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
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ arguments/remarks filed 2-12-2026.
No claims are amended
Claims 16-34 are currently examined.
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 16-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadieux (US 20150245669 A1) cited by Applicant via IDS 5-31-2023 in view of Mass (US 20110232654 A1) cited by Applicant via IDS 5-31-2023.
Regarding Claim 16, Cadieux discloses a stick-shaped aerosol-generating article for an inductively heating aerosol-generating device, the stick-shaped aerosol-generating article comprising:
a cartridge [0115], see also annotated FIG 1, cartridge is location around the annotated bracketed area;
a mouthpiece ([0115] vapor outlet, see annotated FIG 1), wherein the cartridge comprises:
a vaporization chamber at a distal end portion of the cartridge and being configured to vaporize aerosol-forming liquid (vapor is forming around the annotated bracketed section annotated as vaporization chamber) therein, wherein
the vaporization chamber comprises at least one air inlet (See annotated FIG 1, see also [0115], at least 2 air inlets, examples of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and “or more” air inlets),
a reservoir chamber proximal the vaporization chamber (see annotated FIG 1) and
being configured to store aerosol-forming liquid (see [0051] reservoir configured to contain liquid),
a liquid-conveying susceptor arrangement (the susceptor 14 and wick 28 combination, see FIG 1) configured and arranged to convey aerosol-forming liquid from the reservoir chamber into the vaporization chamber and to be inductively heated with the aerosol- generating device in order to vaporize aerosol-forming liquid within the vaporization chamber (see [0118] the liquid conveying susceptor arrangement which includes wick 28 and the susceptor 14, which is arranged in communication with the reservoir chamber, as the susceptor 14 is heated by the induction source 35 the arrangement causes liquid material to be heated to a temperature sufficient to vaporize the liquid in the arrangement, see also FIG 1),
a vapor-conveying conduit (area in the middle of the device around central air passage 20, see FIG 1 and [0118]) providing a fluid communication for vaporized aerosol-forming liquid from the vaporization chamber to a region proximal the reservoir chamber (the central passage 20 (See FIGs 1-8B) is proximal to the reservoir chamber), wherein
apart from the at least one air inlet and the fluid communication from the vaporization chamber to the region proximal the reservoir chamber, the vaporization chamber is fully enclosed by wall members (See FIG 1, the vaporization chamber is fully enclosed by wall members), wherein
any wall member of the vaporization chamber is inductively non- heatable, and wherein the mouthpiece is arranged at a proximal end portion of the stick- shaped aerosol-generating article and the vaporization chamber of the cartridge is arranged at a distal end portion of the stick-shaped aerosol- generating article (only the susceptor 14 is heatable by the induction heater source 35); and
Cadieux teaches the vaporization chamber and reservoir chamber, along with a mouthpiece which are adjacent to eachother as set forth above, however Cadieux is silent to a wrapper and therefore fails to explicitly disclose a first wrapper circumferentially wrapped around the vaporization chamber and the reservoir chamber, and around at least a distal portion of the mouthpiece.
However, Mass teaches a first wrapper circumferentially wrapped around the vaporization chamber and the reservoir chamber, and around at least a distal portion of the mouthpiece (e.g., Mass teaches the mouthpiece 25 can be circumferentially wrapped around a distal portion of the mouthpiece and wrapped with paper in order to give the soft material tactility of common real cigarettes [0026], and that the simulated filter mouthpiece is designed to cover the cartridge and connected for quick replacement (See [0024]-[0026], although Mass does not explicitly disclose that the paper is wrapped around the vaporization chamber/reservoir chamber, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to overlap the mouthpiece and cartridge which includes the vaporization chamber and reservoir chamber, in order to connect the mouthpiece to the cartridge for quick replacement as taught by Mass). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the mouthpiece of Cadieux with a first wrapper paper circumferentially wrapped around the vaporization chamber and the reservoir chamber, and around at least a distal portion of the mouthpiece in order to give the soft material tactility of common real cigarettes to the simulated device of Cadieux with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image1.png
336
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, modified Cadieux teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Cadieux teaches the cartridge further comprises distal end cap (mouth end insert 8) forming at least a distal end wall member of the vaporization chamber (see FIG 1 and 5, mouth end insert is included in the section annotated as mouthpiece in annotated FIG 1 above), wherein
the distal end cap is non-integral with any wall member of the reservoir chamber (e.g., the mouth end insert 8 is an insert, although Cadieux is silent to the mouth end insert 8 being non integral to any wall member, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mouth end insert to be non integral because it’s an insert, and inserts are expected to be inserted or removed, with a reasonable expectation of success. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.02.)
Regarding Claim 18, modified Cadieux teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Cadieux teaches the vapor-conveying conduit passes along the reservoir chamber forming a circumferential inner side wall member of the reservoir chamber. (e.g., see annotated FIG 1 above, the vapor conveying conduit passes along the reservoir chamber forming a circumferential inner side wall member of the reservoir chamber)
Regarding Claim 19, modified Cadieux teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Cadieux teaches
the cartridge further comprises a cartridge sleeve forming at least a portion of a circumferential outer side wall member of the reservoir chamber and a circumferential outer side wall member of the vaporization chamber (e.g., see annotated FIG 1a below)
PNG
media_image2.png
336
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding 20, modified Cadieux teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Cadieux teaches
a one-piece main body, which comprises a proximal end portion and at least one of an outer sleeve portion and an inner tube portion (see annotated FIG 1b below, the main body includes the outer sleeve and inner tube and has a proximal end), wherein
the outer sleeve portion forms at least a circumferential outer side wall member of the reservoir chamber (see annotated FIG 1b below, see also annotated FIG 1 above), wherein
the proximal end portion forms a proximal end wall member of the reservoir chamber, (see annotated FIG 1b below) and wherein
the inner tube portion forms the vapor-conveying conduit (see annotated FIG 1b below).
PNG
media_image3.png
336
672
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding 21, modified Cadieux teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Cadieux teaches a septum (See upstream seal 15) forming a common wall member of the vaporization chamber and the reservoir chamber (see also FIG 1, septum/seal 15 is a common wall member of the vaporization chamber and the reservoir chamber as illustrated in FIG 1).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Cadieux teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Cadieux teaches an inner tube forming at least a portion of the vapor- conveying conduit (see annotated FIG 1b above) and
a circumferential inner side wall member of the reservoir chamber (the inner tube is also a circumferential inner side wall member of the reservoir chamber, see also annotated FIG 1 above and [0116], e.g., a circumferential side wall member of the reservoir chamber is the upstream seal 15).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Cadieux teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Cadieux teaches a proximal end cap forming a proximal end wall member of the reservoir chamber (See proximal end in annotated FIG 1b above and also reservoir chamber in annotated FIG 1 further above).
Regarding Claim 24, modified Cadieux teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Cadieux teaches a wick element ([0114] such as wick 28 see also FIG 1).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Cadieux teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Cadieux teaches the liquid-conveying susceptor arrangement (14/28, see e.g., FIG 1) comprises a filament bundle ([0017], e.g., plurality of filaments in the wick).
Regarding Claim 26, modified Cadieux teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Cadieux teaches the liquid-conveying susceptor arrangement comprises an unstranded filament bundle (Cadieux teaches the wick may comprise a bundle of glass filaments wound together in separate strands (unstranded) having sufficient capillarity via interstitial spaces to draw liquid from the liquid reservoir, which is consistent with the instant specification which teaches unstranded filaments are bound running next together without being stranded together, see instant spec page 19 first new paragraph)
Regarding Claim 27, modified Cadieux teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Cadieux teaches the mouthpiece comprises a plastic tube (see [0128] the mouth end insert comprises two or more off axis outlets e.g., plastic tube outlets e.g., plastic tubes)
Regarding Claim 28, modified Cadieux teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, modified Cadieux teaches a second wrapper circumferentially wrapped around the mouthpiece.
Regarding Claim 29, modified Cadieux teaches the claim limitations as set forth above.
Mass teaches a wrapper as set forth above in the rejection of claim 16. However, although Mass fails to explicitly disclose a second wrapper circumferentially wrapped around the mouthpiece and around a proximal end portion of the cartridge on top of the first wrapper, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wrapper of Mass to include two wrappers, such that via this duplication of the wrapper Mass teaches a second wrapper circumferentially wrapped around the mouthpiece and around a proximal end portion of the cartridge on top of the first wrapper. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI B.
Regarding Claim 30, modified Cadieux teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Cadieux teaches the mouthpiece is arranged adjacent the reservoir chamber at a proximal end wall member of the reservoir chamber (see annotated FIG 1 above the mouthpiece is arranged adjacent the reservoir chamber at the proximal end wall of the reservoir chamber).
Regarding Claim 31, modified Cadieux teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Cadieux teaches the mouthpiece abuts the reservoir chamber at a proximal end wall member of the reservoir chamber (see annotated FIG 1 above).
Regarding Claim 32, modified Cadieux teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Cadieux teaches the mouthpiece is in fluid communication with the vaporization chamber via the vapor-conveying conduit (See annotated FIG 1 above).
Regarding Claim 33, modified Cadieux teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Cadieux teaches the mouthpiece comprises a vapor outlet configured to release vaporized liquid from the stick-shaped aerosol-generating article (See [0115] and FIG 1, the vapor outlet is configured to release the vaporized liquid (aerosol) from the aerosol generating device).
Regarding Claim 34, modified Cadieux teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Cadieux teaches an inductively heating aerosol-generating device for the aerosol- generating article (see annotated FIG 1 below, see also [0114]).
PNG
media_image4.png
250
416
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the provisional obvious type double patenting rejection, see Remarks, filed 2-12-2026, with respect to claim 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The obvious type double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections filed 2-12-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues on page 9:
PNG
media_image5.png
178
508
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because Cadieux at [0115] teaches the number and size of the air inlets can be adjusted to the desired RTD. The inlets are provided through casing 6 therefore when replacing the casing with a wrapper one of ordinary skill would understand the necessity of providing opening(s) (i.e., cutting holes) in the wrapper at the appropriate places and widths to maintain the desired size(s) is the air inlet(s) as taught by Cadieux.
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 Michael T Fulton whose telephone number is (703)756-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 571-270-3882. 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.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights