DETAILED ACTION
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 1, 3, 5-12, 14, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collett (US 2014/0060554) in view of Sebastian (US 2014/0000638).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Collett teaches an aerosol-generating device 10 [0035, Fig. 1] comprising a microheater 50 (vapor generation unit), a reservoir 205 configured to store an aerosol forming material [0095], and a mesh transport element 300 [0124], the vapor generation unit comprising a micro electro-mechanical system (MEMS) [0039]. The mesh transport element 300, like the mesh filter of the instant invention, is interpreted to read on the claimed filter disposed so as to remove particles from said aerosol forming material passing from the reservoir to the vapor generation unit, due to its configuration and being used to transport aerosol forming material from the reservoir to the vapor generation unit. Collett does not teach the filter is configured to heat the aerosol forming material passing through the filter. Sebastian teaches an aerosol-generating device [0009] wherein a further heating element is in substantial contact with the transport element to pre-heat the aerosol forming material to alter the characteristics thereof (e.g., reduce viscosity and increase flow rate) [0019]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the transport element (filter) of Collett configured to heat the aerosol forming material passing through the filter for the same reasons above suggested by Sebastian.
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Collett teaches the filter 300 is located adjacent to and in contact with the vapor generation unit 50 [Fig. 2].
Regarding claims 7-9, Sebastian as applied above to Collett teaches a further heating element is in substantial contact with the transport element (mesh filter of Collett). As Sebastian teaches a wire heating element [0080], one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a wire in substantial contact with the filter, such as extending through the mesh or embedded in the mesh, configured to heat the filter by conduction when power is applied to the at least one wire, to achieve the desired result of pre-heating the aerosol forming material to alter the characteristics thereof (e.g., reduce viscosity and increase flow rate).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, “substantial contact” as taught by Sebastian [0019] would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that the wire should be in contact with at least 60% of a lateral surface of the mesh.
Regarding claims 11-12, modified Collett teaches said at least one wire is a resistance wire adapted to convert electrical energy into heat when power is applied to the at least one wire [Sebastian 0088]. Such a wire is capable of, i.e. configured to, being heated by an external heating source.
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Sebastian teaches porosity of the wick material also can be controlled to alter the capillary action of the wick [0093]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the porosity of the of the mesh of modified Collett through routine experimentation to achieve the desired effects.
Regarding claim 16, Sebastian teaches warming the transport element to a temperature that is below a vaporization temperature to alter the characteristics of the aerosol forming material (e.g., reduce viscosity and increase flow rate) [0019]. As Collett teaches a vaporization temperature of 120°C or greater [0063], one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use configure the filter of modified Collett to be heated so as to bring the aerosol forming material to a temperature below 120°C and overlapping with the claimed range of 50°C to 100°C to achieve the above desired effects.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collett and Sebastian as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gruenbacher (US 2017/0072085).
Modified Collett does not teach the micro electro-mechanical system of the vapor generation unit comprises at least one MEMS die. Gruenbacher teaches a microfluid delivery system and cartridge wherein an atomizing mechanism comprising a microfluidic die [0119-0120]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify MEMS vapor generation unit of Collett to include a MEMS die to achieve the same, predictable result of atomizing the aerosol forming material.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collett and Sebastian as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Perez (US 2017/0064999).
Modified Collett does not teach the filter is located below the vapor generation unit in a longitudinal direction of the aerosol-generating device when the aerosol-generating device is in a use position. Perez teaches an electronic cigarette wherein the heating coil (vapor generation unit) rests on top of the wick [0051], i.e. the wick is located below the vapor generation unit in a longitudinal direction of the device when the device is in a use position. As this is a conventional configuration known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to the device of modified Collet such that the wick (filter) of is located below the vapor generation unit in a longitudinal direction of the aerosol-generating device when the aerosol-generating device is in a use position to achieve the same, predictable result of atomizing the aerosol forming material.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collett and Sebastian as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cadieux (US 2015/0245669).
Modified Collett does not teach an induction coil configured to inductively heat said at least one wire. Cadiuex teaches a vaping device comprising an induction coil configured to inductively heat a coil heater [0023-0028]. As this is a conventional heating arrangement known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the device of modified Collett an induction coil configured to inductively heat said at least one wire to achieve the predictable result of pre-heating the aerosol forming material.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collett and Sebastian as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Monsees (US 2015/0208729).
Modified Collett teaches the device comprises a battery [Collett 0053], which is configured to heat the filter via a heating element in contact with the filter [Sebastian 0019]. Modified Collett does not teach the battery is configured to directly heat the filter and does not teach the mesh is made of stainless steel. Monsees teaches a vaporization device comprising a stainless-steel mesh wicking material [0082]. As this is a conventional mesh wicking material known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use stainless steel for the mesh wick (filter) of modified Collett to achieve the same, predictable result of transporting the aerosol forming material. Furthermore, as Sebastian teaches steel is a conductive material useful as a heating element [0049], one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the battery to directly heat the steel filter to pre-heat the aerosol forming material as suggested by Sebastian [0019] but without the need of a separate heating element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755