DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to applicant’s election filed March 20, 2026. Claims 15-31 are pending and stand rejected.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 20, 2026. Upon further consideration, the requirement for election has been withdrawn. Claims 15-31 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference characters "10a" and "12a" have both been used to designate first side wall in the written description. However, reference character 12a is not in the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: beam guiding means in claims 17-18 and 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The written specification discloses that a beam guiding means is a means for directing the beam of electromagnetic radiation including a reflective surface, an inclined wall, broadly a wall, an IR reflective coating. Prior art including these disclosed means and their equivalents will read upon the limitation of “beam guiding means”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 15-18, 21-22, 26, 28-29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5934289 A (hereinafter WATKINS) as evidenced by “What Are Lasers?” (hereinafter IEEE).
Regarding claim 15, WATKINS discloses a photonic electronic smoking system with a cigarette (abstract). WATKINS discloses a heating chamber (Fig. 11, receptacle 27’, Col 11, lines 10-11) configured to receive an aerosol-forming substrate (Fig. 11, cigarette 23, Col. 11, line 7); and a heater assembly (Fig. 11, combination of photonic energy 112’ and central pipe 140, Col. 11, lines 16-20) configured to heat the aerosol-forming substrate (Col. 11, lines 34-48). WATKINS discloses wherein the heater assembly comprises a photonic device (Fig. 11, photonic energy 112’, Col. 11, lines 16-20. WATKINS discloses that the photonic source is configured to generate a beam of electromagnetic radiation, wherein the aerosol-generating device is configured to heat the aerosol-forming substrate by directing the beam of electromagnetic radiation onto the aerosol-forming substrate. WATKINS discloses that the single source of photonic energy 112’, preferably a laser diode whose output (beams), are directed along the central light pipe (Col. 11, lines 16-20). WATKINS discloses this as an object of the invention broadly Col. 2, Lines 55-65). Regarding the limitation “a beam of electromagnetic radiation”, IEEE evidences that lasers produce coherent, monochromatic, and highly directional electromagnetic radiation through the process of stimulated emission of radiation. Therefore, the laser diode of WATKINS generates a beam of electromagnetic radiation. WATKINS further discloses wherein the heating chamber is arranged between the photonic device and a mouth-end of the aerosol-generating device with respect to a longitudinal axis of the aerosol-generating device (as shown in Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 16, WATKINS discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 15 as discussed above. WATKINS further discloses wherein the heating chamber comprises a first side wall parallel to a longitudinal axis of the heating chamber, and a second side wall arranged perpendicular to the first side wall, wherein a surface of the first side wall is larger than a surface of the second side wall (See annotated Fig. 11 below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (a second side wall arranged perpendicular to the first side wall)][AltContent: textbox (a first side wall parallel to a longitudinal axis)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
657
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
WATKINS further discloses wherein the aerosol-generating device is further configured to heat the aerosol-forming substrate by directing the beam of electromagnetic radiation through at least a portion of the first side wall of the heating chamber and towards the aerosol-forming substrate. WATKINS discloses that the beams from the photonic energy source are directed through the light pipe (Col. 11, line 7) and the redirected to surfaces and preselected regions on the cigarette (Col. 12, lines 25-28).
Regarding claim 17, WATKINS discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 16 as discussed above. WATKINS further discloses a beam guiding means (Fig. 11, optical pointed tip 144, Col. 11, lines 21-33) for directing the beam of electromagnetic radiation towards the first side wall of the heating chamber.
Regarding claim 18, WATKINS discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 17 as discussed above. WATKINS further discloses wherein the beam guiding means comprises a reflective surface (Fig. 12, light transmissive surface 154, Col. 11, lines 34-40) arranged to deflect an incident beam of electromagnetic radiation towards the heating chamber (Col. 11, lines 34-48).
Regarding claim 21, WATKINS discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 17 as discussed above. WATKINS further discloses wherein the beam guiding means comprises an IR-reflecting material (Fig. 12, light transmissive surface 154, Col. 11, lines 34-40).
Regarding claim 22, WATKINS discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 16 as discussed above. WATKINS further discloses an airflow path extending through the heating chamber in a direction parallel to the first side wall of the heating chamber. As shown in Fig. 11, there are air flow channels 103 shown as the gaps base 93 up to the arrow exiting the cigarette.
Regarding claim 26, WATKINS discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 15 as discussed above. WATKINS further discloses the photonic device comprises an IR laser diode. WATKINS discloses that the single source of photonic energy 112’, preferably a laser diode whose output (beams), are directed along the central light pipe (Col. 11, lines 16-20). This reads upon the claim limitation of an IR laser diode.
Regarding claim 28, WATKINS discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 15 as discussed above. WATKINS further discloses at least a portion of a wall of the heating chamber comprises an IR-blocking material. WATKINS discloses that the housing 31 is formed from metallic or, more preferably, polymeric materials (Col. 5, lines 47-49). These are considered to be IR-blocking materials.
Regarding claim 29, WATKINS discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 28 as discussed above. WATKINS further discloses the IR-blocking material is located at a proximal end of the heating chamber with respect to the longitudinal axis of the aerosol-generating device. In at least Fig. 11, the outer portion 80 of the receptacle 27 is made from an IR blocking material at a proximal end of the heating chamber.
Regarding claim 31, WATKINS discloses a photonic electronic smoking system with a cigarette (abstract). WATKINS discloses an aerosol-generating system (Fig. 1, photonic electronic system 21, Col. 4, lines 51-53) , comprising the aerosol-generating device according to claim 15, and an aerosol-generating article (Fig. 11, cigarette 23, Col. 11, line 7) comprising the aerosol-forming substrate (Fig. 4A, tobacco plug 70, Col. 6, lines 60-64), wherein the aerosol-generating article is configured to be at least partly inserted into the heating chamber (Col. 6, lines 65-68). As shown in Fig. 11 at least a portion of the article, cigarette 23, is inserted into the heating chamber.
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 19 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATKINS as evidenced by IEEE.
Regarding claim 19, WATKINS discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 18 as discussed above. WATKINS further discloses wherein the reflective surface is arranged on an inclined wall of the aerosol-generating device (as shown in Figs. 11-12), wherein the inclined wall is inclined at an angle smaller than 90 degrees with respect to the longitudinal axis of the aerosol-generating device (Shown in Fig. 11-12).
WATKINS further teaches the inclined wall is arranged coaxially around the first side wall of the heating chamber.
WATKINS discloses additional embodiments of the aerosol generating device. One of the embodiments, shown in Fig. 16, there are additional walls in the forms of light pipes 155. These light pipes have coaxial inclined walls at the optical tips to direct and redirect radiation travelling axially (Col. 14, 55-64). A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously incline the walls coaxially around the heating chambers. Doing so would allow for aiming the light to heat (Col. 14, 55-64).
Regarding claim 30, WATKINS discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 15 as discussed above. WATKINS further teaches wherein one or both of an inner side of a wall of the heating chamber and an inner side of a wall of the aerosol-generating device comprises or is coated with an IR-reflecting material.
WATKINS discloses additional embodiments of the aerosol generating device. One of the embodiments, shown in Fig. 16, there are additional walls in the forms of light pipes 155. These light pipes have coaxial inclined walls at the optical tips to direct and redirect radiation travelling axially (Col. 14, 55-64). In another embodiment, there are opposing support arms locating photonic assemblies 96 on the inner side wall of the aerosol-generating device (Fig. 5, Col. 7, lines 17 and 46-52). In this embodiment, there are a plurality of photonic assemblies with a linear laser diode 102 and an associated lens element 104 (i.e. IR-reflecting material) (Col. 7, lines 58-65). This enables the controller to provide electric power to a selected one of the diodes (Col. 8, lines 1-10) to enhance the duration of the power cycle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide that the inner wall of the device comprises an IR-reflecting material. Doing so would allow for customization of the power cycle (Col. 8, lines 1-10).
Claims 20, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATKINS as evidenced by IEEE as applied to claims 16 and 19 above, and further in view of US 20160021930 A1 (hereinafter MINSKOFF).
Regarding claim 20, WATKINS discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 19 as discussed above. WATKINS does not disclose wherein the first side wall of the heating chamber comprises an IR-transparent material.
MINSKOFF teaches an electronic cigarette that generates a vapor that is inhaled by a user (abstract). MINSKOFF teaches the use materials that have functional properties relating to an intrinsic ability to be either IR reflective, IR emissive, or IR absorptive (¶126). MINSKOFF teaches that these material may be used to comprise the heating element support member, a sleeve or encasing or other inner surfaces of the vaporization chamber (¶126). MINSKOFF teaches that material selection can function to reduce thermal loss and increase thermal efficiency of the heating element (¶128).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WATKINS to provide wherein the first side wall of the heating chamber comprises an IR-transparent material as taught in MINSKOFF. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously design the sleeves and/or walls of a heating chamber to comprise materials having functional properties to be either IR reflective, IR emissive, or IR absorptive. A person of ordinary skill in the art would choose for the material to be IR-transparent because doing so would reduce thermal loss and increase thermal efficiency of the heating element (WATKINS ¶128). This is a rationale to combine supported by (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143, I., (D)).
Regarding claim 23, WATKINS discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 16 as discussed above. WATKINS does not disclose wherein at least a portion of the first side wall of the heating chamber comprises a window being substantially transparent for the beam of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the photonic device.
WATKINS teaches a shutter 46 (i.e. window) to prevent the escape of errant photonic beams from the laser heating fixture (Fig. 1, shutter 46, Col. 6, lines 1-12). WATKINS further teaches that the interior surfaces of the front housing portion 33 may be provided with a light absorbing coating. This is analogous to the purpose of the safety window 38 of the instant application.
MINSKOFF teaches an electronic cigarette that generates a vapor that is inhaled by a user (abstract). MINSKOFF teaches the use materials that have functional properties relating to an intrinsic ability to be either IR reflective, IR emissive, or IR absorptive (¶126). MINSKOFF teaches that these material may be used to comprise the heating element support member, a sleeve or encasing or other inner surfaces of the vaporization chamber (¶126). MINSKOFF teaches that material selection can function to reduce thermal loss and increase thermal efficiency of the heating element (¶128). As shown in Figs. 12-14, idealized IR materials are chosen to functionally isolate the heating element (¶131).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WATKINS to provide wherein at least a portion of the first side wall of the heating chamber comprises a window being substantially transparent for the beam of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the photonic device as taught in WATKINS and MINSKOFF. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously design the sleeves, walls, and windows of a heating chamber to comprise materials having functional properties to be either IR reflective, IR emissive, or IR absorptive. A person of ordinary skill in the art would choose for the material to be IR-transparent because doing so would reduce thermal loss and increase thermal efficiency of the heating element (WATKINS ¶128). This is a rationale to combine supported by (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143, I., (D)). Regarding the limitation of wherein at least a portion of the first side wall of the heating chamber comprises a window, the instant application shows that the first wall of the heating chamber can be either the parallel wall to the longitudinal axis (as shown in fig 2b) or the perpendicular wall (as shown in Fig. 3b). Since the safety window is shown in Fig. 3b, it is reasonable that the window is perpendicular to the device regardless of what wall is considered first and second. Further, courts have held that rearrangement of parts of the prior art is unpatentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04, IV., part C.
Regarding claim 24, modified WATKINS discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 23 as discussed above. WATKINS further discloses the window is located at a distal end of the heating chamber. As shown in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 25, modified WATKINS discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 23 as discussed above. WATKINS does not disclose wherein the window comprises one or more of fused silica, lithium fluoride, magnesium fluoride, calcium fluoride, barium fluoride, silicon, germanium, copper, zinc selenide, and sapphire.
MINSKOFF teaches an electronic cigarette that generates a vapor that is inhaled by a user (abstract). MINSKOFF teaches the use materials that have functional properties relating to an intrinsic ability to be either IR reflective, IR emissive, or IR absorptive (¶126). MINSKOFF teaches that these material may be used to comprise the heating element support member, a sleeve or encasing or other inner surfaces of the vaporization chamber (¶126). MINSKOFF discloses that exemplary IR materials include fused silica (¶129). MINSKOFF teaches that material selection can function to reduce thermal loss and increase thermal efficiency of the heating element (¶128).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WATKINS to provide wherein the window comprises one or more of fused silica, lithium fluoride, magnesium fluoride, calcium fluoride, barium fluoride, silicon, germanium, copper, zinc selenide, and sapphire as taught in MINSKOFF. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously design the sleeves and/or walls of a heating chamber to comprise specific materials having functional properties to be either IR reflective, IR emissive, or IR absorptive. A person of ordinary skill in the art would choose for the material to fused silica because doing so would reduce thermal loss and increase thermal efficiency of the heating element (WATKINS ¶128). This is a rationale to combine supported by (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143, I., (D)).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATKINS as evidenced by IEEE as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 20210251293 A1 (hereinafter SCHMIDLIN).
Regarding claim 27, WATKINS discloses the aerosol-generating device of claim 15 as discussed above. WATKINS does not disclose a cooling system configured to cool the photonic device, wherein the cooling system comprises an airflow path extending from an air inlet to the heating chamber past the photonic device.
SCHMIDLIN teaches an electronic cigarette with a laser and a light guide (abstract). SCHMIDLIN teaches that the vaporizing light source is a laser (¶22). This reads upon the photonic device. SCHMIDLIN teaches that the laser is connected to a heat sink to prevent it becoming to hot and in addition air inlets are directed past the laser to provide that air from the environment is used to cool the laser (¶65).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified WATKINS to a cooling system configured to cool the photonic device, wherein the cooling system comprises an airflow path extending from an air inlet to the heating chamber past the photonic device as taught in SCHMIDLIN. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cool the photonic laser of WATKINS with an airflow path. Doing so would prevent the laser from becoming too hot (SCHMIDLIN ¶65).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE L MOORE whose telephone number is (313)446-6537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9 am to 5 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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 571-270-3882. 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.
/STEPHANIE LYNN MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights