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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 6/3/2023 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-22, 24, 25, and 28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/3/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “substantially perpendicularly” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially perpendicularly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as perpendicularly.
Claim 10 is also indefinite for depending on an indefinite base in claim 9 and failing to cure the deficiencies of said claim.
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 1-5, 7-10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hepworth et al. (US 2020/0390149 A1 – of Record).
Regarding claim 1, Hepworth teaches an article for use in a non-combustible aerosol provision system (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 204) comprising an aerosol generating material (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 66; Para. [0032]), a heating element for heating the aerosol generating material (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 71), and an electrical connector arrangement for releasably connecting the heating element to an electrical power source (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 76, 78).
Regarding claim 2, Hepworth teaches that the heating element (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 71) is located in the aerosol generating material (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 66).
Regarding claim 3, Hepworth teaches that the electrical connector (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 73, 77) is in physical contact with the heating element (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 71).
Regarding claim 4, Hepworth teaches that the electrical connector (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 76, 78) protrudes form the external surface of the article.
Regarding claim 5, Hepworth teaches that the article comprises a mouth and aerosol generating end (Fig. 2, Right End) and the electrical connector (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 76, 78) protrudes from an upstream end of the aerosol generating material.
Regarding claim 7, Hepworth teaches that the electrical connector (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 76, 78) protrudes from an upstream end of the aerosol generating material and forms the upstream most end of the article (Fig. 2, Left End).
Regarding claim 8, Hepworth teaches that the electrical connector comprises first (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 76) and second (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 78) terminal portions form connecting to the first (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 72) and second (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 74) terminal portions of the electrical power source.
Regarding claim 9, Hepworth teaches that the electrical connector and heater form a pin inserted in the aerosol generating material with the heating element being a first pin (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 71) extending along a length of the aerosol generating material and the electrical connector is a second pin (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 76, 77, 78, 79) being connected to the first pin and extending perpendicularly.
Regarding claim 10, Hepworth teaches the second pin (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 76, 77, 78, 79) covers the external surface of the upstream most end of the aerosol generating article (Fig. 2, Left End) to form a cap at the upstream most end.
Regarding claim 14, Hepworth teaches that the electrical connector comprises a magnetic material to magnetically couple to an electromagnet forming part of the electrical power source (Para. [0033]).
Regarding claim 15, Hepworth teaches a mound end section downstream of the aerosol generating material (Para. [0023]).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepworth et al. (US 2020/0390149 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nelson (WO 2021/105650 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hepworth does not teach that the electrical connector is a bayonet or screw type connector.
In an analogous art, Nelson teaches an aerosol-generating device where the electrode (connector) (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 255) is a screw-type connector.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the connector of Hepworth with Nelson to be a screw-type connector. This modification will ensure good electrical contact (Nelson; Page 9, Lines 27-33 – Page 10, Lines 1-9).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hepworth et al. (US 2020/0390149 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Cantieri et al. (US 2023/0103600 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Hepworth does not teach the mouthpiece comprising a filter.
In an analogous art, Cantieri teaches a mouthpiece (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 14) comprising a filter segment (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hepworth with Cantieri to include a filter segment in the mouthpiece. This modification will allow the mouthpiece to filter the aerosol that is generated (Cantieri; Para. [0285]).
Regarding claim 16, Hepworth does not teach the mouthpiece comprising a cooling section comprising a hollow channel.
In an analogous art, Cantieri teaches a mouthpiece (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 14) comprising a colling section (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 24) that comprises a hollow tube.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hepworth with Cantieri to add a cooling section to the mouthpiece. This modification will have a favorable impact on the condensation and nucleation of the aerosol (Cantieri Para. [0180]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Hepworth teaches that the mouthpiece comprising a hollow tubular element (Cantieri; Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 50) comprising the downstream end of the article.
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