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
Claims 1-15 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
1019 (Fig. 1)
13 (Fig. 2)
1031 (Fig. 3c)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 6-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitation “a spring steel framework arranged between the upper portion and the lower portion, which is configured to receive and hold the substrate”. It is unclear as to whether there is a specific structure associated with a “spring steel framework”. The specification describes a steel spring framework 103 as a compressible book-like shape with a predetermined angle large enough to receive the substrate (page 11, lines 12-25; Fig. 3c) and it is unclear if that specific shape is essential for the Applicant’s claimed invention. For examination purposes, any steel structure that has two plates or leaves joined along a side edge (e.g., a “book-like” shape) such that the plates are configured to spring apart will be considered to be a spring steel framework.
Claims 7-8 and 10-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 6.
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 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.
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 1-5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepworth et al. (US 20190254346 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hepworth teaches an aerosol generation device (aerosol provision article 500; Figs. 5a-5d; [0109]) comprising:
an aerosol generation chamber (channel 532; [0114]) configured to receive a substrate (flavor element 524; [0114], [0071]) to generate aerosol, wherein the aerosol generation chamber comprises an upper portion (570; [0111]), a lower portion (second portion 502b; [0110]) and an expansion mechanism (biasing means; [0114]), wherein the aerosol generation chamber is moveable between a closed state in which a surface of the upper portion and a surface of the lower portion substantially enclose a volume containing the substrate for consuming the substrate, and an open state in which the surface of the upper portion and the surface of the lower portion are distanced from each other by the expansion mechanism, so that the substrate can be received by or removed from the chamber (Figs. 5a-5d; [0112-0113]);
and a cover (first portion 502a; [0110]) having a covering position and a non-covering position ([0112-0113]);
wherein when the cover is in the non-covering position, the volume inside the aerosol generation chamber is exposed and the aerosol generation chamber is in the open state (Figs. 5a-5c; [0112]), and when the cover is in the covering position, the aerosol generation chamber is covered by the cover and is in the closed state (Fig. 5d; [0113]).
Hepworth does not explicitly teach that the aerosol generation chamber is configured to heat the substrate.
However, Hepworth does teach that the aerosol generation device 500 comprises a heater 110 to vaporize a liquid, which then flows through the substrate ([0075]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the aerosol generation chamber of Hepworth is heated via the heated vapor that flows through the substrate.
Regarding claim 2, Hepworth teaches that the expansion mechanism is configured to provide an expansion force so as to distance the surface of the upper portion from the surface of the lower portion when the cover is moved from covering position to the non-covering position ([0114]).
Hepworth does not explicitly teach that the expansion mechanism comprises repelling magnets, springs or a clip.
However, in another embodiment, Hepworth teaches that it is known to use springs as expansion mechanisms ([0087], [0095]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify using a spring expansion mechanism as taught by Hepworth because Hepworth is silent to the exact expansion mechanism of this embodiment and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable expansion mechanisms, and this involves applying a known mechanism to another embodiment of the same device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Hepworth teaches that the cover 502a is engaged with the upper portion so as to transition the aerosol generation chamber from the open state to the closed state or vice versa when the cover moves from the covering position to the non-covering position or vice versa ([0115-0116]).
Regarding claim 4, Hepworth teaches that the cover is configured to slide on a main body of the aerosol generation device and is slidingly engaged with the upper portion of the aerosol generation chamber, so that the cover is configured to press down the upper portion or release the upper portion so as to bring the upper portion closer to the lower portion or distance the upper portion from the lower portion via the expansion mechanism when sliding on the main body (Figs. 5a-5d; [0115-0116]).
Regarding claim 5, Hepworth teaches that an upper surface of the upper portion is configured to connect with the cover, and the upper surface is a curved surface ([0111]), so that the upper portion is configured to be pressed down so as to substantially enclose the substrate by the cover in the covering position, and is configured to be released from the pressure of the cover through sliding the cover to its non-covering position ([0115-0116]).
Regarding claim 13, Hepworth teaches that the upper portion is rotationally hinged in the device (upper portion 570 is configured to pivot (hinge); [0112]).
Regarding claim 14, Hepworth does not explicitly teach that the cover 502a comprises a limiting portion for pushing the substrate into the aerosol generation chamber and fully maintaining the substrate in the aerosol generation chamber.
However, Hepworth teaches that the portion of cover 502a that presses upper portion 570 closed acts to thereby push the substrate into the chamber. This would be the structural equivalent to a “limiting protrusion”, as a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. As such, the claimed limitation is met by the prior art element.
Regarding claim 15, Hepworth does not explicitly teach that the substrate is compressed when the aerosol generation chamber is in the closed state.
However, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect that any substrate of sufficient size would be at least somewhat compressed between the upper portion 570 and the lower portion 502b when the aerosol generation chamber is in a closed state in which a surface of the upper portion and a surface of the lower portion substantially enclose a volume containing the substrate.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepworth as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Collett et al. (US 20140060554 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Hepworth does not explicitly teach that the aerosol generation chamber comprises heating elements (microheater 50; Fig. 7; [0093], [0110]) on the upper portion and/or the lower portion, for heating the substrate 600.
Collett, directed to an aerosol generation device (smoking article 10; Fig. 7; [0088]) comprising an aerosol generation chamber (cavity; [0110]) configured to receive and heat a substrate (substrate 600; [0110]) comprising an upper portion (hinged door 101), a lower portion (surface interior to the article; [0110]), wherein the aerosol generation chamber is moveable between a closed state and an open state so that the substrate can be received by or removed from the chamber ([0110]), teaches that the aerosol generation chamber comprises heating elements (microheater 50; Fig. 7; [0093], [0110]) on the upper portion and/or the lower portion, for heating the substrate 600.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hepworth by adding heating elements (microheater 50; Fig. 7; [0093], [0110]) on the upper portion and/or the lower portion of the aerosol generation chamber as taught by Collett because both Hepworth and Collett are directed to aerosol generation devices comprising aerosol generation chambers configured to receive and heat a substrate, Collett teaches that it is known in the art to use heating elements on the upper and lower portions, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the addition of heaters would make it easier to entrain the substrate in the vapor stream, and this involves substituting one alternative configuration for providing heat to the substrate for another to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art alone or in combination with references does not disclose an aerosol generation device as recited in claim 6. Specifically, the prior art fails to disclose a spring steel framework arranged between the upper portion and the lower portion, which is configured to receive and hold the substrate.
The closest prior art is considered to be Hepworth et al. (US 20190254346 A1).
Hepworth teaches an aerosol generation device (aerosol provision article 500; Figs. 5a-5d; [0109]) comprising:
an aerosol generation chamber (channel 532; [0114]) configured to receive a substrate (flavor element 524; [0114], [0071]) to generate aerosol, wherein the aerosol generation chamber comprises an upper portion (570; [0111]), a lower portion (second portion 502b; [0110]) and an expansion mechanism (biasing means; [0114]), wherein the aerosol generation chamber is moveable between a closed state in which a surface of the upper portion and a surface of the lower portion substantially enclose a volume containing the substrate for consuming the substrate, and an open state in which the surface of the upper portion and the surface of the lower portion are distanced from each other by the expansion mechanism, so that the substrate can be received by or removed from the chamber (Figs. 5a-5d; [0112-0113]);
and a cover (first portion 502a; [0110]) having a covering position and a non-covering position ([0112-0113]);
wherein when the cover is in the non-covering position, the volume inside the aerosol generation chamber is exposed and the aerosol generation chamber is in the open state (Figs. 5a-5c; [0112]), and when the cover is in the covering position, the aerosol generation chamber is covered by the cover and is in the closed state (Fig. 5d; [0113]).
Hepworth further teaches that the aerosol generation device 500 comprises a heater 110 to vaporize a liquid, which then flows through the substrate ([0075]), thus heating the substrate.
Hepworth also teaches that springs are known expansion mechanisms for similar embodiments of the device ([0087], [0095]).
Hepworth does not teach a spring steel framework.
Collett et al. (US 20140060554 A1) teaches an aerosol generation device (smoking article 10; Fig. 7; [0088]) comprising an aerosol generation chamber (cavity; [0110]) configured to receive and heat a substrate (substrate 600; [0110]) comprising an upper portion (hinged door 101), a lower portion (surface interior to the article; [0110]), wherein the aerosol generation chamber is moveable between a closed state in which a surface of the upper portion and a surface of the lower portion substantially enclose a volume containing the substrate for consuming the substrate, and an open state in which the surface of the upper portion and the surface of the lower portion are distanced from each other, so that the substrate can be received by or removed from the chamber ([0110]).
Collett does not teach the expansion mechanism including a spring steel framework or the cover as claimed.
Evans (US 4213707 A) teaches a spring steel framework (elongated flexible assembly 20 comprising spring leaves 24; Fig. 4; col. 5, l. 22-29) for holding a substrate (article 44) in place. Evans does not reasonably suggest or provide motivation for modifying the aerosol generating device of Hepworth with a spring steel framework.
To conclude, within the art, there is limited reference to a spring steel framework. Specifically, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the use of a spring steel framework arranged between the upper portion and the lower portion of an aerosol generating device, which is configured to receive and hold the substrate. As such, claim 6 is indicated as being allowable.
Claims 7-8 and 10-12 would also be allowable.
Conclusion
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