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 1-8 and 11-12 are pending and subject to this Office Action. This is the First Action on the merits of the claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 , 6-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aramendy, et al (WO-2022029123-A1, cited in IDS dated 11/05/2025) and further in view of Dick (DE102018100949A1, hereinafter referring to the English machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Aramendy teaches an aerosol generating device that has a heating unit (mouth inhalation module) and a replaceable module (nasal inhalation module).
The heating unit comprises a holder configured to receive an aerosol generating article with a mouthpiece. (p 9 ln 4-5; p 15 ln 11-14) The heating unit comprises a inductor coil configured to heat a susceptor located it the aerosol generating article (p 9 ln 15-16) or an resistive heating element (p 9 ln 23-24)
Heating system comprises a replaceable module (p 9 ln 4-5) located adjacent to the heating unit holder. This configuration is considered to read on the limitation of the nasal inhalation module being arranged inside the mouth inhalation module.
The replaceable module may have a flavor generating article that may be a capsule, a cartridge or a porous element shaped in disc or donut format containing the sensorial media (p2 ln 13-15) that can be inserted into the module housing. (p 10 ln 6)
Aramendy teaches that the replaceable module can comprise a heater. (p 13 ln 16-17) and that the heating unit may be connected to a power unit. The prior art specifically notes a battery pack (p 9 ln 12) which can contain at least one battery (p 15 ln 8)
Aramendy further teaches that the replaceable module may comprise a rotor element (fan) that is arranged in the air chamber and configured to transport a portion of the flavor or aroma in the direction of the openings(p 8 ln 26-32) for the user to inhale through the nose. The rotor element can be configured to be rotated by means of a electric motor. The rotor element is considered to read on the limitation of a fan. A person having ordinary skill would understand that an electric motor requires a power source which would be the power source for the device, i.e. the battery pack discussed above.
Aramendy is silent as to how the motorized rotor element (fan) would be controlled.
Dick, directed to the design of electronic cigarettes, teaches and electronic cigarette that comprises a suction opening and an inhaler. (Abstract) The device can have two airflow pathways: a main airflow pathway for the active component (smoking article) and a secondary airflow pathway for the inhaler portion. [0021] The inhaler portion may include a blower (fan) to regulate the secondary airflow. [0020] Dick teaches that the secondary (inhaler) airflow can be controlled or regulated using a control element. [0023]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Aramendy by using a controller to control the operation of rotor element/ fan as taught by Dick because both Aramendy and Dick are directed to electronic cigarette devices that include an inhaler portion, Dick teaches the fan controller ensures a precise and targeted administration of the flavoring substance to the consumer [0008], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed in claim 1, Aramendy teaches an aerosol generating device that can use induction heating (p 9 ln 13-18) or resistive heating (p 10 ln 22-23) to heat an aerosol generating article in a heat-not-burn manner. The art teaches that an aerosol generating article that has a mouthpiece to be inserted into the user’s mouth (p15 ln 12-13) and a substrate to be heated (p 15 ln 18) that is configured to be inserted into the holder of the device.
Regarding claim 3, as discussed in claim 1, Aramendy teaches that the heating system comprises a replaceable module (p 9 ln 4-5) located adjacent to the heating unit holder forming a single unit. Aramendy teaches that the replaceable (inhalation) module is attached to the end of the heating unit housing. This configuration is considered to read on the limitation of the nasal inhalation module being attached to the shell of the mouth inhalation module.
Regarding claim 4, Aramendy is silent with respect to the possibility of the nasal inhalation/ replaceable module being located inside the mouth inhalation module.
Dick teaches that the electronic cigarette product has a housing that has both a suction component and a secondary (inhaler) component that are both contained in the housing. [0017] The teachings of Dick have both the inhaler portion of the device and the suction portion of the device housed in the same main housing which is considered to read on the claim limitations.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Aramendy by combining the inhalation portion of the device with the mouth inhalation portion of the device as taught by Dick because both Aramendy and Dick are directed to electronic cigarette devices that include an inhaler portion, Dick teaches the separation of the airflows can ensures a precise and targeted administration of the flavoring substance to the consumer and prevent early reductio in intensity of the aroma [0008], and this involves the use of known technique of directing the aroma using a secondary airflow to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 6, Aramendy teaches that the flavor generating article for use in the replaceable module can be a capsule, a cartridge or a porous element. (p2 ln 13-14) The use of a capsule or cartridge is considered to read on the limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Aramendy teaches that the replaceable module can contain a sensorial material that is configured to volatize by contact with air. The material is contained in a cartridge, capsule, or plate (see claim 1 rejection) and that these items may comprise a liquid media or a solid substrate structure configured to absorb a liquid sensorial media. (p ln 12-17) The prior art teaches that these sensorial materials can be flavors/ essences (p9 ln 34-36)
Regarding claim 8, as discussed in claim 1, Aramendy teaches that the replaceable module can have a heater and that the power system comprises a control unit that is reversibly connected to the replaceable module and heating unit can configured to provide energy to the heating unit; where the power source comprises at least one battery. (p15 ln 5-8)
However, Aramendy is silent with respect to the replaceable module having an electric heater controller.
Dick teaches that the inhaler device portion contains a evaporator, containing a resistance heater [0030], that can be controlled using a control device, such as an integrated, that is located on the evaporator device. [0033]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Aramendy by having a control device for the heating portion of the inhaler as taught by Dick because both Aramendy and Dick are directed to electronic cigarette devices that include an inhaler portion, Dick teaches the controller can allow the device to evaporate the liquid present on individual heating elements of the secondary/ additional device. [0033], and this involves the use of known technique of directing the aroma using a secondary airflow to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 12, Aramendy teaches that the replaceable module can contain a multitude of flavorings including mint and menthol (p 9 ln 34-36)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aramendy, et al (WO-2022029123-A1, cited in IDS dated 11/05/2025) and Dick (DE102018100949A1, hereinafter referring to the English machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Phillips, et al (US20190082735A1)
Regarding claim 5, Aramendy teaches the replaceable module is reversibly connected to the power system as well as the aerosol generating substrate holder (p 9 ln 29-30, p18 ln 25-26; Fig 4b-4d); however, Aramendy is silent with respect to the specifics of how the replaceable module is connected to the other portions of the device.
Phillips, directed to the design of smoking articles, teaches an aerosol producing module that is configured to be removably attached to a tubular casing configured to heat an aerosol delivery component. Phillips teaches the module uses a reversible engagement with a casing where the engagement is achieved through snap-fit engagement, a press-fit engagement, a threaded engagement, an adhesive, a bond, a weld, and the like. [0079] Additionally, Phillips teaches that the attachment to the power source is also achieved through the use of an engagement mechanism such as a threaded engagement or a press-fit engagement. [0097]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Aramendy and Dick by a connection method for a module as taught by Phillips because Aramendy, Dick, and Phillips are directed to aerosol generating devices, Phillips teaches these types of connections allow the casing/holder to be reused while the aerosol producing portion is disposed of [0079], and this involves the use of known technique of directing the aroma using a secondary airflow to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aramendy, et al (WO-2022029123-A1, cited in IDS dated 11/05/2025) and Dick (DE102018100949A1, hereinafter referring to the English machine translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirotada (US2809634A).
Regarding claim 11, Aramendy teaches that the replaceable module allows the material for inhalation to be released into the atmosphere. Dick teaches that the inhalation portion can be from the device, directed up towards the nose. However, the prior art is silent with respect to the use of a conduit for transferring the inhalation material.
Hirotada, directed to the design of pipes, teaches a pipe that allows for both inhalation through the mouth and the nose. Hirotada teaches a sniffing pipe member (conduit) with an aperture that is attached to a pipe having an inhaling aperture (cl 1 ln 57-59)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Aramendy and Dick by adding a conduit for inhalation as taught by Hirotada because Aramendy, Dick, and Hirotada are directed to aerosol generating devices, Hirotada teaches the conduit allows for inhalation of pure fragrance in the solution (cl 2 ln 48-50), and this involves the use of known technique of directing the aroma using a secondary airflow to improve similar devices in the same way.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRGINIA R BIEGER whose telephone number is (703)756-1014. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7:30-4:30.
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, Phillip 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.
/V.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights