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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-4) in the reply filed on 6/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 6/29/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 1/16/2024, 4/19/2024, 2/28/2025, 5/19/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [106], “11” is first labeled as a first connection portion, and in each subsequent reference is referred to as a first coupling portion. The first instance in [106] should be amended to read “first coupling portion” so as to be consistent with the rest of the specification.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Kim (WO2021071185A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0304379A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a pouch (capsule “C” as in Figs. 4-6) comprising:
a liquid composition that generates an aerosol when heated (the core region “310” of the capsule C includes nicotine and an aerosol generating material [0081], and the composition may include one or more of propylene glycol, glycerin, nicotine, etc., wherein propylene glycol is a liquid [0085]),
a water-soluble film surrounding the liquid composition (the second shell “330” completely surrounds the core “310” which contains the composition [0092, Fig. 6]. The shell “330” is made from a water-soluble polymer [0083, 0087]).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the pouch wherein the water-soluble film comprises one or more water-soluble polymers from the listed group (the second shell “33” may include a variety of components for its water-soluble layer, such as polyvinyl alcohol, starches such as potato starch, and gelatin [0092]).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the pouch further comprising a support located inside the pouch to support a shape of the pouch (the first shell “320” [Fig. 6] is located outside of the composition and inside of the second shell “330”. The first shell 320 may be considered to be the "support" located inside of the pouch and to support a shape of the pouch. The first shell 320 ensures the mechanical strength of the capsule such that it is not crushed inadvertently by external force or heat [0087-0089], such that the first shell clearly provides structural support to the capsule).
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.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO2021071185A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0304379A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamauchi (US2020/0281261A1) or Park (KR20170024931A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kim does not explicitly disclose the water-soluble film comprising one or more additives from the listed group. However, it is well known in the art to situate capsules with such components, and Kim does not limit the components of its water-soluble film and suggests that other materials may be utilized [0092]. Yamauchi, for example, is tied to a smoking article which comprises a capsule member “23” located within it [Figs. 2-3]. The capsule includes a capsule shell “22” and a content liquid which is encapsulated in the shell [0023]. The capsule shell may include a variety of components, such as calcium chloride [0023]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the outer film of Kim so as to include a chemical such as calcium chloride as suggested by Yamauchi. One would have been motivated so as to ensure the capsule member is not weakened [0047]. And further, case law holds that the selection of a known material based on suitability for its intended use support prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co vs. Interchemical Corp., 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1045)". See MPEP 2144.07. As calcium chloride is a known material for the outer portions of a capsule in smoking articles, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize this chemical in the product of Kim as a selection of a known material suitable for its intended purpose of containing the composition located inside of the capsule.
In the alternate, Park teaches an apparatus/method for making a flavor capsule [title, abstract]. Park teaches that the capsule is treated with a calcium chloride solution [pg. 4 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized the calcium chloride solution on the outer surface of the capsules of Kim. One would have been motivated so as to improve the capsule strength and resistance to moisture, such that the shape/quality of the capsule can be maintained [pg. 4 of machine translation]. And as the surface of the capsule would be treated with calcium chloride, the outer layer of the capsule would clearly comprise calcium chloride.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, 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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights