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 27 and 29-46 are currently pending and are subject to this office action. Claim 37 is amended. Claims 1-26 and 28 are canceled. This office action is in response to Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed 07/21/2026.
Response to Amendments
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 07/21/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
In response to Applicant’s amendments filed 07/21/2026, the Examiner withdraws the objection to claim 37 for minor informalities.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 8-9, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 27 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 27 to include a limitation of now canceled claim 28, “wherein a first channel, a second channel, and a curved channel portion are collectively defined by an upper surface of the upper wall of the housing and a lower surface of the mouthpiece, the first channel disposed parallel to the second channel and fluidically coupled via the curved channel portion”. However, upon further consideration, a modified ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Atkins (US 20200275696 A1) similarly as previously presented over now canceled claim 28.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 9-11, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 27 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Atkins does not disclose the claimed arrangement and the modification relies on hindsight. The Applicant further argues that the claimed arrangement has a particular benefit.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As acknowledged in the prior rejection, Atkins was not relied upon as expressly illustrating the entire claimed arrangement in a single embodiment. However, an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 does not require that the prior art expressly disclose the claimed invention in the precise arrangement recited in the claim. Rather, an obviousness rejection depends on whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2141).
Atkins teaches that the collector may include one or more channels configured to control fluid flow and specifically teaches that alternate embodiments may include additional channels [0222]. Additionally, Atkins teaches that the overflow channel, formed by the collector, may spiral, taper, and/or slope toward the air exchange port [0223] and that its curved spiral channel configuration may include additional channels and other flow control structures [0243]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrange the additional channels mentioned by Atkins so that they follow the existing channel route already in a parallel manner and fluidically opened through the curve, providing a predictable use of Atkins' teachings regarding additional channels and curved or spiral channels.
Furthermore, claim 27 does not recite that particles of any particular size are retained, deposited, filtered, or prevented from exiting the mouthpiece. A recitation concerning the manner in which an apparatus is intended to be employed does not distinguish the apparatus from the art where the prior art teaches the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP 2114(II)). While the Applicant may assert that the claimed structure provides an additional particle retention benefit, the benefit does not add an additional structural limitation to claim 27.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 11-12, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant argues that the specification gives explanation regarding the location of the gap relative to the mouthpiece.
The Examiner agrees. In view of the context provided by the specification, including paragraph [210], one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand the “edge of the sidewall of the housing of the cartridge assembly that is proximate to the mouthpiece” as identifying the sidewall edge associated with the mouthpiece, rather than an opposite or distal edge of the housing. Thus, the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection over claim 30 is withdrawn.
The following are modified rejections based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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.
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 27, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 42, 45, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins (US 20200275696 A1, as cited by IDS dated 02/12/2025).
PNG
media_image1.png
481
380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
481
380
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
341
496
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 27, Atkins, directed to a vaporizer device and cartridge, teaches (i) a vaporizer [0174], meeting the claim limitation of a pen assembly. (ii) The vaporizer receives a replaceable cartridge (Fig. 2B: #1320, [0157]). (iii) The cartridge (Fig. 2B: #1320) comprises a mouthpiece area (Fig. 2B: #1330) with an opening (Fig. 2B: “O”, [0200]). (iv) The cartridge may have a housing surrounding the cartridge [0221], with an upper wall (Fig. 2B: “U”) and a sidewall (Fig. 2B: “S”). (v) The cartridge further comprises an atomizer (Fig. 2B: “H”), meeting the claim limitation of a heating subassembly, comprising a heating element (Fig. 2B: #1350) and wicking element (Fig. 2B: #1362, [0178]).
(vi) The upper wall (Fig. 2B: "U"), sidewall (Fig. 2B: "S"), and atomizer (Fig. 2B: “H”) create a space defining a reservoir (Fig. 2B: #1340). (vii) The sidewall (Fig. 2B: "S") and the atomizer (Fig. 2B: “H”) define an air passage (Fig. 2B: "A") between the inlet (Fig. 2B: "IN") of the device and along the bottom of the heating element (Fig. 2B: #1350) and wicking element (Fig. 2B: #1362), meeting the claim limitation of a first flow path. (viii) The sidewall (Fig. 2B: "S") further defines an airflow passageway (Fig. 2B: #1338), with flow moving away from the atomizer (Fig. 2B: “H”) towards the opening (Fig. 2B: “O”), meeting the claim limitation of a second flow path.
(ix) Atkins teaches a collector (Fig. 2B: #1313) that may comprise several channels [0222], each channel being connected by a curved channel portion (Fig. 2B: "C"). The collector (Fig. 2B: #1313) is defined by an upper part of the upper wall (Fig. 2B: "U") and a lower part of the mouthpiece (Fig. 2B: #1330). Additionally, Atkins teaches that an overflow channel, formed by the collector (Fig. 2B: #1313) may spiral, taper, and/or slope towards an air exchange port [0223] and that its curved spiral channel configuration may include additional channels and other flow control structures [0243].
(x) Atkins does not explicitly teach wherein a first channel, a second channel, and a curved channel portion are defined by a lower surface of the mouthpiece and wherein the first channel is disposed parallel to the second channel and fluidically coupled via the curved channel portion. However, the mouthpiece can be shaped in the form of a sleeve fully covering the cartridge (Fig. 7: #1320, [0284]). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if the mouthpiece covered the cartridge from a top to bottom end, the collector (Fig. 2B: #1313) would also be defined between a top and bottom part of the mouthpiece sleeve.
(xi) Further one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that since the goal of the overflow channel is to lead towards the atomizer (Fig. 2B: “H”), additional channels within the overflow channel (Fig. 2B: #1104) would follow the already existing route of the collector (Fig. 2B: #1313) arranged in parallel, wherein the first channel would be parallel to the second channel and in fluid communication through the curved channel portion (Fig. 2B: "C", [0222]).
PNG
media_image4.png
300
409
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
481
380
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 30, Atkins teaches wherein a recessed area, in the form of a gap [0298] may be formed between the sidewall (Fig. 2B: “S”) of the cartridge housing and the vaporizer body (Fig. 1: #110, [0013]), adjacent to the mouthpiece (Fig. 2B: #1330). One or more air inlets may be disposed in the recessed area [0014].
PNG
media_image4.png
300
409
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
341
496
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 32, Atkins teaches wherein (i) the vaporizer (Fig. 1: #100) comprises a vaporizer body (Fig. 1: #110, [0174]). (ii) A gap may be formed between the cartridge housing and the vaporizer body (Fig. 1: #110) to allow air to enter through an air inlet in the gap [0298].
Atkins does not explicitly teach where the mouthpiece includes a plurality of protrusions, each protrusion engaging with the pen assembly housing. However, the cartridge (Fig. 1: #1320) can comprise male connectors that connect with female connectors of the vaporizer body [0128] and the mouthpiece can be shaped in the form of a sleeve fully covering the cartridge (Fig. 7: #1320, [0284]). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the connectors to the mouthpiece, since the mouthpiece would also form an outer interface with the vaporizer body (Fig. 1: #110), ensuring secure coupling of the cartridge and vaporizer body [0217].
PNG
media_image6.png
471
432
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 33, Atkins teaches (i) a cartridge housing that extends below an open top of a receptacle in the vaporizer device [0011]. A flange may be disposed around the upper perimeter of the cartridge structure, extending over a rim of the cartridge receptacle (Fig. 48B: #118, [0031]).
(ii) Figure 48B shows wherein the cartridge (Fig. 48B: #1320) is received within the receptacle (Fig. 48B: #118) of the vaporizer body (Fig. 48B: #110). Atkins does not explicitly disclose the flange engaging with the vaporizer body when the cartridge is coupled to the vaporizer body. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the receptacle (Fig. 48B: #118) is part of the vaporizer body (Fig. 48B: #110) and engagement of the flange with the receptacle rim would also cause engagement with the vaporizer body housing when the cartridge assembly is coupled to the vaporizer body.
With regard to Claim 34, Atkins teaches wherein a recessed area, in the form of a gap [0298] may be formed between the sidewall (Fig. 2B: “S”) of the cartridge housing and the vaporizer body (Fig. 1: #110, [0013]), adjacent to the mouthpiece (Fig. 2B: #1330). One or more air inlets may be disposed in the recessed area [0014].
PNG
media_image2.png
481
380
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
481
380
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
313
175
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 35, Atkins teaches (i) wherein the air passage (Fig. 2B: "A") includes a first flow path portion (Fig. 2B: "A1") within the cartridge housing and a first flow path portion (Fig. 2B: “H1”) of the atomizer area [0178]. The first flow path portion of the housing (Fig. 2B: "A1") extends between the inlet (Fig. 2B: "IN") and the first flow path portion of the atomizer (Fig. 2B: "H1).
(ii) The airflow passageway (Fig. 2B: #1338) includes a second flow path portion (Fig. 2B: "B1”) within the cartridge housing and a second flow path portion of the atomizer (Fig. 2: "H2"). The second flow path portion of the housing (Fig. 2B: "B1") extends between the second flow path portion of the atomizer (Fig. 2B: "H2") and a space defined between an upper surface of the upper wall (Fig. 2B: "U") of the housing a lower surface (Fig. 2B: "L") of the mouthpiece.
(iii) A central tunnel (Fig. 5D: "1100"), meeting the claim limitation of a third flow path, comprises a passage defined by an upper part of the atomizer (Fig. 5D: "H3") and a third flow path portion of the housing (Fig. 5D: "C1"). The third flow path portion of the housing (Fig. 5D: "C1") is disposed between the passage defined by the atomizer (Fig. 2B: "P") and a space defined between an upper surface of the upper wall (Fig. 2B: "U") of the housing at the lower surface (Fig. 2B: "L).
PNG
media_image2.png
481
380
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
481
380
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 36, Atkins teaches wherein (i) the first flow path portion of the atomizer area (Fig. 2B: “H1”) extends from the first flow path portion of the housing (Fig. 2B: "A1”) through the wicking element (Fig. 2B: #1362, [0199]) that is part of the atomizer [0178]. (ii) The airflow passageway (Fig. 2B: #1338) extends from the wicking element (Fig. 2B: #1362) towards the second flow path portion of the housing (Fig. 2B: “B1”, [0200]).
PNG
media_image2.png
481
380
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
481
380
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 38, Atkins teaches wherein (i) the sidewall (Fig. 2B: "S") further defines the airflow passageway (Fig. 2B: #1338), from a bottom portion of the atomizer (Fig. 2B: “A”), towards the mouthpiece opening (Fig. 2B: “O”), without overlapping with the central tunnel (Fig. 5D: #1100, [0226]).
PNG
media_image9.png
481
380
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
481
380
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
313
175
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 42, Atkins teaches (i) wherein a space between the upper surface of the upper wall (Fig. 2B: "U") and the lower surface of the mouthpiece (Fig. 2B: "L") includes the collector (Fig. 2B: #1313) comprising the overflow channel (Fig. 2B: #1104). Liquid moves through the overflow channel (Fig. 2B: #1104) to the heating element (Fig. 2B: #1350) and travels to the second flow path portion of the housing (Fig. 2b: “B1”) of the airflow passageway (Fig. 2B: #1338) towards an opening of the mouthpiece [0193 & 0304]).
(ii) Atkins does not explicitly teach a second channel fluidically coupling the third flow path portion defined by the housing to the mouthpiece opening. However, the collector (Fig. 2B: #1313) of the cartridge (Fig. 2B: #1320) may comprise several additional channels [0222]. Further, the collector (Fig. 2B: #1313) may include the central tunnel (Fig. 5D: #1100), comprising the third flow path portion of the housing (Fig. 5D: “C1”), which is configured to serve as a channel leading directly to the mouthpiece [0226]. Since the collector (Fig. 2B: #131) already defines flow paths in fluid communication with the third flow path portion of the housing (Fig. 5D: “C1”) of the central tunnel (Fig. 5D: #1100), any additional channel formed within the collector (Fig. 2B: #1313) would also be in fluid communication with the third flow path portion of the housing (Fig. 5D: “C1”) in the central tunnel (Fig. 5D: #1100) and the mouthpiece (Fig. 2B: #1330, [0226]).
With regard to Claim 45, Atkins teaches wherein the second flow path portion of the housing (Fig. 2B: “B1”) is coupled to the mouthpiece (Fig. 2B: #1330) opening, as seen by the arrows showing the flow of air in Figure 2B, between an upper surface of the upper wall (Fig. 2B: "U") and the lower surface (Fig. 2B: "L")
With regard to Claim 46, Atkins teaches wherein the vaporizer comprises a vaporizer body with one or more inlets [0392].
Claims 29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins (US 20200275696 A1, as cited by IDS dated 02/12/2025), as applied to claim 27, and further in view of Qiu (US 20190208825 A1, as cited in IDS dated 02/12/2025).
With regard to Claim 29, Atkins teaches air inlet holes provided on the vaporizer body [0296]. Atkins teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however Atkins is silent to:
Wherein the inlet is defined through the sidewall of the housing of the cartridge assembly
Qiu, directed to a cartridge and electronic cigarette, teaches an air inlet defined on a peripheral side wall of a cartridge to communicate with the air inflow passage [0039] and prevent leakage of cigarette liquid from the bottom during inhalation [0002].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the inlet of Atkins to be defined through the sidewall of the housing of the cartridge assembly because both Atkins and Qiu are directed to lowering the risk of leakage in aerosol generating devices. Qiu teaches an air inlet on a peripheral side wall of a cartridge to prevent leakage of cigarette liquid from the bottom during inhalation [0002] and this merely involves applying a known locational technique to a known cartridge ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 31, Atkins teaches wherein (i) the vaporizer comprises a vaporizer body [0174]. (ii) A recessed area comprising one or more air inlets in the form of a cavity and/or groove may be formed between the cartridge housing and the body of the vaporizer device, when the cartridge is coupled to the vaporizer body [0298].
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins (US 20200275696 A1, as cited by IDS dated 02/12/2025), as applied to claims 27 and 35, and further in view of Liu (US 20151076254 A1).
PNG
media_image9.png
481
380
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
481
380
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
313
175
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 37, Atkins teaches wherein (i) a space between the upper surface of the upper wall (Fig. 2B: "U") and the lower surface of the mouthpiece (Fig. 2B: "L") comprise a collector (Fig. 2B: #1313) that may comprise several channels [0222]. Each channel is connected by curved channel portions (Fig. 2B: "C") which are defined by an upper part of the upper wall (Fig. 2B: "U") and a lower part (Fig. 2B: “L”) of the mouthpiece (Fig. 2B: #1330), where the mouthpiece can be shaped in the form of a sleeve fully covering the cartridge (Fig. 7: #1320, [0284]).
(ii) Atkins does not explicitly teach a second channel, wherein the first channel is disposed parallel to the second channel and fluidically coupled via the curved channel portion. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that since the collector (Fig .2B: #13) may comprise multiple channels [0222] that are arranged to direct flow, any additional channels formed within the collector (Fig. 2B: #1313) would be in fluid communication with the already existing flow paths. Since the paths of the collector (Fig. 2B: #1313) are arranged in parallel, the added second channel would also be disposed in parallel and coupled through the curved channel portion (Fig. 2B: "C").
(iii) The vaporizer may include a pressure sensor, configured to determine when a user is inhaling and can be positioned in the airflow path or connected to the airflow path connecting an inlet for air to enter the device [0172]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the pressure sensor could be placed within the path formed by the central tunnel (Fig. 5D: #1100), allowing the mouthpiece (Fig. 2B: #1330) to be in communication with the sensor through the central tunnel (Fig. 5D: #1100). The central tunnel (Fig. 5D: #1100) includes a part of the collector (Fig. 2B: #1313) comprising the second channel, a portion of the passageway (Fig. 2B: “P”) meeting the heating (Fig. 2B: #1350) and wicking element (Fig. 2B: #1362) within the housing [0224], and towards the pressure sensor disposed within the central tunnel [0172]. Modified Atkins teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Atkins is silent to:
An opening defined in a draw sensor cover of the draw sensor
Liu, directed to an electronic hookah, teaches a vent cover comprising at least one vent hole (Pg. 20, Line 1), wherein a pressure sensor is embedded in the vent cover (Pg. 20, Line 8) to lower the risk of damage to the sensor by excessive pressure (Pg. 9, Lines 3-4).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the draw sensor area of modified Atkins to comprise an opening defined in a draw sensor cover of the draw sensor because both Atkins and Liu are directed to using sensors to help control air flow. Liu teaches a vent cover comprising a pressure sensor and vent hole to lower the risk of damage to the sensor by excessive pressure (Pg. 9, Lines 3-4) and this merely involves applying a known supporting element to a known sensor ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 39 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins (US 20200275696 A1, as cited by IDS dated 02/12/2025), as applied to claims 27 and 35, and further in view of Matsumoto (US 20170238605 A1).
PNG
media_image10.png
281
222
media_image10.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 39, Atkins teaches wherein the air passage (Fig. 2B: "A") is fluidically coupled to the mouthpiece opening (Fig. 2B: “O”) through the airflow passageway (Fig. 2B: #1338, [0221]). Modified Atkins teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Atkins is silent to:
Wherein a cross-sectional area along the first flow path portion and the second flow path increases in size from the inlet to the mouthpiece opening
PNG
media_image11.png
282
370
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Matsumoto, directed to non-burning type inhaler, teaches wherein a size of an upstream second flow path (Fig. 19: #30X) is larger than a size of a downstream first flow path (Fig. 19: #20X, Claim 3), where downstream is on the side of the mouthpiece [0078]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the flows paths of Atkins to where the second flow path portion has a greater cross section than the first to adjust air flow between paths [0084] and reduce aerosol retention in unnecessary spaces [0088].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first and second flow path portions of modified Atkins to wherein a cross-sectional area along the first flow path portion and the second flow path increases in size from the inlet to the mouthpiece opening because both Atkins and Matsumoto are directed to controlling air flow in aerosol generating devices. Matsumoto teaches a second flow path larger in size than a first air flow path to adjust air flow between paths [0084] and reduce aerosol retention in unnecessary spaces [0088] and this merely involves applying a known sizing technique to flow paths of a known aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 44, modified Atkins teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Atkins is silent to:
Wherein a maximum cross-sectional area of the second flow path portion of the housing is greater than a maximum cross-sectional area of the first flow path portion to the housing
PNG
media_image11.png
282
370
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Matsumoto, directed to non-burning type inhaler, teaches wherein a size of the second flow path (Fig. 19: #30X) is larger than a cross-section size of a first flow path (Fig. 19: #20X, Claim 3). One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to modify the flows paths of Atkins to where the second flow path portion has a greater cross section than the first to adjust air flow between paths [0084] and reduce aerosol retention in unnecessary spaces [0088].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first and second flow path portions of modified Atkins to wherein a maximum cross-sectional area of the second flow path portion of the housing is greater than a maximum cross-sectional area of the first flow path portion to the housing because both Atkins and Matsumoto are directed to controlling air flow in aerosol generating devices. Matsumoto teaches a second flow path with a larger cross section than a first air flow path to adjust air flow between paths [0084] and reduce aerosol retention in unnecessary spaces [0088] and this merely involves applying a known sizing technique to flow paths of a known aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins (US 20200275696 A1, as cited by IDS dated 02/12/2025), as applied to claim 27, and further in view of Leadley (US 20190083720 A1).
With regard to Claim 40, modified Atkins teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Atkins is silent to:
Wherein the cartridge assembly includes an elastomeric plug disposable within an opening to the reservoir defined in the upper all of the housing so as to seal the opening to the reservoir
PNG
media_image12.png
318
256
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
267
169
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Leadley, directed to a vapor provision apparatus, teaches a cartomizer comprising a cartomizer plug (Fig. 6B: #460) made from resilient deformable material in the upper part of the cartomizer (Fig. 1: #200) housing [0064]. The cartomizer plug (Fig. 6B: #460) prevents e-liquid from leaving the reservoir (Fig. 1: #270) and provides a good seal to retain the e-liquid in the reservoir (Fig. 1: #270, [0039]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cartridge assembly of modified Atkins to include an elastomeric plug disposable within an opening to the reservoir defined in the upper all of the housing so as to seal the opening to the reservoir because both Atkins and Leadley are directed to preventing leakage in aerosol generating devices. Leadley teaches a cartomizer plug to provide a good seal to retain the e-liquid in the reservoir [0039] and this merely involves applying a known sealing technique to a known cartridge ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 41 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins (US 20200275696 A1, as cited by IDS dated 02/12/2025), as applied to claims 27 and 35, and further in view of Force (US 20200275695 A1).
PNG
media_image7.png
481
380
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
313
175
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 41, Atkins teaches (i) wherein the third flow path portion of the housing (Fig. 5D: "C1") is located longitudinally, relative to the device and the passageway (Fig. 2B: "P") of the atomizer. (ii) The third flow path portion of the housing (Fig. 5D: "C1”) and the passageway (Fig. 2B: "P") connect through a third flow path portion (Fig. 5D: “H3”) defined by the wicking element (Fig. 2D: #1362, [0244]). Modified Atkins teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Atkins is silent to:
Wherein the third flow path defined by the housing and the passageway of the heating subassembly are disposed in parallel
Force, directed to an airflow system for a smoking system, teaches first and second channel portions that are arranged parallel to each other, where the second channel is arranged in a circumference of a heating element [0032]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the third flow path and passageway of Atkins with the parallel structure of Force to provide additional cooling of aerosol before it reaches a user [0032] and reduces the level of turbulence by improving flow behavior [0046].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the third flow path and passageway of modified Atkins to wherein the third flow path defined by the housing and the passageway of the heating subassembly are disposed in parallel because both Atkins and Force are directed to cooling vaporized material before it reaches a user. Force teaches first and second channel portions that are arranged parallel to each other to provide additional cooling of aerosol before it reaches a user [0032] and reduces the level of turbulence by improving flow behavior [0046] and this merely involves applying a known configuration to flow paths of a known aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
PNG
media_image2.png
481
380
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
481
380
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
313
175
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 43, Atkins teaches a first flow path portion of the housing (Fig. 2B: “A1”), a second flow path portion of the housing (Fig. 2B: “B1”), and a third flow path portion of the housing (Fig. 2B: “C1”). As shown, the second flow path portion of the housing (Fig. 2B: “B1”) and third flow path portion of the housing (Fig. 2B: “C1”) are arranged in parallel. Modified Atkins teaches all the limitations of the claims, however modified Atkins is silent to:
Wherein the first flow path portion of the housing, the second flow path portion of the housing, and the third flow path portion of the housing are disposed in parallel
Force, directed to an airflow system for a smoking system, teaches first and second channel portions that are arranged parallel to each other [0032]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the first, second, and third flow path portions of Atkins with the parallel structure of Force to provide additional cooling of aerosol before it reaches a user [0032] and reduces the level of turbulence by improving flow behavior [0046].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first, second, and third flow path portions of the housing of modified Atkins to be disposed in parallel because both Atkins and Force are directed to cooling vaporized material before it reaches a user. Force teaches first and second channel portions that are arranged parallel to each other to provide additional cooling of aerosol before it reaches a user [0032] and reduces the level of turbulence by improving flow behavior [0046] and this merely involves applying a known configuration to flow paths of a known aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
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 OLUWATOSIN O DIYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 am - 6 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.
/O.O.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights