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 16-30 are pending. Claims 29 and 30 are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 3-5, Applicant argues that Lacour-Gayet does not disclose that the air inlet extending through the sidewall is configured to direct air into the chamber in a direction tangential to the curved surface of the chamber, as required by independent claim 16. The Examiner disagrees. Lacour-Gayet discloses air inlets (106) in the sidewall of the mouthpiece (101) at an angle with respect to the sidewall as depicted in Fig. 1. It is recognized that the air passing through the inlets (106) does not move in a single direction but rather flows in multiple directions and multiple angles with respect to the curved portion of the sidewall. While the air entering through the inlets (106) may predominantly flow in a direction aligned with the inlet, one of ordinary skill would reasonably conclude that at least a portion of the air entering the inlets (106) would flow in a direction tangential to the curved surface of the chamber. The Examiner notes that while the claim recites that the at least one air inlet is configured to direct air into the chamber in a direction tangential to the curved surface of the chamber, the claim does not exclude additional air from entering the inlet in other directions.
On pg. 4, Applicant argues that Lacour-Gayet does not disclose an air inlet extending through a curved sidewall defining a curved surface of the chamber. However, claim 16 does not require that the air inlet passes through a curved sidewall. Claim 16 simply requires that the side wall has a curved surface and an air inlet extends through the sidewall. Claim 16 does not required that the air inlet passes through a curved portion of the sidewall. Thus, the arguments are directed to a feature that is not claimed.
On. pg. 5, Applicant argues that Lacour-Gayet does not depict a radial orientation of the air ducts in Fig. 1. However, claim 16 does not require the air ducts are oriented radially. Thus, the arguments are directed to a feature that is not claimed.
On pg. 6, Applicant argues that the combination of Lacour-Gayet and Courbat does not arrive at the claimed invention with respect to independent claim 16. However, the office action only relied upon Courbat for the rejection of claim 26.
On pg. 6-10, Applicant argues that the combination of references is based on improper hindsight reasoning and that there is no teaching suggestion or motivation to combine references. However, the rejection of claims 16-25, and 27-28 relied upon a single reference. In regards to the rejection of claim 26 over Lacour-Gayet in view of Courbat, the teaching suggestion, or motivation to combine references is laid out in the prior rejection and the Examiner notes that the Applicant has not pointed out where the Examiner did not address the motivation or reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, the rejections below are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lacour-Gayet (US 20210260312 A1, as cited on IDS dated 04/10/2023).
Regarding claim 16, Lacour-Gayet discloses a mouthpiece (101, “an aerosol generator”) for a smoking apparatus (Fig. 1, [0044, 0045]), comprising:
Air inlets (106) arranged on a sidewall of the mouthpiece (101, Fig. 1, [0047]),
An air outlet arranged on the top of the mouthpiece (101, Fig. 1),
A vibrating mesh membrane (108, “non thermal aerosol generating element”) which generates aerosol ([0047]) and is arranged in a chamber (area enclosed by mouthpiece 101) between the inlets (106) in the sidewall and outlet on the top of the mouthpiece (106, Fig. 1).
The sidewall of the mouthpiece (101) circumscribes the vibrating mesh membrane (108) and comprises a curved inner surface on the top which defines a curved surface of the chamber (Fig. 1).
Air is drawn through air ducts (106) in the sidewall of mouthpiece (101), passes along the vibrating mesh membrane (108), and exits through an air outlet on the top of the mouthpiece (101, Fig. 1, [0047])
The air ducts (106) pass through the sidewall at an angle and therefore the air is drawn into the chamber in a direction tangential to the curved inner surface of the sidewall (Fig. 1). It is recognized that the air passing through the inlets (106) does not move in a single direction but rather flows in multiple directions and multiple angles with respect to the curved portion of the sidewall. Therefore, at least a portion of the air entering the inlets (106) would be in a direction tangential to the curved surface of the chamber.
Regarding claim 17, Lacour-Gayet discloses:
The chamber comprises a mouth end and an aerosol generating end opposite the mouth end, as shown in the annotated Fig. 1 below.
An air outlet is arranged at the mouth end and the width of the chamber at the mouth end is less than a width of the chamber at the aerosol generation end (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
812
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Lacour-Gayet discloses the vibrating mesh membrane (108, “non thermal aerosol generating element”) is disposed at the aerosol generation end (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Lacour-Gayet discloses the air ducts (106) are formed on the periphery of the chamber (Fig. 1) and therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the air ducts to direct air around a periphery of the chamber.
Regarding claim 20, Lacour-Gayet discloses the air ducts (106) pass through the sidewall of the chamber at an angle (Fig. 1) and therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect some of the air entering the chamber to run parallel to the central longitudinal axis which would be in a direction that does not insert the central longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 21, Lacour-Gayet discloses a vibrating mesh membrane (108, “non thermal aerosol generating element”) having a plurality of holes ([0049]). The specification discloses nozzles (18) formed as holes in the mesh element (2, Fig. 8, pg. 42) and therefore the plurality of holes in the vibration mesh membrane (108) discloses by Lacour-Gayet is considered to meet the limitation of a plurality of nozzles.
Regarding claim 22, Lacour-Gayet discloses a vibrating mesh membrane (108), which is actuated by a ring-shaped piezoelectric vibration generator (claim 2, [0049, 0066]). Applying vibrations to the vibrating mesh element (108) is considered to meet the claim limitation of configured to be oscillated.
Regarding claim 23, Lacour-Gayet discloses a piezoelectric actuator which vibrates the vibrating mesh membrane (108, claim 2, [0016, 0049, 0066]). The piezoelectric actuator generating vibrations is considered to meet the claim limitation of configured to oscillate the mesh aerosol generating element.
Regarding claim 25, Lacour-Gayet discloses a piezoelectric actuator (claim 2, [0016, 0049, 0066]).
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 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacour-Gayet (US 20210260312 A, as cited on IDS dated 04/10/2023) in view of Courbat (US 20170280771 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Lacour-Gayet discloses a vibrating mesh membrane (108) that is actuated by a piezo electric ring to generate an aerosol (Fig. 1, [0049, 0066])
Lacour-Gayet does not explicitly disclose a surface acoustic wave atomizer.
However, Courbat, directed to an aerosol generating device (abstract, Fig. 1), discloses:
A surface acoustic wave-atomizer chip (15), comprising an atomization region (40, Fig. 1, Fig. 4, [0098-0099]).
The surface acoustic wave-atomizer chip (15) comprises an interdigital transducer (21, “at least one transducer”) which is positioned on an active surface of a piezoelectric substrate, and the interdigital transducer generates surface acoustic waves (Fig. 4, [0049, 0106]).
The atomization region (40) is formed on the piezoelectric substrate and therefore is considered to meet the claim limation of the non-thermal aerosol generation element forms the substrate.
The surface wave acoustic atomizer provides a more reliable and consistent amount of aerosol from a liquid aerosol-forming substrate and requires less power ([0005-0006]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lacour-Gayet by substituting the vibrating mesh atomizer with a surface wave acoustic atomizer as taught by Courbat because both Lacour-Gayet and Courbat are directed to aerosol generating devices, Courbat teaches the surface wave acoustic atomizer provides a reliable and consistent amount of aerosol, and this involves applying a known atomizer to a to a similar aerosol generating device to yield predictable results.
Claim 24 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacour-Gayet (US 20210260312 A1, as cited on IDS dated 04/10/2023).
Regarding claim 24, Lacour-Gayet discloses:
Connecting pipes (120) for delivering liquid to be atomized to a liquid membrane chamber (109, “cavity”) through a hole (126, “liquid inlet”, Fig. 2, [0060-0061])
The vibrating mesh element (108) is housed by a vibrating mesh holder (123, Fig. 3, [0066])
The vibrating mesh holder (123) is made of thermo plastic elastomer (“an elastically deformable element”, [0074]) which includes a flexible wall (128) that allows the volume of the vibrating mesh holder (123) to change in response to changes in pressure of the liquid in the vibrating mesh membrane (108, Fig. 6, [0079-0080]).
A piezoelectric actuator (not illustrated in drawings) coupled to the vibrating mesh membrane (108) which vibrates (i.e. oscillates) the vibrating mesh membrane (108, claim 2, [0016, 0049, 0066]).
The vibrating mesh element (108) and associated housing shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 is considered to meet the limitation of an oscillation chamber.
Lacour-Gayet does not explicitly disclose that the piezo electric actuator oscillates the vibrating mesh holder (123, “an elastically deformable element”) or that the oscillation varies pressure insides the cavity. However, Lacour-Gayet discloses the piezoelectric actuator generates vibrations ([0016, 0049, 0066]) and the piezoelectric actuator is coupled to the vibrating mesh membrane (108, claim 2, [0016]) and housed within the vibrating mesh holder (123) and therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the piezoelectric actuator to vibrate (i.e. oscillate) the elastically deformable vibrating mesh membrane (123).
Lacour-Gayet further discloses the walls (128) of the vibrating mesh holder (123) deform in response to changes in pressure (Fig. 6, [0079-0080]) and therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect vibration of the vibrating mesh holder (123) to deform the walls (128) thus changing the volume of the cavity (109) and vary the pressure inside the cavity (109).
Regarding claim 27, Lacour-Gayet discloses a planar (i.e. flat) vibrating mesh membrane (2005, “non thermal aerosol generating element”, Fig. 22, [0191]).
Regarding claim 28, Lacour-Gayet discloses the air ducts (106) pass through the sidewall of the chamber at an angle towards the mouth end (Fig. 1,) and therefore the air entering the chamber is directed towards the mouth end in a direction away from the planar vibrating mesh member (2005, Fig. 22)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MORGAN FAITH DEZENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-0155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-430pm 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.
/M.F.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755
/PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights