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 .
Response to Submission
Applicant’s submission filed on 2026 May 6 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, and 5-15 are pending.
Drawings
Figure 1B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art--, because the figure is described as “known” [applicant 14-15], and only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1, 3, 8, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manca (US 20170280775 A1 cited on an IDS) in view of Illidge (WO 2021053214 A1) and Century (US 20110223116 A1).
Claims 1 and 15: Manca teaches an aerosol generating device (fig. 1 and [65], #10) comprising:
a housing (12) comprising mouthpiece (30) at an end (leftmost end of 12) thereof, the mouthpiece (30) being configured to come into contact with a mouth of a user [66];
a canister (liquid storage portion #18) disposed inside the housing (12) and storing a medium in a pressurized state ([33], the liquid storage portion is pressurized), the medium including nicotine [36] and a propellant [33], the canister (18) including an outlet ([35], opening between canister #18 and tubing section #20) through which the medium flows out [35];
a transfer tube (20) having a first end portion (rightmost end of 20) connected to the outlet (opening between canister #18 and transfer tube #20) and a second end portion (leftmost end of 20) connected to the mouthpiece (30), and configured to receive the medium in the pressurized state from the canister (18) at the first end portion [67];
a first valve ([33], pump #22 can instead be a controllable one-way valve) arranged at the second end portion (leftmost end of 20) and configured to control discharge of the medium remaining in the transfer tube to the outside [33];
a second valve ([35], tube #20 can further comprise, i.e. the valves of [33 and 35] are different, a one-way valve to control liquid through the tube) arranged at the first end portion (rightmost end of 20), the second valve being configured to control transfer of the medium stored in the canister to the transfer tube (20) by adjusting opening and closing (the one-way valve controls fluid flow) of the outlet (outlet positioned at one-way valve which interfaces #18 and #20);
and a nozzle (24) configured to atomize the medium and eject an aerosol [66] when the first valve is open (aerosol can only be ejected when the first valve is open),
wherein the first valve ([33], controllable one-way valve) operates based on puff of the user ([56-57], a puff sensor activates liquid delivery which requires the first valve to open in order to deliver liquid).
Manca does not explicitly teach that the outlet and the second valve are on a second side of the canister opposite to a first side of the canister that faces the mouthpiece,
and that a direction in which the medium flows through the outlet is opposite to a direction in which the medium flows through the mouthpiece.
Illidge teaches using an aerosol-generating device in an upright position (p. 23, lines 9-11), such that excess precursor medium can contained from leaking through a chamber outlet (p. 23, lines 11-13).
Manca’s device can be used in any orientation [Manca 19] to yield expectation to succeed. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to use Manca’s device in an upright position.
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 and design Manca’s device in an upright position, because doing so would help to contain excess precursor medium from leaking through the mouthpiece.
Century teaches an aerosol generating device (title) comprising an outlet on a bottom side of a reservoir opposite to a top side of the reservoir [59], such that the fluid moves without trapping bubbles that would interfere with aerosolization [59].
Specifying that Manca’s outlet is on a bottom side of a reservoir would position Manca’s outlet on a second side of the canister that faces away from the mouthpiece.
PNG
media_image1.png
170
859
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 move Manca’s outlet from facing towards the mouthpiece to facing away from the mouthpiece as motivated by Century, such that a direction in which the medium flows through the outlet is opposite to a direction in which the medium flows through the mouthpiece, because doing so would enable fluid to move through the outlet without trapping bubbles that would interfere with aerosolization.
Claim 3: modified Manca teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1, further comprising a puff detection sensor ([56-57], puff sensor) configured to detect the puff of the user, wherein the first valve ([33], controllable one-way valve) operates based on a result detected by the puff detection sensor ([56-57], the puff sensor can activate liquid delivery, which would require the first valve to open in order to deliver liquid).
Claim 8: modified Manca teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the transfer tube (fig. 1, #20) has a predetermined diameter and a predetermined length corresponding to an amount of aerosol generated per puff ([30], #20 conveys a liquid aerosol-forming substrate and therefore is dimensioned corresponding to an amount of aerosol generated per puff).
Claim 11: modified Manca teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the nozzle (fig. 2 and [67], #24) includes an air-atomizing nozzle including an outdoor air passage (36) through which external air is introduced (air flows through 28 and 36).
Claim 12: modified Manca teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the nozzle (fig. 2, #24) includes a passage (38) through which the medium passes, and the passage (38) has a curved portion (38 comprises curves).
Claim 13: modified Manca teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the mouthpiece (fig. 2, #30) has a discharge hole (leftmost opening of 30) for discharging the aerosol to the outside, and the discharge hole (leftmost opening of 30) is arranged in a direction (dashed line) parallel to another direction (dashed line) in which the nozzle (24) ejects the medium.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manca (US 20170280775 A1 cited on an IDS) in view of Illidge (WO 2021053214 A1) and Century (US 20110223116 A1) as applied to claim 1 in further view of Dunne (US 20120090603 A1).
Claims 5-6: modified Manca teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1.
Modified Manca does not explicitly teach that the second valve is operated by the user, that the medium stored in the canister is transferred to the transfer tube in response to an operation of the user for the second valve to open the outlet,
and that the second valve is movable between a first position in which the outlet is closed and a second position in which the outlet is opened.
Dunne teaches an aerosol generating device (fig. 3 and [84], #110) comprising a first valve (170) and a second valve (106), wherein the second valve (106) is operated by the user ([75], the valve #106 is toggled by [87], a suction stroke), and a medium stored in a canister (105) is transferred to a transfer tube (168) in response to an operation of the user for the second valve to open an outlet (positioned at 106),
wherein the second valve (106) is movable between a first position in which the outlet is closed and a second position in which the outlet (positioned at 106) is opened ([75], #106 opens and closes), such that the second valve can be normally closed in order to minimize liquid leakage [11].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use, as Manca’s generic second valve, Dunne’s specific second valve operated by the user and movable between a first position in which the outlet is closed and a second position in which the outlet is opened, wherein the medium stored in the canister transferred to the transfer tube in response to an operation of the user for the second valve to open the outlet, because doing so would enable the second valve to be normally closed in order to minimize liquid leakage.
Claim 7: modified Manca teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 5, further comprising a button ([56-57], on-off button) configured to control liquid delivery [57], wherein an amount of the medium transferred to the transfer tube is determined based on at least one of an operation time and an operation strength of the button ([57], a duration of activation during which liquid is delivered corresponds to an action like pressing the on-off button; the only two variables in pressing a button are a time of the press and a strength of the press), wherein the liquid delivery is controlled by operation of the second valve ([35], the one-way valve controls liquid flow towards the mouthpiece).
Claims 9-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manca (US 20170280775 A1 cited on an IDS) in view of Illidge (WO 2021053214 A1) and Century (US 20110223116 A1) as applied to claim 1 in further view of Baran (US 20040084050 A1).
Claims 9-10 and 14: modified Manca teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1.
Modified Manca does not explicitly teach that the transfer tube is spirally wound on an outer peripheral surface of the canister,
that at least a part of the transfer tube is in contact with an outer peripheral surface of the canister,
or that the outer peripheral surface is between the first side of the canister and the second side of the canister.
Baran teaches an aerosol generating device (title) comprising a transfer tube (fig. 50 and [185], #824) spirally wound on an outer peripheral surface of a cylinder (808),
wherein at least a part of the transfer tube (824) is in contact with an outer peripheral surface of the cylinder (808),
wherein the outer peripheral surface is between a first side of the cylinder (leftmost end of 808) and a second side of the cylinder (rightmost end of 808), such that the transfer tube can store a suitable dose of medication due to its length [185].
Manca’s canister (Manca fig. 1, #18) conveys pressurized [33] fluid and Baran’s canister (Baran fig. 50, #808) conveys pressurized fluid [185] to yield expectation to succeed.
Moreover, changing the shape of the transfer tube from cylindrical to spiral would be an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B): In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The courts have held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was an obvious matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reshape Manca’s transfer tube into being spirally wound on and in contact with an outer peripheral surface of the canister, wherein the outer peripheral surface is between the first side of the canister and the second side of the canister, because doing so would enable the transfer tube to store a suitable dose of liquid due to its length and would otherwise be a patentably indistinct change in shape.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 2026 May 6 have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Drawings: the amended drawings only have a --Prior Art-- label for fig. 1A and should have a --Prior Art-- label for both fig. 1A and fig. 1B.
Applicant argues (p. 9, “First…”) that modified Manca does not teach ejecting a pressurized medium through a first valve. However, modified Manca does teach ejecting a pressurized medium (fig. 1 and [65], liquid storage portion #18 is pressurized as in [33]) through a first valve ([33], a controllable one-way valve delivers pressurized medium to a nozzle).
Applicant argues (p. 9-10, “Second…”) that Illidge and Century do not teach an outlet facing opposite a mouthpiece. However, the combination of Illidge and Century does render obvious arranging Manca’s outlet opposite Manca’s mouthpiece. As in the above analysis, Illidge teaches using and designing an aerosol generating device in an upright orientation for the benefit of containing liquid from leaking through a chamber outlet or mouthpiece (Illidge p. 23, lines 11-13), and Century teaches positioning an outlet on a bottom side of a reservoir for the benefit of reducing bubbles that would interfere with aerosolization [Century 59]. The cited teachings would motivate one of ordinary skill to position Manca’s outlet facing away from the mouthpiece for Century’s same benefit of reducing bubbles in the transfer tube.
PNG
media_image1.png
170
859
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to Illidge in particular, applicant argues that Illidge’s outlet faces a side rather than a top. However, Illidge fig. 19 cited by applicant show air inlets (Illidge fig. 19 and p. 44, lines 28-30, #176) facing a side. Illidge’s chamber outlet and mouthpiece (Illidge fig. 19 and p. 44, lines 10-14, #174 and #150) face a top.
With respect to Century in particular, applicant argues that Century is “unrelated to an aerosol generating device”. However, Century’s title and abstract describe an aerosol generating device. The bubble-reducing teaching [Century 59] cited by the examiner addresses engineering considerations in generating aerosol.
In response to applicant's argument (p. 11-12, “Third…”) that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues (p. 12-13, “Fourth…”) that positioning Manca’s outlet facing away from the mouthpiece would not yield a transfer tube having a first end portion facing away from the mouthpiece. However, Manca’s outlet (Manca fig. 1 and [35], outlet positioned at one-way valve which interfaces #18 and #20) and transfer tube (Manca fig. 1 and [65], #20) are directly connected, and positioning the outlet facing away from the mouthpiece would correspond to positioning the transfer tube in kind. “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Applicant argues (p. 13, “Fifth…”) that positioning Manca’s outlet facing away from the mouthpiece would change Manca’s principle of operation. However, Manca’s structural teachings [Manca 33-35] give no weight or inclination to the relative orientation of the elements therein, and fig. 1 is an example embodiment [Manca 12] that is not intended to limit the structural teachings [Manca 14]. No suggestive conflict between Manca, Illidge, and Century has been identified that arises to the rigid-resilient conflict of In re Ratti.
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 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 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.
/TOBEY C LE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights