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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending and are subject to this office action. This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 6/29/26.
Claims 1, 3, and 6 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 6/29/26, pages 6-9) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited reference fails to disclose a shock absorber as claimed in amended Claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, 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. While the amendments to Claim 1 do provide some further specificity to the shape of the energy absorbing elements in the independent claim, the terms “base” and “contacting” are interpreted broadly and provide little structural limitation. Here, “base” may be any general surface of a component and “contact” merely requires the elements to be adjacent/touching. As discussed below in the amended rejection, the amended claim does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Second, while the Applicant states that the prior art does not limit or disclose any specific shape of the energy absorbing elements, it is noted that these features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Specifically, the Applicant’s amendment states that the “base” elements are in contact with other elements of the energy absorbing component, but the claim does not “limit or disclose any specific shape of the energy absorbing elements.” In fact, Applicant is encouraged to provide further structural limitations to the independent claim to distinguish the claimed energy absorber from the prior art. Thus, absent further evidence to the contrary, the prior art discloses the broadly interpreted shape of the energy absorbing elements, similarly as claimed.
The following rejections are maintained and modified where necessary based on Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Adair (WO 2022034021 A1 cited in IDS dated 12/7/23, with equivalent US 20240008533 A1 used for the purpose of citations).
Regarding Claim 1, Adair discloses an aerosol generating device (handheld aerosol generating device 1. [0019], Fig 1) comprising:
a housing (outer casing 10. [0019], Fig 1);
a heater configured to heat an aerosol generating article and disposed in a first portion of the housing (cartomizer 90 may comprise a heater. [0020], Fig 1);
a battery configured to supply electrical energy to the heater and disposed in a second portion of the housing (power supply device 22 is position in a compartment of the device distal to energy absorbing elements 24-1. [0025], Fig 2A);
a protective circuit board connected to the battery and disposed in the second portion of the housing such that a clearance space is formed between the protective circuit board and the second portion of the housing (printed circuit board 19 (circuitry 29) for device control, such as heating control, is connected to power supply device 22 and disposed in the compartment, such that a clearance space is formed therebetween. [0026]-[0029], [0032], Figs 2A, 2B, & 3); and
a shock absorber configured to absorb a shock to the protective circuit board and/or the battery and disposed in the clearance space (deformable and energy absorbing elements 24-1 and 24-2. [0027]-[0029], Figs 2A, 2B, & 2C),
wherein the shock absorber comprises: a first base disposed on an inner surface of the housing and contacting a portion of the protective circuit board (rear/second bulkhead 27-2 acts as a first base, is disposed inside the outer casing 20, and contacts a portion of circuit board 19. [0026]-[0027], Fig 2C); and
a second base disposed on the first base and contacting another portion of the protective circuit board (energy absorbing element 24-2 acts as a second base, is disposed on second bulkhead 27-2, and contacts another portion of circuit board 19. [0029], Fig 2C).
Regarding Claim 2, Adair discloses an aerosol generating device wherein the shock absorber is configured to reduce heat transferred from the heater to the protective circuit board and/or the battery (the energy absorbing elements may comprise a material such as a foamed polyurethane or foamed polyethylene which would further act as thermal insulators. [0037]).
Regarding Claim 3, Adair discloses an aerosol generating device wherein a width of the first base is greater than a width of the second base when viewed in a direction from the heater toward the battery (energy absorbing element 24-2 is depicted as a smaller component than second bulkhead 27-2. [0029], Fig 2C).
Regarding Claim 4, Adair discloses an aerosol generating device wherein the shock absorber comprises a plurality of pores (The deformable and energy absorbing element may comprise a foam. [0037], Figs 5B & 5C).
Regarding Claim 5, Adair discloses an aerosol generating device wherein a shape of one of the plurality of pores is different from a shape of another pore (The deformable and energy absorbing element may comprise a foamed polyurethane or polyethylene cellular material, such that the shape of the cellular pores may be irregular. [0037], Fig 5B).
Regarding Claim 6, Adair discloses an aerosol generating device wherein a shape of one of the plurality of pores is substantially same as a shape of another pore (The deformable and energy absorbing element may comprise an expanded or foamed form of high-density foam, such that the pores are generally round in shape. [0037], Fig 5C).
Regarding Claim 7, Adair discloses an aerosol generating device wherein the housing further comprises:
at least one first engagement portion disposed in the second portion (An internal wall is depicted, within which deformable and energy absorbing elements 24-1 and 24-2 and bulkheads 27-1 and 27-2 are disposed. [0027], Fig 2A), and
the shock absorber comprises a second engagement portion configured to engage with the first engagement portion (Seal 33 is attached to bulkhead 27-1 and element 24-1, and a second seal is depicted attached to bulkhead 27-2 and element 24-2, such that the seals press against the internal wall. [0027]-[0028], Figs 2A, 2B, & 2C).
Regarding Claim 8, Adair discloses an aerosol generating device wherein the second engagement portion comprises a groove (the seal of bulkhead 27-2 is depicted recessed on a groove in the outer surface of bulkhead 27-2. Fig 2C. Seal 33 comprises a series of grooves which engage with power supply 22 and element 24-1. [0027], Fig 2B).
Regarding Claim 12, Adair discloses an aerosol generating device wherein the shock absorber is disposed to occupy substantially an entirety of the clearance space (the deformable shock absorbing pads fill the clearance space on either side of power supply 22. [0027], Fig 2A).
Regarding Claim 13, Adair discloses an aerosol generating device wherein the housing comprises a wall configured to separate the first portion and the second portion, and the shock absorber is disposed to contact the wall (the distal end of the cartomizer is disposed adjacent to bulkhead 27-1 and element 24-1 such that the shock absorbing components are disposed in contact with the distal end wall of the cartomizer. [0027], Fig 2A).
Regarding Claim 14, Adair discloses an aerosol generating device wherein the shock absorber comprises an elastic material (the deformable and energy absorbing element may have viscoelastic properties. [0037]).
Regarding Claim 15, Adair discloses an aerosol generating device wherein the shock absorber is configured to have a first shape in which the shock absorber is not deformed and a second shape in which the shock absorber is deformed and compressed (“Parts a) show the respective deformable and energy absorbing element in a relaxed undeformed state, wherein b) shows the deformed state in which the element has absorbed energy.” [0036], Figs 5A – 5D).
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 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 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adair as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of Kang (US 20070148536 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Adair discloses wherein the power supply is connected to the shock absorbing element via a connector which extends to the circuit board through the absorbing element ([0029]) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second engagement portion comprises: a first groove extending in a first direction; and a second groove extending in a second direction intersecting with the first direction.
However, Kang teaches a battery and electrical component connection element wherein an engagement portion comprises:
a first groove extending in a first direction (grooves 130 and 131 protrude inward and are sloped such that they extend in a first direction. [0040], Fig 2); and
a second groove extending in a second direction intersecting with the first direction (grooves 132 and 133 protrude inward and are sloped such that they extend in a second direction, intersecting with the first direction. [0040], Fig 2).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the engagement portions of Adair with first and second grooves comprising portions extending in intersecting directions as taught by Kang because Adair and Kang are both directed to electrical device containment systems, Kang teaches the use of a series of grooves and protruding elements to create a locking mechanism to secure battery spacer elements together within an electrical device, and this merely involves applying a known electrical component connection element to a similar component in an electrical device to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 10, Adair discloses wherein the power supply is connected to the shock absorbing element via a connector which extends to the circuit board through the absorbing element ([0029]) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first engagement portion comprises a protruding rib.
However, Kang teaches a battery and electrical component connection element wherein an engagement portion comprises a protruding rib ("battery receiving parts 110 and 112 are formed coupling-type hooks 120, 121, 122, and 123 for coupling the spacer 100" [0039], Fig 1).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the engagement portions of Adair with protruding portions as taught by Kang because Adair and Kang are both directed to electrical device containment systems, Kang teaches the use of a series of grooves and protruding elements to create a locking mechanism to secure battery spacer elements together within an electrical device, and this merely involves applying a known electrical component connection element to a similar component in an electrical device to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 11, Adair discloses wherein the power supply is connected to the shock absorbing element via a connector which extends to the circuit board through the absorbing element ([0029]) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first engagement portion comprises: a first protruding rib extending in a first direction from the heater toward the battery; and a second protruding rib extending in a second direction intersecting with the first direction.
However, Kang teaches a battery and electrical component connection element wherein an engagement portion comprises:
a first protruding rib extending in a first direction from the heater toward the battery (coupling-type hooks 120 and 121 protrude outward and are sloped such that they extend in a first direction. [0039], Fig 1); and
a second protruding rib extending in a second direction intersecting with the first direction (coupling-type hooks 122 and 123 protrude outward and are sloped such that they extend in a second direction, intersecting with the first direction. [0039], Fig 1).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the engagement portions of Adair with first and second protruding elements comprising portions extending in intersecting directions as taught by Kang because Adair and Kang are both directed to electrical device containment systems, Kang teaches the use of a series of grooves and protruding elements to create a locking mechanism to secure battery spacer elements together within an electrical device, and this merely involves applying a known electrical component connection element to a similar component in an electrical device to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Buckman whose telephone number is (571)270-0888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-4:00.
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.
/JEFFREY A. BUCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights