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 .
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.
(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 1-2, 4-8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (WO 2020/101213, English language equivalent US 11,889,862 relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an aerosol generating apparatus (abstract) having a cover (figure 6, reference numeral 70), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a case, that has a cigarette support portion (column 11, lines 26-36, figure 6, reference numeral 41), which is considered to define an accommodation space, that accommodates a cigarette (column 11, lines 10-15). The cigarette support portion also has a cigarette heater that is supplied with electricity (column 10, lines 11-24, figure 6, reference numeral 43), and is therefore considered to meet the claim limitations of both an electronic component and a heater. A cartridge is detachably coupled to a main body (column 9, lines 38-49, figure 6, reference numeral 50), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a cartridge. The cartridge stores a liquid material within it (column 9, lines 64-67, figure 6, reference numeral 51), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a storage for storing an aerosol generating material, and heats the liquid material using a liquid heater (column 10, lines 32-45, figure 6, reference numeral 53), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a vaporizer. Aerosol generated by the device is discharged through a ventilation hole that runs between the area of the cigarette support portion to the area of the cartridge (column 11, lines 46-53, figure 6, reference numeral 70a), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a vent.
Regarding claim 2, the cover of Kim is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first portion, the open area of the cigarette support portion of Kim is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second section, and the area into which the cartridge of Kim is coupled is considered to meet the claim limitation of a third section. The cover accommodates the cigarette heater since it covers the upper side and sides of the cigarette heater.
Regarding claim 4, the outer portion of the cigarette support portion is considered to meet the claim limitation of a partition. The ventilation hole extends across the top of the cigarette support portion, including its outer edge (figure 6).
Regarding claim 5, the upper horizontal wall of the cover of Kim are considered to meet the claim limitation of an upper wall extending in a first direction. The entire area defined by the cover, including the area where the cigarette heater is located, is considered to be an upper portion of the case since the cover is located above the main body (column 10, lines 1-10, figure 6, reference numeral 40). The ventilation hole is arranged in the cover inside of the area defined by the upper wall of the cover (figure 6).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses that the ventilation hole extends between the cover and cartridge (figure 6), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of the vent being arranged between. The inside of the side wall of the cover is considered to meet the claim limitation of separating.
Regarding claim 7, the vertical direction in which the cigarette of Kim extends is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second direction (figure 6).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses that some openings of the ventilation hole are vertically arranged (figure 6), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of open in a second direction.
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses that the cartridge is detachably coupled to a main body having a planar upper surface (column 9, lines 38-49, figure 6, reference numeral 50), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a lower wall.
Regarding claim 11, the middle section ventilation hole of Kim is considered to meet the claim limitation of an air discharge passage.
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses that the ventilation hole discharges aerosol to the outside (abstract), indicating that it forms a first airflow path.
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses that the ventilation hole both discharges aerosol and introduces outside air into the aerosol generating device (column 11, lines 46-53), indicating that the two flow paths intersect. The air then enters the cartridge through an air passage (column 12, lines 7-17, figure 6, reference numeral 50s), which is considered to define a second airflow path.
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses that the air passes through a chamber of the cartridge at which aerosol is generated (column 10, lines 32-45, figure 6, reference numeral 50p), which is considered to generate a primary aerosol. The aerosol then passes to the cigarette through an outlet (column 10, lines 57-60, figure 6, reference numeral 50e), where it then combines with a secondary aerosol generated by the cigarette (column 11, lines 16-25). The cigarette heater adds flavor to the aerosol from the cigarette (column 10, lines 11-24), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a secondary aerosol.
Regarding claim 15, the environment surrounding the cartridge is considered to meet the claim limitation of a common airflow path that fluidly connects all the other airflow components since all of the airflow passages of the device of Kim are at least indirectly connected to the outside (figure 6).
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 (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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2020/101213, English language equivalent US 11,889,862 relied upon) in view of Batista (WO 2021/037822).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim additionally discloses that the ventilation hole is open to the top of the support element (figure 6). Kim does not explicitly disclose a sealing portion.
Batista teaches an aerosol-generating device comprising a resilient sealing element that surrounds a downstream end of a cavity that receives an aerosol generating article (abstract). Batista additionally teaches that this sealing element centers the aerosol generating article in the cavity (page 2, lines 3-8) so that the article may be inserted in an inclined orientation (page 3, lines 12-19).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the support portion of Kim with the downstream sealing element of Batista. One would have been motivated to do so since Batista teaches a sealing element that allows an aerosol generating article to be inserted at an inclined orientation.
It is evident that, in the combination, the ventilation hole opening would face the sealing element, and that the sealing portion would separate the cover and the support portion, since the sealing element is located at the upper end of the support element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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:
Borkovec (EP 3085251) teaches an electronic cigarette [0001] having an optical measurement device arranged between an inlet port and an intake chamber of a smoking apparatus so that aerosol can pass by it [0015]. The optical measurement device is prone to being coated in condensate during intensive use, which is counteracted through use of a vacuum pump [0020]. However, Borkovec does not teach or suggest the optical sensor being cleared by a being located near a vent.
Debergh (US 2024/0365874) teaches a smoking device comprising an optical sensing system for reading indicia on a consumable article (abstract) that avoids producing a blurred or unclear image by having pinholes with rough borders [0078]. However, Debergh does not teach or suggest the optical sensing system being located near a vent to prevent fogging.
Wright (US 2025/0351883) teaches an aerosol generation device provided with a heating cavity that receives an aerosol generating substrate and is equipped with a sensor to sense the presence of the substrate (abstract). The sensor is a light source sensor using a laser [0145]. However, Wright does not teach or suggest the light source sensor being located near a vent to prevent fogging.
The prior art does not teach or suggest an aerosol generating device having an electronic component that is arranged on an upper surface of an upper wall that comprises an optical sensor comprising an optical element configured to transit light reflected from an aerosol generating article accommodated in a second section, and a sensing unit configured to sense the light, wherein a vent is open towards the optical sensor to prevent the optical element from fogging.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-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, 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755