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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrie et al. (EP 3711571) in view of Matkin (US Patent No. 4363333) and Ukpabi (U.S Pub. No. 20080174104).
Regarding claim 1, Ferrie discloses an aerosol generation device comprising:
a heating unit (204, fig. 2E) for heating an aerosol generation substrate (213, fig. 213) for generating an aerosol;
a device housing (Abstract and [0028]) for accommodating the heating unit, the device housing comprising a heat dissipation portion provided on a portion of the device housing that forms part of an exterior surface of the device housing,
wherein the heat dissipation portion comprises a plurality of perforations [0028] through which heat from an inside of the device housing, which is generated inside a main housing of the device housing by heat radiation and heat conduction from the heating unit, is configured dissipate to an outside of the device housing [0137], and
Ferrie does not expressly disclose the opening surface area per perforation of the plurality of perforation. Matkin an aerosol generation device with laser-formed microperforations for ventilation (Example XIII). Ukpabi discloses microperforations can range in size from 10 microns to 150 microns (corresponding to 0.00007854 mm² to 0.01767 mm²). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use microperforations for ventilation (heat dissipation). Since the microperforations would have overlapping ranges with the claimed surface area perforation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pick the claimed range.
Also, it would be obvious to optimize the area of perforations to get the desired ventilation including areas within the claimed range, meeting the limitation. The courts have 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), see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.).
Regarding claim 2, Ferrie discloses the device housing includes:
the main housing that accommodates the heating unit; and
a cover element that is detachably attached or connected to the main housing that covers a portion of the main housing against an outside of the aerosol generation device to form part of an exterior surface of the aerosol generation device, wherein the heat dissipation portion is provided on the cover element [0137].
Regarding claim 3, Ferrie wherein a thermally conductive element is provided along an inner surface of the cover element facing the main housing [022, 0137].
Regarding claim 4, Ferrie discloses wherein the thermally conductive element is provided along at least a portion of or an entire inner surface of the heat dissipation portion [022, 0137].
Regarding claim 5, Ferrie discloses wherein a portion or all of the perforations of the plurality of perforations extend from the outside of the device housing through the thermally conductive element into the inside of the device housing [022, 0137].
Regarding claim 6, Ferrie discloses wherein the thermally conductive element is provided in contact with at least a portion of an interior surface of the heat dissipation portion [022, 0137].
Regarding claim 7, Ferrie discloses wherein the thermally conductive element comprises a strip, plate, bar, or rod shape [022, 0137].
Regarding claim 8, Ferrie discloses the aerosol device further comprising a user operation portion that is provided on the exterior surface of the aerosol generation device and that is configured to be actuated by a user for operating the aerosol generation device, wherein the user operation portion comprises one or more user input elements (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Ferrie discloses the aerosol generation device comprising an operation interface portion that is provided at least a portion of a surface of the main housing that is covered by the cover element and that is configured to be actuated for operating the aerosol generation device [0133, 0137].
Regarding claim 10, Ferrie discloses wherein the user operation portion is provided with the cover element and forms part of an exterior surface of the cover element [0133, 0137].
Regarding claim 11, Ferrie discloses wherein the user operation portion is configured to actuate the operation interface portion [0133, 0137].
Regarding claim 12, Ferrie discloses the device further comprising a user operation portion that is provided on the exterior surface of the aerosol generation device and that is configured to be actuated by a user for operating the aerosol generation device, wherein the user operation portion comprises one or more user input elements, wherein the user operation portion is provided with the cover element and forms part of an exterior surface of the cover element, and wherein the thermally conductive element is not provided along the inner surface of the portion of cover element formed by user operation portion [0022, 0133, 0137].
Regarding claim 13, Ferrie discloses wherein an output element is provided disposed at a surface of the main housing between the main housing and the cover element,
wherein the output element comprises an light emitting indicator,
wherein the light emitting indicator is disposed inside the device housing to be opposite and face an interior surface of the heat dissipation portion, wherein light emitted by the light emitting indicator is visible to the unassisted human eye through the plurality of perforations, and
wherein the light emitting indictor is not visible through the plurality of perforations when the light emitting indicator is not emitting light (fig. 3).
Regarding claims 14, 16-17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to perform routine experimentation to get the micro-perforation to the claimed sizes.
Regarding claim 15, Ferrie discloses the device comprising a cover detection means for detecting whether the cover element is attached to the main housing [0165].
Regarding claims 16-17, as explained above for claim 1, Matkin an aerosol generation device with laser-formed microperforations for ventilation (Example XIII). Ukpabi discloses microperforations can range in size from 10 microns to 150 microns (corresponding to 0.00007854 mm² to 0.01767 mm²). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use microperforations for ventilation (heat dissipation). Since the microperforations would have overlapping ranges with the claimed surface area perforation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pick the claimed range.
Also, it would be obvious to optimize the area of perforations to get the desired ventilation including areas within the claimed range, meeting the limitation. The courts have 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), see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
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 PHU H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5931. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 5712703882. 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.
/PHU H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights