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 Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites: “An aerosol generating device including a vaporizer comprising a vaporizer…”. It is understood by the Examiner that the claim should instead recite: “An aerosol generating device comprising: a vaporizer…”.
Claims 2-10 recite: “The aerosol generating device including a vaporizer of claim 1…”. If Applicant adopts the proposed correction, these claims should be amended to recite: “The aerosol generating device of claim 1, …”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 2020/0229501 A1) (cited on Applicant submitted IDS of 02/02/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Han discloses:
An aerosol generating device, ([0008]), comprising:
a vaporizer, configured to generate aerosol from an aerosol generating material, ([0020] a vaporizer configured to generate an aerosol from a liquid and transfer the generated liquid towards an cigarette);
a medium accommodating portion in which a medium, ([0008] disclosing a case into which a cigarette is inserted, the space into which the cigarette is inserted is considered the medium accommodating portion and the cigarette is considered the medium), through which the aerosol generated by the vaporizer passes is accommodated, ([00020], [0030] the vaporizer generates an aerosol that flows toward, and through the cigarette);
a path through which the aerosol generated by the vaporizer flows, ([0020], [0030]); and
a chamber located between the path and the medium accommodating portion, having an inner diameter greater than an inner diameter of the path, and configured to deliver the aerosol supplied from the path to the medium accommodating portion, (see annotated Fig 14 and 15 below, where the diameter of the chamber is considered to extend from the point indicated in a line to the other side of the chamber in a perpendicular direction to which the medium accommodation portion extends, and the diameter of the path is considered to extend from the point indicated in a line to the other side of the path in a perpendicular direction to which the path extends),
wherein a direction in which the path extends crosses a direction in which the medium accommodating portion extends, (see annotated Fig 14 and 15 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
428
343
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
586
453
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Han discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1. Han further discloses an embodiment where the chamber comprises a chamber inlet, (see annotated Fig 14 above, where the path wall comprises a 90 degree bend, the chamber inlet considered to be this opening), a chamber outlet through which the aerosol is delivered to the medium accommodation portion, (see annotated Fig 14 above, the chamber walls extend towards the medium, the chamber outlet considered to be the portion of the chamber where the direction in which the medium accommodation portion intersects with the cigarette), a chamber lower space (considered to be the portion of the chamber below the chamber inlet extending across the direction in which the medium accommodation portion extends), wherein the chamber inlet is located between the chamber outlet and the chamber lower space in the direction in which the accommodating portion extends (as depicted).
Regarding claim 6, Han discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1. Han further discloses an embodiment where a wall of the path forms part of the chamber inlet through which aerosol is received, (see annotated Fig 15 above depicting the inner surface of the chamber inlet is connected to an inner surface of the path in the direction in which the path extends).
Regarding claim 7, Han discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the chamber comprises a chamber outlet through which the aerosol is delivered to the medium accommodating portion, wherein an inner diameter of the chamber outlet is less than an inner diameter of the medium, ([0011] the cross section of the mainstream smoke passage (the chamber outlet) may be less than or equal to 70% if the cross section of the cigarette, also both annotated Figs 14 and 15 depict the medium accommodating portion has a larger diameter than the chamber outlet).
Regarding claim 10, Han discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1. Annotated Fig 14 depicts a medium insertion port (considered the opening through which the cigarette is inserted), and depicts the cigarette (considered the medium) as protruding outward through the medium insertion port after it is accommodated in the medium insertion portion.
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(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Han et al. (US 2020/0229501 A1) (cited on Applicant submitted IDS of 02/02/2026).
Regarding claim 2, Han discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the inner diameter of the chamber is equal to or greater than 70% of an inner diameter of the medium accommodating portion, ([0010]-[0011]). Han discloses that the cigarette is cylindrical, see Fig 3. Han, by disclosing the cross sectional areas of the chamber may be greater than 15% of the cross section of the cigarette and less than or equal to 70% of the cross-section of the cigarette, discloses a range of diameters that overlap the claimed range. Because the cigarettes accommodated by the device are cylindrical, it is reasonably suggested that the chamber outlet delivering vapor to the cigarette is also cylindrical. The cross-sectional area of a cylinder is known to be Area = pi * (D/2)^2. Thus, Han discloses the diameter of the chamber may be as large as 83.7% of the diameter of the medium accommodating portion, because a diameter of 83.7% will yield a cross sectional area that is 70% of the medium accommodating portion. Han also discloses the chamber may be as low as 15% of the medium accommodation portion. Thus, Han discloses the diameter of the chamber outlet may be as low as 38.7% of the diameter of the diameter of the medium accommodating portion, because a diameter of 38.7% will yield a cross sectional area that is 15% of the medium accommodation portion. All of the diameters disclosed by Han are considered obvious, because they are disclosed as workable, however Han discloses reasons for the lower and upper portions of the ranges. Han discloses that the lower limit for the area/diameter range is because below that value there is excessive inhale resistance and the aerosol is likely to condense and liquify in the chamber, reducing the satisfaction of the smoker and the ability of the device, ([0096]). Han discloses that the reason for the upper limit on the chamber diameter/area is to ensure that structures used to support the end of the cigarette are adequately supported in the device, such that the cigarette is stable, ([0097]).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been found it a value from the upper range of disclosed areas, to ensure that the vapor did not condense within the device to ensure it flowed through the cigarette, such as 70% which corresponds to 83.7% of the diameter, rendering the claimed range obvious.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2020/0229501 A1) (cited on Applicant submitted IDS of 02/02/2026) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Han et al. (US 2020/0337374 A1) (cited on Applicant submitted IDS of 12/02/2024) referred to as Han II.
Regarding claim 3, Han discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1. Han discloses a chamber inlet through which the aerosol is received from the path, see annotated Fig 14 and 15 above. Han discloses that certain geometries result in excessive pressure drop within the device and that liquification of the aerosol generated by the vaporizer before passing through the cigarette to the user is possible, ([0096]). Han does not disclose a chamber inclined surface formed opposite to the chamber inlet.
Han II teaches a similar aerosol generating device, ([0008]), and is thus within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Han II teaches a technique of using an inclined surface formed opposite to the chamber inlet, ([0011] Fig 11). Han II describes this technique prevents liquified aerosol from getting stuck in an internal air path and preventing air flow, ([0015]-[0016] Fig 11).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Han according to the teachings of Han II. Such modification is considered providing an inclined surface opposite the chamber inlet, such that condensed liquid from the aerosol would tend to flow back towards the vaporizer. Han is considered to disclose the base device upon which the claimed limitations can be seen as an improvement. Han II teaches a comparable device that has been improved with the inclined surface in the same way as the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known technique from Han II of providing an inclined surface in the same way to the base device Han, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, providing the disclosed advantage of Han II, which is preventing liquified aerosol from getting stuck in an internal air path and preventing air flow through the device.
Regarding claim 4, Han discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1. Han discloses a chamber inlet through which the aerosol is received from the path, see annotated Fig 14 and 15 above. Han discloses that certain geometries result in excessive pressure drop within the device and that liquification of the aerosol generated by the vaporizer before passing through the cigarette to the user is possible, ([0096]). Han does not disclose a chamber curved surface formed opposite to the chamber inlet.
Han II teaches a similar aerosol generating device, ([0008]), and is thus within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Han II teaches a technique of using a curved surface formed opposite to the chamber inlet, ([0012] Fig 12). Han II describes this technique prevents liquified aerosol from getting stuck in an internal air path and preventing air flow, [0016] Fig 12).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device of Han according to the teachings of Han II. Such modification is considered providing a curved surface opposite the chamber inlet, such that condensed liquid from the aerosol would tend to flow back towards the vaporizer. Han is considered to disclose the base device upon which the claimed limitations can be seen as an improvement. Han II teaches a comparable device that has been improved with the curved surface in the same way as the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known technique from Han II of providing a curved surface in the same way to the base device Han, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, providing the disclosed advantage of Han II, which is preventing liquified aerosol from getting stuck in an internal air path and preventing air flow through the device.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2020/0229501 A1) (cited on Applicant submitted IDS of 02/02/2026) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. (WO 2021/125561 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Han discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1. Han further discloses the chamber comprises a chamber outlet through which the aerosol is delivered to the medium accommodating portion, see annotated Fig 14-15 above). Han discloses an inner surface of the medium accommodating portion comprises a heater, ([0123] Fig 14-15 ref 13000). Han discloses that the cross sectional area of the chamber is limited because the cigarette requires support from below, ([0097]). Han does not disclose the medium accommodating portion comprises a protrusion protruding from an inner surface of the medium accommodating portion to support the medium.
Yoon teaches an aerosol generating device that accommodates an aerosol generating article, ([21]), and is thus considered within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Yoon teaches a heating element configured to heat an aerosol generating article, ([21]). Yoon teaches the heating element may have a cylindrical shape and be arranged to surround an accommodation space such that a first portion and second portion are continuously arranged in a longitudinal direction of the heating element and aerosol generating article, ([21]-[22]). Yoon teaches a technique of providing an inner surface of the heating element with a plurality of grooves or a plurality of protrusions, ([24]). Yoon teaches that a protrusion may physically maintain the aerosol generating article inside the accommodation space, ([101] Fig 7b ref 411).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the base device of Han according to the technique of Yoon, by incorporating a plurality of protrusions as taught by Yoon as a part of the heating element of Han, located within the medium accommodating portion, to physically maintain the aerosol generating article within the medium accommodating portion space. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would increase the upper available limit of the cross sectional area taught by Han, because the protrusions would hold the aerosol generating article without the need for the support structure disclosed by Han. This would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the cross sectional area of the chamber without concern that the aerosol generating article would slip into the device, enabling a greater selection of areas for the chamber, reasonably further decreasing the likelihood of an undesirable pressure drop between the chamber and the aerosol generating article, known to cause liquification of the aerosol generated by the vaporizer. Additionally, the protrusions would prevent unintended movement of the aerosol generating article out of the device, in the event that the device was inadvertently inverted, an advantage not provided for by the reduced cross sectional area of the chamber in the base device of Han, predictably securing the cigarette in the medium accommodating portion of Han, until its intentional removal by the user.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2020/0229501 A1) (cited on Applicant submitted IDS of 02/02/2026) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 2017/0238605 A1) (cited on Applicant submitted IDS of 12/04/2023).
Regarding claim 9, Han discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1. Han discloses that the chamber comprises a chamber outlet. Han discloses that the pressure drop of the device is affected by the ratio of the cross sectional area between the chamber and the accommodating area, and that the pressure drop may cause an undesirable liquification of the vaporized liquid before it travels through the aerosol generating article, ([0096]). Han does not disclose an expansion chamber located between the chamber and the medium accommodating portion.
Matsumoto teaches an aerosol generating device, ([0005]), and is thus considered to be within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Matsumoto teaches an atomizer configured to aerosol an aerosol source without burning, ([0005]), considered similar to the vaporizer of Han. Matsumoto teaches a flavor source provided from a second cartridge located in the downstream flow path from the first atomizer, ([0008]), where the second cartridge considered to be conceptually similar to a cigarette. Matsumoto teaches the technique of providing an aerosol flow adjustment chamber between the downstream end portion of the flow path from the vaporizer and the upstream end portion of the second cartridge (flavor source container), ([0008] see for example Fig 12 ref G). Matsumoto teaches that the aerosol flow adjustment chamber is configured to adjust the flow of aerosol supplied from the first flow path, configured to suppress the polarization of the flow of the aerosol of the aerosol in the second flow path, ([0052]), which allows the aerosol to pass through without polarizing in the second flow path, ([0053], the polarization of the aerosol source being understood as an electrostatic charge that causes the aerosol to stick to surfaces within the device, rather than pass through the second cartridge to a user for inhalation). Matsumoto teaches that the aerosol flow adjustment chamber should adjust the size of the flow path of the first aerosol to approximately that of the downstream flow path to suppress the polarization of the aerosol flow, ([0051]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further improved upon the base device of Han by including an aerosol adjustment chamber as taught by Matsumoto. Han discloses a base device that lacks the claimed feature of an expansion chamber between the chamber and the medium accommodating portion. Matsumoto teaches a comparable device that comprises an expansion chamber (the aerosol flow adjustment chamber) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique to the device of Han, by providing an aerosol flow adjustment chamber that increases the flow path cross sectional area from the size at the chamber outlet to the size at the medium accommodating portion, for the predictable result of suppressing the polarization of the aerosol flow from the vaporizer through the cigarette, for the known benefit of improving the smooth flow of aerosol from the vaporizer through the cigarette of Han to the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL E VAKILI whose telephone number is (571)272-5171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 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, Michael H. Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. 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.
/D.E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights