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 Amendment
Claims 1-14 are cancelled. Claims 33 and 34 are amended. Claims 15-34 are presently examined.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the information disclosure statement have been fully considered and are persuasive. The notation of 1/6/2026 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 1/6/2026 are overcome.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the limitation “the free jet of vapour and the free jet of air intersect in the mixing chamber in a region of the laminar flow that central jets of the free jet of vapour and the free jet of air enclose an angle ranging from 5° to 175°,” which is considered to be a limitation regarding the intended use of the claimed air inlet and vaporizer chamber. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as if it required a structure in which the claimed airflow pattern could occur.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites the limitation “the free jet of vapour and the incoming air flow are substantially parallel to each other in the mixing chamber, at least in section,” which is considered to be a statement regarding the intended use of the claimed vaporizer chamber. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required a chamber in which the jets and air flows could flow in the claimed manner.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitations “the free jet of vapour and the incoming air flow are substantially parallel to each other in the mixing chamber, at least in sections” and “the free jet of vapour and the incoming air flow are substantially parallel to each other in the mixing chamber, at least in sections,” which are considered to be limitations regarding the intended use of the claimed vaporizer chamber. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required a chamber in which the jets and air flows could flow in the claimed manner.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 19, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the laminar flow” in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it recited laminar flow.
It is unclear what is required by the limitation “the free jet of vapour and the free jet of air enclose an angle ranging from 5° to 175°.” Does this mean that the two jets intersect at an angle between 5° and 75°? Does this mean that they intersect at a larger angle, with the claimed angle being enclosed within that larger angle? Is there any indication as to which sides of the jets are considered to form the angle. The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required the jets to intersect at an angle within the claimed range.
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.
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 15, 20-21, 23-35, 28 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cameron (US 2017/0136193) in view of Rostami (US 10,440,994) and Ludden (US 31,468).
Regarding claim 15, Cameron discloses a vaporizer that has a mixing chamber ([0109], figure 9, reference numeral 208), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a vaporizer chamber. Vapor is expelled through an exhaust port ([0109], figure 9, reference numeral 212). The mixing chamber contains a heating element that vaporizes vaporizable material in the chamber ([0094], figure 9, reference numeral 214). The vaporizable material is liquid [0091]. The heating element is operatively coupled to a wick ([0094], figure 9, reference numeral 204) that extends outside the mixing chamber to a cartridge to transport liquid to the mixing chamber [0099]. The heating element is made of a nickel-chromium wire [0094]. Air from an intake port (figure 9, reference numeral 902), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an air inlet, mixes with the vapor in the exhaust port [0109], which is therefore considered to meet the claim limitation of a mixing chamber that releases a generated aerosol. The narrow portion defined by the exhaust port at the exit of the chamber containing the heating element is considered to define a first nozzle that generates a free jet of vapor (figure 9). However, Cameron does not explicitly disclose (a) the heating element being an electric heating element in contact with the wick and (b) a mouthpiece.
Regarding (a), Rostami teaches a dispensing interface structure that forms a wick and is made of a porous material that transfers fluid from a reservoir to a heater (column 7, liens 59-67, column 8, lines 1-9). A heater coil is in contact with the surface of the dispensing interface structure to improve transfer of heat to the pre-vapor formulation to enable improved vapor generation efficiency (column 20, lines 37-49).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the wick and heating element of Cameron such that the wire of Cameron is formed as a coil around the wick. One would have been motivated to do so since Rostami teaches that wrapping a heater coil around a wick improves vapor generation efficiency.
Regarding (b), Ludden teaches a means for smoking tobacco in a convenient and agreeable manner (page 1, left column, fourth paragraph) in which a wooden body that channels smoke (figure 1, reference numeral B) is secured to a mouthpiece (page 1, left column, sixth paragraph, figure 1, reference numeral C). Ludden additionally teaches that using a mouthpiece makes smoking more enjoyable compared to directly putting an end of a smoking article in a user’s mouth (page 1, right column, second paragraph).
It would therefore have been obvious to combine the exhaust port of Cameron with the mouthpiece of Ludden. One would have been motivated to do so since Ludden teaches that providing a mouthpiece makes smoking more agreeable.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, it is evident that air could flow within the exhaust port of modified Cameron in the claimed arrangement since the exhaust port is open and allows air to flow in different directions within it.
Regarding claim 23, Cameron discloses that the narrow portion between the vaporization chamber and exhaust port is planar (figure 9), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a flat nozzle.
Regarding claim 24, modified Cameron teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Cameron does not explicitly disclose the narrow portion between the mixing chamber and exhaust port being rectangular.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the narrow portion between the mixing chamber and exhaust port be rectangular. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding claim 25, modified Cameron teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Cameron does not explicitly teach a width of the opening between the mixing chamber and exhaust port.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the opening between the mixing chamber and the exhaust port have the claimed with. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 28, Rostami teaches that the heater coil is a wire (column 8, lines 54-64).
Regarding claim 31, Cameron discloses that the vaporizable material is contained in a container in the form of a liquid [0091], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a cartridge containing a liquid reservoir.
Regarding claim 32, the airflow and vapor path of Cameron is considered to form a duct since it extends along a path defined by walls (figure 9).
Regarding claim 33, modified Cameron teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Cameron additionally discloses that vaporizer is located in a heating casing that is coupled to a power supply ([0069]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that electrical connections must be formed since the heater of Cameron would not function if it were not connected to the power supply. Modified Cameron does not explicitly teach the coupling being a detachable coupling.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the coupling of modified Cameron be detachable. The Courts have held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 V C.
Regarding claim 34, regarding process or method claims, a prior art device anticipates a claimed process, if the device carries out the process during normal operation. See MPEP § 2112.02. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the device of modified Cameron is operated in the claimed manner during ordinary use.
Claims 16-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Cameron (US 2017/0136193) in view of Rostami (US 10,440,994) and Ludden (US 31,468) as applied to claims 15 and 20 above, and further in view of Dubief (US 10,272,170).
Regarding claim 16, modified Cameron teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Cameron does not explicitly teach the air inlet having a nozzle.
Dubief teaches an aerosol generating device having (abstract) having a plurality of air flow vents through which air enters the device (column 14, lines 1-32, figure 1, reference numeral 121) and also comprise nozzles that increase the air flow velocity to produce a homogenous air flow and particle size distribution in the aerosol (column 2, lines 39-67).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the air inlet of modified Cameron with the nozzles of Dubief. One would have been motivated to do so since Dubief teaches nozzles that increase the air flow velocity to produce a homogenous air flow and particle size distribution in the aerosol.
Regarding claim 17, modified Cameron teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Dubief additionally teaches that the nozzles may have any desired cross sectional shape (column 4, lines 43-67). Modified Cameron does not explicitly teach the nozzles having a shape that tapers towards the inside of the device.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the nozzle taper towards the inside of the device. One would have been motivated to do so since Dubief teaches that the nozzle may have any desired cross sectional shape. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding claim 18, modified Cameron teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Dubief additionally teaches that the air inlets can be provided in a set of two (column 5, lines 1-15), each having an area of approximately equal to 0.4 mm (column 4, lines 43-67). Modified Cameron does not explicitly teach the total cross sectional area of the air inlets.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the total cross sectional area of two air inlets fall within the claimed range. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 19, it is evident that air could flow within the exhaust port of modified Cameron in the claimed arrangement since the exhaust port is open and allows air to flow in different directions within it.
Regarding claim 22, modified Cameron teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Cameron does not explicitly teach one air inlet surrounding another.
Dubief teaches an aerosol generating article having air inlets that are provided in a set of two that are located symmetrically around the device from each other (column 5, lines 1-15) to create a substantially equal airflow around the housing (column 6, lines 43-61).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide multiple air intake ports of Cameron that form symmetrical two air inlets that are located symmetrically from each other around the device to create two parallel longitudinal flow paths on opposite sides of the exhaust port. One would have been motivated to do so since modified Cameron teaches that the aerosol flows through the exhaust port and Dubief teaches providing two symmetric air inlets to provide an equal air flow.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron (US 2017/0136193) in view of Rostami (US 10,440,994) and Ludden (US 31,468) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Hedarchet (US 2023/0180833).
Regarding claim 26, modified Cameron teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Cameron does not explicitly teach the consumption unit having at least some insulated walls.
Hedarchet teaches an HNB aerosol generation device in which heat from the heater is insulated to protect both a user and other device components [0003]. An insulating sleeve surrounds the heating assembly of the device and comprises natural organic fibers [0008] having a thermal capacity of at most 0.10 W/m·K [0011].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the walls of the mixing chamber of modified Cameron with the insulation sleeve of Hedarchet. One would have been motivated to do so since Hedarchet teaches an insulating sleeve that protects device components and users from excessive heat.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron (US 2017/0136193) in view of Rostami (US 10,440,994) and Ludden (US 31,468) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Barber (US 1,096), as evidenced by Fix (US 12,398,894).
Regarding claim 27, modified Cameron teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Cameron additionally discloses that the heating element is surrounded by a heating casing made of metal that receives power so that it is heated ([0100], figure 4, reference numeral 402). Modified Cameron does not explicitly teach (a) a specific metal and (b) the thermal conductivity of copper.
Regarding (a), Barber teaches that copper is a good conducting metal (left column, fourth paragraph).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the copper of Barber as the metal that receives power of modified Cameron. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding (b), Fix teaches that the thermal conductivity of copper is 400 W/m·K (column 12, lines 28-37, table 2), indicating that the copper of modified Cameron falls within the claimed thermal conductivity range.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron (US 2017/0136193) in view of Rostami (US 10,440,994) and Ludden (US 31,468) as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Alarcon (US 2022/0132934).
Regarding claim 29, modified Cameron teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Cameron does not explicitly teach the heater being a semiconductor heater.
Alarcon teaches an electronic smoking device (abstract) having a silicon chip ([0029], figure 2A, reference numeral 126), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a semiconductor material that is either doped or undoped. A heating element is located on the second upper surface of the silicon chip ([0031], figure 2A, reference numeral 134). A liquid tank (figure 2A, reference numeral 130) supplies fluid to the heating element through a fluid inlet and outlet ([0037], figure 2A, reference numeral 127). Alarcon additionally teaches that this arrangement allows faster liquid transfer and reduces assembly complexity compared to a wick [0003].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the heater supplied by a wick of modified Cameron for the wick and heater of Alarcon. One would have been motivated to do so since Alarcon teaches a heater arrangement that allows for faster liquid transfer and reduces assembly complexity compared to a wick.
Regarding claim 30, modified Cameron teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Cameron does not explicitly teach the heater being a semiconductor heater.
Alarcon teaches an electronic smoking device (abstract) having a silicon chip ([0029], figure 2A, reference numeral 126), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a semiconductor material that is either doped or undoped. A heating element is located on the second upper surface of the silicon chip ([0031], figure 2A, reference numeral 134). A liquid tank (figure 2A, reference numeral 130) supplies fluid to the heating element through a fluid inlet and outlet ([0037], figure 2A, reference numeral 127). A plurality of fluid outlets are formed in the silicon chip and heating element ([0029], figure 2A, reference numeral 133) that are fed material by fluidic channels ([0029], figure 2A, reference numeral 28). Alarcon additionally teaches that this arrangement allows faster liquid transfer and reduces assembly complexity compared to a wick [0003].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the heater supplied by a wick of modified Cameron for the wick and heater of Alarcon. One would have been motivated to do so since Alarcon teaches a heater arrangement that allows for faster liquid transfer and reduces assembly complexity compared to a wick.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 pm.
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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755