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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 16-33 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.
The term “basically extending” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “basically extending” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as ‘extending’.
Claims 19 and 30 recite the limitation "the electric core" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As the recitation of ‘an electric core’ in claim 1 is intended use, there is not antecedent basis for the structure of ‘the electric core’ in this claim. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as reading ‘an electric core’.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the electric core" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As the recitation of ‘an electric core’ in claim 1 is intended use, there is not antecedent basis for the structure of ‘the electric core’ in this claim. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as reading ‘an electric core’.
The term “basically similar sizes” in claim 28 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “basically similar sizes” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as ‘similar sizes’.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the product box" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither this claim nor any claim this claim depends upon has previously defined the structural limitation of ‘a product box’, so this limitation lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as reading ‘a product box’.
Claims 17, 18, 21-27, 29, 32, and 33 are also indefinite for depending on an indefinite base in claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
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.
Claims 16, 17, 19, 21-24, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (WO 2020/063868 – of Record, with US 2021/0337870 as English Language Equivalent).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang teaches a vapor generation device configured to heat an aerosol (Fig. 2) which has a length direction (Fig. 2, up/down direction) and a width direction (Fig. 2, left/right direction). The device has a proximal end (Fig. 2, top) and a distal end (Fig. 2, Bottom) that are opposites in the length direction and a first side (Fig. 2, right) and a second side (Fig. 2, left) that are opposites in the width direction. The device has a first space (Fig. 2, space with the battery 26) that is close to the first side and extends form the proximal to the distal end and contains a power supply (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 26). The device also has a second space (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 21) close to the second side and the distal end and accommodates a circuit board (Para. [0060]). Finally, the device has a third space (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 22) close to the second side and proximal end that defines a heating space (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 23) for receiving the aerosol-generating product.
Regarding claim 17, Zhang teaches that a width of the first space (Fig. 2, space with the battery 26) is half the width of the device, which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang teaches that the electric core (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 26) is in the shape of a cube with a length greater than the width (Fig. 2) and a width greater than the thickness (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 21, Zhang teaches that a width of the second space (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 21) and third space (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 22) are half the width of the device, which is within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 22, Zhang teaches that the length of the second space (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 21) is greater than the length of the third space (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 22).
Regarding claim 23, Zhang teaches that the length of the second space (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 21) is between 1/2 and 2/3 the length of the device.
Regarding claim 24, Zhang teaches that the length of the third space (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 22) is between 1/3 and 1/2 the length of the device.
Regarding claim 29, Zhang teaches that the first space (Fig. 2, space with the battery 26), second space (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 21), and (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 22) are air tight from each other.
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.
Claims 18, 20, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2020/063868) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Tsukamoto et al. (US 2021/0235761).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang teaches that the first space (Fig. 2, space with the battery 26) has the same length as the device and a width of half the device, but does not teach those dimensions.
In an analogous art, Tsukamoto teaches a similarly shaped vaporization device (Fig. 1B) and that the device has a length of 40 to 90 mm (Para. [0027]) and a circumference of 15 to 25 mm (Para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang with Tsukamoto to make the device have a length of 40 to 90 mm and a circumference of 15 to 25 mm as these are known dimensions for aerosol vaporization devices in the art. The length of the first space overlaps with the claimed range and the circumference has range of values where the thickness and width of the first space overlap with the claimed ranges, which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 20, Zhang teaches that the first space (Fig. 2, space with the battery 26) has the same length as the device and a width of half the device and the core is the same size as the first space, but does not teach those dimensions.
In an analogous art, Tsukamoto teaches a similarly shaped vaporization device (Fig. 1B) and that the device has a length of 40 to 90 mm (Para. [0027]) and a circumference of 15 to 25 mm (Para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang with Tsukamoto to make the device have a length of 40 to 90 mm and a circumference of 15 to 25 mm as these are known dimensions for aerosol vaporization devices in the art. The length of the core overlaps with the claimed range and the circumference has range of values where the thickness and width of the core overlap with the claimed ranges, which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 25, Zhang teaches that the second space (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 21) has a length of more than half the device length and a width of half the device, but does not teach those dimensions.
In an analogous art, Tsukamoto teaches a similarly shaped vaporization device (Fig. 1B) and that the device has a length of 40 to 90 mm (Para. [0027]) and a circumference of 15 to 25 mm (Para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang with Tsukamoto to make the device have a length of 40 to 90 mm and a circumference of 15 to 25 mm as these are known dimensions for aerosol vaporization devices in the art. The length of the second space overlaps with the claimed range and the circumference has range of values where the thickness and width of the second space overlap with the claimed ranges, which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 26, Zhang teaches that the second space (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 22) has a length of less than half the device length and a width of half the device, but does not teach those dimensions.
In an analogous art, Tsukamoto teaches a similarly shaped vaporization device (Fig. 1B) and that the device has a length of 40 to 90 mm (Para. [0027]) and a circumference of 15 to 25 mm (Para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang with Tsukamoto to make the device have a length of 40 to 90 mm and a circumference of 15 to 25 mm as these are known dimensions for aerosol vaporization devices in the art. The length of the third space overlaps with the claimed range and the circumference has range of values where the thickness and width of the third space overlap with the claimed ranges, which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 27, Zhang does not teach the thickness of the device.
In an analogous art, Tsukamoto teaches a similarly shaped vaporization device (Fig. 1B) and that the device has a circumference of 15 to 25 mm (Para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang with Tsukamoto to make the device have a circumference of 15 to 25 mm as this is a known dimension for aerosol vaporization devices in the art. The circumference has range of values where the thickness overlaps with the claimed range, which is a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 18, 20, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2020/063868).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang teaches that the length of the first space (Fig. 2, space with the battery 26) is the full length of the device and that the width of the first space is half the width of the device. Additionally, Zhang teaches that the length of the device is longer than the width of the device and that the thickness of the device is significantly smaller than either the length or the width (Fig. 1). Due to that, Zhang appears to illustrate the relationship between the different dimensions, but does not explicitly teach the length of those dimensions in millimeters. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine suitable lengths for the disclosed device such that the device is a handheld device since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims are a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would be within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill to determine workable ranges of lengths for the disclosed device of the prior art reference based on the illustrated proportions and that the device is intended to be a handheld device through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Regarding claim 20, Zhang teaches that the length of the first space (Fig. 2, space with the battery 26) is the full length of the device and that the width of the first space is half the width of the device. Additionally, Zhang teaches that the length of the device is longer than the width of the device and that the thickness of the device is significantly smaller than either the length or the width (Fig. 1). Due to that, Zhang appears to illustrate the relationship between the different dimensions, but does not explicitly teach the length of those dimensions in millimeters. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine suitable lengths for the disclosed device such that the device is a handheld device since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims are a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would be within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill to determine workable ranges of lengths for the disclosed device of the prior art reference based on the illustrated proportions and that the device is intended to be a handheld device through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Regarding claim 25, Zhang teaches that the length of the second space (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 21) is more than half the length of the device and that the width of the second space is half the width of the device. Additionally, Zhang teaches that the length of the device is longer than the width of the device and that the thickness of the device is significantly smaller than either the length or the width (Fig. 1). Due to that, Zhang appears to illustrate the relationship between the different dimensions, but does not explicitly teach the length of those dimensions in millimeters. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine suitable lengths for the disclosed device such that the device is a handheld device since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims are a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would be within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill to determine workable ranges of lengths for the disclosed device of the prior art reference based on the illustrated proportions and that the device is intended to be a handheld device through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Regarding claim 26, Zhang teaches that the length of the third space (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 22) is less than half the length of the device and that the width of the second space is half the width of the device. Additionally, Zhang teaches that the length of the device is longer than the width of the device and that the thickness of the device is significantly smaller than either the length or the width (Fig. 1). Due to that, Zhang appears to illustrate the relationship between the different dimensions, but does not explicitly teach the length of those dimensions in millimeters. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine suitable lengths for the disclosed device such that the device is a handheld device since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims are a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would be within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill to determine workable ranges of lengths for the disclosed device of the prior art reference based on the illustrated proportions and that the device is intended to be a handheld device through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Regarding claim 27, Zhang teaches that the length of the device is longer than the width of the device and that the thickness of the device is significantly smaller than either the length or the width (Fig. 1). Due to that, Zhang appears to illustrate the relationship between the different dimensions, but does not explicitly teach the length of those dimensions in millimeters. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine suitable lengths for the disclosed device such that the device is a handheld device since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims are a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would be within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill to determine workable ranges of lengths for the disclosed device of the prior art reference based on the illustrated proportions and that the device is intended to be a handheld device through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Regarding claim 28, Zhang does not teach a product box; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a product box to store the vapor generation device that has the same dimensions of the device.
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2020/063868) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0169145 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Zhang does not teach a wireless charging coil.
In an analogous art, Lee teaches an aerosol vaporization device (Fig. 13) that has a wireless charging coil (Fig. 13, Ref. Num. 24) accommodated in the first space.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang with Lee to add a wireless charging coil to the device. This modification will allow the transition of power to the power source without mutual contact (Lee; Para. [0208]).
Regarding claim 31, modified Zhang teaches that the wireless charging coil is a planar spiral coil (Lee, Fig. 13, Ref. Num. 24).
Regarding claim 32, modified Zhang teaches that the wireless charging coil is adjacent to a side of the device (Lee, Fig. 13, Ref. Num. 24).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2020/063868) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ferrie et al. (US 2022/0346452 A1).
Regarding claim 33, Zhang teaches a heater (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 23) extending in the third space that has a front end to be inserted into the product. However, Zhang does not teach a window to the heater.
In an analogous art, Ferrie teaches a vaporization device where the cap can be opened to allow a window to the heater to allow the user to clean the heater (Para. [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Zhang with Ferrie to add a window to the heater. This modification will allow the user to clean the heater through the window (Ferrie; Para. [0025]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J WEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-2664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:30pm.
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.
/N.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights