Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Novak et al. (US 2020/0113242 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Novak teaches an article for use as part of a non-combustible aerosol provision system (Fig. 20, Ref. Num. 500) comprising an outer housing component (Fig. 20, Ref. Num. 526) couple to a heater support (Fig. 20, Ref. Num. 516) where the outer housing component has at least one projection surface (See Fig. 20 below) shaped to bias a substantially planar aerosol generating component (heating member; Fig. 20, Ref. Num. 518) against a surface on the heater support when coupled to the outer housing component.
PNG
media_image1.png
272
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Novak teaches that the aerosol generating component (Fig. 20, Ref. Num. 518) is biased between the outer housing component (Fig. 20, Ref. Num. 526) and the heater support (Fig. 20, Ref. Num. 516).
Regarding claim 3, Novak teaches that the article comprises a storage area for storing aerosol forming material (Fig. 20, Ref. Num. 528).
Regarding claim 4, Novak teaches that the heater support (Fig. 20, Ref. Num. 516) is a liquid transport element (Para. [0191]) that conveys the aerosol generating component from the storage area to the aerosol generating component.
Regarding claim 5, Novak teaches that the outer housing component comprises two perimeter walls (The parts of the projection on the left and right side; Fig. 20 above) which extend away from an inwardly projecting surface of the outer housing component (Fig. 20, Ref. Num. 526).
Regarding claim 6, Novak teaches that the outer housing component comprises two perimeter walls (The parts of the projection on the left and right side; Fig. 20 above) that are opposing each other.
Regarding claim 7, Novak teaches that the perimeter walls contain a biasing surface (top of the perimeter walls) that are co-planar with the heater support (Fig. 20, Ref. Num. 518).
Regarding claim 10, Novak teaches that a plane formed between the biasing surface of the perimeter wall and the heater support is curved (Fig. 20, Ref. Num. 518; Para. [0192]).
Regarding claim 11, Novak teaches that a plane formed between the biasing surface and the heater support is convex (Fig. 20, Ref. Num. 518; Para. [0192]) when viewed from a perspective of the outer housing component.
Regarding claim 13, Novak teaches an aerosol provision system comprising the article of claim 1 and a device comprising a power source and a control unit (Para. [0114]).
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 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novak et al. (US 2020/0113242 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Atkins et al. (US 2020/0128874 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Novak teaches that the perimeter walls contact the heater support and aerosol generating component (See Fig. 20 above), but does not teach that the perimeter walls comprise a retention feature.
In an analogous art, Atkins teaches retention features to connect the housing to the heating elements (Para. [0563]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Novak with Atkins to form retention features on the perimeter walls to connect the outer housing component to the heating elements. This modification will help space the heating elements from the housing (Atkins; Para. [0563]).
Regarding claim 9, Novak teaches that modified Novak teaches that the perimeter walls contact the heater support and aerosol generating component (See Fig. 20 above) and that there are retention features to connect the perimeter walls to the heater support (Atkins; Para. [00563]), so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the retention feature on the perimeter walls to be aligned with a retention feature on the heater support.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novak et a. (US 2020/0113242 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lord et al. (US 2022/0071285 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Novak teaches that the plane formed between biasing surface of the perimeter wall and the heater support is curved (Fig. 20, Ref. Num. 518; Para. [0192]), but does not teach that it is concave relative to the outer housing component.
In an analogous art, Lord teaches an aerosol article where the heating component may be curved convex or concave (Para. [0468]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Novak to have the plane formed between biasing surface of the perimeter wall and the heater support be concave. This modification will allow good contact with the heating region (Lord; Para. [0468]).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novak et a. (US 2020/0113242 A1), and further in view of Wen et al. (US 2023/0309627 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Novak teaches an aerosol provision system where the device and the article are connected (Para. [0114]), but Novak does not say if they are separably connected. In an analogous art, Wen teaches a non-combustible aerosol provision system where the atomizer (article) and power supply assembly (device) may be attached integrally or separably connected (Para. [0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to attach the article and device separably depending on the demands as it is known in in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Novak teaches an aerosol provision system where the device and the article are connected (Para. [0114]), but Novak does not say if they are permanently connected. In an analogous art, Wen teaches a non-combustible aerosol provision system where the atomizer (article) and power supply assembly (device) may be attached integrally or separably connected (Para. [0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to attach the device and the article integrally depending on the demands as it is known in in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J WEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-2664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749