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 § 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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong (KR 2019-0051787 – of Record, with English Machine Translation) in view of Lee (KR 2021-0155689 – of Record, with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Seong teaches a vaporizer (Fig. 6) comprising a storage area (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 210) configured to store an aerosol generating material, a generator (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 270) configured to generate an aerosol from the aerosol generating material, and an accommodating unit (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 340). The accommodating unit comprises a chamber (Fig. 6, chamber where generator, 270, is located) configured to accommodate the generator and an inlet (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 342) configured to introduce air into the chamber. The accommodating unit comprises a plurality of walls (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 250, 260), but does not teach that at least one of those walls comprise an inclined surface.
In an analogous art, Lee teaches a vaporizer that has curved guides surfaces (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 122) to direct the air flow through the generator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Seong with Lee to add a curved guide surface to the bottom of the chamber on both ends. This modification will reduce the flow distance for the air and the aerosol (Lee; Para. [0034]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Seong teaches a first sidewall (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 260, right vertical wall) which includes the inlet (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 342) and the inclined surface which is curved (Lee; Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 122).
Regarding claim 3, modified Seong teaches a floor wall (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 260, bottom of chamber) which includes the inclined surface which is curved (Lee; Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 122).
Regarding claim 4, modified Seong teaches first sidewall (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 260, right vertical wall) which includes the inlet (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 342) and the inclined surface which is arranged where the floor wall and first sidewall meet (Lee; Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 122).
Regarding claim 5, modified Seong teaches that the inclined surface (Lee; Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 122) starts closer to the inlet (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 121) than the middle point of the chamber (Fig. 2, middle of coil, 23)).
Regarding claim 6, Seong teaches an outlet (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 336) configured to discharge the aerosol generated by the chamber.
Regarding claim 7, modified Seong teaches a second sidewall (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 260, left vertical wall) which includes the outlet (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 336) and the inclined surface which is curved (Lee; Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 122).
Regarding claim 9, Seong teaches that the accommodating unit further comprises a flow path (Fig. 6, air flows from inlet, 342, through chamber to outlet, 336) connected to the inlet (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 342) and configured to receive air and deliver air to the chamber.
Regarding claim 10, Seong teaches the flow path comprises a first flow path (See Recreated Fig. 6 below) extending in a direction in which the inlet is opened to the chamber and a second flow path (See Recreated Fig. 6 below) extending in a direction crossing a direction in which the first flow path extends and opened in a direction in which a top surface of the accommodating unit faces
PNG
media_image1.png
239
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Seong teaches the flow path further comprises a connecting flow path (See Recreated Fig. 6 above) connecting the first flow path and the second flow path to each other, and the connecting flow path comprises a flow path surface inclined in a straight line or in a curve with respect to a direction in which the inlet is opened to the chamber.
Regarding claim 12, Seong claims that the accommodating unit further comprises an accommodating groove (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 220) configured to support the generator (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 270) and receive the aerosol generating material from the storage (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 210).
Regarding claim 13, Seong claims that the storage comprises an inflow path (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 342) configured to deliver air from outside of the vaporizer to the accommodating unit.
Regarding claim 14, Seong teaches a sealing unit (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 250) arranged between the storage and the accommodating unit where the sealing unit comprises a guide surface (rightmost side of sealing unit adjacent to inlet path) configured to guide movement of air introduced into the chamber.
Regarding claim 15, Seong teaches an aerosol generating device (Fig. 1) comprising the vaporizer of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection). The aerosol generating device also comprises a main body (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 100) comprising an accommodating space (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 122) configured to accommodate an aerosol generating article and connected to the vaporizer, a heater configured to heat the aerosol generating article accommodated in the main body (Para. [0033]), a battery configured to supply power to the generator and the heater (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 112), and a controller configured to control power supplied to the generator and the heater (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 114, 115).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong (KR 2019-0051787) and Lee (KR 2021-0155689) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Zuber et al. (US 2024/0351059 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Seong teaches that the plurality of walls comprise a floor wall (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 260, bottom of chamber) and that the height of the center of the inlet (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 342) is higher than the center of the outlet (Fig. 6, Ref. Num. 336). That means the height of the inlet is more than 1 times greater than the height of the outlet, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.75 to 1.5 times which is a prima facie case of obviousness. However, modified Seong does not teach the diameter of the inlet and the outlet.
In an analogous art, Zuber teaches a vaporizer where the inlet passages have a larger diameter than the outlet passages (Para. [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the modified Seong with Zuber to have the diameter of the inlet be greater than the diameter of the outlet. This modification will increase the atomization rate of the aerosol-forming substrate (Zuber; Para. [0038]).
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
Prosecution Insights