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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/18/2025, 05/09/2025 and 03/05/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 03/05/2024 is acknowledged and has been approved for entry by the examiner.
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 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 21, 23, 26, 29, 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rado (US 2017/0086506 A1).
Regarding claims 21, 35, Rado discloses a vaporizer – (construed as an aerosol delivery device) having an atomizer module, see abstract – (corresponds to an atomizer; and an aerosol delivery device comprising an atomizer). The atomizer module to include an atomizer cup 230 which is formed of a ceramic material and has a transverse wall 244 – (construed as a first side) and a proximal edge 248 – (construed as a second side), see [0042], FIG 15 – (corresponds to a monolithic, ceramic element, having a first side and a second side opposite to the first side); a heating element 240 having a substantially planar heating surface and where the heating element heating surface is positioned to ace the first side of the monolithic, ceramic element; and an insulating sleeve 236 which is separate from the heating element – (corresponds to an insulator).
Regarding claim 23, the atomizer cup is configured to receive vaporizing medium, see abstract – (construed as the monolithic, ceramic element is a fluid transfer element).
Regarding claim 26, the atomizer cup/monolithic, ceramic element has a recess formed in the transverse wall/first side, and the heating surface is positioned to face a base surface of the recess, see FIGS 13-14.
Regarding claim 29, the heater is fully received within the recess, see FIGS 13-14.
Regarding claim 34, the vaporizer to include the atomizer is configured to have a rectangular shape, see [0081].
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rado (US 2017/0086506 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Han et al. (US 2025/0143368 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Rado does not explicitly disclose the heating element is sandwiched between thermally conductive materials. Han discloses an aerosol generating apparatus. The apparatus is configured to have a heater module 112 to include a tube of formed of thermally conductive material. And where doing so provides for heating material and/or components through conduction, convection or radiation. Thus, a temperature of an aerosol generating material may increase by heating, and as a result, aerosol may be generated, see [0069] – [0070]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to sandwich the heating element between thermally conductive materials to maximize the heating potential and/or efficiency of the heating element.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rado’s vaporizer to dispose the heating element between thermally conductive materials as reasonably suggested by Han to provide the aforementioned benefits.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rado (US 2017/0086506 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Brammer et al. (US 2015/0114409 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Rado does not explicitly disclose the use of an absorptive pad. Brammer discloses an aerosol delivery device. The device is configured to use an absorptive layer – (construed as an absorptive pad) where the layer is suitable for reduce splatter and heat loss, see [0157]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to disposed such a layer on the first side of the atomizer cup near the heating element to maximize the benefit of reduced splatter and heat loss.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rado’s vaporizer to include the use of an absorptive layer as taught by Brammer to provide the aforementioned benefits.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25, 27-28 and 30-33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art Rado while disclosing a vaporizer having an atomizer module does not teach or reasonably suggest the structural elements of: at least one passage proximate the periphery thereof for providing a conduit for liquid aerosol precursor to travel from the second side to the first side of the monolithic, ceramic element; at least one aperture extending from the base surface to the second side, and the at least one aperture comprises a centrally located aperture; and the insulator substantially encloses the heater within the recess; the insulator is fully received within the recess; the first side comprises the base surface and a top surface, and the insulator is positioned along the top surface; and electrical leads passing through or around the insulator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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 on 5712705545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights