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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02 December 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 02 December 2025:
Claims 1 and 3-9 and 11-15 are pending
Claim 2 and 10 are cancelled
Claims 1 is amended
Claims 14 and 15 are new
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to the claims filed 02 December 2025 have been acknowledged. The rejection to Claim 10 is withdrawn due to cancellation of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pages 5-8 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that the change in shape referenced in Ourednick which Examiner uses to reject amended Claim 1 (see Advisory Action dated 10 November 2025) is not applicable to the tag reader as it is in reference to antenna 12 which is identified as the communication tag and not to antenna 6 which is identified as the tag reader. As such, Applicant argues that Ourednick does not actually provide motivation for a change in shape to the tag reader as disclosed in amended Claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because antennas 12 and 6 are disclosed in Ourednick to be similar and implicitly interchangeable. Ourednick explicitly states that in alternative embodiments, antenna 12 can be made of a similar antenna as antenna 6 which is a flexible planar antenna [0085]. This means that antenna 12 and 6 can be materially and structurally the same according to Ourednick’s disclosure. As such, one ordinarily skilled in the art would reasonably conclude that changes to the shape of antenna 12 is applicable to antenna 6 due to being similar in material and structure so long as antenna 6 still maintains its functions as a tag reader.
Therefore, Examiner maintains that the disclosed prior art still reads on the subject matter presented in amended Claim 1.
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments to the claims and new 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, 3-4, 8-9, 11, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ourednick et al (Publication No. US20200036080A1, reference in IDS dated 03 February 2023).
Regarding Claim 1, Ourednick discloses an electronic cigarette (5) (i.e., aerosol generation assembly) comprising:
an aerosol generation device (Body 56) and a cartridge (54) (Figs. 3A-B; [0054]);
the aerosol generation device comprising a device body extending along a device longitudinal axis (see Figs. 3A-B, 7; [0054, 0082]; the cigarette body’s longitudinal axis (v)) and comprising:
a cavity delimited by a cavity surface and defining an operation position (i.e., receiving cartridge in the device) of the cartridge (see Figs. 3A-B, 5-6, annotated Fig. 7; [0055, 0063]; housing 568 defines a cavity space where the cartridge is received; housing walls are considered equivalent to the cavity walls);
PNG
media_image1.png
812
1385
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the cartridge is received in the cavity and is configured to operate with the aerosol generation device ([0055-0056, 0063]; the cartridge is placed in the device implying it is configured to be operated with the device);
and a tag reader (1) arranged on the cavity surface and extending along an offset axis (Figs. 1, 5-6, see annotated Fig. 7 above; [0059-0060]; the cavity surface that runs parallel to the device axis is considered as the offset axis; reader comprises antenna’s 62/64 which are shown to be arranged on the cavity surface);
the cartridge (54) comprising a cartridge body defining a cartridge surface (see Figs. 3B, annotated Fig. 7);
and an electronic communication tag (2) is configured to store data and communicate the data to the tag reader (1) when the cartridge (54) is in the operation position (Figs. 1-2, 6-7; [0043-0048]; tag includes a processor unit that receives and generates signals, implying storage and communication functions);
wherein the offset axis is parallel to the device longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 7; the offset axis identified by the Examiner is shown to be parallel to the device longitudinal axis).
PNG
media_image1.png
812
1385
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ourednick further discloses the electronic communication tag (2) is arranged coaxial to the reader so when the cartridge is in the operation position (i.e., placed in the device), the electronic communication tag (2) and the tag reader (24) are offset along the offset axis. (see Fig. 7; [0084]; the tag and tag reader antennas (12 and 6) do not overlap and therefore are offset by the distance gap between the tag and tag reader; the antennas are considered synonymous to their respective tag/tag reader).
PNG
media_image2.png
812
1385
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ourednick does not explicitly disclose the following:
the electronic communication tag (2) is arranged on the cartridge surface;
wherein the tag reader is a planar element extending in a plane parallel to the cavity surface.
Regarding (I), it should be noted that rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results (see MPEP § 2144.04.VI.C). For example, Ourednick discloses that the tag antenna (i.e., tag) may be constructed in different ways such as being non-coaxial to the reader antenna, be non-planar, be constructed similarly to the reader antenna, and/or be formed parallel to the housing of the body (56) [0085].
Since Ourednick discloses that the tag and reader (antennas) can have a similarly arranged construction, one ordinarily skilled in the art could reasonably construct the tag (and its antenna) to be located on the cavity surface (i.e., walls of the body 56) that runs parallel to the body in a similar manner as the tag reader, while maintaining the offset distance between the tag and reader as illustrated in Figure 7.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tag (and its antenna) disclosed by Ourednick to be arranged parallel and on the cavity surface like the reader antenna as further disclosed by Ourednick, to predictably yield a tag that is arranged on a cavity surface so that when the cartridge is in the operation position (i.e., placed in the device), the tag (2) and the tag reader (24) are offset along the offset axis.
Regarding (II), it should be noted that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design (see MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B). In this case, Ourednick states that antennas 12 (i.e., communication tag) can be made of a similar antenna as antenna 6 (i.e., tag reader), implying that both antennas can be similar in material and structure [0085]. Ourednick further states that alternative embodiments of the antenna and body can have different shapes, particular pointing out that the antenna and its coils can be planar and that it can be parallel to the housing [0084-0085].
Since both the communication tag and tag reader antennas can be made of the same type of antenna, one ordinarily skilled in the art would reasonably conclude that the ability of the antenna to change shape would be applicable to both the communication tag and the tag reader. Though Ourednick does not explicitly discuss changing the shape of the tag reader (i.e., antenna 6), since the antenna is capable of changing shape, one ordinarily skilled in the art could reasonably change its shape so long as the antenna still functions as a tag reader.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious engineering design choice to one ordinarily skilled in the art based on Ourednick's disclosure, to modify the shape of the antenna (i.e., tag reader) and body such that the antenna and body are planar, and predictably yield an antenna that will be parallel to the planar body and subsequently the cavity within said body, while still retaining its function as a tag reader unless evidence of the contrary is provided.
Regarding Claim 3, when the cartridge (54) is in the operation position, each of the electronic communication tag (6) and the tag reader (12) extends in a respective plane; wherein the two respective planes are separated (see annotated Fig. 7 below; the tag and tag readers are perpendicular to each other).
PNG
media_image2.png
812
1385
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ourednick does not disclose the tag and tag reader planes being parallel to each other. However, it should be noted that rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results (see MPEP § 2144.04.VI.C).
For example, Ourednick discloses that the tag antenna (i.e., tag) may be constructed in different ways such as being non-coaxial to the reader antenna, be non-planar, be constructed similarly to the reader antenna, and/or be formed parallel to the housing of the body (56) [0085].
Since Ourednick discloses that the tag and reader (antennas) can have a similarly arranged construction and be parallel to the body, one ordinarily skilled in the art could reasonably construct the tag (and its antenna) to be located on the cavity surface (i.e., walls of the body 56) that runs parallel to the body in a similar manner as the tag reader. Constructing the tag reader in a similar manner as the tag would result in the tag reader’s antenna being on the same surface/plane as one of the tag’s antennas, while conversely being parallel to the other tag antenna (i.e., tag reader is on a plane separate and parallel to a part of the tag).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tag (and its antenna) disclosed by Ourednick to be arranged parallel and on the cavity surface like the reader antenna as further disclosed by Ourednick, to predictably yield a tag that is on a separate and parallel plane to the tag when the cartridge is in the operation position (i.e., placed in the device) while still maintaining communication between each other.
Regarding Claim 4, Ourednick further discloses when the cartridge is in the operation position (i.e., placed in the device cavity), the electronic communication tag and the tag reader are arranged away from each other along to the offset (see annotated Fig. 7; tag and tag reader do not overlap and are considered offset by the distance between each other).
Regarding Claim 8, Ourednick further discloses the cartridge body (54) having the same dimensions as the device body (56), which indicates that the cartridge’s longitudinal axis (i.e., cartridge axis), will coincide with the device body’s longitudinal axis (i.e., device axis) when the cartridge is placed in the device body (see Figs. 3A-3B, annotated Fig. 7; [0055, 0063]).
PNG
media_image1.png
812
1385
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, the electronic communication tag (2) extends in a plane extending at equidistance from two parallel side walls (41) of the cartridge body (see annotated Fig. 7; electronic tag comprises an antenna 6; antenna is shown to extend along a central axis of the cartridge which appears to be equidistant from the sidewalls of the cartridge);
PNG
media_image3.png
864
1383
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Ourednick further discloses the cartridge has a body that can contain a liquid solution (i.e., aerosol forming precursor), and said cartridge’s walls are made of plastic [0054-0055].
PNG
media_image2.png
812
1385
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Ourednick further discloses when the cartridge (54) is an operation position, the electronic communication tag (6) extends in a plane extending along the device longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 7; electronic tag comprises an antenna 6; antenna is shown to extend longitudinally along a plane wherein the longitudinal extension is the same as the device longitudinal axis).
PNG
media_image3.png
864
1383
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Modified Ourednick does not explicitly disclose the cartridge body comprises two parallel sidewalls. However, it should be noted that Modified Ourednick has been modified to have planar tag readers (antenna 6) and similarly planar cavity walls such that the tag reader and cavity surface/wall are parallel to each other (see Claim 1 (II) rejection for modification). Since Modified Ourednick’s tag reader antenna are constructed as parallel coils situated on sidewalls of the cavity (see Fig. 7), the modification to the cavity sidewalls and tag reader would result in said planar cavity sidewalls/surfaces to be parallel too.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ourednick et al (Publication No. US20200036080A1, reference in IDS dated 03 February 2023) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Krietzman et al (Publication No. US20200022411A1).
Regarding Claim 5, further discloses a mouthpiece (52) configured to cover a part of the cartridge body (54) (see Fig. 3A; mouthpiece covers the part of the cartridge body that is attached to said mouthpiece);
Ourednick does not disclose the mouthpiece defining an internal volume between at least a delimiting wall of the cartridge body and an internal surface of the mouthpiece; wherein the electronic communication tag is arranged in the internal volume
However, Krietzman, directed to a vaporizer device, discloses a vaporizer cartridge (100) comprising a tip (110/500) and a cap (550) with ports (i.e., mouthpiece) which fluidly communicates from the outside of the cap to the inside for selective vapor flow (Figs. 1, 5A-5L; [0039-0042]; Tips 110/500 are considered embodiments of the same component). The barrier cap is a hollow tube that covers the tip and forms a cavity space (589) (i.e., internal volume) wherein an RFID chip (588) (i.e., communication tag) can be inserted (see annotated Fig. 5H; internal cavity volume is defined by a tip/cartridge surface (i.e., delimiting wall) and barrier cap inner surface).
PNG
media_image4.png
697
1218
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mouthpiece disclosed by Ourednick to cover the cartridge (i.e., tip) such that an inner volume/cavity is formed for a communication tag (i.e., RFID chip) as disclosed by Krietzman, as both are directed to a vaporizer cartridge, where one ordinarily skilled in the art could take the teaching of one known mouthpiece design as disclosed by Krietzman, and apply it to a similar vaporizing/aerosolizing device as disclosed by Ourednick to predictably yield a mouthpiece that can accommodate a communication tag between said mouthpiece and a cartridge while still maintaining communication with the tag reader.
Regarding Claim 6, Ourednick does not disclose the cartridge body comprises an airflow path defining an outlet formed on the mouthpiece; wherein at least a part of the airflow path and the electronic communication tag extending in a same plane.
However, Krietzman, directed to a vaporizer device, discloses a vaporizer cartridge (100) comprising a tip (110/500) and a cap (550) with ports (i.e., mouthpiece) which fluidly communicates from the outside of the cap to the inside for selective vapor flow (Figs. 1, 5A-5L; [0039-0042]; Tips 110/500 are considered embodiments of the same component).
The cartridge/tip forms a vapor inlet/pathway (130) (i.e., airflow path) that terminates at an inhalation port (561) (i.e., outlet) on the barrier cap/mouthpiece (Figs. 1, 5F-5I, [0040-0043]) and is parallel to a RFID chip located between the cartridge tip and cap (see annotated Fig. 5I; both the tag and airflow passage extend longitudinally in a parallel fashion, which is considered equivalent to extending in a same plane).
PNG
media_image4.png
697
1218
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cartridge and mouthpiece disclosed by Ourednick to form an airflow path in the cartridge that extends and defines an outlet on the mouthpiece as disclosed by Krietzman, as both are directed to a vaporizer cartridge, where one ordinarily skilled in the art could take the teaching of one known cartridge and mouthpiece design as disclosed by Krietzman, and apply it to a similar vaporizing/aerosolizing device as disclosed by Ourednick to predictably yield a cartridge and mouthpiece that are in communication with each other via the airflow path that can deliver an aerosol to the user.
Regarding Claim 7, Modified Ourednick discloses a part of the airflow path extends between the delimiting wall and a side wall (46) of the cartridge body (Krietzman; see annotated Fig. 5I).
PNG
media_image5.png
1014
1400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ourednick et al (Publication No. US20200036080A1, reference in IDS dated 03 February 2023) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Gaughan et al (Patent No. US6046707A).
Regarding Claim 12, Ourednick further discloses the tag reader (1) includes an antenna (12) and is arranged on the cavity surface (Figs. 1, 5-7; [0059-0060]; reader comprises antenna’s 62/64 which are shown to be arranged on the cavity surface), wherein the antenna is a planar coil (see Fig. 7; [0082]).
Ourednick does not disclose the tag reader further comprising:
a chip and a dielectric support devoid of ferrite
the dielectric support is directly fixed to the cavity surface
Regarding (I), Gaughan, directed to an antenna for radio wave communication terminals (i.e., electronic communication tag reader), discloses the antenna comprising a helical conductor/coil contained in a ceramic chip devoid of ferrite (Abstract; Col. 2, Lines 18-34; ceramic chip contains the helical coil and has a dielectric constant, therefore is considered equivalent to a dielectric support). Gaughan further discloses that the use of non-ferrite ceramic always better control of the dielectric constant of the chip to match the antenna’s preferred operating frequency without having to adjust the physical size of the chip like ones that utilize ferrite ceramics (Col. 2, Lines 1-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the tag reader disclosed by Ourednick with the tag reader/terminal comprising a chip and non-ferrite dielectric support as disclosed by Gaughan, as both are directed to an electronic/radio wave communication antenna, where Gaughan teaches the advantage of using non-ferrite ceramic dielectric materials to adjust the dielectric constant without having to resort to physically changing the size of said antenna (Col. 2, Lines 1-34); this also involves substitution of one known communication antenna with another known communication antenna to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding (II), it should be noted that the antenna disclosed by Modified Ourednick comprises a ceramic dielectric support. Ourednick discloses that the tag reader antennas (63/64) are integrated (i.e., directly fixed) on the body walls that define the cavity space (Figs. 1, 5-7; [0059-0060]).
Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art would reasonably conclude that when Ourednick’s reader antenna is constructed to comprise a ceramic dielectric support as disclosed by Gaughan, then integrating the antenna to the cavity surface would also imply integrating the ceramic dielectric support into the cavity surface.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ourednick et al (Publication No. US20200036080A1, reference in IDS dated 03 February 2023) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Pope et al (Publication No. US20130234899A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Ourednick discloses that the housing which forms the cavity (568) can be made of metal and further incorporate ferrite sheets [0086]. Ourednick does not explicitly disclose the cavity surface comprises a wall made at least partially of a dielectric material.
However, Pope, directed to an electronic device with field communication antenna structures and ferrite layers, discloses that the antenna and ferrite layers can be disposed on the housing wall structure of an electronic device (Abstract, [0007]). Portions of the housing can be formed from plastic, glass, metal, or other dielectric material which can allow electromagnetic signals to pass through when a field antenna is mounted adjacent to the dielectric housing portions [0035-0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the housing/cavity surfaces disclosed by Ourednick to comprise of walls partially made of dielectric material as disclosed by Pope, as both are directed to devices with communication antennas and ferrite layers, where Pope teaches the advantage of having a housing be partially composed of dielectric material to allow electromagnetic signals to pass through when a field antenna is mounted adjacent to the dielectric housing portions [0035-0036].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vu P Pham whose telephone number is (703)756-4515. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (7:30AM-4:00PM EST).
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.
/V.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755