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 Claims 29 and 30 were previously withdrawn from consideration. Claims 16 and 20 are amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed on 03/27/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7-10, filed 03/27/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 16 to require the at least one air inlet passes through the sidewall at the curved surface, which was not previously presented. Lacour-Gayet discloses air inlets (106) that pass through a planar sidewall (Fig. 7). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art.
The rejections below are maintained and modified based on Applicant’s amendment.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim 16 is rejected under35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zuber (US 20180369517 A1, as cited on IDS dated 04/10/2023).
Regarding claim 16, Zuber discloses an inhaler article (1, “an aerosol generator”, Fig. 1, [0058]), comprising:
A nicotine powder capsule (6, “a non-thermal aerosol generating element”) configured to release aerosolized nicotine powder ([0007-0008, 0014, 0058]),
Air inlet ports (4) arranged upstream of the capsule (6) and an air outlet arranged at the mouthpiece (10, Fig. 1, [0058]),
The capsule (6) is arranged in a capsule cavity (8, “chamber”) extending from the inlet (4) to the outlet (10), the capsule cavity (8, “chamber”) extending along a central longitudinal axis of the article (1, Fig. 1, [0058]),
Powder is released from the capsule (6) through an aperture into the capsule cavity (8, [0014, 0058-0059]),
An airflow path extending through the capsule cavity (8) from the inlet (4) to the outlet (10), passing by the capsule (6, “a non-thermal aerosol generating element”, Fig. 1, [0058]), and;
A cylindrical inhaler body (2) and powder receptacle (9) forming a sidewall that circumscribes the capsule (6), the sidewall having a curved inner surface which is a curved surface of the capsule cavity (8, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0016, 0058]).
The air inlets (4) extend through the sidewall formed by the inhaler body (2) and powder receptacle (9) in a direction tangential to the curved inner surface of the sidewall and direct air around the central longitudinal axis of the capsule cavity (8) to promote rotation of the capsule (6) in the cavity (Fig. 2, [0018-0019, 0058]).
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 16-25, 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) in view of Thorens (US 20110094523 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Lacour-Gayet discloses a mouthpiece (101, “an aerosol generator”) for a smoking apparatus (Fig. 1, [0044, 0045]), comprising:
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).
Lacour-Gayet does not explicitly disclose the air inlets (106) extend through a curved surface of a sidewall forming a curved surface of a chamber, in tangential direction to the curved surface.
However, Thorens, directed to a smoking system (Fig. 7A, [0115]), discloses:
Inside walls (103, “a sidewall”) forming a cylindrical chamber (702) extending around the central longitudinal axis, the inside walls (103) having a curved inner surface, an air inlet (705) upstream of an aerosol generating element, and air outlet at the mouthpiece (Fig. 7A, [0036, 0115, 0117]),
The chamber (702) has an airflow path extending from the inlet (705) to the outlet at the mouthpiece, passing by the aerosol generating element (Fig. 7A, [0115]), and;
The inside walls (103) circumscribe the aerosol generating element, where an inlet (705) extends through a sidewall of the inside walls (103) at the curved surface in a tangential direction to the curved surface of the inside walls (103) and directs air (shown by dotted arrows Fig. 7A) around a central longitudinal axis of the chamber (Fig. 7B, [0115, 0117]).
The inner chamber (702) improves aerosol characteristics because the centrifugal forces of the spiraling airflow allow larger particles to be trapped on the wall of the chamber (702, [0120]).
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 providing an inner chamber having a tangential air inlet around the vibrating mesh/aerosol generating element as taught by Thorens because both Lacour-Gayet and Thorens are directed to aerosol generating devices, Thorens teaches the inner chamber and tangential air inlet improves aerosol characteristics by causing larger particles to be trapped on the walls of the chamber, and this involves applying a known inner chamber to a to a similar aerosol generating device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Thorens discloses the chamber (702) comprises a mouth end and an opposite aerosol generating end, and an air outlet at the mouth end having a width less than the width of the chamber (702) at the aerosol generating end (Fig. 7A).
PNG
media_image1.png
543
888
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Thorens discloses an aerosol generating element (capillary element and heating coil) at the aerosol generating end of the chamber (702, Fig. 7A). Therefore, applying the inside housing (703) disclosed by Thorens to the device disclosed by Lacour-Gayet, would result in the vibrating mesh membrane (Lacour-Gayet: 108, “non thermal aerosol generating element”) being disposed at the aerosol generation end of the chamber (Thorens: 702).
Regarding claim 19, Thorens discloses the air inlet (705) is configured to direct air (shown by dotted arrows Fig. 7A) around the periphery of the chamber (702, Fig. 7A, [0115, 0117]).
Regarding claim 20, Thorens discloses the air inlet (705) directs air (shown by dotted arrows Fig. 7A) around a central longitudinal axis of the chamber (Fig. 7B, [0115, 0117]).
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 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 25, Lacour-Gayet discloses a piezoelectric actuator (claim 2, [0016, 0049, 0066]).
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, Thorens discloses the air inlet (705) directs air (shown by dotted arrows Fig. 7A) around a central longitudinal axis of the chamber and out the mouthpiece (Fig. 7B, [0115, 0117]). The spiraling airflow directs air around the aerosol generating element and is therefore considered to be in a direction away the planar aerosol generating element.
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 Thorens (US 20110094523 A1), as applied to claim 16 above, further 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, in view of Thorens, 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.
Conclusion
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