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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 4/6/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/6/2025. Applicant’s newly added claims 16-21 are tied to the same elected invention and thus will be considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 11/13/2023 and 3/13/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites “…a third wall connected to the first wall and having the width in the first direction” and “a fourth wall connected to the second wall and having the width in the second direction”. It is recommended that these width portions be changed to not refer back to the same widths as introduced as in claim 12, as this makes it seem that this is referring to the same width values as in the first body portion. In line with how the instant specification utilizes these width portions, it is recommended that claim 13 instead read “…a third wall connected to the first wall and having a second width in the first direction” and “a fourth wall connected to the second wall and having “a second width in the second direction”, so as to enhance clarity of the claim and be clear that this is referring to different widths compared to what was introduced in claim 12.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “…a first wall having a width in a first direction” and “…a second wall having a width in a second direction”. From the introduced claim elements, it is not clear what these widths are referring to. Is this referring to a thickness of the first wall? Or if this is referring to a width between first walls, it is unclear how the width is to be measured/accomplished when there is only a single first wall and a single second wall present (as how could a width be measured along the heating structure with only a single first wall?). Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. Claims 13-21 are rejected for relying upon a rejected claim. The claim will be examined as if there are two first walls introduced wherein the width in the first direction is the width measured between the first walls, and that there are two second walls introduced wherein the second direction width is the width measured between the second walls.
Claim 13 recites “…a third wall connected to the first wall and having the width in the first direction” and “a fourth wall connected to the second wall and having the width in the second direction”. Similar to above, it is not clear what these widths are referring to and how they are to be measured. Is this referring to a thickness of the third wall? Or if this is referring to a width between third walls and a width between fourth walls, it is unclear how the width is to be measured/accomplished when there is only a single third wall and a single fourth wall present (as how could a width be measured along the heating structure with only a single third wall?). Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. Claims 14-15 and 19-21 are rejected for relying upon a rejected claim. The claim will be examined as if there are two third walls introduced attached to respective first walls wherein the width is the measured width between the third walls in the first direction, and that there are two fourth walls introduced attached to respective second walls wherein the width in the second direction is measured between the fourth walls in the second direction.
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.
Figures: The examiner provides illustrations from the prior art with additional annotations as needed to facilitate discussion of the claim elements. Moreover, it is held that guidance as provided by the figures is sufficient to enable public possession of an inventive concept. That is, an enabling picture may be used to reject claims directed to an article to include: anticipating claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). And when the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125.
Claims 11-14, 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Yamada (WO2021171459A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0346453A1).
Regarding claim 11, Yamada teaches an aerosol generating system (smoking system “100” as in Fig. 1 [0038], wherein the system forms aerosol [0125]), comprising:
an aerosol generating article (consumable “110” which includes a smokable substance [Fig. 1, 0038]),
an aerosol generating device (device “120” [Fig. 1, 0038]) comprising a heating structure configured to accommodate and heat the aerosol generating article (the device “120” comprises the heater assembly “30” [0040]. The heater assembly as in Fig. 1 clearly is configured to have the consumable “110” inserted into it, and so as to heat the consumable to form the aerosol [0039-0043]),
wherein the heating structure comprises:
a first body portion having a first length and a first cross-sectional shape (the heater assembly “30” includes the chamber “50” which is configured to receive the consumable “110” [0043]. Fig. 4 shows a cross-section of the chamber along the arrow 4-4 of Fig. 3 which is a perspective view of the chamber. An annotated Fig. 4 is shown below to facilitate discussion. The first body portion is considered to include the non-holding portion “54” and the first guide portion “58”. The first length is the dotted double-sided arrow as shown below),
a second body portion connected to the first body portion (the second body portion is considered the holding portion “60” as in the annotated Fig. 4 below) and having a second length and a second cross-sectional shape different from the first cross-sectional shape (the second length is identified by the solid double-sided arrow in the annotated Fig. 4 below, which is clearly different from the first length. And Figs. 5a-5b provide top-down cross-sectional views from the first portion and Fig. 5c provides a top-down view from the second portion, such that the cross-sectional shapes at these different body portions are clearly different).
PNG
media_image1.png
702
445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Yamada teaches an aerosol generating system wherein the first body portion comprises a first wall with a width in a first direction intersecting with a first longitudinal direction of the first body portion and a second wall having a width in a second direction intersecting with each of the first longitudinal direction of the first body portion and the first direction (Figs. 5A-5B provide a top-down view of the chamber at the non-holding portion “54” and the tapered guide portion “58”. The first longitudinal direction would be considered into/out of the page in Figs. 5A-5B. And the first/second wall may be considered to be any portions of the outer wall of the chamber as in Figs. 5A-5B as no specific limitations are required for these walls and the associated widths. For example, a first wall may be considered a top and bottom wall surface of Figs. 5a-5b, with a first width extending up/down between them and thus defining a first direction, and a second wall may be considered a right and left wall surface of Figs. 5a-5b, with a second width extending left/right between them and defining a second direction. It is noted that the opposite may also be true in terms of what is considered the first/second walls (such that the first walls may be right/left walls in Figs. 5a-5b for example). Regardless in either case the measured widths across the first walls/second walls would take place in first/second directions that would necessarily extend across the center of Figs. 5A-5B and thus intersect with each other, in the same manner as the instant Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 13, Yamada teaches an aerosol generating system wherein the second body portion comprises a third wall connected to the first wall and having a second width in the first direction intersecting with a second longitudinal direction of the second body portion, and a fourth wall connected to the second wall and having a second width in the second direction intersecting with each of the second longitudinal direction of the second body portion and the first direction (Fig. 5c provides a top-down view of the chamber at the second body portion “60”. As first/second walls may be considered to be either top/down or right/left walls respectively in Figs. 5a-5b, the third/fourth walls may respectively be considered to be either the top/down or right/left walls dependent on which walls are considered to be the first/second walls, there being no specific width requirements for the walls required. The second longitudinal direction would be considered to be in/out of the page of Fig. 5c, which would run along the length of the second body portion. The width in the first direction and the widths in the second direction would, similar to claim 12 above, to be either extending up/down or left/right in Fig. 5C dependent upon which walls are chosen, and it would necessarily be present that the associated widths would be interacting with the second longitudinal direction and the first direction).
Regarding claim 14, Yamada teaches an aerosol generating system wherein when the article is accommodated, the third wall is configured to press the aerosol generating article (as in Fig. 5c, “62” is a pressing unit which presses a part of the unit [0045], such that “62” may be considered to be the third wall which is pressing), and the fourth wall is configured to form an airflow path with the aerosol generating article (“66” may be a non-pressing unit which may have an air gap formed between the inner surface of “66” and the consumable [0051, Fig. 7B], such that “66” may be considered the fourth wall).
Regarding claim 16, Yamada teaches an aerosol generating system wherein the first wall and the second wall forms the first cross-sectional shape that changes along the first length (see Fig. 4 and the change in cross-section from Fig. 5a to Fig. 5b (where both Figs. 5a and 5b are considered a part of the first body portion). The walls of the holder clearly change cross-sectional shape along the first length of the first body portion. The right/left walls as in Fig. 5b are tapered further inwards, such that the shape goes from a circular cross-section to a more ovular/elliptical shape).
Regarding claim 17, Yamada teaches an aerosol generating system wherein a variation in width in the first direction of the first wall in the longitudinal direction is smaller than a variation in width in the second direction of the second wall in the first longitudinal direction (As in Figs. 5a-5b, the first wall may be considered to be the top/bottom wall surfaces, and the second wall may be considered to be the right/left wall surfaces. Under this interpretation, the top wall portion width remains relatively constant while the right/left wall portion widths see a decrease in width because of the tapered surface "58a". Therefore, the variation in the second walls widths would clearly be greater than that of the first).
Regarding claim 18, Yamada teaches an aerosol generating system wherein the first cross-sectional shape changes from a substantially circular shape to a substantially elliptical shape along the first length (Fig. 5a is a view of the top of the first body portion, and it is clearly in a circular shape [0046]. And at the tapered portion of the first body portion, the shape changes to Fig. 5B, such that the walls are clearly in a substantially elliptical shape).
Regarding claim 19, Yamada teaches an aerosol generating system wherein the width in the first direction of the third wall and the width in the second direction of the fourth wall are substantially constant along the second length (See Figs. 3-4, wherein there is no change in widths of the chamber along the second length. The cross-section of this lower portion “60” is clearly substantially constant).
Regarding claim 20, Yamada teaches an aerosol generating system wherein the third wall has a substantially curved surface (the third wall may be considered to be the top/bottom wall surfaces “66” as in Fig. 5C of the second body portion. This surface is clearly a substantially curved surface).
Regarding claim 21, Yamada teaches an aerosol generating system wherein the fourth wall has a substantially flat surface (the fourth wall may be considered to be the right/left wall surfaces “62” as in Fig. 5C of the second body portion. These surfaces are clearly substantially flat).
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO2021171459A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0346453A1), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Reevell (US2021/0352966A1) or Lee (US2020/0154765A1).
Regarding claim 15, Yamada does not explicitly disclose a protrusion protruding from the third wall of the second body portion. However, it is well known in the art of aerosol generating devices to have protrusions formed from the heating structure/receptacles to make contact with the articles. Reevell, for example, teaches an aerosol generating device “100” [Fig. 1-2]. A plurality of protrusions “140” are formed on the inner surface of the side wall of the heating chamber [0066, Fig. 2], wherein the heating chamber receives the aerosol substrate/article. The protrusions may be formed so as to be evenly spaced around the circumference of the heating chamber [see Fig. 2a which has 4 separated by 90deg, 0066, 0081]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the third walls to have a protrusion as suggested by Reevell. One would have been motivated so as to improve engagement of the substrate carrier [0066], to increase the strength of the sidewalls and provide resistance to bending [0066], and improve heating [0068-0071]. And as the protrusions would be evenly spaced as suggested by Reevell, a protrusion would necessarily be on at least one of the third walls.
In the alternate, Lee teaches an aerosol generating device (title) which comprises a heating chamber for heating a cigarette (aerosol substrate) which is inserted into the chamber [see Figs. 2-3]. Protrusions “25” may be formed on this inner container and which face the outer surface of the cigarette/article “7” [0084, Fig. 3]. There may be 4 evenly spaced protrusions [Fig. 3, 5]. There may be a variety of different protrusion types and amounts scattered throughout the inner surface of the chamber [Fig. 6+]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the third wall to have a protrusion as suggested by Lee. One would have been motivated so as to make insertion/removal of the cigarette easy to use and stable [0027, 0034], reducing the amount of conduction area [0028], and so as to improve potential cooling of the casing [0030]. Because the protrusions are evenly spaced and numerous as detailed above, a protrusion would necessarily be on at least one of the third walls.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights