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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. KR 10-2022-0099424 and KR 10-2022-0179789 filed on 08/09/2022 and 12/20/2022 respectively.
Information Disclosure Statement
The (5) information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2023, 09/13/2024, 09/23/2024, 04/15/2025, and 05/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9: the phrase “a vaporizer” should read “the vaporizer” because it is presumed to have antecedent basis in line 1 of claim 1.
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 limitations are:
In claim 1:
The limitation “an aerosol generating device” in line 1
“device” is the generic placeholder.
“generating” is the functional language.
The limitation “a storage unit” in line 2
“unit” is the generic placeholder.
“storage” is the functional language.
The limitation “an accommodation portion” in line 9
“portion” is the generic placeholder.
“accommodation” is the functional language.
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.
A review of the specification shows that, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
The limitation “an aerosol generating device" in line 1 of claim 1 has been described to include the structures as set in claim 9.
Even though the “a storage unit" in line 2 of claim 1 is not explicitly described in the specification, it is best understood to mean storage tank/chamber configured to store aerosol generating material.
The limitation “an accommodation portion" in line 9 of claim 1 has been described in para. 0055 of the published specification as the accommodation portion 123; fig. 2B that may have an accommodation groove 123b for accommodating the wick 121.
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 § 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 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.
Claims 1-2, and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210127742) in view of Angell (US 20210378306)
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a vaporizer (vaporizer 130) for an aerosol generating device (aerosol-generating device 100) (abstract; figs. 6 and 1), the vaporizer (vaporizer 130) comprising:
a storage unit (liquid storage 1300; fig. 1) configured to store an aerosol generating material (liquid composition) (para. 0039); and
a heating chamber (para. 0040; annotated fig. 1) configured to heat the aerosol generating material,
wherein the heating chamber includes:
a wick (liquid delivery element 135; fig. 1) extending in a longitudinal direction and configured to absorb the aerosol generating material (liquid composition) (para. 0039);
a coil (heating element 136; fig. 1) wound around the wick and configured to heat the aerosol generating material absorbed into the wick (para. 0054); and
an accommodation portion (lower cap portion 134; fig. 1) configured to accommodate the wick (liquid delivery element 135) (para. 0050; fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
572
499
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim does not disclose the vaporizer, wherein a diameter of wire of the coil is 0.15 mm to 0.2 mm, the number of turns of the coil is 6 times to 9 times, and an ohmic loss in the coil is less than 8 watts (W).
However, Angell discloses the diameter of wire of the coil is 0.15 mm to 0.2 mm (0.188 mm) (para. 0073; fig. 2), and the number of turns of the coil is 6 times to 9 times (more than 7 complete turns of wire around the wick) (para. 0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diameter of the wire of the coil of Kim to be 0.15 mm to 0.2 mm as taught by Angell, because it is conventionally known to utilize the wire of the coil having the diameter as indicated to achieve desired heating output in the aerosol generating device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the number of turns of the coil around the wick to be 6 times to 9 times as taught by Angell, because it is conventionally known to wound the coil around wick as many as 6 to 9 turns to achieve desired heating output to sufficiently generate aerosol in the aerosol generating device according to desired application.
Regarding the limitation “an ohmic loss in the coil is less than 8 watts (W)”, Kim discloses heating element 136/coil has some degrees of ohmic loss because of its inherent properties of resistive heating element.
It have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the ohmic loss in the coil to be less than 8 watts, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation is to configure the heating coil to generate sufficient heat to heat the aerosol generating material to generate the aerosol within the aerosol generating device.
Regarding Claim 2, the modification does not disclose an electrical resistance of the coil is 1.1 ohm to 1.25 ohm.
However, Angell further discloses an electrical resistance of the coil (coil) is 1.1 ohm to 1.25 ohm (1.2 ohms) (para. 0091).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrical resistance of the coil of Kim to be 1.1 ohm to 1.25 ohm as taught by Angell, because it is conventionally known to utilize the coil having the electrical resistance between 1.1 ohm to 1.25 ohm to ensure the heating coil generates sufficient heat to heat the aerosol generating material to generate the aerosol within the aerosol generating device.
Regarding Claim 5, the modification does not disclose a winding interval of the coil wound around the wick is 0.46 mm to 0.55 mm.
However, Angell further discloses a winding interval of the coil (pitch of the coil) wound around the wick is 0.46 mm to 0.55 mm (more than around 0.5 mm) (para. 0077).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the winding interval of the coil of Kim wound around the wick to be 0.46 mm to 0.55 mm as taught by Angell, because it is conventionally known to utilize the coil having the winding interval of the coil wound around the wick as indicated to achieve desired heating output by the heating coil to generate sufficient aerosol according to desired application.
Regarding Claim 6, the modification does not disclose the coil is wound around the wick to have a length of coil of 3 mm to 3.8 mm in a longitudinal direction of the wick.
However, Angell further discloses the coil (coil) is wound around the wick (wick) to have a length of coil of 3 mm to 3.8 mm (more than around 3.5 mm) in a longitudinal direction of the wick (para. 0078-0079).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coil wound around the wick of Kim to have the length of coil of 3 mm to 3.8 mm in a longitudinal direction of the wick as taught by Angell, because it is conventionally known to utilize the coil wound around the wick to have the length as indicated to achieve desired heating output by the heating coil to generate sufficient aerosol according to desired application.
Regarding Claim 7, Kim does the wick (liquid delivery element 135) is formed of silica (silica) (para. 0019).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim discloses the accommodation portion (lower cap portion 134) includes an accommodation groove (coupling recess 1381; fig. 1) configured to accommodate the wick (liquid delivery element 135) (para. 0050).
The modification does not disclose the accommodation groove having a length of 10 mm to 13 mm and a width of 2.4 mm to 3.0 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to modify the accommodation groove to have the length of 10 mm to 13 mm and the width of 2.4 mm to 3.0 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation is to ensure the accommodation groove is large enough to support the wick having the suitable size according to desired application.
Regarding Claim 9, Kim discloses an aerosol generating device (aerosol generation device 100; fig. 6) comprising:
a vaporizer (vaporizer 130; fig. 6) (para. 0091);
a battery (battery 110) configured to supply power to the vaporizer (para. 0096); and
a controller (controller 120) configured to control the power supplied to the vaporizer from the battery (para. 0097).
PNG
media_image2.png
242
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Kim discloses the aerosol generating device (aerosol generation device 100; fig. 6), further comprising:
a housing (cigarette 200; fig. 6) including a space (space within the cigarette to accommodate an aerosol-generating material) in which an aerosol generating article (aerosol-generating material) is accommodated (para. 0118); and
a heater (heater 140) configured to heat the aerosol generating article accommodated in the housing (para. 0099).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Kim (US 20210127742) and Angell (US 20210378306) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Tasselli (US 20240008536)
Regarding Claim 3, the modification does not disclose the wick has a length of 8.3 mm to 9.7 mm.
However, Tasselli discloses the wick (wick) has a length of 8.3 mm to 9.7 mm (at least 5 mm) (para. 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wick of Kim to have the length of 8.3 mm to 9.7 mm as taught by Tasselli, because it is conventionally known to have the wick having the indicated length in the aerosol generating device to ensure the aerosol generating material is conveyed along the length of the wick from one end of the wick to the other end of the wick.
Regarding Claim 4, the modification does not disclose an uncompressed diameter of the wick is 2.4 mm to 2.6 mm, and a compression diameter of the wick is 1.85 mm to 2.15 mm.
However, Tasselli discloses an uncompressed diameter of the wick (wick) is 2.4 mm to 2.6 mm (0.5 mm to 10 mm) (para. 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wick of Kim to have the diameter of 2.4 mm to 2.6 mm as taught by Tasselli, because it is conventionally known to have the wick having the indicated diameter in aerosol generating device according to desired application.
Regarding the limitation “a compression diameter of the wick is 1.85 mm to 2.15 mm”, Tasselli discloses the wick having the diameter 0.5 mm to 10 mm i.e. 2.5 mm. Upon a small amount of force being applied to the wick, the wick is compressed to a slightly smaller diameter i.e. 2.0 mm, which is within the claimed range 1.85 mm to 2.15 mm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/BONITA KHLOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights