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 Amendment
Claim 1 is amended. Claim 5 is cancelled. Claims 1-4 and 6-16 are presently examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are not made from India ink or an equivalent that secures solid black lines as required by 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) (figures 2-3, 7-8). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-16 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the aerosol generating device further comprises a gasket configured to, in the closed position, seal the air flow channel between the inlet and the outlet.” Does this limitation require a gasket that completely blocks airflow through the air flow channel, does it require the gasket to be directly adjacent to both the inlet and outlet, or does it require the gasket to be located at some point along the air flow channel? The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required a component that formed a seal at some portion of the aerosol generating device adjacent to the air flow channel. Claims 2-4 and 6-16 are indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 8, claim 1 requires the air flow channel to have an inlet and outlet. However, the instant claim requires the section air flow channel to “provide the inlet and outlet.” Does this require the second air flow channel to connect to begin and end at the same inlet and outlet as the first air flow channel, or does it require the second air flow channel to connect to a new inlet and a new outlet? The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required a second air flow channel that connected to the inlet and outlet also used by the first air flow channel. Claims 9-14 are indefinite by dependence.
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.
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 1-4, 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (GB 2534215) in view of Armoush (US 10,561,172).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 16, Reevell discloses an aerosol generating device (figure 2, reference numeral 2) that has a lower surface (figure 2, reference numeral 12) and an upper surface joined by rounded surfaces (page 31, lines 12-20, figure 2, reference numeral 10), which are considered all together to meet the claim limitation of a first housing. The upper surface has a lid (figure 2, reference numeral 16), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second housing. that defines an air inlet into the device (page 31, lines 22-26, figure 2, reference numeral 20), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an inlet. The device has a chamber that forms a recess (figure 2, reference numeral 28), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an aerosol generation chamber and a recess that receives an aerosol generating article, that extends to an end opening (page 32, lines 18-25, figure 2, reference numeral 22), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an outlet. An article made from aerosol forming substrate is placed within the chamber (page 33, lines 21-30, figure 8, reference numeral 44), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a portion of aerosol generating substrate, and is held within the chamber when the lid is closed (page 34, lines 12-21). The lower surface of the chamber is defined by a flat electric heater (page 32, lines 27-34), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of flat bottom surface. The air flows through the device from the air inlet, through the heating chamber, and then through the outlet (page 34, lines 34-36, page 35, lines 1-21), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an air flow channel. The article is squashed and compressed by a raised section of the lid located opposite the heater (page 34, lines 12-21, figure 2, reference numeral 42), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a compression surface. Reevell does not explicitly disclose (a) the article being cuboid, (b) a gasket, and (c) the device and article having the claimed relative thicknesses.
Regarding (a), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the article of Reevell to be cuboid since there is no evidence that the particular shape of the article is critical. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding (b), Armoush teaches a hookah (abstract) having a heating apparatus with top and bottom pieces that create a hermetic seal between them using a rubber between the two pieces to prevent air leaks (column 9, lines 1-15).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a rubber of Armoush between the lid and lower surface of Reevell. One would have been motivated to do so since Armoush teaches a preventing air leaks by using a rubber.
Regarding (c), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the claimed components have the claimed relative sizes. One would have been motivated to do so since there is no evidence that the specific sizes of the components of Reevell are critical as long as the article of Reevell is compressed. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 3, Reevell discloses that the lid is connected to the rest of the device using a hinge (page 31, lines 28-36).
Regarding claim 4, Reevell discloses that the device has a solid band located around the device (page 32, lines 1-8, figure 1, reference numeral 26) that prevents the lid from opening (page 32, lines 10-16).
Regarding claim 6, Reevell discloses that the aerosol forming substrate is placed on the heater (page 34, lines 4-10) so that the heater heats the substrate to create an aerosol (page 34, lines 34-36, page 35, lines 1-21).
Regarding claim 7, Reevell discloses that the chamber side walls are thermally insulating (page 13, lines 10-11).
Regarding claim 15, Reevell discloses that the device is a hand-held portable device (page 2, lines 7-8) and has an electrical power source (page 2, lines 10-14).
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (GB 2534215) in view of Armoush (US 10,561,172) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Emmett (US 11,305,076).
Regarding claim 8, modified Reevell teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Reevell does not explicitly teach a second air flow channel.
Emmett teaches an aerosol generating device for use with a shape transformable aerosol forming substrate in which the device housing comprises a molding cavity (abstract). The second mold half is formed by a lid that has a series of longitudinally arranged flutes (column 13, lines 56-60, figure 16, reference numeral 48) that mold the substrate into a corresponding shape (column 13, lines 61-67).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the compression surface of modified Reevell with the flutes of Emmett. One would have been motivated to do so since Emmett teaches shaping a substrate using flutes on a compression surface.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the flutes of Emmett are considered to form grooves in the compression surface of modified Reevell.
Regarding claim 11, it is evident that the grooves of modified Reevell would be connected to the inlet and outlet of modified Reevell since they are located within the chamber of modified Reevell, which connects the inlet and outlet of modified Reevell.
Regarding claim 12, modified Reevell teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Emmett additionally teaches that each flute has its own air inlet opening to provide individual airflow (column 14, lines 5-9). Modified Reevell does not explicitly teach the flutes of modified Reevell each having their own inlet.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide each flute of modified Reevell with their own air inlet. One would have been motivated to do so since Emmett teaches providing each flute with their own inlet to provide individual airflow.
Regarding claim 13, Emmett teaches that the flutes are arranged in parallel (figure 16).
Regarding claim 14, Emmett teaches that the flutes have raised portions between them (figure 16), which would evidently continue to compress the article when an article is inserted.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection relying on Reevell in view of Armoush are entered as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 pm.
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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights