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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: at paragraph [249] the specification discloses “…the light source 61 may be disposed adjacent to the second container 42 and may be configured to face.” It appears additional information regarding the direction the light source should face was inadvertently omitted following the word “face”.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(1) because all of the drawing view reference numbers in the drawings must not be used in association with brackets. E.g., “[FIG.1]” should instead be written as “FIG.1”. Appropriate correction is required.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "111a" and "111b" have both been used to designate first sidewall (see [172] and [173]).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “110b” has been used to designate both upper case and upper body (see [223] and [214]).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “110a” has been used to designate both upper body and lower body (see [253]).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the Applicants’ Arguments/remarks filed 10/28/2025.
Claims 1 and 5 are currently amended, claim 4 is canceled, claims 1-3 and 5-13 are currently examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selby (US20230058955A1) in view of Ricketts (US20190231997A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Selby teaches an aerosol-generating device comprising:
a body (e.g., housing of device 600, see FIG 6 and [0048])
a cartridge coupled to the body (e.g., combination of cartridges 632 and 631 that are coupled to the body for use, see FIG 6),
the cartridge comprises: a first container (ECIG pod 631 is the first container that stores liquid, see also [0033], ECIG pod contains a liquid reservoir) comprising an outer wall (see outside surface of 631 in FIG 6) and an inner wall (the inside surface which defines the insertion space to accommodate the stick 632, see FIG 6 and [0048]),
an inner surface of the inner wall (inner wall of pod 631) defines an insertion space having an upper opening configured to accommodate insertion of a stick (632, see [0048]), and
an enclosed storage space is formed between an outer surface of the inner wall and an inner surface of the outer wall (e.g., the annular boundary between the outer surface of the inner wall and the inner surface of the outer wall of the donut shaped cartridge 631 accommodates the liquid aerosol generating materials stored in the enclosed storage space in the ECIG pod 631 [0048]-[0049]),
a second container adjacent to the first container (see FIG 6, the second container is the internal space that contains the stick, see FIG 6 and [0048]-[0049] which container is adjacent to the first container)
a wick disposed to be in communication with the storage space (wick in communication with the liquid in the reservoir in the pod 631, [0033]), and
a heater configured to heat the wick (see FIG 16 and [0026], a heater heats the wick and the aerosol generating material passing therein);
Selby discloses a transparent case (see FIG 6) and a transparent case would be useful for allowing the transmission of light therethrough. Selby also teaches stick 632 is inserted into the insertion space into the transparent case, see FIG 6 which illustrates the inserted stick 632 inserted in the insertion space and viewable through the transparent case and cartridge.
Selby discloses transparent body which allows light to pass and the illustration shows the stick inside of the first container visible through the body, however Selby fails to explicitly disclose that the first container (space that contains stick 632 inside of the second container 632 see FIG 6) includes a window formed to allow light to pass through the storage space of the first container to reach the stick inserted into the insertion space.
Additionally, Selby fails to explicitly disclose a light source disposed at the body so as to be adjacent to the cartridge and allow light provided by the light source to pass through the storage space of the first container to reach the stick inserted into the insertion space.
However, Ricketts teaches a similar aerosol generating device (see FIG 1) and teaches that in low environmental lighting conditions the aerosol generating system is not clearly visible and a viewer may not be able to clearly view and determine the contents and remaining quantity of the contents in the cartridge/container and teaches this can be overcome with a light source disposed at the body so as to be adjacent to the cartridge [0026] (e.g., the sidewall of the body/housing) allowing the user to view the contents of the cartridge even in low light environments.
Ricketts also teaches that the container includes a window formed to allow light provided by the light source to pass through the storage space of the first container to reach the contents of the container and direct light towards the light transparent region [0026]-[0029] allowing clear viewing into the container and also enhancing the visual effect of the aerosol generating system [0046]
Therefore it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first container of Selby to include a light source to be adjacent to the cartridge [0026] and for the cartridge to be transparent to allow light provided by the light source to pass through the storage space of the first container to reach the stick inserted into the insertion space so that a user can view and determine the contents of the container (the stick) in low light environments and also to enhance the visual effect of the aerosol generating system [0046].
Regarding Claim 2, modified Selby teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Ricketts teaches the light source is fixed to an inner surface of the sidewall of the body/housing and transmits light into the reservoir [0026], e.g., the light therefrom would be directed everywhere, and would reach all of the inside of the reservoir including directed towards a side surface of the first container.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Selby teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Selby teaches the body comprises:
a lower body (e.g., the bottom of the body, see annotated FIG 6 below); and
an upper body disposed above the lower body and positioned to be adjacent to the side surface of the cartridge (e.g., the rest of the body besides the bottom of the body that is positioned to be adjacent the side surface of the cartridge), and
Ricketts teaches the light source is fixed to an inner surface of the sidewall of the housing/body to be adjacent to the cartridge [0026] and therefore teaches the light source is disposed at the upper body.
PNG
media_image1.png
333
250
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, modified Selby teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. As set forth above, Ricketts teaches that the container includes a window formed to allow light provided by the light source to pass through the storage space of the first container to reach the contents of the container and direct light towards the light transparent region [0026]-[0029] allowing clear viewing into the container and also enhancing the visual effect of the aerosol generating system [0046].
Although Ricketts does not explicitly disclose the light source faces the first container and faces an outside of the insertion space. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the direction the light source of Ricketts is facing so that the light source faces the first container and faces an outside of the insertion space which would still allow clear viewing into the container and enhance the visual effect of the aerosol generation system [0046]. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Selby teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Ricketts teaches the light source is one of a plurality of light sources such as a strip of a number of LEDs [0122] to be positioned on e.g., the inner surface of the body sidewall and configured to emit a light and illuminate the housing.
Thus an ordinary artisan would recognize that applying an LED light strip to the inside of the sidewall of the body as taught by Ricketts [0032], and teaches the LEDs can be uniformly distributed at several locations [0073] around the inside surface of the body sidewall according to the teachings of Ricketts which would result LED’s that are disposed opposite to each other with respect to/relative to the insertion space and being disposed around the inside surface of a cylinder sidewall in order to enhance the visual effect of the aerosol generating system [0046] which LED’s would be oriented to face the inside center of that cylinder which would be a same direction.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Selby teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Ricketts teaches the necessity of using LED’s to allow the user to view the device in low lighting conditions and teaches LED’s on the inside sidewall configured to illuminate the device. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light source to be disposed in the device in such a way to allow the user to see into the device in low lighting conditions as a matter of design choice. Further it would be obvious to modify the light source to be disposed on the side wall adjacent to the second container and configured to face upward as desired as a matter of design or engineering choice. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Selby teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Ricketts teaches the light source is one of a plurality of light sources, and wherein at least some of the plurality of light sources are arranged along a periphery of the second container [0122].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Selby teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Selby teaches the device has a transparent body which allows viewing inside the body/housing.
However, Selby fails to explicitly disclose the second container including a window.
However, as explained above, Ricketts teaches a transparent window into cartridges to view remaining aerosolizable material in the cartridge [0061]-[0064]. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the window of Ricketts and to put the window in the part of Selby that forms the second container so that a user can view the contents of the second container which is consistent with the features of Selby which includes a transparent body housing which allows a user to see inside the device. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Selby teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, As set forth above, Ricketts teaches that the container includes a window formed to allow light provided by the light source to pass through the storage space of the first container to reach the contents of the container [0026]-[0029] allowing clear viewing into the container and also enhancing the visual effect of the aerosol generating system [0046]. Thus, although Ricketts does not explicitly disclose the light source is disposed to be adjacent to an upper side of the first container and face the first container, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the placement of the light source and the direction its facing inside of the reservoir such that the light source is disposed to be adjacent to an upper side of the first container and face the first container which would still allow clear viewing into the container and enhance the visual effect of the aerosol generation system [0046]. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Selby teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Selby teaches the body comprises:
a lower body (see annotated FIG 6); and
an upper body (see annotated FIG 6) disposed above the lower body and positioned to be adjacent to the side surface of the cartridge, wherein
the upper body comprises an insertion space (e.g., the accommodating space for the stick 632) therein,
the upper body comprises an extended portion extending from an upper portion of the upper body to cover at least a portion of an upper portion of the cartridge (e.g., upper portion of 631 that extends above the upper body covers at least a portion of the upper portion of the cartridge), and wherein
Although Selby and Ricketts fails to explicitly disclose the light source is mounted at the extended portion, Ricketts discloses the light source is configured to illuminate the housing and cartridge [0130] and that the light is distributed in the housing [0131] so that the aerosol generating materials can be viewed by the user [0130]. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify the position or arrangement of the light source to be mounted at the extended portion (see FIG 6, portion of 632 and 631 that extends above the top of the body) so that the light can be distributed in the housing and so that the aerosol generating materials can be viewed by the user [0130] as a matter of design preference. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
PNG
media_image1.png
333
250
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, modified Selby teaches a cap (an elastic retainer, see [0041] and FIG 3) covering at least a portion of the body and the cartridge (the elastic retainer is added to the upper portion proximal to the mouthpiece and stabilizes the two devices together [0041], and therefore covers a portion of the body and cartridge), wherein
at least a portion of the cap that covers the first container is configured to allow light provided by the light source to pass therethrough (e.g., Selby teaches a transparent case [0012] and illustrates the cap is transparent in FIG 3, however Selby fails to explicitly and specifically describe the cap as being transparent.
However Ricketts teaches a transparent window for cartridges to view remaining aerosolizable material in the cartridge [0061]-[0064]. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cap over the cartridges with a transparent body to allows a user to view the cartridges inside the cap in order for a user to view aerosolizable material in the cartridges.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selby (US20230058955A1) and Ricketts (US20190231997A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Sears (US 20150216233A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Selby teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Selby teaches the cap as set forth above but fails to explicitly disclose the cap includes a diffusion sheet disposed along a periphery of the cap.
However, Sears teaches an illuminated aerosol generating device and teaches that a diffusion layer can be provided and helps to provide a more diffuse illumination [0085] allowing light generated inside the device to be more efficiently directed out and through the outer surface [0087] to the view of the user (outside the device). [0085] Therefore it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cap of modified Selby to include a diffusion layer as taught by Sears to be disposed along a periphery of the cap that can help diffuse the illuminated and allow light to be directed through the outer surface of the cap so that the user can see the light coming out of the cap.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 10-28-2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 and 5-13 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Selby and Ricketts as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael T Fulton whose telephone number is (703)756-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 - 4:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H Wilson can be reached 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.
/M.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights