boss to the outlet tube as taught by Liu, such that first end of the mounting boss is the first end of the outlet tube and the aerosol outlet tube tapers inwardly from the first to a position between the first end and the second end according to a first profile, and the aerosol outlet tube tapers inwardly from the position to the second end according to a second profile, wherein the first profile and the second profile are different, because both Alarcon and Liu are directed to cartridges for aerosol provision systems with aerosol generation regions and outlet tubes, Liu teaches a mounting boss added to the outlet tube that could help direct airflow, and this involves using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
Regarding claim 3, Alarcon teaches that the first profile (mounting boss portion of the outlet tube) corresponds to a first taper angle (see Liu Fig. 1) and the second profile (tapered portion of outlet tube) corresponds to a second taper angle (see Alarcon Fig. 2; [0067]).
Regarding claim 4, Alarcon teaches that the first taper angle is greater than the second taper angle (see Liu Fig. 1 and Alarcon Fig. 2; [0067]. The first taper angle is larger than the second taper angle in order to accommodate the aerosol generation region).
Regarding claim 5, Liu depicts that the position is less than 50% of the distance along the aerosol outlet tube from the first end to the second end (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Liu depicts that the position is less than about 25% of the distance along the aerosol outlet tube from the first end to the second end (Fig. 1). The claimed range overlaps the range taught by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alarcon et al. (WO 2016042409 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Fang (US 20110011396 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Alarcon teaches that the aerosol outlet tube is made of a plastics material ([0096]).
Alarcon does not explicitly teach that the plastics material is polypropylene.
Fang, directed to a cartridge (container 100 and atomizer 200; Figs. 1-3; [0012]) for an aerosol provision system (electronic cigarette 400; [0012]) comprising an air channel (smoke channel 106; [0013]), a heating element (heating wire 7; [0014]), and an aerosol outlet tube (created by the walls of liquid tank 2; [0013]), teaches that the aerosol outlet tube may be polypropylene ([0013]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Alarcon by making the aerosol outlet tube polypropylene as taught by Fang because both Alarcon and Fang are directed to cartridges for aerosol provision systems with plastic aerosol outlet tubes, Alarcon is silent to the plastic material of the aerosol outlet tube and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable plastic aerosol outlet tube material, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alarcon et al. (WO 2016042409 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nettenstrom et al. (US 20190046745 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Alarcon does not explicitly teach that the air channel seal 121 is made of silicone.
Nettenstrom, directed to a cartridge (cartomiser 200; Fig. 4; [0047]) for an aerosol provision system (e-cigarette 100; [0047]) comprising an air channel (between air inlet 214 and mouthpiece 250; [0033]), a heating element (heater 450; [0047]), an aerosol outlet tube (airflow tube 432; [0052]) configured to fit inside an air channel seal (vent seal 420; [0053]), teaches that the air channel seal is made of silicone ([0053]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Alarcon by making the air channel seal silicone as taught by Nettenstrom because both Alarcon and Nettenstrom are directed to cartridges for aerosol provision systems with air channel seals, Alarcon is silent to the material of the air channel seal and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable air channel seal material, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Alarcon et al. (WO 2016042409 A1) in view of Angell et al. (WO 2019038522 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Alarcon teaches a cartridge for an aerosol provision system comprising the cartridge and an aerosol provision device, wherein the cartridge (device 101, Fig. 2; [0042]) comprises:
an air channel (air inlet chamber 149, heater coil chamber 122, air path 123, passageway 120; [0092]) extending from an air inlet (air inlet 113; [0092]) for the cartridge to an outlet (outlet 103; [0042]) via an aerosol generation region (heater coil chamber 122);
a heating element (heater coil 124; [0057]) for heating liquid from a reservoir (liquid media storage tank 117) to generate aerosol in the aerosol generation region ([0057]);
an aerosol outlet tube (inner tube 118) having a first end (distal end) and a second end (proximal end), the first end proximate to the aerosol generation region (Fig. 2; [0007], [0057]) and second end configured to fit inside an air channel seal (proximal seal 121) (Fig. 2; [0054]), wherein the air channel seal has an outer flange (Fig. 2);
wherein the aerosol outlet tube tapers inwardly from the first end to the second end such that a cross-sectional area of the second end is less than a cross-sectional area of the first end ([0067]);
and wherein the cartridge is configured such that air passing through the air channel is configured to pass from the air inlet, into the aerosol generating region, through the aerosol outlet tube, past the air channel seal and then out from the outlet ([0092]).
Alarcon does not explicitly teach (I) a housing inner tube located between the aerosol generation region and the outlet and an air gap surrounding the housing inner tube and located between the housing inner tube and a reservoir or (II) that the air channel seal has an inner flange such that the inner flange and the outer flange form a slot therebetween, wherein the slot is the size and shape to receive the second end of the aerosol outlet tube.
Regarding (I), Angell, directed to a cartridge (cartridge 2; Fig. 2; page 4, line 24) for an aerosol provision system (electronic cigarette 1; Fig. 1; page 4, lines 17-18) comprising an air channel extending from an air inlet (page 6, lines 5-10) to an air outlet (vapor outlet 60; page 7, line 31) via an aerosol generation region (vaporization assembly 36), a heating element (heater 40; page 7, line 19) for heating liquid from a reservoir (page 11, lines 1-13), an aerosol outlet tube (38; page 8, lines 14-15) configured to fit to an air channel seal, and a housing part (housing part 32; page 7, line 18) comprising a mouthpiece end and an interface end (page 4, lines 33-36), teaches a mouthpiece with a housing inner tube (housing inner tube 62; Figs. 3A-B; page 7, lines 26-27) located between the air channel seal and the outlet, wherein the reservoir surrounds the housing inner tube and air passes through the housing inner tube to reach the outlet 60. Angell further teaches that this housing inner tube configuration comprises an air gap surrounding the housing inner tube and located between the housing inner tube and the reservoir (see Annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
468
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 (annotated from Angell Figs. 3A-B)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Alarcon by substituting the mouthpiece for the mouthpiece and inner housing of Angell because both Alarcon and Angell are directed to cartridges comprising air outlet tubes, air channel seals, and mouthpieces, Angell teaches an alternate configuration for the mouthpiece, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this alternate configuration may enable storage of a greater volume of liquid within the reservoir, and this involves substituting one alternative configuration for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding (II), in another embodiment of the same device, Alarcon teaches a seal (seal 313) with an inner flange (Fig. 13; [0121]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the air channel seal of Alarcon by having both an inner flange and an outer flange such that the inner flange and the outer flange form a slot therebetween, wherein the slot is the size and shape to receive the second end of the aerosol outlet tube, because one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this configuration would better secure the aerosol outlet tube to the air channel seal, and this involves combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Furthermore, changes in shape are prima facie obvious absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant.
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 Charlotte Davison whose telephone number is (703)756-5484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755