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 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 29-30 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.
Claim 29 recites “the porous polymeric material layer is configured to seal pores of the surface of the porous wicking element on which the porous polymeric material layer is arranged, when the porous polymeric material layer melts, thereby preventing airflow through the surface of the porous wicking element”. It is unclear whether the claim requires that the aerosol generating device have the porous polymeric material layer be in the state that it seals the pores of the porous wicking element or if the porous polymeric material layer must simply be capable of sealing the pores of the surface. The examiner has taken the interpretation that the porous polymeric material layer need simply be capable of sealing the pores.
Claim 30 recites “the porous polymeric material layer is configured to seal pores of a whole surface of the porous wicking element, when the porous polymeric material layer melts, thereby preventing airflow through the porous wicking element”. It is unclear whether the claim requires that the aerosol generating device have the porous polymeric material layer be in the state that it seals the pores of the porous wicking element or if the porous polymeric material layer must simply be capable of sealing the pores of the surface. The examiner has taken the interpretation that the porous polymeric material layer need simply be capable of sealing the pores.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 16-20, 23, 26-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PELZ et al. (US 2020/0397052) with evidence by MATWEB (“Overview of materials for Polyimide”).
Pelz teaches an aerosol-generating device comprising a porous wicking element (36 in figure 15); and a porous polymeric material layer (35, para. 0086), wherein the porous polymeric material layer is arranged on a surface of the porous wicking element (see figure 15). Pelz teaches that the layer may be polyimide (para. 0086) wherein MatWeb teaches that polyimide has a melting point of 247-388°C which overlaps with the claimed range of between 200 °C and 300 °C.
Regarding claim 17, Pelz teaches the porous wicking element is configured as a porous ceramic wicking element (para. 0125).
Regarding claim 18, figure 15 shows the porous polymeric material layer (35) is provided as a coating on a surface of the porous wicking element (36).
Regarding claim 19, figure 15 shows the porous polymeric material layer (35) is provided on a proximal surface of the porous wicking element (36).
Regarding claim 20, figure 17 shows a mouthpiece (32), wherein the porous polymeric material layer is provided on the surface of the porous wicking element facing the mouthpiece.
Regarding claim 23, Pelz teaches that the layer may be polyimide (para. 0086) wherein MatWeb teaches that polyimide has a melting point of 247-388°C which overlaps with the claimed range of between 225 °C and 275 °C.
Regarding claim 26, Pelz teaches that the layer may be polyimide (para. 0086).
Regarding claim 27, figures 15 and 17 show an airflow channel, wherein the porous wicking element is arranged in the airflow channel such that air flows through the porous wicking element (see arrow in figure 15).
Regarding claim 28, Pelz teaches that the layer may be polyimide (para. 0086) wherein MatWeb teaches that polyimide has a melting point of 247-388°C which overlaps with the claimed range of between 225 °C and 275 °C; therefore, polyimides having a melting point of 247°C as taught by MatWeb would be configured to melt when a temperature of the porous polymeric material layer exceeds 275 °C.
Regarding claim 29, see the discussion of claim 28 above. Figure 15 shows that the porous polymeric material layer is configured to seal pores of the surface of the porous wicking element on which the porous polymeric material layer is arranged, when the porous polymeric material layer melts, thereby preventing airflow through the surface of the porous wicking element.
Regarding claim 30, see the discussion of claim 28 above. Figure 15 shows the porous polymeric material layer is configured to seal pores of a whole surface of the porous wicking element, when the porous polymeric material layer melts, thereby preventing airflow through the porous wicking element.
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.
Claim(s) 21-22, 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PELZ et al. (US 2020/0397052).
Pelz teaches an aerosol-generating device comprising a porous wicking element (36 in figure 15); and a porous polymeric material layer (35, para. 0086), wherein the porous polymeric material layer is arranged on a surface of the porous wicking element (see figure 15). Pelz teaches that the layer may be polyimide.
Regarding claim 21, Pelz teaches average pore size of the porous wicking element is smaller than the pore size of the heating element (para. 0131) therefore, it is expected that the porous wicking element would have a smaller porosity than the heating element. Since Pelz teaches that the heating element has a porosity of 10-50% (para. 0044) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the porous wicking element would have a porosity less than 10-50%, which overlaps with the claimed range of between 25% and 75%.
Regarding claim 22, as discussed above, since Pelz teaches that the heating element has a pore size of between 5 and 200 µm (para. 0044), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the porous wicking element would have a pore size of less than 5 and 200 µm, overlaps with the claimed range of between 40 µm and 80 µm on average.
Regarding claim 24, Pelz teaches average pore size of the porous polymeric material layer is smaller than the pore size of the heating element (para. 0130) therefore, it is expected that the porous polymeric material layer would have a smaller porosity than the heating element. Since Pelz teaches that the heating element has a porosity of 10-50% (para. 0044) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the porous polymeric material layer would have a porosity less than 10-50%, which overlaps with the claimed range of between 25% and 75%.
Regarding 25, as discussed above, since Pelz teaches that the heating element has a pore size of between 5 and 200 µm (para. 0044), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the porous polymeric material layer would have a pore size of less than 5 and 200 µm, overlaps with the claimed range of between 20 µm and 60 µm on average.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA SZEWCZYK whose telephone number is (571)270-5130. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10 am - 6 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/CYNTHIA SZEWCZYK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights