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 1-12 and 14-15 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claim 13 has been cancelled. Claim 15 is newly added. Claims 1, 5, and 9 have been amended.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 11/06/2025 containing
amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 6-7, filed 11/06/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 11/062025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8, the Applicant argues that a liquid substrate and a substrate having a shape of a plate, a pad, or a disk are not obvious variants. The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive because Smith teaches a substrate (liquid reservoir 234) that is a cylindrical capsule ([0029], figure 4), which is opened by a liquid reservoir opening element to be heated [0030]. While the substrate is cylindrical, one of ordinary skill could easily making the capsule into a plate, pad, or disk shape (i.e. flattened capsule). The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B
The Applicant further argues that one having ordinary skill in the art would not consider language that a substrate is “pressed” against a heating element to refer to a liquid substrate, moreover that a surface of the substrate held by the tray is pressed against the heating element further emphasizes the physical nature of the substrate having a shape of a plate, a pad, or a disk. The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive because Smith teaches that the liquid reservoir opening element is a piercing pin comprised by the atomizer [0031], and therefore as the liquid reservoir opening element pierces substrate, the surface of the substrate that is pierced is therefore pressed against the heating element.
On page 8, the Applicant further argues that as new claim 15 recites two edges of the substrate held by the tray are pressed against the heating element, this further emphasizes the physical nature of the substrate having a shape of a plate, a pad, or a disk, and a person of ordinary skill would not consider this language to be met by a liquid. This is not found to be persuasive because as the liquid reservoir 234 of Smith is pierced by a piercing pin of the atomizer [0031], when this occurs the outer edges of the substrate are therefore pressed against the piercing pin of the atomizer, and therefore the heating element. As the change in form or shape of the substrate is an obvious engineering design, the substrate being in the shape of a plate, a pad, or a disk would therefore read on the two edges of the substrate held by the tray are pressed against the heating element.
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) 1 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US20180368475).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses:
An aerosol generation device (electronic smoking device 210, figure 4, [0029]) comprising:
An aerosol generation chamber configured to receive and heat a substrate to generate aerosol (battery of the cavity portion that the tray 250 containing liquid reservoir 234 is slid into, [0029]- [0030]), the aerosol generation chamber comprising at least a heating element (atomizer 26, [0022]).
A tray configured to receive and hold the substrate (tray 250, figure 4, [0030]).
A lid connected to the tray (mouthpiece portion 13) and configured to be in a closed position covering the aerosol generation chamber (the linear countermovement slides the tray 250 into a cavity of the battery position and closes the cavity by the mouthpiece portion, [0030]) and in an open position exposing the aerosol generation chamber (as shown in figure 4, by the linear movement, the cavity is opened and the tray is slid out of a cavity of the battery portion, [0029]).
Wherein when the lid is in the open position, the tray is located at least partially outside of the aerosol generation chamber and is configured to receive the substrate or the substrate held by the tray can be removed from the tray by a hand of a user (as shown in figure 4, a liquid reservoir 234 (also called capsules) can be laid on the tray in the insertion configuration, [0029]).
When the lid is in the closed position, the substrate is contained in the aerosol generation chamber (the linear countermovement slides the tray 250 into a cavity of the battery position and closes the cavity by the mouthpiece portion, [0030]).
The lid is configured to transition from the open position to the closed position by translating towards the aerosol generation chamber in a longitudinal direction of the housing (linear counter-movement along the main axis X, [0029]).
Whereby the tray is translated in the longitudinal direction into the aerosol generation chamber and a surface of the substrate held by the tray is pressed against the heating element (in the closed cavity configuration the liquid reservoir opening element opens, e.g. pierces, the housed liquid reservoir. In some embodiments the liquid reservoir opening element is a piercing pin comprised by the atomizer [0031]).
A housing (battery portion 12, [0013], figure 2).
Smith does not appear to disclose (I) the substrate having a shape of a plate, a pad, or a disk and (II) the housing is oblong.
In regard to (I), while the substrate is cylindrical, one of ordinary skill could easily making the capsule into a plate, pad, or disk shape (i.e. flattened capsule). The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B. Therefore, it would be obvious to one have ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the substrate of Smith have a shape of a plate, a pad, or a disk because the change in shape is an obvious engineering design.
In regard to (II), the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B. Therefore it would be obvious to one have ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the housing of Smith be oblong because the change in shape is an obvious engineering design.
Regarding claim 14, Smith further teaches wherein the tray comp[rises a recess configured to receive and hold the substrate (as shown in figure 4, tray 250 has a recess where the liquid reservoir 234 is inserted).
Regarding claim 15, as the substrate of Smith is pierced by a piercing pin of the atomizer [0031], when this occurs the outer edges of the substrate are pressed against the piercing pin of the atomizer, and therefore the heating element. As the change in form or shape of the substrate is an obvious engineering design, the substrate being in the shape of a plate, a pad, or a disk would therefore read on wherein the lid being configured to transition from the open position to the closed position by translating towards the aerosol generation chamber in the longitudinal direction of the housing causes the two edges of the substrate held by the tray are pressed against the heating element.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US20180368475) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Price (US2005/0072841).
Regarding claim 2, Smith does not appear to disclose wherein the tray comprises at least one bolt that is configured to be placed inside a guide rail.
Price, directed to a portable ashtray, teaches:
An ashtray assembly 20 comprising a drawer 12 that slides in and out of an outer housing 10. A slide mechanism 15 is located on a longitudinal side 41 as to facilitate opening and closing of the ashtray assembly 20 ([0031], figures 3A-3D).
The slide mechanism 15 is comprised of a guide like rectangular opening 14 along the length of the longitudinal side 41 of the rectangular outer housing 10. Attached to the rectangular inner housing 12 is a protrusion 16 ([0031], figures 3A-3D).
The slide mechanism comprises at least one bolt (protrusion 16) that is configured to be placed inside a guide rail (guide opening 14), ([0031], figures 3A-3D).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the tray of Smith by incorporating the slide mechanism as taught by Price, because both Smith and Price are directed to sliding trays for smoking material, Price teaches a sliding mechanism for sliding a drawer in and out of an outer housing, and this merely involves incorporating a known way to slide a tray in and out of a housing to a similar sliding tray to yield predicable results.
Regarding claim 3, modified Smith does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one bolt consists of or comprises a pair of studs.
However, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI B. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the slide mechanism of modified Smith because this is merely involving the duplication of parts. Modified Smith having two protrusions reads on the at least one bolt consisting of or comprising a pair of studs.
Regarding claim 4, modified Smith further teaches a guide rail (guide opening 14, Price) configured to receive the at least one bolt and guide the tray during translation into or out of the aerosol generation chamber (Price, [0031], sliding the protrusion 16 back and forth along the guide opening 14).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US20180368475) in view of Price (US2005/0072841) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Beaudoin (US2006/0226747).
Regarding claim 7, modified Price does not appear to disclose wherein the guide rail is movably mounted in the aerosol generation device and is guided by a second guide rail by at least one second bolt such that the two guide rails form a telescopic mechanism.
Beaudoin, directed to a drawer slide assembly, teaches:
A drawer slide assembly that comprises a telescopic pair of first and second rails slidable between a retracted closed position and an extended open position for respectively closing and opening the drawer. It also includes a rail catch mechanism for resisting slide extension from the retracted position ([0013]). The telescopic pair of first and second rails reads on a guide rail that is movable mounted and is guided by a second guide rail such that the two guide rails form a telescopic mechanism.
In order that a drawer does not inadvertently come partially open, catch mechanisms can be used to hold or bias the drawer in its closed position ([0003]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the sliding tray mechanism of modified Smith to have a second guide rail where the guide rails form a telescopic pair of first and second guide rails as taught by Beaudoin, because both Smith and Beaudoin are directed to tray/drawer sliding assemblies, Beaudoin teaches the telescopic mechanism has a catch mechanism so that the drawer does not inadvertently open, and this merely involves incorporating a known mechanism for sliding a tray into and out of a housing (i.e. with a telescopic pair of first and second rails) to a similar slidable tray to yield predicable results. When modifying Price to have the second guide rail as taught by Price, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to use the same mechanism to guide the rail, that being the protrusion 16 of Price ([0031], figures 3A-3D), and yielding at lease on second bolt that guides the second guide rail.
Regarding claim 8, modified Smith does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the at least one second bolt consists of or comprises a second pair of studs. However, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI B. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the at least one second bolt of modified Smith because this is merely involving the duplication of parts. Modified Smith having two protrusions guiding the second guide rail reads on the at least one second bolt consisting of or comprising a pair of studs.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US20180368475) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trzecieski (US2020/0163382).
Regarding claim 12, Smith does not appear to disclose wherein the lid comprises a recess portion located at an end of the lid which faces the aerosol generation chamber.
Trzecieski, directed to a vaporization device, teaches:
A lid (mouthpiece lid 104) that comprises a recess portion (indent 104i) at the end of the lid which faces the aerosol generation chamber (as shown in figure 1A, indent 104i is at the end of the mouthpiece lid 104 that faces the heating chambers 106 and 206, [0071]).
The indent 104i enables the user to remove the lid ([0071]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the lid of Smith by incorporating a recess portion located at an end of the lid which faces the aerosol generation chamber as taught by Trzecieski, because both Smith and Trzecieski are directed to vaporization devices with mouthpiece lids, Trzecieski teaches the recess enables the user to remove the lid, and this merely involves incorporating a known element to the end of a mouthpiece element (i.e. recess) to a similar vaporization device to yield predicable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 9, and 10-11 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 5-6 and 10-11, No prior art alone or in combination with references discloses or reasonably suggests the aerosol generation device as recited in claim 5. Specifically, the prior art fails to disclose wherein the tray during translation in the longitudinal direction into the aerosol generation chamber is also translated in a direction substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal direction and towards the heating element. The closest prior art is considered to be Smith (US20180368475) which teaches an aerosol generation device (electronic smoking device 210, figure 4, [0029]) comprising a tray configured to receive and hold the substrate (tray 250, figure 4, [0030]) and is translated in the longitudinal direction into the aerosol generation chamber (linear counter-movement along the main axis X, [0029]).
However, Smith does not teach where the tray is also translated in a direction substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal direction and towards the heating element. Therefore, claim 5 is indicated as being allowable over the prior art. Claims 6 and 10-11 are similarly indicated as being allowable for being dependent on claim 5.
Regarding claim 9, No prior art alone or in combination with references discloses or reasonably suggests the aerosol generation device as recited in claim 9. Specifically, the prior art fails to disclose wherein the second guide rail tapers in an inclination along an edge thereof further away from the heating element. The closest prior art is considered to be Smith (US20180368475) which teaches an aerosol generation device (electronic smoking device 210, figure 4, [0029]) comprising a tray configured to receive and hold the substrate (tray 250, figure 4, [0030]) and is translated in the longitudinal direction into the aerosol generation chamber (linear counter-movement along the main axis X, [0029]).
Beaudoin (US2006/0226747) directed to a drawer slide assembly, teaches:
A drawer slide assembly that comprises a telescopic pair of first and second rails slidable between a retracted closed position and an extended open position for respectively closing and opening the drawer.
However, Smith and Beaudoin do not teach wherein the second guide rail tapers in an inclination along an edge thereof further away from the heating element. Therefore, claim 9 is indicated as being allowable over the prior art.
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 Nicole A Szumigalski whose telephone number is (703)756-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 4:30 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.
/N.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755