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 .
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 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.
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 27, 2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Status
Claims 1-14, 17, 19, and 21-23 are cancelled.
Claims 15-16, 18, 20-29 are newly added and are pending.
Claims 25-29 are withdrawn.
Claims 15-16, 18, 20, and 24 are examined on the merits in this prosecution.
CLAIM REJECTIONS
Obviousness Rejections
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
1) Claims 15-18, 20-21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung (US 2015/0335074 A1; of record), in view of Gaiha (“Association Between Youth Smoking, Electronic Cigarette Use and COVID-19,” Journal of Adolescent Health 67 (2020) 519-523), Uhlmann (WO 2012/162557 A1; of record), and Mantlo (“In vitro efficacy of a copper iodine complex PPE disinfectant for SARS-CoV-2 inactivation,” F1000Research 2020, 9: 674).
Leung teaches a handheld electronic vaporizing device, comprising a body defining a cavity; a mouthpiece connected to said body; an electroconductive textile heating element; an elastically deformable reservoir; a power element; a power connect element; a capacitive touch sensor element; and a light element (pg 3, claim 1). Leung teaches the mouthpiece comprises an inner shell of hard material such as, for example, metal or plastic, and an outer shell of soft pliable material such as, for example, foam, silicone or rubber, and the mouthpiece may include an anti-microbial agent coating to inhibit bacterial growth (pg 1, [0013]).
For claim 21, the device taught by Leung is a handheld vaporizing device 10 shown in Fig. 1 (below). The handheld vaporizing device 10 comprises a mouth piece 200 and a main body 100. Main body 100 defines an interior cavity 110. A heating element 240, a reservoir 250, a power unit 260 comprising control circuitry 270 and power source 290, and a power connect element 280 are sequentially provided inside cavity 110 (pg 1, [0012]).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claimed device is disclosed as an aerosol generating device 2, illustrated in Figure 1A (shown below), wherein the device 2 comprises an exterior housing 3 that holds interior components used for generation of an aerosol. The interior components include an aerosol generating substrate disposed within a heating chamber. The substrate is heated by a nearby heater, powered by a battery, to generate an aerosol for inhalation by a user (specification, pg 9).
PNG
media_image2.png
625
249
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As such, the device taught by Leung appears to comprise each of the elements of the claimed device, and each perform the same function.
For claim 23, Leung teaches the mouthpiece may comprise the antimicrobial ([0013]), and the instant specification stated the cartridge comprises a mouthpiece (pg 11: 10-12). As such, the cartridge component is taught by Leung as comprising antimicrobial particles.
For claim 24, Leung teaches the outer shell of the device comprises a soft pliable material such as silicone or rubber (pg 1, [0013]), both materials comprising a polymer.
Leung teaches an antimicrobial coating for the mouthpiece but does not teach a whole exterior of the device that comprises antimicrobial monovalent copper compound particles throughout the exterior.
Gaiha, Uhlmann, and Mantlo teaches the missing element of Leung.
Gaiha teaches youth using e-cigarettes are at greater risk of COVID-19 and e-cigarette use is associated with getting infected with COVID-19. Gaiha teaches COVID-19 spreads through repeated touching of one’s hands to the mouth and face, which is common among e-cigarette users, and sharing devices is also a common practice among youth e-cigarette users (pg 520, “Discussion”).
Uhlmann teaches a composition having antimicrobial activity comprising particles comprising copper iodide, copper bromide, or copper chloride (Abstract).
Uhlmann teaches the copper (I) particles are safe and effective for dental coatings, fillings, crowns, bridges, and implants; baby bottles; medical implants; and toothbrushes (pgs 30-31, Table 1).
For claim 16, Uhlmann teaches the average size of the particles ranges from about 4 nm to about 1000 nm (Abstract), overlapping the claimed range. Because the claimed range overlaps with the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
For claim 18, Uhlmann teaches the coating comprising the monovalent copper compounds is applied by spraying or dipping the device (pg 38, first paragraph), meeting the claimed limitation of arrangement of the particles throughout the entire exterior of the device.
Mantlo teaches a copper iodide complex is effective as a hard surface disinfectant against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) (Abstract).
For claim 20, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected success in coating the exterior of the aerosol generating device of Leung with a coating of a monovalent copper compound such as copper iodide, and utilize a higher concentration of CuI particles on the mouthpiece, since Guiha teaches sharing e-cigarettes is common among youth users and Leung teaches it is especially important to provide an anti-microbial coating to the mouthpiece. An ordinarily skilled practitioner would expect the mouthpiece to harbor a higher concentration of bacteria than other parts of the device and therefore a higher concentration of antimicrobial would be required to alleviate the increased bacterial load.
The skilled artisan would have expected success in substituting the monovalent copper iodide particles for the Microban® antimicrobial taught by Leung, over the entire device, since Uhlmann teaches a coating comprising copper iodide nanoparticles is safe and effective for oral use, Gaiha teaches users of e-cigarettes are at greater risk of contracting COVID-19 since the disease is spread through repeated touching of one’s hands to the mouth and face, common among e-cigarette users, and one of ordinary skill would expect that COVID-19 can be passed from user to user by sharing the e-cigarette device both through oral contact with the mouthpiece as well as the handling of the device and hand-to-hand exchange of the device between individuals, and Mantlo teaches copper iodide is effective as a surface coating on medical devices to reduce the incidence of COVID-19 infections.
Examiner’s Reply to Attorney Arguments Dated 2/27/2026
1. Rejection of claims 15-18, 21, and 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Leung and Uhlmann
The applicant argues that the combination does not teach or suggest the newly added limitation “a whole exterior of the component comprises antimicrobial particles.”
The Examiner acknowledges the arguments presented, but does not consider them persuasive. In view of applicant’s amendment to claim 15, the Examiner has recast the rejection with the additional of Guiha and Mantlo. As discussed above, these references when added to the prior art of Leung and Uhlmann teach the instant invention as currently claimed.
2. Rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Leung, Uhlmann and Yokota
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claims 19 and 20 have been considered but are moot because claim 19 has been canceled and claim 20 is rejected in view of the combination of Leung and Uhlmann and the newly added references of Guiha and Mantlo.
3. Rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Leung, Uhlmann, and Terry
This rejection is moot in view of the cancellation of claim 22.
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 MICHAEL P COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7402. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8:30-5:30; F 9-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sahana Kaup, can be reached on (571)272-6897. 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.
/MICHAEL P COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights