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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4, 7-18 and 21-27 are pending.
Claims 15, 17, 18 and 21-27 have been withdrawn.
Claim 1 have been amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/27/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4/25/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 3/26/2026, 2/5/2026 and 1/20/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the amendment to claim 1, the instant amendment to claim 1 is taught by Bache (see rejection of claim 1, below).
Regarding the argument that Bache discloses that the assembly 149 establishes a seal with the outer housing 201 of the cartridge 180, not the outer structure 208. Therefore, the Applicant argues, to the extent that the Office asserts that it would have been obvious to modify Bache in view of Worm to include an adapter on an outer surface of the outer housing 201, such a modification fails to disclose "an outer housing, the outer housing including a wall extending in a longitudinal direction, the outer housing defining a plurality of outer housing perforations extending from an inner surface of the wall to an outer surface of the wall... the adapter contacting the outer surface of the wall" as recited in claim 1. Alternatively, the Applicant argues, to the extent that the Office asserts it would have been obvious to modify Bache in view of Worm to include an adapter on an outer surface of the outer structure 208, such a modification fails to disclose "the outer surface being an exterior surface of the flavor carrier such that the adapter is on an exterior surface of the flavor carrier" as recited in claim 1 as the adapter would be between the outer structure 208 and the outer housing 201.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Final Rejection dated 1/26/26 expressly states that "Bache does not expressly teach that the assembly (149) includes an adapter at a first end of the outer housing, the adapter surrounding the outer housing, the adapter contacting the outer surface of the wall, such that the adapter is on an exterior surface of the flavor carrier." The rejection relies on the combination of Bache and Worm to teach those limitations. The Applicant has not explained why the combination of Bache and Worm fail to teach those limitations. The Applicant states that the combination of Bache and Worm would teach an adapter would be between the outer structure 208 and the outer housing 201; however that reads on the instant claims ("an adapter at a first end of the outer housing, the adapter surrounding the outer housing, the adapter contacting the outer surface of the wall, the outer surface being an exterior surface of the flavor carrier such that the adapter is on an exterior surface of the flavor carrier").
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(s) 1-4, 7-10, 12-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180368474 (Bache hereinafter) in view of US 20130037041 (Worm hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Bache teaches an aerosol generating device (Fig. 1B) comprising: a flavor carrier (210, Fig. 2D) including,
an outer housing (208), the outer housing including a wall extending in a longitudinal direction, the outer housing defining a plurality of outer housing perforations (215) extending from an inner surface of the wall to an outer surface of the wall,
an inner housing (206) extending in the longitudinal direction and defining a plurality of inner housing perforations (213), the inner housing coaxial with the outer housing (Fig. 2D), the outer housing and the inner housing defining a flavor chamber therebetween (“inner annular space”, 214), the flavor chamber configured to contain a flavoring material (“pellets”, 218, [0236]).
Furthermore, Bache teaches a mouthpiece at a second end of the outer housing (202 in Bache).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bache teaches an assembly (149) that is configured to establish a seal with the outer housing (208) of the flavor carrier (180) such that the seal restricts a flow pathway of the generated vapor generated by vapor generator (144) to being directed through the flavor carrier (180), resulting in generated vapor being directed through the flavor carrier (180) (Figs. 1B and 2D, [0093]). Bache does not expressly teach that the assembly (149) includes an adapter at a first end of the outer housing, the adapter surrounding the outer housing, the adapter contacting the outer surface of the wall, such that the adapter is on an exterior surface of the flavor carrier.
Worm teaches an aerosol generating device (Fig. 1) comprising a flavor carrier wherein the flavor carrier has an outer housing (305, see annotated Fig. 4 below) and the adapter in Worm (302, see annotated Fig. 4 below) surrounds the outer housing (305), the adapter contacting the outer surface of the wall such that the adapter is on an exterior surface of the flavor carrier (see annotated Fig. 4 below). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included an adapter at the first end of the outer housing, as suggested by Worm, because it is beneficial for the wall of the flavor carrier to be reinforced within the body of the device (Worm, [0055]).
PNG
media_image2.png
296
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 3, modified Bache teaches the capsule includes a plant material, specifically tobacco ([0190]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Bache teaches that the assembly, which includes an adapter, defines a channel therein, the channel in fluid communication with an air passage defined by the inner housing (Bache, [0093]).
Regarding claims 7, 8 and 10, modified Bache does not expressly teach a particular outer diameter of the outer housing, outer diameter of the inner housing, or the thickness of the outer housing and the inner housing. However, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims [is] 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” (See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the outer diameter of the outer housing, outer diameter of the inner housing, and the thickness of the outer housing and the inner housing of modified Bache within the claimed range with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, modified Bache teaches that the flavoring material includes a flavor bead (“pellet”, 218, [0218]).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, modified Bache teaches that the plurality of outer housing perforations (215) are arranged in at least two columns (perforations on left and right side of the flavor housing) and that the plurality of inner housing perforations (213) are arranged in at least at least two columns (perforations on left and right side of the flavor housing) (Fig. 2D).
Regarding claim 14, modified Bache teaches a capsule (“pre-vapor formulation reservoir”, 146); and a heating element (148) configured to heat the capsule ([0079]). Modified Bache teaches that an electrode (154-3) is directly contacting the capsule (146) (Fig. 1B) such that the electrode is electrically connected to the capsule ([0112] and [0115]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Bache teaches that the plurality of outer housing perforations (215) is not aligned with the plurality of inner housing perforations (213) (Fig. 2D).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bache in view of Worm as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2019012151 (Florack hereinafter).
Regarding claim 11, modified Bache does not expressly state that the outer housing and inner housing are formed of one or more materials including a paper, a fabric, a metal, a polymer, a sub-combination thereof, or a combination thereof.
Florack teaches an aerosol-generating system comprising a cartridge assembly and an aerosol-generating device (abstract). Florack teaches that the cartridge assembly may comprise a cartridge holder, wherein at least a portion of the cartridge is positioned within the cartridge holder, and wherein at least a portion of the cartridge holder is positioned within the cartridge assembly outer housing (page 3, lines 5-7). Florack teaches that the cartridge, the cartridge assembly outer housing, and the cartridge holder may be formed from the same material, wherein the material is polymer or metal, specifically aluminum (page 9, lines 4-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have made the entire flavor carrier, or cartridge, of modified Bache, including the outer housing and inner housing of Bache, out of a polymer or aluminum, as taught by Florack, with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results because modified Bache and Florack both have cartridges for holding flavorants within aerosol-generating, smoking devices, wherein the cartridges modify the flavor of the aerosol before the aerosol is inhaled by the user, and polymer and aluminum as taught by Florack, would have been able to withstand the operational conditions of these components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cadieux (WO 2018122380) teaches an e-vaping cartridge 70 comprising housing 6 (outer cartridge housing) which extends along a majority of the longitudinal length of cartridge 70 (Page 7, lines 24-29; Figure 2). A central air passage 20 is defined by end tube 210 within cartridge 70. A wick 28 and heater 14 (together forming a vaporizer) are positioned to communicate with tube 210 (Page 7, line 30 - Page 8, line 5; Figure 2). Layers of gauze 10, 12 are positioned between an inner tube 4 (outer flavor carrier housing) and central tube 8 (inner flavor carrier housing) (wherein the space between inner tube 4 and central tube 8 is a flavor chamber) (Page 8, lines 6-26; Figure 2). The gauze 10, 12 absorb and retain pre-vapor formulation 22 (Page 8, lines 27-34). The pre- vapor formulation 22 may include tobacco-containing material including volatile tobacco flavor compounds as well as water, solvents, active ingredients, ethanol, plant extracts and natural or artificial flavors (Page 10, lines 13-20). The central tube 8 defines a hole 8a (inner flavor carrier housing perforation) passing through the tube, where the hole 8a accepts the wick 28 and heater 14 (Page 10, lines 29-30; Figure 2). One or more holes 4a (outer flavor carrier housing perforation) within inner tube 4 allow pre-vapor formulation 22 to be communicated between annulus area 6a and inner annulus area 4b (Page 8, line 35 - Page 9, line 8; Figure 2). Cadieux teaches a mouth-end insert 9 (mouthpiece) that fits around an end portion of the outer flavor carrier housing (4, Figure 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANA B KRINKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
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.
YANA B. KRINKER
Examiner
Art Unit 1755
/YANA B KRINKER/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights