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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues that Fu fails to disclose a sealing lip that “extends from the power supply interfacing member to flex against the outside casing and is orientated to extend in the direction of the battery.” Applicant contends that gasket 115, including lip 115c, is compressed by outer shell 112 toward the connected structure and therefore cannot flex against the outside casing. This argument is not persuasive.
Fu discloses gasket 115 having lip 115c extending around the circumference of the gasket, wherein the gasket surrounds power pins 122a, 122b through openings 115f and 115g (Fu ¶¶ [0145]-[0146]; Figs. 11S-11T). Fu further illustrates the assembled configuration in which gasket 115, including lip 115c, is positioned between the power supply interfacing structure and outer shell 112. As shown in Fig. 32H, outer shell 112 engages and compresses lip 115c. Thus, Applicant’s assertion that compression of lip 115c by outer shell 112 means that the lip does not “flex against” the outside casing is not persuasive. Compression of a resilient sealing lip while engaged with the outer shell constitutes flexure of the lip against the outer shell. Claim 1 does not require any particular direction or manner of flexure beyond flexing against the outside casing. See MPEP § 2111.
Applicant further argues that lip 115c is not “orientated to extend in the direction of the battery.” However, Fu must be considered for everything that it reasonably teaches to one of ordinary skill in the art, including the relative arrangement of the disclosed components shown in the drawings. Fu discloses battery 124 positioned within the bottom support structure and electrically connected to power pins 122a, 122b (Fu ¶¶ [0132]-[0135]). Figs. 11S-11T illustrate lip 115c extending from the region of the power supply interfacing member in the direction of the interior of the device where battery 124 is located. The claim does not require the sealing lip to contact the battery, terminate at the battery, or extend directly along an axis intersecting the battery. Rather, the claim merely requires that the lip be “orientated to extend in the direction of the battery.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, Fu satisfies this limitation.
Accordingly, Applicant has not established a distinction between the sealing arrangement recited in claim 1 and that disclosed by Fu, and the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) is maintained.
With respect to claims 2-7 and 11-13, Applicant argues that these claims are allowable by virtue of their dependency from allegedly allowable claim 1. Because Applicant’s arguments concerning claim 1 are not persuasive, this dependency-based argument is likewise not persuasive.
With respect to claims 7 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant similarly relies upon the alleged deficiency of Fu with respect to claim 1. For the reasons discussed above, Fu teaches the disputed limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument does not overcome the rejection of claims 7 and 10.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, Applicant argues that Pløjoux fails to cure the alleged deficiencies of Fu. However, Pløjoux is not relied upon to cure the disputed limitations of claim 1. Rather, Fu teaches those limitations as discussed above, while Pløjoux is relied upon for the additional limitations of claims 8 and 9. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument does not overcome the rejection of claims 8 and 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fu et al. (US 2019/0364968).
Regarding claim 1, Fu teaches an aerosol generating device (vaporizer device 100) comprising:
an outside casing (outer shell 112) containing a battery (124) and comprising a receiving cavity (cartridge receptacle 114) for receiving a cartomizer (The cartridge 150 may include a vaporizing assembly of vapor-generating components [0231]),
and a power supply interfacing member (power pins 122 a, b) connected to the battery (124) and positioned inside the receiving cavity (114; see fig. 4E),
wherein the device (100) further comprises a first sealing arrangement (115) between the power supply interfacing member (power pins 122 a, b) and the outside casing (outer shell 112),
and wherein the first sealing arrangement (gasket 115) comprises a sealing lip (115c; see Fig. 11S), the sealing lip (115c) extends from the power supply interfacing member (122a, b; see fig. 11T) to flex against the outside casing (when the inner assembly 111 is slid into the outer shell 112; see figs. 4c-4E and 11U) and is orientated to extend in the direction of the battery (124: in a direction away from the interfacing member 122 a, b; see fig. 11T).
Regarding claim 2, Fu teaches wherein the sealing lip (115c) is arranged circumferentially about the power supply interfacing member (power pins 122 a, b). Fu specifically teaches a gasket (115) including a lip 115c extending around a circumference of the gasket [0145]). The gasket surrounds the power pins via openings (115f, 115g), such that the lip extends circumferentially around the interfacing member ([0145]-[0146]; figs. 11S-11T).
Regarding claim 3, the limitation of “wherein the sealing lip is orientated to extend towards the battery”, is met by Fu which teaches a gasket 115 comprising a lip 115c positioned at the proximal end of the device between the cartridge receptacle and internal components including a battery 124, such that the lip 115c is oriented toward the battery ([0147] fig. 11T).
Regarding claim 4, the limitation of “wherein the sealing lip is configured as a continuous skirt around the power supply interfacing member, is met by Fu which teaches a gasket 115 comprising a lip 115c that extends continuously around the circumference of the interfacing region at the proximal end of the device surrounding the power supply interfacing member, such that the lip forms a continuous skirt around the power supply interfacing member ([0145]; Figs. 11S-T).
Regarding claim 5, Fu teaches wherein the power supply interfacing member comprises a printed circuit board (PCB) 126 to which are connected electrical connectors (122a, 122b) accessible in the receiving cavity (114) to the cartomizer (150), the limitation a second sealing arrangement configured for sealing the connectors to prevent liquid coming from the cartomizer (20) to reach the PCB, is met by Fu, which teaches a gasket 115 including a first sealing portion in the form of a lip 115c sealing against the casing [0145] and a second distinct sealing portion in the form of a sealing ring 115a configured to provide a tight seal with an internal component, thereby forming a sealed chamber and preventing ingress of material toward components including the PCB 124 ([0146]-[0147]; fig. 11T).
Regarding claim 6, the limitation of “wherein the further second sealing arrangement is formed as a single element or integrally with the sealing lip”, is met by Fu which teaches a gasket 115 including multiple sealing portions, namely a lip 115c and a sealing ring 115a which are formed as part of the same gasket structure such that the sealing arrangements are integrally formed (depicted in fig. 11S- T).
Regarding claim 11, Fu teaches wherein the outside casing (112) is formed of a rigid material, in particular a rigid thermoplastic material, glass or metal [0067].
Regarding claim 12. (new) The aerosol generating device according to claim 11, wherein the outside casing is formed of a rigid thermoplastic material, glass or metal [0067].
Regarding claim 13, the limitation of “wherein the sealing lip is orientated to extend towards the battery”, is met by Fu which teaches a gasket 115 comprising a lip 115c positioned at the proximal end of the device between the cartridge receptacle and internal components including a battery 124, such that the lip 115c is oriented toward the battery ([0147] fig. 11T).
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (US 2019/0364968).
Regarding claim 7, Fu teaches a sealing arrangement including a gasket (115) corresponding to the claimed first sealing arrangement (¶¶ [0145]–[0147]; FIG. 11T).
Fu further teaches that sealing elements, including an internal sealing gasket (173), may be formed of elastic or rubberized material (¶ [0241]), and that a bottom tank seal (176) may be formed of liquid silicone rubber (LSR) (¶ [0253]), wherein such sealing components, including gasket (173) and seal (176), may be formed of rubber, fluorosilicone rubber, or liquid silicone rubber (¶ [0270]).
Although Fu does not explicitly state that the first sealing arrangement in particular the sealing lip, and/or the further second sealing arrangement is made of silicone rubber, Fu teaches silicone rubber as a suitable material for sealing elements within the same device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first sealing arrangement of silicone rubber as taught for other sealing elements (173, 176), because silicone rubber is a known sealing material that provides predictable properties such as elasticity, compressibility, chemical resistance, and durability, which improve sealing performance and reliability.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the same material to gasket (115) to achieve consistent sealing characteristics across sealing interfaces within the device. (See MPEP § 2143) (use of known materials for their known functions yields predictable results).
Regarding claim 10, Fu teaches a sealing arrangement including a gasket (115) corresponding to the claimed sealing lip (¶¶ [0145]–[0147]; Fig. 11T).
Fu further teaches that sealing elements, including an internal sealing gasket (173), may be oversized elastic or rubberized material that forms a seal when under compression (¶ [0241]), and that such sealing elements may be formed of elastic materials including rubber (¶ [0270]).
Although Fu does not explicitly state that the outer diameter or circumference of the sealing lip (115) in a relaxed state is larger than an inner diameter or circumference of an opening aperture, Fu teaches that sealing elements are oversized and seal under compression (¶ [0241]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dimension the sealing lip (115) such that its outer diameter or circumference in a relaxed state is larger than the corresponding opening aperture, in order to achieve compression and sealing engagement, as taught by Fu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide such dimensional relationship because forming a seal via compression of an elastic, oversized sealing element is a known technique that yields predictable results in preventing leakage and improving sealing reliability (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (US 2019/0364968) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Plojoux et al. (US 2014/0366900).
Regarding claim 8, Fu teaches an aerosol generating device including an outside casing corresponding to the claimed outside casing (10) (¶¶ [0004], [0064], [0067], [0090]; FIGS. 1A–1F, 4A–4E).
However, Fu does not teach that the outside casing has a non-uniform cross section along a longitudinal direction of the outside casing.
Plojoux discloses an elongate aerosol-generating device having a housing with varying cross-sectional dimensions along its longitudinal length, including tapered end portions (114, 120) and intermediate portions (116, 118), such that the casing varies in diameter along the longitudinal axis, thereby forming a non-uniform cross section along the length of the casing (¶¶ [0025]–[0027], [0062], [0069], [0075]; FIGS. 1, 2, 5, 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outside casing of Fu to have a non-uniform cross section along a longitudinal direction taught by Plojoux in order to facilitate insertion and coupling of device components and accommodate internal structures, as Plojoux expressly teaches that tapered geometry assists insertion into a receiving portion (¶ [0027]).
Applying a known technique of varying casing geometry along a longitudinal axis to a similar aerosol-generating device would have yielded predictable results, consistent with MPEP § 2143(I)(B) and KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., which recognize that a known technique used to improve similar devices in the same way renders the combination obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Fu teaches an aerosol generating device including an outside casing having an opening aperture and extending along a longitudinal direction toward a battery portion (¶¶ [0004], [0064], [0067], [0090]; FIGS. 1A–1F, 4A–4E).
However, Fu does not teach that a cross-sectional area of the outside casing increases from the opening aperture along the longitudinal direction toward the battery.
Plojoux discloses an elongate aerosol-generating device having a housing with varying cross-sectional dimensions along its longitudinal length, including tapered end portions (114, 120) and intermediate portions (116, 118), wherein the casing transitions from a narrower end region to a wider intermediate region, thereby providing an increasing cross-sectional area along a longitudinal direction from an opening toward an interior portion of the device (¶¶ [0025]–[0027], [0062], [0069], [0075]; FIGS. 1, 2, 5, 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outside casing of Fu such that the cross-sectional area increases from the opening aperture along the longitudinal direction toward the battery as taught by Plojoux in order to facilitate insertion at the opening aperture and accommodate internal components such as a battery within a wider downstream portion of the casing, as Plojoux teaches that tapered geometry assists insertion into a receiving portion (¶ [0027]).
Applying a known technique of providing a progressively increasing casing dimension to guide insertion and house internal components to a similar aerosol-generating device would have yielded predictable results, consistent with MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Claim 14—15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (US 2019/0364968 A1) in view of Xiao (US 2019/0364965 A1)
Regarding claim 14, Fu teaches the aerosol generating device according to claim 1 as discussed above, including a sealing lip extending from the power supply interfacing member to flex against the outside casing (Fu, Figs. 11T, 32H).
Fu does not expressly teach that the sealing lip flexes radially outward against the outside casing.
Xiao teaches a resilient sealing configuration in an electronic cigarette wherein second sealing body 682 contracts inward during installation and, after installation, expands back outward to enhance the sealing performance between pumping body 63 and the inner wall of e-liquid bottle 70, which is equivalent to the claimed sealing lip flexing radially outward against the outside casing (Xiao ¶ [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sealing lip 115c of Fu to flex radially outward against outer shell 112, as taught by Xiao, in order to enhance the sealing performance between the sealing member and the surrounding casing (Xiao ¶ [0041]).
Regarding claim 15, Fu teaches the aerosol generating device according to claim 1 as discussed above, including a sealing lip extending from the power supply interfacing member to flex against the outside casing (Fu, Figs. 11T, 32H).
Fu does not expressly teach that the sealing lip comprises a V-shaped cross-section with a leg protruding toward and flexing against the outside casing.
Xiao teaches a resilient sealing configuration in an electronic cigarette wherein second sealing body 682 includes second groove 681 having an approximately V-shaped cross-section and resiliently contracts during installation and expands outward after installation into sealing engagement with the inner wall of e-liquid bottle 70, which is equivalent to the claimed V-shaped sealing lip having a leg protruding toward and flexing against the outside casing (Xiao ¶ [0041]).
Xiao further teaches that the opening of V-shaped second groove 681 faces the e-liquid bottle 70, such that the disclosed V-shaped resilient sealing structure is configured to respond to pressure acting within the groove by urging its outward sealing portion toward the surrounding wall, thereby being capable of the claimed function in which an increase in internal pressure forces the leg toward the outside casing (Xiao ¶ [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify sealing lip 115c of Fu to have the V-shaped resilient sealing configuration taught by Xiao, with a leg protruding toward and flexing against outer shell 112, in order to enhance the sealing performance between the sealing member and the surrounding casing (Xiao ¶ [0041]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 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, 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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights