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
The office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 01/02/2024.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are amended.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected group.
The objection to claim 12 is withdrawn due to the arguments made being found persuasive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see pages 4-7, filed 01/02/2024, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, respectively, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 1 to include limitations that were not previously presented. Specifically, the Applicant has introduced limitations regarding the beam splitter beam splitter configured to split a light beam emitted from the at least one irradiative light source and incident on the beam splitter to provide at least two light beams of the plurality of distinct light beams each having different propagation directions.” Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view newly found prior art.
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments made to the claims.
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 1 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plurality of distinct light beams" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination the plurality of distinct light beams are being interpreted as the at least two light beams of the plurality of light beams are distinct from one another.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 improperly depends from cancelled claim 3. Claim 4 should be rewritten to depend from claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watkins et al. (US-5934289-A, the US equivalent of EP-0951219-A1 cited in the IDS dated 05/05/2023 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Florack et al. (US 20220318535 A1) and alternatively/additionally Spencer et al. (US-20190133188-A1).
In regards to claim 1, Watkins directed to an electronic smoking system, discloses an electrical smoking system for generating an aerosol (i.e., aerosol provision system) from an aerosol-generating material, such as tobacco (abstract and column 6, lines 37-48), the system comprising:
A plurality of photonic assemblies 96 (i.e., an optical arrangement) provided by the aerosol provision system (column 8, lines 32-47),
At least one laser diode (i.e., irradiative light source) (column 8, lines 32-66),
The optical arrangement comprises at least one irradiative light source 102 and directs the output of the irradiative light source to one of a plurality of locations (i.e., configured to generate a plurality of light beams from the irradiative light source) (column 7, lines 58-63); and
The system comprising a receptable 27 for containing the aerosol-generating material (column 4, lines 55-56);
Wherein the optical arrangement is configured to focus the plurality of light beams to a target region (i.e., intersect at a spatial point) within the aerosol provision system, wherein the spatial point is located adjacent the aerosol-generating material or the target material 110 (column 7, lines 58-63 and column 10, lines 13-16). Refer to annotated Figure 6 provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
292
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Watkins further discloses an optical arrangement, but does not explicitly disclose a beam splitter configured to split a light beam emitted from the at least one irradiative light source and incident on the at least one beam splitter to provide at least two light beams of the plurality of light beams, each having different propagation directions.
Florack, directed to an aerosol-generating article comprising a three-dimensional code, discloses a beam splitter as part of the aerosol-generating device for separating a beam from a radiation source, such as a laser and light beam, into a beam used for reading the three-dimensional code and an additional separate beam that is used for heating the aerosol-forming substrate of the aerosol-generating article ([0053], [0079]-[0080], and [0093]).
Florack further discloses additional mirrors may be provided by which the beam may be directed towards the aerosol-forming substrate and the radiation when not needed for reading code, can be used for heating the aerosol-generating substrate ([0053]).
Florack further discloses the one or more mirrors used for guiding the radiation may be configured moveable and advantageously, the radiation can be directed to any desired surface area of the aerosol-forming substrate to heat the aerosol-forming substrate ([0053]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Watkins, by making the optical arrangement further comprise a beam splitter, between the lens and the focal point of Florack, as taught by Florack, because both are directed to aerosol provision systems with light beams and movable/rotatable mirrors, Florack teaches the beam splitter advantageously allows the light beam to be directed to any desired surface area of the aerosol-forming substrate to heat it ([0053]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of using a beam splitter of a similar device to yield predictable results of directing the light beam to a desired portion of the aerosol-generating substrate.
Alternatively, Spencer, directed to an article and apparatus of heating a smokable material, discloses an apparatus 420 for heating a smokable material 412 ([0068]-[0070], Fig. 4).
Spencer further discloses a light 424 is emitted by an irradiative light source 422, wherein the light is manipulated, i.e. focused and/or directed, by a beam deflector 428 so that the light 424 impinges upon the smokable material 412. The at least one beam deflector 428 for manipulating light 424 may be a mirror, a beam splitter, or a collimator ([0070]).
While Spencer does not explicitly disclose the beam splitter configured to split a light beam emitted from the at least one irradiative light source and incident on the beam splitter to provide at least two light beams of the plurality of distinct light beams each having different propagation directions, Spencer does disclose a beam splitter can be used to direct the light and therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a beam splitter positioned between a single irradiative light source 422 and a smokable material 412 would necessarily yield multiple beams with different propagation directions which can be manipulated to target a single focal point in the smokable material, since Spencer teaches it is desirable to direct the light beams at a specific point in the smokable material ([0061] and [0078]), and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Watkins by applying a beam splitter to the optical arrangement of Watkins, as taught by Spencer because both are directed to optical arrangements for heating aerosolizable materials, Spencer teaches beam splitters are known optical arrangements and can be used in conjunction or replacement of lenses/mirrors ([0070]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of using a beam splitter of a similar device to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 2, Watkins discloses the light beams have a combined intensity at the spatial point sufficient to generate an aerosol from the aerosol-generating material (column 8, lines 55-67 – column 9, lines 1-2).
Watkins further discloses each individual light beam of the plurality of light beams is configured to generate 10 to 20 watts or more in a 5 to 10 micron wavelength to the spatial point in order for the target area to generate an aerosol (i.e., the intensity of each individual light beam is less than the combined intensity at the spatial point) (column 8, lines 25-31).
In regards to claim 4, Modified Watkins discloses a beam splitter that can direct a plurality of light beams from a single irradiative light source (Spencer [0070]) which can be manipulated to target a single focal point in the smokable material.
In regards to claim 5, Watkins discloses a plurality of laser diodes (i.e., irradiative light sources) where each light source generates its own light beam (column 8, lines 1-31).
In regards to claim 6, Watkins discloses the plurality of irradiative light sources are arranged such that the light beams are directed to a region 110 within a receptacle 27 (column 8, lines 48-54) with propagation directions which are non-parallel or anti-parallel with respect to each other (Figure 6).
In regards to claim 7, Watkins discloses a plurality of lenses (i.e., optical elements) wherein the optical elements are arranged to direct the output of the emitted light beams to one of a plurality of cigarette receiving spaces (i.e., optical elements configured to change a propagation direction of one or more of the plurality of light beams) (column 7, lines 58-63).
In regards to claim 8, Watkins discloses the optical element is a lens (column 7, lines 58-63).
In regards to claim 9, Watkins discloses the aerosol provision system comprises:
A receptacle 27 for accommodating the aerosol-generating material and comprising the region 110 wherein the light beams are directed (i.e., for receiving light emitted by the optical arrangement) (column 8, lines 48-54);
Wherein the optical arrangement is arranged such that propagation directions of the plurality of light beams received into the receptacle (the aerosol generating material is located within the receptacle during use) intersect at a spatial point within the receptacle (Figure 6).
In regards to claim 10, Watkins discloses the propagation directions of the light beams is incident with a wall of the receptacle after passing through the spatial point, in the absence of any intermediary material (Figures 1 and 6 and column 8, lines 48-54).
In regards to claim 11, Watkins discloses the propagation directions of the plurality of light beams received into the receptacle are in a plane perpendicular to an airflow direction through the receptacle in normal use (Figures 5-6). Refer to annotated Figure 5 provided below.
PNG
media_image2.png
559
866
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 12, Watkins discloses a receptacle for removably receiving a cigarette (i.e., container comprising the aerosol-generating material) along a cigarette-receiving space defined by the receptacle, the replaceable container attached to a control part of the aerosol provision system (the control part is the rest of the device, comprising the controller, photonic source, and electrical smoking system) (column 3, lines 1-12).
In regards to claim 13, Watkins discloses a detector display that may be arranged to indicate whether the system is active or inactive (column 9, lines 27-32).
Watkins further discloses a mechanical switch (i.e., control circuitry) provided to detect the presence or absence of the cigarette (container) (i.e., whether the container is attached to the control part of the aerosol provision system or not) and a button can be provided for the circuitry to be reset when a new container is inserted (column 9, lines 33-41).
Watkins further discloses when the control circuitry no longer detects the presence of the container, the indicator is turned off and does not emit a beam of light (column 9, lines 11-26).
Watkins further discloses the smoking routine is not executed unless the cigarette sensor has detected a presence of a cigarette container within the receptacle (i.e., control circuitry is configured to prevent activation of the device, and therefore the light source, when the container is not connected to the control part) (column 10, lines 47-57).
In regards to claim 14, Watkins discloses the receptacle comprises a receiving space (i.e., chamber) for receiving the cigarette (i.e., container) which is fluidly connected to air inlets 84 which are provided for controlled admission of air into the receptacle (Figure 5 and column 7, lines 27-45).
In regards to claim 15, Watkins discloses the aerosol provision system comprises a step motor paired with the controller, both configured to controllably turn an optical tip so that the portion of the cigarette that is target is rotated to that target region (i.e., configured to position the aerosol-generating material at the spatial point) (column 12, lines 28-39).
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindars et al. (US-20180289909-A1, as cited in the IDS dated 05/05/2023) and further in view of Spencer et al. (US-20190133188-A1).
In regards to claim 1, Lindars directed to a vaporizer, discloses a vaporizer for generating an aerosol (i.e., aerosol provision system) from a vaporizing substance ([0008]), the system comprising:
An optical arrangement provided by the system comprising at least one laser 140 (i.e., irradiative light source) ([0058]).
Lindars does not explicitly disclose the optical arrangement configured to generate a plurality of light beams from the at least one irradiative source, however Lindars does disclose more than one laser and multiple lenses can be used to direct the light onto a focal point ([0058]), therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the light directed to the lenses would create a plurality of light beams from the at least one irradiative light source and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
An aerosol-generating material contained within the aerosol provision system ([0058]);
Wherein the optical arrangement is configured to direct the plurality of light beams to intersect at a focal point (i.e., spatial point) within the aerosol provision system ([0058]-[0059])
The spatial point located at or adjacent to the aerosol-generating material and or a target material ([0058]-[0059]).
Spencer, directed to an article and apparatus of heating a smokable material, discloses
an apparatus 420 for heating a smokable material 412 ([0068]-[0070], Fig. 4).
Spencer further discloses a light 424 is emitted by an irradiative light source 422, wherein the light is manipulated, i.e. focused and/or directed, by a beam deflector 428 so that the light 424 impinges upon the smokable material 412. The at least one beam deflector 428 for manipulating light 424 may be a mirror, a beam splitter, or a collimator ([0070]).
While Spencer does not explicitly disclose the beam splitter configured to split a light beam emitted from the at least one irradiative light source and incident on the beam splitter to provide at least two light beams of the plurality of distinct light beams each having different propagation directions, Spencer does disclose a beam splitter can be used to direct the light and therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a beam splitter positioned between a single irradiative light source 422 and a smokable material 412 would necessarily yield multiple beams with different propagation directions which can be manipulated to target a single focal point in the smokable material, since Spencer teaches it is desirable to direct the light beams at a specific point in the smokable material ([0061] and [0078]), and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lindars by applying a beam splitter to the optical arrangement of Lindars, as taught by Spencer because both are directed to optical arrangements for heating aerosolizable materials, Spencer teaches beam splitters are known optical arrangements and can be used in conjunction or replacement of lenses/mirrors ([0070]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of using a beam splitter of a similar device to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 4, Modified Lindars discloses a beam splitter that can direct a plurality of light beams from a single irradiative light source (Spencer [0070]) which can be manipulated to target a single focal point in the smokable material.
In regards to claim 7, Lindars discloses the optical arrangement can comprise one or more lenses 118 (i.e., optical elements) wherein the optical elements control the laser light location (i.e., change a propagation direction of the one or more light beams) ([0058]).
In regards to claim 8, Lindars discloses the optical elements are lenses ([0058]-[0059]).
In regards to claim 16, Lindars discloses the liquid aerosol-generating material can be configured to the vaporizer for heating (i.e., spatial point location) via wicking by a feeder that can include a wick ([0063] and [0073]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pan (CN-104522892-A, as cited in the IDS dated 05/05/2023 and hereinafter referring to the English Translation provided) directed to a light heating electronic cigarette, discloses the electronic cigarette comprising an optical reflector, a container for containing aerosol-generating material, and a light source that passes through the optical reflector and is focused and formed for heating the aerosol-generating material (abstract).
Pan further discloses an optical reflector for focusing the light source to form a light point of heating ([0004]).
Pan further discloses the optical reflector comprises a reflecting cup 31 or lens (i.e., beam splitter) which splits a light beam emitted from the at least one irradiative light source 5 and incident on the at least one beam splitter 31 to provide at least two light beams of the plurality of light beams each having different propagation directions (Figure 2 and [0019]).
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 MADELEINE PAULINA DELACRUZ whose telephone number is (703)756-4544. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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.
/MADELEINE P DELACRUZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights