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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/08/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, and 13-24 are currently pending and are subject to this office action. Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 10-11, and 18 are amended. Claims 6, 9, and 12 are canceled. Claims 22-24 are newly added. This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 11/19/2025.
Response to Amendments
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 11/19/2025 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 8-11, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 1 to include a limitation that was not previously presented, specifically, “a replaceable mouthpiece free of an aerosol-generating substrate”. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Twite (US 20210153565 A1).
The following are modified rejections based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220039465 A1), and further in view of Twite (US 20210153565 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
729
349
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
696
411
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 1, Du, directed to an electronic cigarette, teaches (i) a vaporization device with a main body portion (Fig. 4a: #4) comprising a first cartridge seat (Fig. 4c: #12, [0053]), meeting the claim limitation of a capsule-receiving cavity. (ii) A mouthpiece (Fig. 4a: #6), relating to the lid of the claimed invention, is movably connected to the main body portion (Fig. 4a: #4) by a connection mechanism [0053] at a first and second point of the device (Fig. 4a: "FP" and "SP").
Du further teaches wherein (iii) the mouthpiece (Fig. 4a: #6) may be put in a closed position to enclose the received first cartridge (Fig. 4c: #16, [0053]) in a first cartridge seat (Fig. 4c: #12). (iii) The device includes a second cartridge (Fig. 4a: #46), couplable to the mouthpiece (Fig. 4a: #6), serving as a vapor outlet [0062]. Du teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, however Du is silent to:
A replaceable mouthpiece free of an aerosol-generating substrate
A first retainer
A second retainer configured to engage with the first retainer so as to releasably secure the replaceable mouthpiece to the lid
A ledge configured to position the replaceable mouthpiece with respect to the lid
PNG
media_image3.png
592
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Twite, directed to a non-nicotine e-vaping device, teaches teaches (i) wherein a mouthpiece (Fig. 13: #102) may be reversibly coupled to a retention structure of the device housing, wherein the mouthpiece does not comprise an aerosol generating substrate [0075]. (ii) The mouthpiece (Fig. 15: #102) comprises radial members (Fig. 15: #134), meeting the claim limitation of a first retainer. (iii) The radial members are configured to engage with L-shaped slots, relating to a second retainer, of a retention structure (Fig. 15: #140, [0075]) positioned on the frame of the upper part of the device (Fig. 13: #106, [0074]), meeting the claim limitation of a second retainer configured to engage with the first retainer to as to releasably secure the replaceable mouthpiece to the lid.
Twite further teaches wherein (iv) a ledge (Fig. 13: "L") is located on the bottom portion of the mouthpiece (Fig. 13: #102) that positions and secures the mouthpiece relative to the frame (Fig. 13: #106) of the device [0058]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the same securing mechanism between the mouthpiece and frame of Twite to a lid and mouthpiece of the claimed invention because both pertain to ensuring that a mouthpiece has been properly coupled to a component of the device, meeting the claim limitation of a ledge configured to position the replaceable mouthpiece with respect to the lid.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the a housing of Du to include a replaceable mouthpiece free of an aerosol-generating substrate, a first retainer, a second retainer configured to engage with the first retainer so as to releasably the secure the replaceable mouthpiece to the lid, and a ledge configured to position the replaceable mouthpiece with respect to the lid because both Du and Twite are directed to improving the inhalation experience for a user using replaceable mouthpieces. Twite teaches a replaceable mouthpiece with radial members, comprising a retention structure to receive the radial members and a ledge located on the bottom portion of the mouthpiece to secure the mouthpiece onto the device [0095] and this merely involves applying a known coupling technique to a known aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 2, modified Du teaches all of the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Du is silent to:
Wherein the first retainer includes a retention bar
Wherein the second retainer includes a clip defining a notch therein, the notch configured to receive a retention bar
PNG
media_image3.png
592
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Twite teaches wherein (i) the radial members (Fig. 13: #134) are provided with protruding pins [0075], meeting the claim limitation of wherein the first retainer includes a retention bar. (ii) The retention structure (Fig. 13: #140) comprises L-shaped slots, each comprising a longitudinal portion and a circumferential portion, that are configured to engage with the radial members [0075].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first and second retainers of modified Du to include a retention bar and a clip defining a notch, the notch configured to receive the retention bar because both Du and Twite are directed to couplable mouthpieces in aerosol generating devices. Twite teaches radial members with a retention structure comprising L-shaped slots to receive the radial members to secure the mouthpiece onto the device [0095] and this merely involves applying a known securing technique to a known aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
PNG
media_image4.png
625
293
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 3, Du teaches wherein the second cartridge (Fig. 5: #46) is included in a mouthpiece channel (Fig. 5: #42, [0061]), where the second cartridge has an internal vapor passageway that draws in vapor from a first cartridge (Fig. 5: #16, [0061]), meeting the claim limitation of wherein the replaceable mouthpiece defines a first channel extending through the replaceable mouthpiece from a first mouthpiece end to a second mouthpiece end.
PNG
media_image4.png
625
293
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 4, Du teaches (i) a seal (Fig. 5: #92) that is in contact with the lower side of the second cartridge (Fig. 5: #46) and provides a sealed vapor flow path [0063]. (ii) The vapor flow path is aligned between the first cartridge (Fig. 5: #16) and the second cartridge (Fig. 5: #46), meeting the claim limitation of wherein the seal is configured to engage the second mouthpiece such that the first channel and the second opening at least partially align.
PNG
media_image4.png
625
293
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
656
405
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 5, Du teaches wherein (i) the seal (Fig. 5: #92) comprises an upper and lower side the lower side [0063]meeting the claim limitation of wherein the seal includes a first face and a second face. (ii) The lower side of the second cartridge (Fig. 7: #46) is in contact with a first, upper side of the seal (Fig. 7: #92, [0063]). The lower side of the seal (Fig. 7: #92) includes a slanted first flange (Fig. 7: #94) that is configured to contact the first cartridge (Fig. 5: #16, [0091]) in the first cartridge seat (Fig. 5: #12), meeting the claim limitation of wherein the first face is in contact with the second mouthpiece end and the second face includes a beveled portion that is centrally located along the second face.
Du further teaches wherein (ii) when the electronic cigarette is in a closed position, the first flange (Fig. 7: #94) is depressed against the first cartridge (Fig. 5: #16) of the first cartridge seat (Fig. 5: #12, [0092]), meeting the claim limitation of wherein the beveled portion is configured to engage a capsule in the capsule-receiving cavity as the lid moves from an open position to a closed position so as to exert force an and press the capsule into the capsule-receiving cavity.
PNG
media_image6.png
656
405
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 7, Du teaches a ledge (Fig. 7: "L2") that aligned and adjacent with the lower end of the mouthpiece (Fig. 7: #46).
With regard to Claim 22, Du teaches wherein (i) the top end of the second cartridge (Fig. 7: #46), relating to the mouthpiece of the claimed invention, has a diameter larger than the bottom end of the second cartridge (Fig. 7: #46). (ii) The cross-section from the top end of the second cartridge (Fig. 7: #46) decreases towards the bottom end of the second cartridge (Fig. 7: #46).
With regard to Claim 23, modified Du teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Du is silent to:
Wherein the ledge includes one or more recessed portions
PNG
media_image3.png
592
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Twite teaches wherein the ledge (Fig. 13: "L") is not a smooth annular surface. The ledge comprises shaped inward notches adjacent to the vapor passage (Fig. 13: #136), meeting the recessed portions of the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the ledge of modified Du to include recessed portions to further secure the connection between the mouthpiece and body of the device [0058].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ledge of modified Du to include one or more recessed portions because both Du and Twite are directed to improving the inhalation experience for a user using replaceable mouthpieces. Twite teaches a ledge with recessed portions to ensure that the mouthpiece has been properly coupled to a component of the device [0058] and this merely involves applying a known securing technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220039465 A1) and Twite (US 20210153565 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Qui (US 20210315281 A1).
PNG
media_image2.png
696
411
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 8, Du teaches an outer housing (Fig. 4c: #70) and an inner assembly (Fig. 4c: #71, [0074]), meeting the claim limitation of an outer wall and an inner wall. Modified Du teaches all of the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Du is silent to:
Wherein the outer wall and the inner wall define an air passage therebetween
The air passage extending from a bottom of the housing to a manifold
The manifold in fluid communication with the capsule-receiving cavity
PNG
media_image7.png
721
300
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Qui, directed to a power supply device and electronic cigarette, teaches (i) an outer wall of the cartridge body (Fig. 16: #11) and an inner wall of a second casing (Fig. 16: 212) that defines an air passage (Fig. 16: #149, [0082]). (ii) The air passage (Fig. 16: #149) begins in connection with a first air passage gap (Fig. 16: #148), air inlet (Fig. 16: #147), and inner cavity of a connecting barrel (Fig. 16: #143) at a lower region of the device and extends upward along the housing [0082]. (iii) The different paths including the first air passage gap (Fig. 16: #148), air inlet (Fig. 16: #147), and inner cavity of a connecting barrel (Fig. 16: #143) are in communication with the atomizing chamber (Fig. 16: #130, [0082]) comprising liquid for atomization [0053].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the outer wall and inner wall of modified Du to define an air passage therebetween, wherein the air passage extends from a bottom of the housing to a manifold, and the manifold is in fluid communication with the capsule-receiving cavity because both Du and Qui are directed to aerosol generating devices with multiple chambers for aerosol generation. Qui teaches an outer wall of a cartridge body and an outer wall of a second casing defining an air passage to allow external air to enter an atomizing chamber [0082] and this merely involves applying a known passage in the housing structure of a similar aerosol generating device for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 10, modified Du teaches all of the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Du is silent to:
At least one air inlet defined at the bottom of the housing
The at least one air inlet in fluid communication with the air passage
PNG
media_image8.png
281
259
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
623
332
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Qui teaches (i) an air inlet (Fig. 5: #147) formed in the bottom in the bottom of a cartridge body (Fig. 7: #11, [0082]), meeting the claim limitation of at least one air inlet defined at the bottom of the housing. (ii) The air inlet is in communication with an atomizing chamber (Fig. 7: #130) through an inner cavity of a connecting barrel (Fig. 7: #143, [0059]). The connecting barrel is connected to an inner cavity of a vent tube (Fig. 7: #111) constituting a smoke outlet passage [0082], meeting the claim limitation of wherein the at least one air inlet is in fluid communication with the air passage.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the housing of modified Du to include at least one air inlet defined at the bottom of the housing, in communication with the air passage because both Du and Qui are directed to aerosol generating devices with multiple chambers for aerosol generation. Qui teaches an air inlet disposed on the bottom of a cartridge body connected to a connecting barrel attached to vent tube to constitute a smoke outlet passage to ensure that external air can evenly enter the atomizing chamber [0059] and this merely involves applying a known air inlet feature in similar aerosol generating device to yield predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220039465 A1) and Twite (US 20210153565 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ferrie (US 20220095684 A1)
PNG
media_image10.png
655
286
media_image10.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 11, Du teaches wherein retaining elements (Fig. 4b: #86) of the mouthpiece (Fig. 4b: #6), relating to the lid of the claimed invention, may be magnetic [0086]. the modified Du teaches all of the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Du is silent to:
A magnetic sensor in the housing
The magnet configured to be aligned with the magnetic sensor in the housing when the lid is in a closed position
PNG
media_image11.png
453
319
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
410
352
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Ferrie, directed to a smoking substitute system, teaches (i) a hall effect sensor (Fig. 54G: #229q) in the main body (Fig. 54G: #209q) of the device [2488]. (ii) The hall effect sensor (Fig. 54G: #229q) is aligned with a magnet (Fig. 54G: #228q) in the main body of the device with a cap (Fig. 54D: #210q) is in a closed position [2489] to provide a way for the cap to be retained on the main body of the device [2487].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the housing of modified Du to include a magnetic sensor in the housing and wherein the magnet is configured to be aligned with the magnetic sensor in the housing when the lid is in a closed position, because both Du and Ferrie are directed to magnetic components used to secure positions of other components in aerosol generating devices. Ferrie teaches a hall effect sensor that aligns with a magnet in the main body to detect a position of a cap of the device [2489] and provide a way for the cap to be retained on the main body of the device [2487]and this merely involves the use of a known magnetic sensor to improve a similar aerosol generating device in the same way.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220039465 A1) and Twite (US 20210153565 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Claude (WO 2021240397 A1)
PNG
media_image13.png
692
423
media_image13.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 13, Du teaches wherein a first contact surface (Fig. 4c: #50) of the main body (Fig. 4c: #4) is recessed and corresponds to the first cartridge seat (Fig. 4c: #12, [0084]), meeting the claim limitation of wherein an upper surface of a portion of the housing defining the capsule-receiving cavity is recessed toward to capsule-receiving cavity. Modified Du teaches all of the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Du is silent to:
Wherein a portion of a capsule received in the capsule-receiving cavity is exposed
PNG
media_image14.png
624
383
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Claude, directed to an aerosol generating system and device, teaches an opening (Fig. 1A: #80) that receives a capsule (Fig. 1A: #10), where when the capsule is received in the opening, a portion of the capsule (Fig. 1A: #10) is left exposed, meeting the claim limitation of wherein a portion of a capsule received in the capsule-receiving cavity is exposed.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the capsule receiving cavity of modified Du to include wherein a portion of a capsule received in the capsule-receiving cavity is exposed, because both Du and Claude are directed to using capsules as mouthpieces in aerosol generating device. Claude teaches wherein a capsule received in an opening is exposed to allow a user to receive smoke directly from an inhalation port of the capsule (Pg. 5, Lines 23-24) and this merely involves applying a known exposed capsule technique to a similar aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 20, modified Du teaches all of the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however, modified Du is silent to:
Wherein a first end of the capsule-receiving cavity has a first width
Wherein a second end of the capsule-receiving cavity has a second width
The capsule-receiving cavity is tapered between the first end and the second end
PNG
media_image15.png
620
367
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Claude, directed to an aerosol generating system, teaches an (i) upper end (Fig. 1E: "UE") of an opening (Fig. 1E: #80) meant to receive a capsule (Fig. 1E: #10), meeting the claim limitation of wherein a first end of the capsule-receiving cavity has a first width. (ii) A lower end (Fig. 1E: "LE") of the opening (Fig. 1E: #80) meant to receive a capsule has a different width, meeting the claim limitation of wherein a second end of the capsule-receiving cavity has a second width. (iii) The opening (Fig. 1E: #80) is sloped inward between the upper end (Fig. 1E: "UE") and the lower end (Fig. 1E: "LE"), meeting the claim limitation of wherein the capsule-receiving cavity is tapered between the first end and the second end.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the capsule receiving cavity of modified Du to include a first end with a first width, a second end with a second width, and wherein the capsule-receiving cavity is tapered between the first end and the second end, because both Du and Claude are directed to using capsules as mouthpieces in aerosol generating device. Claude teaches wherein an opening meant to receive a capsule has an upper end with a first width, a lower end with a second width, and is slanted inward between the two ends to receive a similarly shaped capsule and this merely involves applying known width and shapes to a cavity of a similar aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 14 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220039465 A1), Twite (US 20210153565 A1), and Claude (WO 2021240397 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, further in view of Bouchuiguir (WO 2022162061 A1)
PNG
media_image16.png
727
330
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
692
423
media_image13.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 14, Du teaches wherein the bottom of the mouthpiece (Fig. 4b: #6), relating to the claimed lid, comprises a first rim (Fig. 4b: #80). The first rim of the mouthpiece is arranged to engage with a second rim (Fig. 4c: #82) on the main body (Fig. 4c: #4) of the device to enclose the connection between the first and second cartridges (Fig. 4c: #16 and #46) [0083], meeting the claim limitation of wherein the bottom surface of the lid engages an engagement surface of the housing when in the closed position. Modified Du teaches all of the claims as set forth above, however modified Du is silent to:
The portion of the housing defining the capsule-receiving cavity extends from a level of the engagement surface of the housing when in the closed position
PNG
media_image17.png
286
193
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Bouchuiguir, directed to an aerosol generating system, teaches a case (Fig. 1: #12) of an aerosol generating device, comprising a cavity (Fig. 1: #20) that is protruded out (Fig. 1: "P") from the case when the lid (Fig. 1: #18) is in a closed state (Pg. 6, Paragraph 1, Lines 1-5), meeting the claim limitation of wherein a portion of the housing defining the capsule-receiving cavity extends from a level of the engagement surface of the housing when in the closed position
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the capsule-receiving cavity of modified Du to extend from a level of the engagement surface of the housing when in a closed position because both Du and Bouchuiguir are directed to aerosol generating devices comprising lids to cover aerosol generating articles. Bouchuiguir teaches a cavity protruding out from a case in a closed state of a lid to assist in fully protecting an inhalation device in a non-use state (Pg. 3, Paragraph 3, Line 4) and merely involves applying a known extending capsule-receiving cavity to a similar aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 15, modified Du teaches all of the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Du is silent to:
Wherein the portion of the housing defining the capsule receiving cavity has a mesa shape with respect to the engagement surface
PNG
media_image14.png
624
383
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Claude teaches wherein a holder (Fig. 1A: #50) of an aerosol generating system (Fig. 1A: #100) comprises an opening (Fig. 1A: #80) for receiving a capsule (Fig. 1A: #10) with a flat horizontal top and sloping lower edges. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the extending cavity of modified Du with the shape of Claude's capsule receiving cavity to retain a mesa shaped capsule, meeting the claim limitation of wherein the portion of the housing defining the capsule receiving cavity has a mesa shape with respect to the engagement surface
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the capsule receiving cavity of modified Du to have a mesa shape with respect to the engagement surface, because both Du and Claude are directed to using capsules as mouthpieces in aerosol generating device. Claude teaches wherein an opening of a capsule cavity changes from a straight to sloped shape to receive smoke directly from an inhalation port of an inserted capsule (Pg. 5, Lines 23-24) and this merely involves the use of a known cavity shape to improve a similar aerosol generating device in the same way.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220039465 A1), and Twite (US 20210153565 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Liu (US 20220151301 A1)
PNG
media_image18.png
616
296
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
668
378
media_image19.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 16, Du teaches (i) a hinge mechanism (Fig. 5: #45, [0075) connected to the mouthpiece (Fig. 5: #6), meeting the claim limitation of a lid latch assembly. (ii) The hinge mechanism comprises a lever (Fig. 7: #72) in the inner portion of the mouthpiece (Fig. 7: #6) with a first connection end (Fig. 7: #74), meeting the claim limitation of a lid latch on an inner surface of the lid. (iii) The lever also comprises a second connecting end (Fig. 7: #76) that is connected to the mouthpiece (Fig. 7: #6) and to the first connecting end (Fig. 7: #74), meeting the claim limitation of a latching arm configured to engage the lid latch when the lid is in the closed position. (iv) The second connection end is configured to be connected to a receiving portion (Fig. 5: #77) of the main body (Fig. 5: #72, [0075]), meeting the claim limitation of a receiving arm perpendicular to the latching arm. The lever (Fig. 5: #72) allows the mouthpiece portion to rotate in open and closed positions [0029], meeting the claim limitation of wherein the inner latching laver opens the lid. Modified Du teaches all of the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Du is silent to:
A latch button on a side of the housing
A latch button arm extending from an inner surface of the latch button
The receiving arm configured to contact the latch button arm
When the latch button is pressed, the latch button arm presses the receiving arm and moves the inner latching lever such that the latching arm disengages from the lid latch to open the lid
A spring connecting the inner latching lever to the external portion of the capsule receiving cavity
PNG
media_image20.png
647
472
media_image20.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image21.png
296
444
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
426
468
media_image22.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image23.png
311
282
media_image23.png
Greyscale
Liu, directed to an electronic cigarette atomizing core and atomizer, teaches (i) a child lock structure (Fig. 10: #B4) disposed under an upper cover (Fig. 6: #B2, [0038]). The child lock structure includes two buttons (Fig. 10: #B41) protruding out from a shell of a suction nozzle (Fig. 6: “B”, [0039]), meeting the claim limitation of a latch button on a side of the housing. (ii) The buttons include locking legs (Fig. 10: #B411) that extend out from the bottom of the buttons [0039], meeting the claim limitation of a latch button arm extending from an inner surface of the latch button. (iii) The locking legs (Fig. 10: #B411) are received by mounting grooves (Fig. 8: #B22) of the upper cover (Fig. 8: #B2) and snapped into clamping grooves (Fig. 9: A141), meeting the claim limitation of wherein the receiving arm is configured to contact the latch button arm.
Liu further teaches wherein (iv) when the two buttons (Fig. 10: #B41) are pressed, the locking legs break away from the limitations of the clamping grooves (Fig. 9: #A141) to open a liquid filling port [0039], meeting the claim limitation of wherein when the latch button is pressed, the latch button arm presses the receiving arm. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine this locking structure with the open and closing level mechanism of modified Du to meet the claim limitation of wherein the inner latching lever is moved such that the latching arm disengages form the lid latch to open the lid. (v) A spring (Fig. 10: #B412) is included on the button, which would be connected to the lever through the latch button arm, and abuts on the suction nozzle cover (Fig. 6: #B1) surrounding the e-liquid tank (Fig. 6: "A"), meeting the claim limitation of a spring connecting the inner latching lever to the external portion of the capsule receiving cavity
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lid latch assembly of modified Liu to include a latch button with an arm extending from an inner surface of the button, a receiving arm configured to contact the latch button arm, wherein when the latch button is pressed, the latch button arm presses the receiving arm and moves the inner latching lever such that the latching arm disengages from the lid latch to open the lid, and spring connecting the inner latching lever and the external portion of the capsule-receiving cavity because both Du and Liu are directed to covering aerosol forming articles in aerosol generating device. Liu teaches a child lock structure comprising two buttons, with locking legs configured to make contact with clamping grooves and wherein the two buttons are pressed to ultimately open a liquid filling port to restrict child access and this merely involves applying a known locking mechanism to a similar aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220039465 A1), Twite (US 20210153565 A1), and Liu (US 20220151301 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, further in view of Michaud (US 20220175029 A1)
With regard to Claim 17, modified Du teaches all of the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Du is silent to:
Wherein the lid latch assembly applies about 30 newtons of downward force on a capsule in the capsule-receiving cavity when the lid is in the closed position
PNG
media_image24.png
375
256
media_image24.png
Greyscale
Michaud, directed to a locking mechanism for a vaporizer cartridge, teaches wherein a subassembly tip (Fig. 1: #1) and a subassembly base (Fig. 1: #2) can be pressed together with a force less than 6 kg [0090], where in between both is a hollow cylinder (Fig. 1: #6), meant to contain a vape material [0057], received in a shield (Fig. 1: #8). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the conversion of 6 kg to Newtons is 58.68 N. Less than 58.68 N as said by Michaud, overlaps with the measurement of 30 Newtons in the claimed invention and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lid latch assembly of modified Du to apply about 30 Newtons of downward force on a capsule in the capsule-receiving cavity when the lid is in the closed position because both Du and Michaud are directed to sealing mechanism of cartridges. Michaud teaches wherein a subassembly tip and a subassembly base can be pressed together with a force of less than 6 kg to allow easy filling and assembly of vape cartridges [0053] and this merely involves applying a known measurement of force to a similar locking mechanism in an aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220039465 A1), Twite (US 20210153565 A1), and Qui (US 20210315281 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, further in view of Shu (CN 113424988 A, hereinafter citations referring to English Machin Translation)
With regard to Claim 18, modified Du teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Du is silent to:
A charging connector defined within the housing, the at least one air inlet surrounding charging connector
PNG
media_image25.png
650
256
media_image25.png
Greyscale
Shu, directed to an anti-tar-leakage electronic cigarette, teaches a charging socket (Fig. 2: #15) that is embedded with an air inlet (Fig. 2: #14), meeting the claim limitation of a charging connector defined within the housing, the at least one air inlet surrounding charging connector
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the housing of modified Du to include a charging connector, wherein the at least one air inlet surrounds the charging connector because both Du and are directed to directed to aerosol generating devices with cartridges to generate aerosol. Shu teaches a charging socket embedded with an air inlet to charge a battery to supply power to a heating element [n0011] and this merely involves the use of a known charging port feature to improve a similar aerosol generating device in the same way.
With regard to Claim 19, modified Du teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Du is silent to:
A grill surrounding the charging connector
The grill defining at least one air inlet
PNG
media_image26.png
650
256
media_image26.png
Greyscale
Shu teaches (i) a charging socket (Fig. 2: #15) surrounded by a frame (Fig. 2: "F"), meeting the claim limitation of a grill surrounding the charging connector. (ii) The frame defines the boundary of the air inlet formed by an air inlet gap between the charging socket (Fig. 2: #12) and the side wall of the air inlet (Fig. 2: #14), meeting the claim limitation of the grill defining at least one air inlet.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the charging connector of modified Du grill surrounding the charging connected and the grill defining at least one air inlet because both Du and are directed to directed to aerosol generating devices with cartridges to generate aerosol. Shu teaches a charging socket surrounded by a frame defining the boundary of an air inlet to create an entrance for a plug to effectively charge a battery to supply power to a heating element [n0011] and this merely involves the use of a known surrounding grill with a charging connector to improve a similar aerosol generating device in the same way.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220039465 A1), Twite (US 20210153565 A1), and Claude (WO 2021240397 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 20 above, and further in view of Capelli (US 20220225668 A1).
With regard to Claim 21, modified Du teaches all of the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however, modified Du is silent to:
Wherein the second end of the capsule-receiving cavity includes one or more alignment members configured to guide a capsule received by the capsule-receiving cavity, the one or more alignment members having a rib shape
PNG
media_image27.png
517
279
media_image27.png
Greyscale
Capelli, directed to an aerosol-generating device, teaches wherein an extractor (Fig. 11: #100) with a cavity (Fig. 11: #710) for containing an aerosol-generating article [0105]. The bottom of the extractor (Fig. 11: #100) may comprise one or more ribs (Fig. 11: #790) to help guide and stabilize an aerosol-generating article inserted in the cavity [0040], meeting the claim limitation of wherein the second end of the capsule-receiving cavity includes one or more alignment members configured to guide a capsule received by the capsule-receiving cavity, the one or more alignment members having a rib shape.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the capsule-receiving cavity of modified Du to include one or more alignment members at its second end to guide a capsule received by the capsule-receiving cavity, the one or more alignment members having a rib shape, because both Du and Capelli are directed to aerosol-generating devices comprising cavities with protruding aerosol generating material. Capelli teaches wherein a bottom of an extractor comprises one or more ribs to help guide and stabilize an aerosol-generating article inserted in the cavity and this merely involves the use of a known guiding feature to improve a similar aerosol generating device in the same way.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Du (US 20220039465 A1) and Twite (US 20210153565 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, further in view of Villamar (US 20210289842 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
729
349
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image28.png
386
219
media_image28.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 24, Du teaches wherein (i) the second cartridge (Fig. 4a: #46) is inserted through an opening of the mouthpiece portion (Fig. 4a: #6). (ii) The opening of the mouthpiece portion (Fig. 4a: #6), relating to the lid of the claimed invention, comprises an extended portion (Fig. 7: "E") at the bottom of the second cartridge seating (Fig. 7: #42). Modified Du teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Du is silent to:
The opening of the lid configured to be secured to the second mouthpiece end
PNG
media_image29.png
398
389
media_image29.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image30.png
451
434
media_image30.png
Greyscale
Villamar, directed to a ceramic vaporizer, teaches a mouthpiece (Fig. 5: #120) that is removably coupled vid a lid (Fig. 5: #502, [0027]). Figure 4 illustrates wherein the mouthpiece (Fig. 4: #120) is inserted into a heating chamber (Fig. 4: #124). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the lid (Fig. 5: #502) is placed between the mouthpiece (Fig. 5: #120) and the heating chamber (Fig. 4: #124). Therefore, for the mouthpiece to reach the heating chamber, the mouthpiece must also be insertable through an opening of the lid. Since Villamar discloses that the lid aides in the coupling function of the mouthpiece [0027], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the bottom end of the mouthpiece is secured by the opening of the lid.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lid of modified Du to wherein the opening of the lid configured to be secured to the second mouthpiece end because both Du and Villamar are directed to removable mouthpieces coupled via lids. Villamar teaches a mouthpiece removably coupled by a lid to help prevent material from entering the mouth of a user [0022] and this merely involves applying a known mouthpiece configuration to a known lid of an aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWATOSIN O DIYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 am - 6 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.
/O.O.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755