DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/11/2025.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 12-14 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 2 and 10-11 are cancelled.
Response to Amendments
The Examiner withdraws the 112 rejection of claim 1 as being indefinite due to amendments to the claims filed 12/11/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-12, filed 12/11/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Claim 1 has been amended to include the subject matter of previously presented claims 10 and 11, in addition to newly presented limitations directed to the height of the partition and the structure of the porous cover. Prior art of record Spencer does not teach the amended limitations. Therefore, the 103 rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, an obviousness ground of rejection has been made further in view of John et al. (US 20210120872 A1), as previously applied to claims 10 and 11, and Batista et al. (US 20170143042 A1).
On page 9 the Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach a mesh porous cover, as newly required. The Examiner agrees that John, as previously applied to the rejection of claims 10 and 11, does not teach a mesh porous cover. However, Batista is applied to teach this limitation.
On pages 9-12 the Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not appropriately teach the vertical partition disposed on the substrate to separate each aerosol generating coating layer, the partition being formed higher than a height of the aerosol generating coating layer.
The Examiner disagrees.
John teaches partitions (thermal barriers 120; Fig. 7c) vertically disposed on a substrate (surface of receptacle 7) to separate each aerosol generating layer (aerosol generating material 9) to inhibit conduction of heat away from the recesses to ensure that the aerosol generating material is sufficiently heated ([0082]). John further teaches that the partition 120 is formed higher than a height of the aerosol generating coating layer 9 (Fig. 7c).
While the Applicant appears to argue that John Figs. 7a-7b and paragraph [0081] (which describe an electrical insulator 110) do not teach the claim limitation, the Examiner emphasizes that it is John paragraph [0082] and Fig. 7c, and not [0081] and Figs. 7a-7b, that are cited to teach the vertical partitions. These cited portions describe thermal barriers 120, which do teach the claimed partitions.
Therefore, the Examiner maintains that it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Spencer by adding partitions vertically disposed on the substrate 600 to separate each aerosol generating layer such that the partitions are higher than the aerosol generating coating layer as taught by John because both Spencer and John are directed to aerosol generating devices with a plurality of aerosol generating coating layers, John teaches that vertical thermal barriers may be used to improve heating of the aerosol generating layers, and this involves applying a known teaching to improve a similar device in the same way.
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments made 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, 3-9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spencer (US 20190045837 A1) in view of John et al. (US 20210120872 A1) and Batista et al. (US 20170143042 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Spencer teaches an aerosol generating apparatus (e-cigarette 10; Fig. 1; [0039]), comprising:
a housing that forms a first accommodation space accommodating an insertable aerosol generating article comprising a liquid aerosol forming substrate (reservoir 38; [0040]; Fig. 1), a second accommodating space (shallow recess 72; Fig. 10; [0067]) located upstream of the aerosol generating apparatus then the first accommodating space ([0045] teaches that flavor delivery device 25, and therefore shallow recess 72, may be upstream or downstream of the reservoir 38) and located apart from the first accommodating space (Fig. 1), and a flow path (airflow path) connecting the first accommodating space and the second accommodating space ([0043], [0045]);
a cartridge (flavor delivery device 25; Fig. 2; [0045]) that is accommodated in the second accommodation space and that generates, independently of a first aerosol generated from the aerosol generating article, a second aerosol supplied to the first accommodation space through the flow path ([0045]; [0047]);
a heater unit (heater 40) configured to heat the aerosol-generating article received in the first accommodating space 38 ([0040]);
and a controller (PCB 28) that controls driving of the aerosol generating apparatus ([0041]),
wherein the cartridge 25 comprises:
a substrate (support member 60; Figs. 3-8; [0049]);
a plurality of heaters (heating elements 64a, 64b; Fig. 7; [0061]) introduced onto the substrate; and
a plurality of aerosol generating coating layers (flavorant providing portions 66a, 66b; Fig. 7; [0061]) applied to each of the plurality of heaters,
wherein the each of the plurality of heaters 64 is separately connected to a circuit (via electrical connectors 62a, 62b; [0061]) that is connected to a controller so as to be independently driven ([0069], [0082]), and
wherein the each of the plurality of aerosol generating coating layers contains a different type of flavoring component ([0061] teaches that the aerosol generating coating layers 66a, 66b may comprise different flavorants).
Spencer does not explicitly teach (I) that the aerosol forming substrate is solid, (II) that the housing is configured such that the second aerosol generated from the cartridge passes through the inside of the aerosol generating article, (III) that the cartridge further comprises a partition vertically disposed on the substrate to separate each aerosol generating coating layer, the partition being formed higher than a height of the aerosol generating coating layer or (IV) that the cartridge comprises a mesh porous cover disposed on the aerosol generating coating layer.
Regarding (I), Spencer teaches that it is known in the art that a solid may be used instead of a liquid aerosol forming substrate ([0004]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Spencer by using a solid aerosol forming substrate instead of a liquid aerosol forming substrate as Spencer teaches that this is an art-recognized alternative, and this involves simple substitution of one known aerosol forming substrate for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding (II), Spencer teaches that when the aerosol forming substrate is a liquid, the housing is configured such that the airflow path including the second aerosol generated from the cartridge passes by the aerosol generating article to collect aerosol (Fig. 2; [0043]; [0045]).
Spencer further teaches an embodiment in which a solid aerosol forming substrate is used (tobacco rod 106; Fig. 14; [0081]), in which the airflow path is configured to flow through the aerosol generating article to collect the aerosol (Fig. 14).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect that when the liquid aerosol forming substrate is substituted for a solid aerosol forming substrate, the housing would be configured such that the second aerosol generated from the cartridge passes through the inside of the aerosol generating article to collect the aerosol formed therein and deliver the aerosol to the user, as this involved applying a known teaching to a similar embodiment to yield predictable results.
Regarding (III), John, directed to an aerosol generating apparatus (apparatus 1; Fig. 2; [0033]) comprising a cartridge (receptacle 7; [0034]), teaches partitions (thermal barriers 120; Fig. 7c) vertically disposed on a substrate (surface of receptacle 7) to separate each aerosol generating layer (aerosol generating material 9; [0036]) to inhibit conduction of heat away from the recesses to ensure that the aerosol generating material is sufficiently heated ([0082]). John further teaches that the partition 120 is formed higher than a height of the aerosol generating coating layer 9 (Fig. 7c).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Spencer by adding partitions vertically disposed on the substrate 600 to separate each aerosol generating layer such that the partitions are higher than the aerosol generating coating layer as taught by John because both Spencer and John are directed to aerosol generating devices with a plurality of aerosol generating coating layers, John teaches that vertical thermal barriers may be used to improve heating of the aerosol generating layers, and this involves applying a known teaching to improve a similar device in the same way.
Regarding (IV), John, directed to an aerosol generating apparatus (apparatus 1; Fig. 2; [0033]) comprising a cartridge (receptacle 7; [0034]) with heaters (heater arrangement 11) and an aerosol generating coating layer (aerosol generating material 9), teaches a protective layer on the aerosol generating coating layer to seal the layer in place ([0070]). John teaches that this layer may be any suitable material such as Kapton, paper or cellophane, which are known to be porous, or a polymer or aluminum foil ([0071]). John also teaches that the layer may be perforated to enable better release of aerosol ([0073-0075], [0105]).
Batista, directed to an aerosol generating apparatus (aerosol generating system 70; [0089]) comprising a cartridge (aerosol-forming cartridge 30; [0087]) configured to generate aerosol and comprising a substrate (base layer 32; [0087]), a plurality of heaters (heater 10 with heater elements 14; [0085]) introduced onto the substrate, and an aerosol generating coating layer (aerosol-forming substrates; [0087]) applied to the plurality of heaters, wherein the cartridge comprises a porous cover (cover layer 34; [0087]) disposed on the aerosol generating coating layer to separate the flow path from the aerosol generating coating layer, teaches that the porous cover may be mesh ([0068]; [0087]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Spencer by adding a porous cover disposed on the aerosol generating coating layer as taught by John because both Spencer and John are directed to aerosol generating devices with a plurality of aerosol generating coating layers, John teaches a layer to protect and seal the aerosol generating coating layer, and this involves use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Furthermore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the porous cover by using a mesh porous cover as taught by Batista because both modified Spencer and Batista are directed to aerosol generating apparatuses with porous covers disposed over an aerosol generating coating layer, Batista teaches that a mesh cover is an art-recognized porous cover type, and this involves substituting one alternative porous cover for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Spencer teaches that in the second accommodation space of the aerosol generating apparatus, the cartridge is disposed so that a surface of the substrate into which a heater is not introduced is close to one surface of the second accommodation space (see Fig. 2), and a flow path (air flow channel 56) extending from the second accommodation space to the first accommodation space is formed on the surface of the plate-like substrate into which the heater is introduced (see Fig. 2; [0047]).
Regarding claim 4, Spencer teaches that the cartridge is separated from the aerosol generating apparatus and replaceable ([0045]).
Regarding claim 5, Spencer teaches that the aerosol generating apparatus further comprises a switch (external switch or button 76), wherein the switch generates an input signal for driving each of the plurality of heaters, and the input signal is transmitted to the controller ([0072]).
Regarding claim 6, Spencer teaches that the aerosol generating coating layer 66 is formed of a porous substrate on which a composition containing an aerosol generating material is supported ([0050] teaches that the coating layer 66 is a matrix substrate that holds a flavorant material).
Regarding claim 7, Spencer teaches that at least one of the plurality of aerosol generating coating layers comprises a flavoring agent ([0054]).
Therefore, at least one of the plurality of aerosol generating coating layers comprises an additive to the composition, and the additive comprises nicotine, perfume, a flavoring agent, vitamin or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 8, Spencer teaches that each of the plurality of aerosol generating coating layers is different from each other in a type and content of constituent components ([0061] teaches that coating layers 66a and 66b may comprise different flavorants).
Regarding claim 9, Spencer does not explicitly teach that at least one of the plurality of aerosol generating coating layers has a different size.
However, Spencer teaches that the size and arrangement of the plurality of aerosol generating coating layers may be configured to provide different amounts of flavor to the aerosol ([0057]; see Figs. 4-8).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the size of an aerosol generating coating layer, because size is a results effective variable that has a direct effect on the flavor of the aerosol, one with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize this variable to optimize the aerosol flavor, and because it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 12, Spencer does not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to based on the controller executing a first heater driving instruction, heat one layer from among the plurality of aerosol generating coating layers, and based on the controller executing a second heater driving instruction, heating two or more of the plurality of aerosol generating coating layers to combine two or more additives from among the plurality of aerosol generating coating layers.
John, directed to an aerosol generating apparatus (apparatus 1; Fig. 2; [0033]) comprising a cartridge (receptacle 7; [0034]) comprising a substrate (surface of receptacle 7; Fig. 7a), a plurality of heaters (heater elements 11a; [0043]) and a plurality of aerosol generating coating layers (aerosol generating material 9; [0036]) wherein each of the plurality of heaters is separately connected (via power connections 1b) to a circuit that is connected to a controller so as to be independently driven (control circuitry 15; [0045]), teaches that the controller is configured to, based on the controller executing a first heater driving instruction, heat one layer (in turn) from among the plurality of aerosol generating coating layers, and based on the controller executing a second heater driving instruction, heating two or more (simultaneously) of the plurality of aerosol generating coating layers ([0045]; [0059]; [0113-0114]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Spencer by configure the controller to based on the controller executing a first heater driving instruction, heat one layer from among the plurality of aerosol generating coating layers, and based on the controller executing a second heater driving instruction, heating two or more of the plurality of aerosol generating coating layers to combine two or more additives from among the plurality of aerosol generating coating layers as taught by John because both Spencer and John are directed to aerosol generating apparatuses with a plurality of heaters and aerosol generating coating layers, John teaches that it is known in the art to selectively drive heaters such that one or more heaters are active, and this involves applying a known technique to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, Spencer teaches that the aerosol generating apparatus further comprises a memory (memory 79; [0074]) configured to store desired control parameters ([0077]).
Spencer does not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to store a plurality of temperature presets for the plurality of heaters in the memory, and wherein the controller is configured to, based on reading the plurality of temperature presets from the memory, heat the plurality of heaters according to a plurality of temperatures of the plurality of temperature presets.
John, directed to an aerosol generating apparatus (apparatus 1; Fig. 2; [0033]) comprising a cartridge (receptacle 7; [0034]) comprising a substrate (surface of receptacle 7; Fig. 7a), a plurality of heaters (heater elements 11a; [0043]) and a plurality of aerosol generating coating layers (aerosol generating material 9; [0036]) wherein each of the plurality of heaters is separately connected (via power connections 1b) to a circuit that is connected to a controller so as to be independently driven (control circuitry 15; [0045]), teaches that temperatures of the plurality of heaters are a known control parameter.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Spencer by configuring the controller to store a plurality of temperature presets for the plurality of heaters in the memory as taught by John such that based on reading the plurality of temperature presets from the memory, the controller is configured to heat the plurality of heaters according to a plurality of temperatures of the plurality of temperature presets because both Spencer and John are directed to aerosol generating apparatuses with a plurality of heaters and aerosol generating coating layers, John teaches that it is known in the art that temperatures of a plurality of heaters is a known control parameter to store in the device, and this involves and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, Spencer does not teach that the controller is configured to drive a different heater, from among the plurality of heaters, for each inhalation of a user from the aerosol generating apparatus.
John, directed to an aerosol generating apparatus (apparatus 1; Fig. 2; [0033]) comprising a cartridge (receptacle 7; [0034]) comprising a substrate (surface of receptacle 7; Fig. 7a), a plurality of heaters (heater elements 11a; [0043]) and a plurality of aerosol generating coating layers (aerosol generating material 9; [0036]) wherein each of the plurality of heaters is separately connected (via power connections 1b) to a circuit that is connected to a controller so as to be independently driven (control circuitry 15; [0045]), teaches that the controller is configured to drive a different heater from among the plurality of heaters, for each inhalation of a user from the aerosol generating apparatus.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Spencer by configuring the controller to drive a different heater for each inhalation of a user from the aerosol generating apparatus as taught by John because both Spencer and John are directed to aerosol generating apparatuses with a plurality of heaters and aerosol generating coating layers, John teaches that it is known in the art to drive different heaters for each inhalation, and this involves applying a known technique to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlotte Davison whose telephone number is (703)756-5484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755