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 17-32 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 17-30, in the reply filed on 04/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 31-32 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) and 1.85(p)(5) because of the following:
reference character “502” has been used to designate both a step (Fig. 5; [0209]) and a resistive heating element (Fig. 8; [0225]).
reference character “504” has been used to designate both a step (Fig. 5; [0209]) and a heat transfer element (Fig. 8; [0225]).
they do not include the reference sign “11” mentioned in the description (device housing 11; [0194]).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17-18, 21-25 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (WO 2020084761 A1; hereinafter referring to the English Translation provided) in view of Akao et al. (US 20210076745 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada teaches an aerosol-generating device (suction device 10; page 2, ¶ 2) for generating an aerosol from an aerosol-forming substrate (smoking article 110), the aerosol-generating device comprising:
a device housing defining a chamber (inner tube 42; page 5, ¶ 4) configured to receive the aerosol-forming substrate;
an airflow channel (defined by bottom cap 50; page 5, ¶ 1) extending from an air inlet (vent hole 15; page 5, ¶ 1) in the device housing and through, or in fluid communication with, the chamber; and
a puff sensor assembly (page 7, ¶ 2) comprising a heat transfer portion (sensor installation portion 62) and a temperature sensor (temperature sensor 60) in contact with the heat transfer element,
wherein a first portion (upstream portion 66 and downstream portion 64) of the airflow channel is at least partially defined by an airflow channel wall (wall of bottom cap 50; Figs. 5-6) and a second portion (portion corresponding to the sensor installation portion 62) of the airflow channel is at least partially defined by the heat transfer portion (page 7, ¶ 3; page 8, ¶ 2), the second portion of the airflow channel being adjacent to the first portion and outside of the chamber (Figs. 5-6).
Yamada does not explicitly teach a separate heat transfer element wherein at least one of thermal conductivity or thermal diffusivity of the heat transfer element is greater than a respective thermal conductivity or thermal diffusivity of the airflow channel wall.
Akao, directed to an aerosol-generating device (flavor generating device 100; [0049]) comprising a device housing (case 113, 123; [0050], [0064]) defining a chamber configured to receive an aerosol-forming substrate (load 121; [0050]), an airflow channel (flow path 122A; [0056]), and a temperature sensor (sensor 160; [0068]), teaches that a thermally conductive member disposed between the sensor and the element it measures to enhance conduction to the temperature sensor and more accurately determine the temperature ([0104-0107]). Akao teaches that the thermal conductivity of the thermally conductive member is greater than that of other nearby components ([0105-0106]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Yamada by adding the heat transfer element with greater thermal conductivity to the heat transfer portion of the airflow channel as taught by Akao because both Yamada and Akao are directed to aerosol generating devices comprising temperature sensors, Akao teaches that a more accurate temperature may be sensed by adding a heat transfer element between the sensor and the sensed portion, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, Yamada teaches a heater assembly (heating assembly 41; page 4, ¶s 4, 6) configured to heat the aerosol-forming substrate received in the chamber.
Regarding claim 21, Yamada teaches that the heater assembly comprises a heating element (heating member 43), and wherein, in use and between puffs, the heat transfer element is heated by the heating element (page 7, ¶ 2) to a temperature of at least 5, 10, 20, 40, or 80 degrees centigrade above ambient temperature (page 7, ¶ 5).
Regarding claim 22, Yamada teaches that a distance between the heat transfer element 62 and heating element 43 is less than 50 millimetres (d1; Fig. 5; page 7, ¶ 2).
Regarding claim 23, Yamada and Akao do not explicitly teach that a thickness of the heat transfer element is between 0.1 millimetres and 0.5 millimetres.
However, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, according to Fourier’s Law, the dimensions of the heat transfer element, including the thickness, would affect the rate of heat transfer through the element.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the heat transfer element, such as to 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm , because Fourier’s Law teaches that rate of heat transfer is a result effective variable, one with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize this variable to optimally transfer heat to the temperature sensor, and because it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 24, Yamada and Akao do not explicitly teach that a surface area of a portion of the heat transfer element partially defining the airflow path is at least 1, 2, 5, 10, or 20 millimetres squared.
However, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, according to Fourier’s Law, the dimensions of the heat transfer element, including the surface area, would affect the rate of heat transfer through the element.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the surface area of the heat transfer element, such as to at least 1, 2, 5, 10, or 20 millimetres squared, because Fourier’s Law teaches that rate of heat transfer is a result effective variable, one with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize this variable to optimally transfer heat to the temperature sensor, and because it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 25, Yamada does not explicitly teach that the heat transfer element is press-fit into the airflow channel wall.
However, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a press fit is a known way to attach the tubular heat transfer element of Akao with the tubular air channel of Yamada.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Yamada by making the heat transfer element be press fit with the airflow channel wall because the prior art is silent as to the connection mechanism between the two components and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable connection between two tubular shapes, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 28, Yamada teaches that the heat transfer portion is tubular (page 8, ¶ 2; it is expected that 62 spans around bottom cap 50 to be tubular in shape. Thus, the corresponding heat transfer element would also be tubular).
Regarding claim 29, modified Yamada teaches that a first surface of the heat transfer element at least partially defines the second portion of the airflow channel and the temperature sensor is in contact with a second surface of the heat transfer element, and wherein the first surface is different to the second surface (the modification of Yamada with Akao is ecpected to yield an air channel flow with a heat transfer element covering the heat transfer portion 62 of Yamada, see Yamada Fig. 6. This would yield the claimed structure.).
Regarding claim 30, Yamada teaches a heater assembly (heating assembly 41; page 4, ¶s 4, 6), wherein the second portion (portion corresponding to the sensor installation portion 62 and thus the heat transfer element) of the airflow channel is upstream of the heater assembly (Fig. 5).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada and Akao as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Atkins et al. (US 20200120993 A1).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Akao teaches that the thermally conductive member may comprise stainless steel, or another material with higher thermal conductivity ([0106]).
Akao does not explicitly teach that the heat transfer element has a thermal conductivity of between 100 Watts per metre-Kelvin and 300 Watts per metre-Kelvin, as required by claim 19 or a thermal diffusivity of greater than 50 millimetres squared per second, as required by claim 20.
Atkins, directed to an aerosol-generating device (vaporizer device 100; [0022]) comprising an airflow channel (airflow path; [0028]) and a temperature sensor (temperature sensing element 254; [0038]), teaches that a thermally conductive material to the temperature sensor may alternatively be aluminum ([0046]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Yamada by making the heat transfer element comprise aluminum as taught by Atkins because both Yamada and Atkins are directed to aerosol generating devices comprising heat transfer elements, Atkins teaches that aluminum is a known heat transfer material, and this involves substituting one alternative heat transfer element material for another to yield predictable results.
One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that aluminum would inherently comprise a thermal conductivity of between 100 Watts per metre-Kelvin and 300 Watts per metre-Kelvin, as required by claim 19.
One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that aluminum would inherently comprise a thermal diffusivity of greater than 50 millimetres squared per second, as required by claim 20.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada and Akao as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Jaeger et al. (US 20220232893 A1).
Regarding claims 26 and 27, modified Yamada does not teach that the airflow channel wall comprises an opening adjacent to the heat transfer element, as required by claim 26, or that the temperature sensor is received through the opening such that the temperature sensor is in contact with the heat transfer element, as required by claim 27.
Jaeger, directed to an aerosol-generating device (vaporizer 10; [0039]) comprising a temperature sensor (80; [0052]) configured to detect the temperature of a conductive wall (heat exchanger 54; [0045]), teaches that the wall may have an opening to receive the temperature sensor to improve thermal conduction to the sensor (Fig. 9, [0052]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Yamada by making an opening in the airflow channel wall to receive the temperature sensor as taught by Jaeger because both Yamada and Jaeger are directed to aerosol-generating devices comprising heat transfer elements and temperature sensors, Jaeger teaches that making an opening in the wall to receive a sensor improves thermal conduction to the sensor, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
One having ordinary skill in the art would expect that, as in Jaeger Fig. 9, the temperature sensor would be in contact with the heat transfer element through the opening formed in the airflow channel wall.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlotte Davison whose telephone number is (703)756-5484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights