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
Claims 1-8, 11-13 and 15-18 are amended. Claim 10 is withdrawn. Claims 5 and 13 are objected to. Claims 1-9 and 11-18 are presently examined.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 5/11/2026 are overcome.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 5/11/2026 is overcome.
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.
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 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamana (US 12,641,683) in view of Spencer (US 12,096,797) and Lee (US 11,344,067).
Regarding claim 1, Hamana discloses a heater (abstract) having a peripheral wall (figure 1, reference numeral 20), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a housing, that contains a ceramic body that extends axially (figure 1, reference numeral 11), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a keeping element, which contains a heat element (column 3, lines 16-33, figure 1, reference numeral 12), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a heating element. The ceramic body accommodates a heating target (figure 1, reference numeral T), indicating that the ceramic body defines a chamber. The heating target extends out of the top of the ceramic body, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a proximal end, to a bottom (figure 1), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a distal end. The heating target is a cigarette (column 1, lines 62-67, column 2, lines 1-3), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an aerosol generation product. The ceramic body has an outer portion that forms an outer circumferential portion (figure 7, reference numeral 111), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an outer tube because it has a circumference and height, and an inner portion (column 6, lines 44-59, figure 7, reference numeral 110), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an inner tube. The area occupied by the heat element is considered to meet the claim limitation of a hollow region. Hamana does not explicitly disclose (a) the air channel keeping fluid communication with the chamber at a position closer to the distal end than the proximal end and (b) the air channel in contact with the heater.
Regarding (a), Spencer teaches an apparatus for heating aerosolizable material (abstract) in which air flow into the housing from one or more air inlets (figure 2a, reference numeral 260) and travels between an outer wall of a heating chamber (figure 2a, reference numeral 220b) and an inner surface (figure 2a, reference numeral 210a) of the outer housing (figure 2a, reference numeral 210) to define an airflow path (column 4, lines 35-41). A heating arrangement (figure 2, reference numeral 205) is arranged between inner (figure 2a, reference numeral 220a) and outer walls of the heating chamber (column 4, lines 29-34). The air flows along the heater to a distal end of the heating chamber (column 4, lines 49-54, figure 2a, reference numeral 220c). Spencer additionally teaches that this arrangement allows the air to be preheated prior to entering the heating chamber (abstract) so that the material is heated by both convection and conduction (column 5, lines 20-23).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Hamana with the preheating of Spencer. One would have been motivated to do so since Spencer teaches heating the material through both convection and conduction.
Regarding (b), Lee teaches an aerosol generating apparatus (abstract) having an air circulation space groove (figure 10, reference numeral 510) formed between the inner surface of the heater housing (column 11, lines 10-17, figure 10, reference numeral 300) and the heater itself (column 11, lines 29-34) such that the air is heated (column 2, lines 3-5).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the structure of Lee with the outer wall of the heating chamber of modified Hamana such that the airflow channel passes between the heater and the outer wall of the heating chamber. One would have been motivated to do so since Spencer and Lee both arrangements that place an air flow channel in proximity to heater so that the air is heated. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143, A.
Regarding claim 2, the inner and outer walls of the heating chamber of Spencer, as modified to have an airflow channel between, are considered to meet the claim limitations of inner and outer tubes, respectively.
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches that air enters the circulation area through air circulation holes at the upper end of the heater housing (column 10, lines 37-46, figure 6A, reference numeral 420).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Spencer teaches that the air flows along the heater to a distal end of the heating chamber though an opening that connects the chamber to the airflow channel (column 4, lines 49-54, figure 2a, reference numeral 220c).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Hamana discloses that the ceramic body that contains the heater is cylindrical (abstract), indicating that the heat element is also cylindrical and therefore forms a tube.
Claims 6, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamana (US 12,641,683) in view of Spencer (US 12,096,797) and Lee (US 11,344,067) as applied to claims 1, 2 and 3 above, and further in view of Hon (RE 47,573).
Regarding claims 6, 15 and 17, modified Hamana teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee additionally teaches that air enters the circulation area through air circulation holes at the upper end of the heater housing (column 10, lines 37-46, figure 6A, reference numeral 420), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of opening closer to the proximal end than the distal end. Hamana discloses that a power supply control circuit is located within the peripheral wall and is connected to the heater via a wire, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a conductive pin. Modified Hamana does not explicitly (a) the control circuit being a circuit board and (b) the wire passing through the opening.
Regarding (a), Hon teaches an electronic cigarette (abstract) having a control circuit board connected to the electric heater (column 4, lines 50-67, column 5, lines 1-4).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the control circuit board of Hon to control the device of modified Hamana. One would have been motivated to do so since Hon teaches a suitable control arrangement for an electronic cigarette.
Regarding (b), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to route the wire through the claimed position. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamana (US 12,641,683) in view of Spencer (US 12,096,797) and Lee (US 11,344,067) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kuwa (US 10,939,705).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hamana teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Hamana does not explicitly teach a first support that seals the opening.
Kuwa teaches a portable aerosol device (abstract) having a lid hole through which wires pass that is sealed with a silicone sealer to keep a chip space sealed (column 18, lines 36-49). The silicone sealer is considered to be configured to provide support for the hole since it is located against the hole and could provide support if a force were applied.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hole of modified Hamana with the seal of Kuwa. One would have been motivated to do so since Kuwa teaches a seal for holes that have wires passing through them.
Claims 8 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamana (US 12,641,683) in view of Spencer (US 12,096,797) and Lee (US 11,344,067) as applied to claims 4 and 11 above, and further in view of Acconcia (US 12,114,700).
Regarding claims 8 and 12, modified Hamana teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Hamana does not explicitly teach a second support.
Acconcia teaches an aerosol generating device having a heating chamber that receives an aerosol forming substrate (abstract). The device has an air inlet (column 11, lines 18-25, figure 1, reference numeral 16) that supplies air to the base (figure 2, reference numeral 26), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a boss, of an adapter element (column 11, lines 38-55, figure 2, reference numeral 24), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second support. Air flows from the air inlet through holes in the bottom of the adapter element to reach the aerosol generating article (column 12, lines 60-67, column 13, lines 1-7). The base evidently prevents the article from moving through since it extends past both ends of the article (figure 4). Acconcia additionally teaches that using an adapter element enables the article to be securely held in place (column 2, lines 25-44).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adapter of Acconcia in the device of modified Hamana. One would have been motivated to do so since Acconcia teaches using an adapter to hold the article securely in place.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamana (US 12,641,683) in view of Spencer (US 12,096,797) and Lee (US 11,344,067) and Hon (RE 47,573) as applied to claims 15 and 17 above, and further in view of Kuwa (US 10,939,705).
Regarding claims 16 and 18, modified Hamana teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Hamana does not explicitly teach a first support that seals the opening.
Kuwa teaches a portable aerosol device (abstract) having a lid hole through which wires pass that is sealed with a silicone sealer to keep a chip space sealed (column 18, lines 36-49). The silicone sealer is considered to be configured to provide support for the hole since it is located against the hole and could provide support if a force were applied.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hole of modified Hamana with the seal of Kuwa. One would have been motivated to do so since Kuwa teaches a seal for holes that have wires passing through them.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 13 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:
Bowen (US 2018/0199627) teaches a vaporizer for vaporization of liquid and/or organic material (abstract) having an inlet tube (figure 10a, reference numeral 1034) that is connected to a chamber ([0148], figure 10A, reference numeral 1034), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of a chamber together. Liquid flows the device [0147] by entering at the inlet tube, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of distal end, and then passing through the chamber to a port [0139], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a proximal end. The liquid is considered to be a removably received aerosol generating product. The liquid is heated by a heating element that turns it into a vapor ([0147], figure 10A, reference numeral 1020). The tube is surrounded by a housing, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a keeping element, that defines a space between the tube and the housing, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a hollow region. Air flow enters the device through an opening that is connected to the hollow region and then enters a diffusor that allows it mix with vapor in the chamber ([0149], figure 10A, reference numeral 1068), which is considered to define an air channel. However, Bowen does not teach or suggest a keeping element defining a hollow region that accommodates both a heating element and an air channel.
Spencer (US 12,096,797) teaches an apparatus for heating aerosolizable material (abstract) in which air flow into the housing from one or more air inlets (figure 2a, reference numeral 260) and travels between an outer wall of a heating chamber (figure 2a, reference numeral 220b) and an inner surface (figure 2a, reference numeral 210a) of the outer housing (figure 2a, reference numeral 210) to define an airflow path (column 4, lines 35-41). A heating arrangement (figure 2, reference numeral 205) is arranged between inner (figure 2a, reference numeral 220a) and outer walls of the heating chamber (column 4, lines 29-34). The air flows along the heater to a distal end of the heating chamber (column 4, lines 49-54, figure 2a, reference numeral 220c). Spencer additionally teaches that this arrangement allows the air to be preheated prior to entering the heating chamber (abstract) so that the material is heated by both convection and conduction (column 5, lines 20-23). However, Spencer does not teach or suggest the distal portion of the air channel having a smaller outer diameter.
Lee (US 11,344,067) teaches an aerosol generating apparatus (abstract) having an air circulation space groove (figure 10, reference numeral 510) formed between the inner surface of the heater housing (column 11, lines 10-17, figure 10, reference numeral 300) and the heater itself (column 11, lines 29-34) such that the air is heated (column 2, lines 3-5). However, Lee does not teach or suggest the distal portion of the air circulation space groove having a smaller outer diameter.
Conclusion
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 RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 pm.
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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights