DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to applicant’s request for continued examination filed March 11, 2026. Claims 16-17 and 20-22 have been amended. Claims 19 and 23 have been cancelled. Claims 30-35 are new. Claims 16-18, 20-22, and 24-35 are pending and stand rejected.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 11, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 16-18, 20, 22, 24-26, and 28-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200288780 A1 (hereinafter MARTIN) in view of US 20210315270 A1 (hereinafter MILLS).
Regarding claim 16, MARTIN discloses a vapor dispenser with a bifurcated housing having a body attached to a mouthpiece (abstract). MARTIN discloses an embodiment in Figs. 6-8 with an aerosol generating device (Fig. 6, vapor dispenser 600, ¶65) having an aerosol-forming substrate (Figs. 6-8, vaporizing component 614, smokeable materials ¶8-¶9, ¶65), the aerosol-generating device comprising: a heater configured to heat an aerosol-forming substrate (¶21); an odour inhibition assembly (Figs. 6-8, outside-in filter compartment 603, ¶65) comprising at least one chamber (Figs. 6-8, interior space 637, ¶67) configured to receive at least one odour inhibition substrate (Fig. cylindrical air filter 602, ¶65). MARTIN further discloses wherein the odour inhibition assembly further comprises an airflow pathway (Fig. 8, exhalation 632, ¶67) configured such that air may pass into the assembly through an air inlet (Fig. 8, central opening 625, ¶67), pass through the at least one chamber, and pass out of an air outlet (Figs. 6 and 8, exhaust vent 635, ¶67). MARTIN discloses that the exhalation passes through the assembly by entering the assembly in the inlet of the assembly and then unscented air is produced through flowing through the filter before it exits the exhaust vent (¶67). MARTIN further discloses a recess (Fig. 7, vaporizer cavity 610, ¶65) configured to receive the aerosol-generating article. MARTIN further discloses the at least one chamber being isolated from the recess such that air is unable to pass from the chamber to the recess through the aerosol-generating device. MARTIN discloses that the vapor dispenser is bifurcated (¶7). MARTIN discloses that the bifurcated body allows pneumatic communication with the mouthpiece but separates the air between the vaporization cavity 610 and the exhaust cavity 616 (¶65). This is further separated from the air filter portion 602 (¶65).
MARTIN does not disclose wherein the odour inhibition assembly further comprises a fan configured to move the air along the airflow pathway from the air inlet to the air outlet.
MILLS teaches a multi-staged vapor filtration device with a mouthpiece and an exhaust (abstract). MILLS teaches that present society confines recreation use and/or bans recreation smoking in public spaces (¶3). MILLS teaches that the filtration device is intended to overcome these societal limitations by eliminating or minimizing the exhaled vapors to a point that others around the smoker cannot detect or notice that a vape is being used (¶3-¶4). MILLS teaches the use of a fan within the chamber to facilitate the movement of vapors into the chamber (¶37). As shown in Fig. 1, the arrows show an airflow path that enters a mouthpiece 148, follows the air path as shown by the arrows, and ultimately exits at the exhaust 146 (¶26). Since MILLS teaches that the fan moves vapors into the chamber, that is in the direction from the inlet to the outlet. .
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 have modified MARTIN to use the entire device, with the fan, of MILLS as the attachable air filter canister (102) in MARTIN. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously use a more advanced, multi-staged vapor filtration device, as the attachable air filter canister. Doing so would facilitate the movement of vapors into the desired chamber (MILLS ¶37) and overcome the prohibition of use of vapes in public places through elimination of exhaled vapors (MILLS ¶3-¶4). This motivation to combine is supported as an application of the rationale (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143, I., (D)). A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously use the multistage air filtration of MILLS on the end of the device of MARTIN with predictable results to enable the use of vapes in public places (MILLS ¶3-¶4). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the power switch controlling the operation of the fan (as taught by Mills in ¶37) be tied to the opening of the one way value of Martin as it logically follows the fan should only operate to provide the air flow of Mills when the one way value of Martin is open because of exhalation. This is also suggested by Mills in ¶38.
Regarding claim 17, modified MARTIN discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 16 as discussed above. MARTIN further discloses wherein the odour inhibition assembly is disposed at a distal end of the aerosol generating device. This is shown in Fig. 6 where the air filter 602 is inserted into the distal end of the device.
Regarding claim 18, modified MARTIN discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 16 as discussed above. MARTIN does not disclose, but nonetheless teaches wherein the odour inhibition assembly further comprises a cover movable between a closed position, in which the at least one chamber is closed by the cover, and an open position, in which the at least one chamber is not closed by the cover.
MARTIN teaches that the vapor dispenser has a filter door 601 to receive the filter (¶65). MARTIN further teaches the inclusion of a filter chamber door 631 that enables inserting a cylindrical air filter (¶65). MARTIN illustrates that the door opens to reveal the compartment 603 for inserting the filter (as shown in Fig. 6) and then closes when in use (shown in Figs. 7-8).
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 have applied the teachings of MARTIN to provide wherein the odour inhibition assembly further comprises a cover movable between a closed position, in which the at least one chamber is closed by the cover, and an open position, in which the at least one chamber is not closed by the cover. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide doors on the device. Doing so would allow insertion of new filters (¶65). Further, courts have held that rearrangement of parts of the prior art is unpatentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04, IV., part C. IN this case a person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously rearrange the parts including the access doors with predictable results.
Regarding claim 20, modified MARTIN discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 18 as discussed above. MARTIN further discloses wherein the air outlet is provided through the cover. This is clearly shown in Fig. 6 where the exhaust vent 635 (i.e. the air outlet) is part of the door 601 (i.e. cover).
Regarding claim 22, modified MARTIN discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 18 as discussed above. MARTIN further teaches wherein the cover comprises an opening configured to be aligned with the charging port when the cover is in the closed position. When the device is assembled and the door close, the opening is alighted with the charging port. This can be seen in the embodiment taught in Figs. 3-5. See annotated Fig. 5 below. The arrows point to the charging port 328 that is aligned with the opening on the door through which the unscented air exits (¶64).
PNG
media_image1.png
335
357
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, modified MARTIN discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 19 as discussed above. MARTIN further teaches wherein the at least one chamber comprises a first chamber configured to receive a first odour inhibition substrate, and a second chamber configured to receive a second odour inhibition substrate. MARTIN teaches that the exhalation passes through a first side 641 to a second side 642. These are considered to be a first chamber and a second chamber. MARTIN further teaches that the fluid pathway may pass through a combined filtering and cooling section to remove particulate matter (¶26). MARTIN also teaches that the filtering may be provided by a separate processing device (¶27). MARTIN further teaches that there may be filtering sections (plural sections, emphasis added, ¶28). Finally, MARTIN teaches an embodiment where there are planar air filters 902 (Fig. 9, ¶68). The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04, VI, Part B. In this case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously include multiple chambers and odor inhibition substrates because doing so would achieve unscented air to exit the exhaust vent (¶67).
Regarding claim 25, modified MARTIN discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 16 as discussed above. MARTIN further discloses at least one odour inhibition substrate disposed in the at least one chamber. This is shown in Fig. 8.
Regarding claim 26, modified MARTIN discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 25 as discussed above. MARTIN further discloses wherein the odour inhibition substrate comprises a solid porous substrate. MARTIN discloses that the filter is made of a filter paper or in another embodiment a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter with activated charcoal (¶45). These are well-known solid porous materials. MARTIN further discloses that the filter is configured to release at least one odour inhibition molecule. MARTIN discloses that the filter can be used to filter 100% of the smell and eliminate the smoke so that it can be discreet and inoffensive (¶45). MARTIN further discloses that the filter captures organic compounds and other particulates and droplets allowing unscented air 638 (considered to be at least one odour inhibition molecule) to exit through the exhaust vent (¶67).
Regarding claim 28, modified MARTIN discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 25 as discussed above. MARTIN further discloses further comprising an aerosol-generating article comprising an aerosol-forming substrate, the aerosol-generating article configured to be heated by the heater (¶5, ¶21).
Regarding claim 29, modified MARTIN discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 28 as discussed above. MARTIN further discloses wherein the aerosol-forming substrate is a tobacco substrate (¶8-¶9).
Regarding claim 30, modified MARTIN discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 16 as discussed above. MARTIN does not disclose the fan is situated within the airflow pathway.
MILLS teaches a multi-staged vapor filtration device with a mouthpiece and an exhaust (abstract). MILLS teaches the use of a fan within the chamber to facilitate the movement of vapors into the chamber (¶37). MILLS teaches that the fan is within the chamber 104 (¶37). As shown in Fig. 1, the arrows of the airflow pathway go through chamber 104. Therefore, the fan is situated within the airflow pathway.
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 have modified MARTIN to provide the fan is situated within the airflow pathway as taught in MILLS. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously include a fan within the airflow pathway. Doing so would facilitate the movement of vapors into the desired chamber (MILLS ¶37).
Regarding claim 31, modified MARTIN discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 16 as discussed above. MARTIN does not disclose the fan is arranged such that the air inlet is in communication with a centre of the fan and the air outlet is in communication with an outer region of the fan. However, this modification is considered to be a rearrangement of the parts of MILLS that would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would place the fan within the chamber to facilitated movement. Courts have held that rearrangement of parts of the prior art is unpatentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04, IV., part C. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the placement of the fan, indicating simply that the fan “may” be located at any point along the airflow pathway (page 8, line 24).
Regarding claim 32, modified MARTIN discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 16 as discussed above. MARTIN does not disclose a plurality of fans configured to move the air along the airflow pathway from the air inlet to the air outlet. This claim limitation is considered to be a duplication of the parts taught in MILL, namely the fan. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04, VI, Part B. In this case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously include multiple fans. Doing so would further aid the movement of vapors with predictable results.
Regarding claim 33, modified MARTIN discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 16 as discussed above. MARTIN does not disclose the fan is user activated.
MILLS teaches a power button (¶37). MILLS teaches that the depressing of the power button electrically connects the power source to the fan. This is a teaching of user activation of the fan. A person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that a user depressing the fan to electrically connect the power source to the fan is the user activating the fan.
Regarding claim 35, modified MARTIN discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 16 as discussed above. MARTIN does not disclose the fan is activated when the heater is activated.
MARTIN discloses that the vaporization device includes power and control components (¶29). MARTIN discloses the device can have a configurable or controller heating element (¶51). MARTIN further discloses that the controller is in signal communication with the heater element, battery, indicator, temperature sensor and the on/off switch (¶53). MARTIN discloses that the controller has hardware and software to turn on/off the heating element (¶55-¶56).
MILLS teaches that the device includes a sensor configured to detect exhalation of vapors into the chamber (¶38). MILLS teaches that the device has a controller that is coupled to the sensor and the power source and it is configured to connect the power source to the fan based on the detection of exhalation vapors (¶38).
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 have modified MARTIN to provide the fan is activated when the heater is activated as taught in MILLS. A person of ordinary skill in the art would use the controller systems taught in both MARTIN (¶29, ¶53) to selectively turn the fan of MILLS on and off based on the activation of the heater. Doing so would control the device and only power the devices when powered on. This rationale for obviousness is (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143, I., D). A person of ordinary skill in the art would broadly use a controller to activate a fan based on the condition that a heater is powered with predictable results to vaporize and move vapors through a device.
Regarding claim 35, modified MARTIN discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 16 as discussed above. MARTIN does not disclose a puff detector, wherein the fan is activated on puff detection.
MILLS teaches that the device includes a sensor configured to detect exhalation of vapors into the chamber (¶38). MILLS teaches that the device has a controller that is coupled to the sensor and the power source and it is configured to connect the power source to the fan based on the detection of exhalation vapors (¶38).
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 have modified MARTIN to provide a puff detector, wherein the fan is activated on puff detection as taught in MILLS. Doing so would result in the fan operating only when necessary as signaled by the sensor (MILLS ¶38).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARTIN and MILLS as applied to claims 16-18, 20, 22, 24-26, and 28-29 above, and further in view of US 20230144523 A1 (hereinafter BOUCHUIGUIR). BOUCHUIGUIR has a foreign priority date of March 18, 2020.
Regarding claim 21, modified MARTIN discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 16 as discussed above. MARTIN further teaches in another embodiment a charging port (Fig. 4, port 356, ¶63)configured to connect the aerosol-generating device to an external power supply. MARTIN teaches that the vaporizer has a charging port for charging the user interface (¶63). A person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that the element notated in MARTIN Fig. 6, 656 is also a charging port in that embodiment.
MARTIN does not disclose wherein the charging port is in fluid communication with the at least one chamber, the charging port acting as the air inlet.
BOUCHUIGUIR teaches an aerosol generation device with panels for hiding interfaces (abstract). BOUCHUIGUIR teaches an embodiment in 3A with a housing 200 and a panel 300 in a second position to allow interface 230 to an exterior of the device for interaction (¶46). BOUCHUIGUIR teaches that the interface is depicted as a single element, but also teaches that the interface “may comprise one or more of an electrical interface for charging a battery of the device … and an air inlet.” BOUCHUIGUIR teaches that the inclusion of panels offers improved protection against harmful interfaces while providing access (¶5).
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 have modified MARTIN to wherein the charging port is in fluid communication with the at least one chamber, the charging port acting as the air inlet as taught in BOUCHUIGUIR. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide that the charging port acts as the air inlet. Doing so would permit protection of the interface (BOUCHUIGUIR ¶5, ¶46). Further, courts have held that rearrangement of parts of the prior art is unpatentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04, IV., part C. Additionally, the courts have held that making components integral to be a mere obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.", see Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form "a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece." Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.). In this case, BOUCHUIGUIR teaches making the interface an integral part to include a charging port and an air inlet (¶46). In the case where there is an air inlet a person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that the inlet is in fluid communication with the internal parts and chambers of the smoking device. Additionally, applicant does not place any special importance on the location of the charging port. Applicant discloses that the charging port may be placed anywhere (Instant Application Specification page 7). This supports rearrangement of parts that would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MARTIN and MILLS as applied to claim 16-18, 20, 22, 24-26, and 28-29 above, and further in view of US 20040129280 A1 (hereinafter WOODSON).
Regarding claim 27, modified MARTIN discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 26 as discussed above. MARTIN does not discloses wherein the at least one odour inhibition molecule comprises a molecule configured to produce an olfactory white based on the odours generated by heating of an aerosol-generating article. MARTIN discloses that the filter is made of a filter paper or in another embodiment a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter with activated charcoal (¶45).
WOODSON teaches an electrically heated cigarette with a flavor releasing additive (abstract). WOODSON teaches that flavoring has been incorporated into cigarettes to add flavors and aromas to both mainstream and sidestream tobacco smoke (¶5). WOODSON teaches that the flavoring can include (¶72):
Suitable flavorings include, but are not limited to, menthol, mint, such as peppermint and spearmint, chocolate, licorice, citrus and other fruit flavors, gamma octalactone, vanillin, ethyl vanillin, breath freshener flavors, spice flavors, such-as cinnamon, methyl salicylate, linalool, bergamot oil, geranium oil, lemon oil, ginger oil, and tobacco flavor. In a preferred embodiment, the flavoring includes vanillin and gamma octalactone.
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 have modified MARTIN to provide wherein the at least one odour inhibition molecule comprises a molecule configured to produce an olfactory white based on the odours generated by heating of an aerosol-generating article as taught in WOODSON. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously include fragrances to produce a specific olfactory white. Doing so would release a desirable aroma into the environment (WOODSON ¶5). Given that the aroma substances taught by WOODSON are the same as those disclosed in the instant specification (Instant Application Specification as filed page 13-14) to result in a device having the claimed olfactory white, the olfactory white of the aroma taught by WOODON is expected inherently to be the same. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, In re Best, 195 USPQ 430. In this case, applicant has claimed that one or a combination of substances results in an olfactory white. The substances of the instant application and WOODSON overlap. Therefore the property of olfactory white is also expected to be the same given that the instant application discloses that this can be accomplished with as few as one of the substances.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, filed March 11, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 16, 17, 25, 26, 28, and 29 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered, and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration of applicant’s amendments, they are rendered obvious and unpatentable over MARTIN in view of MILLS as discussed above and not repeated here.
Applicant argues, “As previously explained, the issue is not whether a fan is disclosed somewhere generally in the relevant art, but whether the person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Martin to include a fan while preserving the fundamental bifurcated airflow operation that defines Martin's device.” .
The arguments to the one way value have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As explained fully above in the rejection of record, the value of Martin is motivated to coupled to the fan operation of Mills such that the fan will only operate when the value is opened by user exhalation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE L MOORE whose telephone number is (313)446-6537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9 am to 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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 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.
/STEPHANIE LYNN MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Christopher M Rodd/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766