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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/30/2023 and 10/18/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 10/18/2023 is acknowledged and has been approved for entry by the examiner.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Figures: The examiner provides illustrations from the prior art with additional annotations as needed to facilitate discussion of the claim elements. Moreover, it is held that guidance as provided by the figures is sufficient to enable public possession of an inventive concept. That is, an enabling picture may be used to reject claims directed to an article to include: anticipating claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). And when the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2024/0049782 A1), in view of Bless et al. (US 2019/0000144 A1), in view of Xu (CN 110464055 B).
Regarding claims 1-2, Jung discloses an aerosol generating system – (construed as a flavor-compensated aerosol generating product). The system to include as best depicted in at least FIG. 2, a main body – (not depicted but is construed as a housing), a battery 11 – (construed as a power supply), a processor 12 - (construed as a control module), second heater 14 and cartridge 15, see also [0049] - (construed as an electronic atomization module) and a cigarette 2 – (construed as a heat-not-burn module). The battery, the processor and the second heater/cartridge are disposed inside the main body. The battery is communicated with the second heater/cartridge via the processor, see [0036]. One end of the main body is provided with an internal space, depicted throughout the FIGS – (construed as an accommodation cavity), one end of the cigarette is arranged in the internal space, depicted throughout the FIGS.
Jung does not explicitly disclose a first aerosol channel is arranged between the accommodation cavity and the housing, a hollow second aerosol channel is arranged inside the middle of the heat-not-burn module, one end of the first aerosol channel is communicated with the electronic atomization module, and the other end of the first aerosol channel is communicated with the second aerosol channel through a sealing element and is sealed from the outside.
Bless discloses a smoking article. The article is configured to have a cavity 522 – (construed as a first aerosol channel), arranged between a tubular passage 514 – (construed as an accommodation cavity) and a housing 520, a mouthpiece channel 512 – (construed as a hollow second aerosol channel) is arranged inside the middle of the cigarette, one end of the cavity 522/first aerosol channel is communicated with a heater 530, see also [0029] – (construed as an electronic atomization module), and the other end of the cavity 522/first aerosol channel is communicated with the mouthpiece channel 512/second aerosol channel. One of ordinary skill would appreciate and envision such a construction as Bless suggests the configuration contributes to the smoking sensation of holding a cigarette article much like a traditional type of smoking article, draw on one end of that article for inhalation of an aerosol produced by that article, and take puffs at selected intervals of time, see at least [0026].
Xu discloses an air heated non-combustible cigarette smoking device. The device is configured to have a base 2013 which is fastened in a sealing manner – (construed as a sealing element). The sealing manner being sufficient for directing air flow from an entrance point at 20131 through a first flow channel 8, into a second flow channel 9, into a third flow channel 10 via second air holes 1011 – (construed as an inner wall through hole inside the outer end of the accommodation cavity, wherein the base/sealing elements are respectively provided on both sides of the inner wall through hole 1011) and ultimately through to the user after being heated and flavored, see at least figure 2. That is, the fastened manner of the base seals the internal air channels from the outside. One of ordinary skill would appreciate and envision such a construction as Xu suggests the configuration contributes to avoiding waste of energy while reducing the shell temperature and recycling the process heat, see at least page 11 paragraph 3.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jung as claimed and taught by Bless and Xu to provide Jung’s aerosol generating device with the aforementioned benefits.
Regarding claim 5, modified Jung discloses the inner wall of the internal space/accommodation cavity is provided with a first heater 13 – (construed as heating element), and the first heater/heating element is coupled to the power supply through the control module, see at least Jung [0036].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record Jung does not teach or reasonably suggest forming the aerosol generating device to have the claimed structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 5712705545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749