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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 42, shown in Figs. 2 and 5A-B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 16-31 are directed to an “aerosol-generating device” but also introduce a “cartridge” and components thereof. The “cartridge” and components thereof are not positively recited components of the claimed device. Therefore, for purposes of this office action, in claims 16-31, the recited “cartridge” and components thereof are considered to have patentable weight only to the extent they dictate the structure of the claimed device. See MPEP 2115; see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
Similarly, in claims 32-34, the “aerosol-generating device” and components thereof are considered to have patentable weight only to the extent they dictate the structure of the claimed cartridge.
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.
Claims 16-21 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wen (US 2023/0309627 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Wen is directed to an electronic atomization device (Title):
The device has an airflow channel (which reads on an “airflow path” as claimed) including an inlet channel 118, an atomization cavity 115, an aerosol channel 6 in communication with the atomization cavity 115, and an outlet channel 13 with an outlet portion 41 ([0031, 0035], Figs. 2-3). As shown in annotated Fig. 3 below, the airflow channel includes an auxiliary aerosol channel 62 (the inlet channel 118, atomization cavity 115, and the auxiliary aerosol channel 62 together reading on the claimed “first portion”), an unnamed-but-illustrated turning region (“transition portion”) where the auxiliary aerosol channel 62 turns upward and joins a main aerosol channel 61, and the outlet portion 41 (“second portion”) where the combined aerosols exit the device [0035];
A flavour component 3 (“vaporizer”) releases a flavour material toward the turning region via the main aerosol channel 61 ([0036, 0054], Fig. 3). As shown in Fig. 3, one end of the flavour component 3 defines a sidewall of the turning region, and the flavour component 3 is therefore “arranged in a sidewall of the transition portion” as claimed;
A receiving chamber (“cartridge receiving region”) receives the flavour component 3 (which is considered both the required “vaporizer” and a “cartridge”) [0054]. The flavour component 3 releases flavour material from one end to join the aerosol flowing via the auxiliary channel 62 ([0054], Fig. 3) (and the receiving chamber therefore has a “connection portion” establishing a fluid connection with the flavour component 3 as claimed). As shown in annotated Fig. 3, the end of the flavour component 3 lies on a plane orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the device (which reads on “wherein the extension plane of the connection portion is arranged at an angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of the aerosol-generating device”; notably, any intersection would read on “an angle” as claimed, because the angle is not limited in any way).
PNG
media_image1.png
356
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
526
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, the inlet channel 118 (“air inlet”) defines the start of the airflow channel [0031], as set forth above. The atomization cavity 115 is “adjacent” the inlet channel 118 ([0031], Fig. 2) and is considered part of the claimed “first portion” as set forth above, and therefore reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 18, the auxiliary channel 62 has two segments running horizontally as shown in Fig. 3, which reads on “radially” as claimed. The auxiliary channel 62 and atomization cavity 115 (together considered the “first portion” as set forth above in the discussion of claim 17) fluidly connect the inlet channel 118 to the turning region, as shown in Fig. 3 (which reads on “wherein the first portion of the airflow path fluidly connects the air inlet and the transition portion of the airflow path”).
Regarding claim 19, the outlet portion 41 runs vertically as shown in Fig. 3, which reads on “axially” as claimed. The outlet portion 41 is in fluid communication with the turning region as shown in Fig. 3 (which reads on “wherein the second portion of the airflow path is fluidly connected with the transition portion of the airflow path”).
Regarding claim 20, the turning region changes the airflow angle 90 degrees from the auxiliary channel 62 to the outlet portion 41, as shown in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 21, as shown in annotated Fig. 3, the end of the flavour component 3 lies on a plane orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the device (which reads on “wherein the extension plane of the surface is arranged at an angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of the aerosol-generating device”; notably, any intersection would read on “an angle” as claimed, because the angle is not limited in any way).
Regarding claim 31, as shown in annotated Fig. 3, the flavour component 3 is received in the receiving chamber and aerosol flows vertically out therefrom [0054], which indicates that the end surface of the flavour component 3 is flush with the end of the receiving chamber (which reads on “wherein an extension plane of a surface of the vaporizer surface is parallel to the extension plane of the connection portion”).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ricketts (US 2018/0295882 A1).
Ricketts discloses a cartridge with a liquid aerosol-forming substrate (“liquid aerosol-forming substrate”) and an outlet (“liquid outlet”) (Abstract, [0077], Fig. 1). The outlet is arranged perpendicular to the axis of the cartridge as shown in Fig. 1 (which reads on “wherein the extension plane of the liquid outlet is arranged at an angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of the cartridge”; notably, any intersection would read on “an angle” as claimed, because the angle is not limited in any way).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 22-27 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen (US 2023/0309627 A1) as applied to claim 21, in view of Bessant (US 2018/0242644 A1).
Regarding claims 22-24, Wen discloses a 180-degree angle between the release surface of the flavour component 3 and the axis of the auxiliary channel 62 (i.e., the right-left direction of 62 and the surface of 3 are parallel to one another; Fig. 3), and thus fails to disclose an angle “between 30° and 60°” as recited in claim 22, fails to disclose an angle “between 40° and 50°” per claim 23, and fails to disclose an angle of “45°” per claim 24. Wen discloses that the flavour component 3 may be arranged side-by-side or coaxially with each of an atomizer 1 and power supply assembly 2, with the particular arrangement not being limited by Wen [0025, 0055], and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the flavour component 3 could be physically rearranged within the device.
Bessant is directed to an aerosol-generating system with electrodes and sensors configured to sense an orientation of a liquid storage portion (Title, Abstract). The liquid storage portion may be disposed at various angled orientations [0046, 0048]. Bessant discloses that when the liquid storage portion is disposed at an optimum orientation, an aerosol-generating system may generate an improved aerosol [0039]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the orientation of Wen’s flavour component 3 is a result-effective variable regarding the generation of an aerosol therefrom, and would accordingly optimize the orientation by routine experimentation such that the release surface of the flavour component 3 forms an angle of 45° with the axis of the auxiliary channel 62 (which reads on claims 22-24). See MPEP 2144.05(II); see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wen’s flavour component 3 to be oriented such that the release surface of the flavour component 3 forms an angle of 45° with the axis of the auxiliary channel 62, because both Wen and Bessant are directed to aerosol-generating devices, Bessant teaches that an optimum orientation of an aerosol-generating liquid can improve the aerosol which would motivate one to routinely experiment with and optimize such orientation, and this would involve the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claims 25-27, Wen discloses a 90-degree angle between the release surface of the flavour component 3 and the axis of the outlet portion 41 (i.e., the down-up direction of 41 and the release surface of 3 are perpendicular to one another; Fig. 3), and thus fails to disclose an angle “between 30° and 60°” as recited in claim 25, fails to disclose an angle “between 40° and 50°” per claim 26, and fails to disclose an angle of “45°” per claim 27. Wen discloses that the flavour component 3 may be arranged side-by-side or coaxially with each of an atomizer 1 and power supply assembly 2, with the particular arrangement not being limited by Wen [0025, 0055], and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the flavour component 3 could be physically rearranged within the device.
Bessant is directed to an aerosol-generating system with electrodes and sensors configured to sense an orientation of a liquid storage portion (Title, Abstract). The liquid storage portion may be disposed at various angled orientations [0046, 0048]. Bessant discloses that when the liquid storage portion is disposed at an optimum orientation, an aerosol-generating system may generate an improved aerosol [0039]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the orientation of Wen’s flavour component 3 is a result-effective variable regarding the generation of an aerosol therefrom, and would accordingly optimize the orientation by routine experimentation such that the release surface of the flavour component 3 forms an angle of 45° with the axis of the outlet portion 41 (which reads on claims 25-27). See MPEP 2144.05(II); see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wen’s flavour component 3 to be oriented such that the release surface of the flavour component 3 forms an angle of 45° with the axis of the outlet portion 41, because both Wen and Bessant are directed to aerosol-generating devices, Bessant teaches that an optimum orientation of an aerosol-generating liquid can improve the aerosol which would motivate one to routinely experiment with and optimize such orientation, and this would involve the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claims 29-30, Wen discloses a 90-degree angle between the release surface of the flavour component 3 and the longitudinal axis of the device (Fig. 3), and thus fails to disclose an angle “between 30° and 60°” as recited in claim 29 and fails to disclose an angle “between 40° and 50°” per claim 30. Wen discloses that the flavour component 3 may be arranged side-by-side or coaxially with each of an atomizer 1 and power supply assembly 2, with the particular arrangement not being limited by Wen [0025, 0055], and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the flavour component 3 could be physically rearranged within the device.
Bessant is directed to an aerosol-generating system with electrodes and sensors configured to sense an orientation of a liquid storage portion (Title, Abstract). The liquid storage portion may be disposed at various angled orientations [0046, 0048]. Bessant discloses that when the liquid storage portion is disposed at an optimum orientation, an aerosol-generating system may generate an improved aerosol [0039]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the orientation of Wen’s flavour component 3 is a result-effective variable regarding the generation of an aerosol therefrom, and would accordingly optimize the orientation by routine experimentation such that the release surface of the flavour component 3 forms an angle between 40° and 50° with the longitudinal axis of the device (which reads on claims 29-30). See MPEP 2144.05(II); see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wen’s flavour component 3 to be oriented such that the release surface of the flavour component 3 forms an angle of 45° with the axis of the outlet portion 41, because both Wen and Bessant are directed to aerosol-generating devices, Bessant teaches that an optimum orientation of an aerosol-generating liquid can improve the aerosol which would motivate one to routinely experiment with and optimize such orientation, and this would involve the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen (US 2023/0309627 A1) as applied to claim 16, in view of Ricketts (US 2018/0295882 A1).
Wen discloses the device according to claim 16 as set forth above. However, Wen fails to disclose the flavour component 3 containing a “liquid aerosol-forming substrate” as claimed.
Ricketts discloses a cartridge with a liquid substrate and a liquid outlet as set forth above in the discussion of claim 32. The liquid aerosol-forming substrate may include at least one flavor object (Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Wen’s flavour component 3 could similarly be provided in liquid form, and liquid flavorants are well-known in the art.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wen by using a liquid flavour component 3 as disclosed by Ricketts, because both Wen and Ricketts are directed to aerosol-generating devices and cartridges with flavorants, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28 and 33-34 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:
Regarding claim 28, the closest art of record is Wen (US 2023/0309627 A1), which discloses the device with main and auxiliary aerosol channels 61, 62 having a turning region and an outlet portion 41, as set forth above. However, Wen is silent on a cross-sectional area of the turning region being larger than any of the surrounding aerosol channels. No other prior art has been found to remedy such deficiency.
Regarding claims 33-34, the closest art of record is Ricketts (US 2018/0295882 A1), which disclose the cartridge with a liquid aerosol-forming substrate and an outlet as set forth above. However, Ricketts is silent on the liquid outlet being arranged at angle of 30-60 or 40-50 degrees with respect to the longitudinal axis of the cartridge. No other prior art has been found to remedy such deficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reevell (US 2018/0169357 A1) is directed to an aerosol-generating system having a cartridge with a side aperture (Title). Aerosol flows through the cartridge in various directions as shown in Figs. 3, 6, 8, 11, 13, and 15.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 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.
/MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747