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 16-31 are pending and are subject to this office action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 16-32 in the reply filed on 03/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that combination of Cadieux and Chen does not disclose a septum forming a common wall member of the vaporization chamber and the reservoir chamber, wherein the septum comprises at least one filling hole for filling aerosol forming liquid into the reservoir chamber via the vaporization chamber. This is not found persuasive because Cadieux discloses a septum (upstream seal 15) forming a common wall of the vaporization chamber (portion between inlets 744a, 744b and upstream seal 15) and reservoir chamber (22, Fig. 8A, [0116]) and Chen discloses a liquid injection channel (1212, “at least one filling hole”. Fig. 5) provided on the same side as the atomizing core (40) such that the liquid storage cartridge (12) is inverted during filling and the atomizing liquid does not leak from the atomizing core (40) during filling (col. 5 lines 25-39). While Cadieux and Chen do not explicitly disclose a filling hole provided on the same side as a vaporization chamber, Chen discloses a motivation for providing a filling hole on the same side as the atomization core and providing a filling hole on the same of the atomization core in Cadieux results in a filling hole that can be used for filling liquid aerosol forming substrate via the vaporization chamber. Therefore, Cadieux, in view of Chen, discloses a septum comprising at least one filling hole for filling aerosol forming liquid into the reservoir chamber via the vaporization chamber.
In regards to the comment that Group I was incorrectly identified as claims 1-32, the Examiner confirms that Group I is intended to identify claims 16-31.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 16-22, 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadieux (US 20150245669 A1, as cited on IDS dated 05/31/2023) in view of Chen (US 10631576 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Cadieux discloses a cartridge (cartridge section 70) for a stick shaped aerosol generating device for an inductively heating aerosol generating device (60, Fig. 1, Fig. 8A, [0114, 0151]) comprising:
A vaporization chamber (portion between inlets 744a, 744b and upstream seal 15) at a distal portion of the cartridge (70) where a liquid is vaporized (Fig. 1, Fig. 8A, [0118, 0151]),
A reservoir chamber (22) proximal to the vaporization chamber and configured to store liquid (liquid storage medium 21, Fig. 1, Fig. 8A, [0116]),
A septum (upstream seal 15) forming a common wall of the vaporization chamber and reservoir chamber (22, Fig. 8A, [0116]),
A liquid conveying susceptor arrangement (wick/susceptor element 28/14) which can wick liquid from the reservoir (22) into the vaporization chamber and which is inductively heated by an induction source (35) to generate vapor in the vaporization chamber (Fig. 1, Fig. 8A, [0118, 0151]),
A vapor conveying conduit (central air passage 20) for delivering aerosol to a region proximal to the reservoir (22, i.e. delivering aerosol to the mouth end 8, Fig. 1, Fig. 8A, [0115, 0151]), and
Wherein the septum (15) comprises a through hole (inlet portion 230) in which the vapor conveying conduit (20) is supported in at a distal end portion (Fig. 8A, [0151]).
Cadieux does not explicitly disclose the septum (15) comprises at least one filling hole for filling aerosol forming liquid into the reservoir (22) via the vaporization chamber.
However, Chen, directed to an atomizing device (100, Fig. 5), discloses:
A liquid storage cartridge (12) comprising a liquid injection channel (1212, “at least one filling hole”) provided on a bottom wall (121) of the liquid storage cartridge (12) which is sealed by a sealing plug (20, Fig. 5, col. 3 lines 37-57), and an atomizing core (40, Fig. 4, col. 3 lines 18-30).
The liquid injection channel (1212) is provided on the same side as the atomizing core (40) such that the liquid storage cartridge (12) is inverted during filling and the atomizing liquid does not leak from the atomizing core (40) during filling (col. 5 lines 25-39).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cadieux by providing a liquid injection channel and seal plug on the upstream side of the upstream seal as taught by Chen because both Cadieux and Chen are directed to aerosol generating devices, Chen teaches providing the filling hole on the same side as the atomizer prevents leakage during filling, and this involves applying a liquid injection hole and seal on the bottom of a similar cartridge to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Cadieux discloses an embodiment where the septum (upstream seal 15) comprises a proximal recess forming a proximal portion of the septum through hole in which a distal portion of the vapor conveying conduit (central air passage 20) is supported (Fig. 5, [0116, 0126]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the embodiments disclosed by Cadieux by applying the septum (15) structure in Fig. 5 having a proximal recess to the septum (15) in Fig. 8A.
PNG
media_image1.png
676
929
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, The cross section of the portion of proximal recess in contact with the inner surface of the vapor conveying conduit (20) is considered to be an “inner cross section” of the proximal recess. Therefore, Cadieux discloses an inner cross section of the proximal recess is larger than an inner cross section of a distal portion of the septum through hole (230, refer to annotated Fig. 5 above).
Regarding claim 19, Cadieux discloses an embodiment where the septum (15) comprises a proximal insertion socket protruding into the reservoir chamber (22), where the proximal insertion socket forms a proximal portion of the through hole (230) in which a distal end portion of the vapor conveying conduit (central air passage 20) is supported (Fig. 5, [0116, 0126]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the embodiments disclosed by Cadieux by applying the septum (15) structure in Fig. 5 having a proximal insertion socket to the septum (15) in Fig. 8A.
The Examiner notes that claim 19 does not require that the vapor conveying conduit is inserted into the proximal insertion socket.
PNG
media_image2.png
801
1088
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, The cross section of the portion of proximal insertion socket in contact with the inner surface of the vapor conveying conduit (20) is considered to be an “inner cross section” of the proximal insertion socket. Therefore, Cadieux discloses an inner cross section of the proximal insertion socket is larger than an inner cross section of a distal portion of the septum through hole (230, refer to annotated Fig. 5 above).
Regarding claim 21, Cadieux discloses the septum (15) is separate from other wall members of the vaporization chamber and the reservoir chamber (Fig. 8A).
Regarding claim 22, Cadieux discloses the septum (15) comprises two feedthrough openings in which the ends (29, 31) of the liquid conveying susceptor arrangement (wick/susceptor element 28/14) pass through (Fig. 8A, [0126]).
PNG
media_image3.png
510
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Cadieux discloses the liquid conveying susceptor arrangement (wick/susceptor element 28/14) is fixedly held by the septum (15, Fig. 8A, [0126]).
Regarding claim 26, Chen discloses a distal plug member (sealing plug 20) for sealing the filling hole (liquid injection channel 1212, Fig. 5, col. 3 lines 45-57).
Regarding claim 27, Chen discloses the distal plug member (sealing plug 20) is a separate component detachably mounted to the filling hole (1212) and therefore is considered to be non-integral with any wall member of the reservoir (Fig. 5, col. 3 lines 45-62).
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadieux (US 20150245669 A1, as cited on IDS dated 05/31/2023) in view of Chen (US 10631576 B1), as applied to claim 22 above, further in view of Hijma (US 20230148664 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Cadieux discloses the septum (15) comprises two feedthrough openings in which the ends (29, 31) of the liquid conveying susceptor arrangement (wick/susceptor element 28/14) pass through (Fig. 8A, [0126]).
Cadieux does not explicitly disclose at least one sealing ring arranged in or at a feed through opening.
However, Hijma, directed to a cartridge (100) for an electronic cigarette (Fig. 1A, [0030]), discloses:
Annular seals (80, i.e. a sealing ring) positioned between an opening (60) and a capillary wick (50) to seal the opening (60) and prevent passage of liquid around the wick (50, Fig. 1A, Fig. 3C, [0040, 0044]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cadieux, in view of Chen, by providing a annular seal between the liquid conveying susceptor arrangement and feedthrough hole as taught by Hijma because both Cadieux and Hijma are directed to aerosol generating devices, Hijma teaches the annular seal provides a sealing arrangement with the opening and prevents passage of liquid around the wick, and this involves applying a known annular seal around a wick to a similar cartridge to yield predictable results.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadieux (US 20150245669 A1, as cited on IDS dated 05/31/2023) in view of Chen (US 10631576 B1) and Hijma (US 20230148664 A1), as applied to claim 23 above, further in view of Rogers (US 20190110517 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Hijma discloses the annular seals (80) comprise a tubular body (81) that extends around the wick (50, Fig. 3C, 0044]).
Hijma does not explicitly disclose the annular seals (80) are over-molded around a portion of the wick (50, Fig. 3C).
However, Rogers, directed to an aerosol delivery device (100, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, [0053]), discloses:
A valve assembly (504) comprising a reservoir seal (524) for sealing against the inside of a reservoir (502), the reservoir seal (524) is over-molded to a frame (510) to create a strong bond between the seal and the frame that retains the seal in engagement with the frame (Fig. 5, Fig. 7, [0082, 0084]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cadieux, in view of Chen and Hijma, by over-molding the annular seals to the frame as taught by Rogers because both Cadieux and Rogers are directed to aerosol generating devices, Rogers teaches over-molding provides a strong bond between the seal and the frame, and this involves applying a known over-molding connection between a seal and a frame in a similar cartridge to yield predictable results.
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadieux (US 20150245669 A1, as cited on IDS dated 05/31/2023) in view of Chen (US 10631576 B1), as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Burton (US 20160095357 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Cadieux discloses the septum (15) seals the annular space between the outer casing (6) and the inner tube (62) at the upstream end of the cartridge (Fig. 8A, [0016]).
Cadieux does not explicitly disclose the septum (15) is provided with a circumferential collar.
However, Burton, directed to an electronic vaping device (60, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0037]), discloses:
A gasket (10) for sealing an end of a reservoir (22, Fig. 2, Fig. 4A, [0061]),
The gasket (10) is provided with a tubular body (30, “a circumferential collar”) extending towards mouth end (8) of the device (Fig. 6, [0009, 0075]), and;
The outer surface of the gasket (10) forms a seal with the inner surface of the housing (6) to prevent leakage of the pre-vapor formulation from the reservoir (22, [0063]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cadieux, in view of Chen, by providing a tubular body/ circumferential collar in the septum/seal as taught by Burton because both Cadieux and Burton are directed to aerosol generating devices, Burton teaches a gasket having a tubular body/collar, where the gasket seals an end of a reservoir to prevent leakage, and this involves applying a known collar to a similar seal in a similar cartridge to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 31, Burton discloses a gasket (10) is provided with a tubular body (30, “a circumferential collar”) extending from the side of the gasket (10) opposite the inner tube (62, i.e. vapor conduit) towards the mouth end (8), where the tubular body (30) provides a sealing fit against inner surface of the cartridge housing (6, “against a cartridge sleeve, Fig. 6, [0009, 0063, 0075]).
Therefore, providing the tubular body (30, “a circumferential collar”, Fig. 6) of Burton on the septum (15, Fig. 8A) of Cadieux would result in the circumferential collar extending into the vaporization chamber and forming a circumferential wall member of the vaporization chamber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28 and 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art alone or in combination with references does not disclose: “the distal plug member is attached to part of a distal end cap that forms at least a distal end wall member of the vaporization chamber” as required by claim 28 or “the distal plug member is an integral part of a distal end cap that forms at least a distal end wall member of the vaporization chamber” as required by claim 29.
Specifically, the prior art fails to disclose a distal end cap that forms at least a distal end wall member of the vaporization chamber.
The closest prior art is considered to be Cadieux (US 20150245669 A1, as cited on IDS dated 05/31/2023) in view of Chen (US 10631576 B1).
Cadieux discloses a cartridge (70) attached to a battery section (72) via a threaded connection where a top portion (seal 233) of the battery section (72) forms a distal end wall member of the vaporization chamber (Fig. 5, [0114, 0134, 0154]). However, the battery section (72) is not part of the cartridge (70), and therefore cannot be considered a distal end cap forming at least a distal end wall member of the vaporization chamber.
Chen discloses a distal plug member (sealing plug 20) for sealing the filling hole (liquid injection channel 1212, Fig. 5, col. 3 lines 45-57). Chen does not disclose the distal plug member (sealing plug 20) is attached to or integrally formed with a distal end cap. Further, the prior art does not provide a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to attach or integrally formed the distal plug member of Chen with a distal end cap.
Cadieux or Chen fails to disclose a distal plug member that is attached to (claim 28) or in integral part of (claim 29) a distal end cap that forms at least a distal end wall member of the vaporization chamber. Providing a distal end cap to device of Cadieux, where the distal end cap forms at least a distal end wall member of the vaporization chamber would interfere with the connection between the cartridge section (70) and battery section (72) which is required for the device to function.
Cadieux, in view of Chen, has a substantially different design than the claimed invention. The claimed invention is directed a cartridge (110) that is part of an article (101), where the distal end of the cartridge (110) is inserted into an aerosol generating device (3, Fig. 3, [0189, 0191]). In contrast, Cadieux discloses a cartridge (70) attached to a battery section (72) via a threaded connection (Fig. 5).
The prior art alone or in combination with references does not disclose a distal end cap that forms at least a distal end wall member of the vaporization chamber.
Therefore, claims 28-29 would be allowable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12/543,786.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to a cartridge for a stick-shaped aerosol-generating article, the stick-shaped aerosol-generating article being for an inductively heating aerosol-generating device, the cartridge comprising:
a vaporization chamber at a distal end portion of the cartridge and being configured to vaporize aerosol-forming liquid therein;
a reservoir chamber proximal the vaporization chamber and being configured to store aerosol-forming liquid;
a septum forming a common wall member of the vaporization chamber and the reservoir chamber;
a liquid-conveying susceptor arrangement configured and arranged to convey aerosol- forming liquid from the reservoir chamber into the vaporization chamber and to be inductively heated in use with the inductively heating aerosol-generating device in order to vaporize aerosol-forming liquid within the vaporization chamber; and
a vapor-conveying conduit providing a fluid communication for vaporized aerosol- forming liquid from the vaporization chamber to a region proximal the reservoir chamber,
wherein the septum comprises a through hole, which the vapor-conveying conduit passes through or is supported in at a distal end portion, and
wherein the septum further comprises at least one filling hole for filling aerosol- forming liquid into the reservoir chamber via the vaporization chamber.
The conflicting claims and the rejected claim differ in that the features of the rejection independent claim are present in multiple claims of U.S. Patent No. 12/543,786. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the features of the dependent claims to arrive at the instantly claimed invention.
Therefore, all of the elements of rejected claim 1 is present and obvious over conflicting claims 1 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12/543,786.
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