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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to an amendment filed on 1/22/2026. As directed by the amendment, no claims were amended, canceled nor added. Thus, claims 1-16 are presently pending in this application.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (2017/0319799, embodiment fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
648
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Yamada discloses an aerosol generating system (entire device in fig. 3, see paragraphs 0046-0050) comprising: a housing (110D, 110A, 131A, paragraphs 0062 and 0073-0074, see the annotated-Yamada fig. 3 above) defining an airflow outlet of the aerosol generating system (it is noted that because the housing is part of the aerosol generating system, therefore, the airflow outlet is of the aerosol generating system, see the annotated-Yamada fig. 3 above); a liquid aerosol-forming substrate (substrate comprising 111P); an aerosol generator (111Q, 111R, paragraphs 0046, 0048, see fig. 3 and figs. 1-2 for reference) configured to generate an aerosol from the liquid aerosol-forming substrate (see paragraph 0046); and a perforated plate (see the annotated-Yamada fig. 3 above, the perforated plate is the mesh 133A, see fig. 1 for reference and fig. 3, paragraphs 0051 and 0058, a mesh would have perforated holes and as shown, in fig. 1 and 3, the mesh is in the shape of a plate) between the aerosol generator and the airflow outlet, the perforated plate defining a plurality of aperture extending through the perforated plate, the perforated plate covering an entire width of the airflow outlet (see the annotated-Yamada fig. 3 above and paragraphs 0051 and 0058, the mesh 133A is in the shape of a plate and covers an entire width of the outlet as shown, paragraphs 0073-0077), the perforated plate secured directly to the housing (see the annotated-Yamada fig. 3 above, as shown the perforated plate is secured directly to the housing (housing portion 131A)) and at least a portion of the perforated plate having an unobstructed path to the aerosol generator and to the airflow outlet (see the annotated-Yamada fig. 3 above and paragraph 0058, the perforated plate is a mesh 133A, and as shown flow can flow from the aerosol generator to the outlet, therefore, for flow to flow from the aerosol generator to the outlet, there would be an unobstructed path).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (2017/0319799, embodiment fig. 10).
PNG
media_image2.png
671
879
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Yamada discloses an aerosol generating system (entire device in fig. 10, see paragraphs 0046-0050 and 0104-0108) comprising: a housing (110A, 131A, paragraphs 0062 and 0073-0074, see the annotated-Yamada fig. 10, see paragraphs 0104-0109) defining an airflow outlet of the aerosol generating system (it is noted that because the housing is part of the aerosol generating system, therefore, the airflow outlet is of the aerosol generating system, see the annotated-Yamada fig. 10 above); a liquid aerosol-forming substrate (substrate comprising 111P, see fig. 10); an aerosol generator (111Q, 111R, paragraphs 0046, 0048, see fig. 10 and figs. 1-2 for reference) configured to generate an aerosol from the liquid aerosol-forming substrate (see paragraphs 0046 and 0104-0109); and a perforated plate (see the annotated-Yamada fig. 10 above, the perforated plate is the mesh 133A, see fig. 1 for reference and fig. 10, paragraphs 0051 and 0058, a mesh would have perforated holes and as shown, in fig. 1 and 10, the mesh is in the shape of a plate) between the aerosol generator and the airflow outlet, the perforated plate defining a plurality of aperture extending through the perforated plate, the perforated plate covering an entire width of the airflow outlet (see the annotated-Yamada fig. 10 above and paragraphs 0051 and 0058, the mesh 133A is in the shape of a plate and covers an entire width of the airflow outlet as shown, paragraphs 0104-0109), the perforated plate secured directly to the housing (see the annotated-Yamada fig. 10 above, as shown the perforated plate is secured directly to the housing (housing portion 131A)) and at least a portion of the perforated plate having an unobstructed path to the aerosol generator and to the airflow outlet (see the annotated-Yamada fig. 10 above and paragraph 0058, the perforated plate is a mesh 133A, and as shown flow can flow from the aerosol generator to the outlet, therefore, for flow to flow from the aerosol generator to the outlet, there would be an unobstructed path).
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (2017/0319799, embodiment fig. 3) in view of Bianchino (4,235,252).
Regarding claim 3, Yamada discloses that the perforated plate includes a plurality of filaments that forms a network (see paragraphs 0051 and 0058, Yamada discloses a mesh, which by definition is a network of wires/thread (filaments)) configured to keep the flavor source within the screen (paragraphs 0050-0051 and 0058), but fails to specifically discloses that the plurality of filaments comprises a first plurality of parallel filaments and a second plurality of parallel filaments, the first plurality of parallel filaments orthogonal to the second plurality of parallel filaments so that the plurality of apertures is a grid of apertures.
PNG
media_image3.png
470
439
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Bianchino teaches a mesh comprising filaments arrangement comprising a plurality of filaments comprises a first plurality of substantially parallel filaments and a second plurality of substantially parallel filaments, the first plurality of substantially parallel filaments substantially orthogonal to the second plurality of substantially parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures (see the mesh 22 in the annotated-Bianchino fig. 6 above with reference to fig. 8, see col 3, lines 22-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the perforated plate of Yamada to have the filament arrangement as taught by Bianchino for the purpose of providing an alternative filaments arrangement that can be utilized as a mesh screen to keep the flavor source of Yamada within the perforated plate of Yamada.
The modified Yamada discloses that the plurality of filaments comprises a first plurality of substantially parallel filaments and a second plurality of substantially parallel filaments, the first plurality of substantially parallel filaments substantially orthogonal to the second plurality of substantially parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures, but fails to specifically disclose that plurality of filaments comprises a first plurality of parallel filaments and a second plurality of parallel filaments, the first plurality of parallel filaments orthogonal to the second plurality of parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify first plurality of substantially parallel filaments and a second plurality of substantially parallel filaments, the first plurality of substantially parallel filaments substantially orthogonal to the second plurality of substantially parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures to be the first plurality of parallel filaments and a second plurality of parallel filaments, the first plurality of parallel filaments orthogonal to the second plurality of parallel filaments, for the purpose of providing a workable filaments arrangement that would perform equally well at keeping the flavor source of Yamada within the perforated plate of Yamada, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II)
Furthermore, if there is any doubt as to the obviousness of the routine optimization or finding a workable arrangement as stated above, the feature of having the first plurality of filaments being parallel and not substantially parallel, the second plurality of filaments being parallel and not substantially parallel and the first and second plurality of filaments to be orthogonal relative to one another instead of substantially orthogonal would be considered as an obvious design choice, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, it appears that having the first plurality of substantially parallel filaments and a second plurality of substantially parallel filaments, the first plurality of substantially parallel filaments substantially orthogonal to the second plurality of substantially parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures would work equally well relative to having the first plurality of parallel filaments and a second plurality of parallel filaments, the first plurality of parallel filaments orthogonal to the second plurality of parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (2017/0319799, embodiment fig. 10) in view of Bianchino (4,235,252).
Regarding claim 3, Yamada discloses that the perforated plate includes a plurality of filaments that forms a network (see paragraphs 0051 and 0058, Yamada discloses a mesh, which by definition is a network of wires/thread (filaments)) configured to keep the flavor source within the screen (paragraphs 0050-0051 and 0058), but fails to specifically discloses that the plurality of filaments comprises a first plurality of parallel filaments and a second plurality of parallel filaments, the first plurality of parallel filaments orthogonal to the second plurality of parallel filaments so that the plurality of apertures is a grid of apertures.
However, Bianchino teaches a mesh comprising filaments arrangement comprising a plurality of filaments comprises a first plurality of substantially parallel filaments and a second plurality of substantially parallel filaments, the first plurality of substantially parallel filaments substantially orthogonal to the second plurality of substantially parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures (see the mesh 22 in the annotated-Bianchino fig. 6 above with reference to fig. 8, see col 3, lines 22-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the perforated plate of Yamada to have the filament arrangement as taught by Bianchino for the purpose of providing an alternative filaments arrangement that can be utilized as a mesh screen to keep the flavor source of Yamada within the perforated plate of Yamada.
The modified Yamada discloses that the plurality of filaments comprises a first plurality of substantially parallel filaments and a second plurality of substantially parallel filaments, the first plurality of substantially parallel filaments substantially orthogonal to the second plurality of substantially parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures, but fails to specifically disclose that plurality of filaments comprises a first plurality of parallel filaments and a second plurality of parallel filaments, the first plurality of parallel filaments orthogonal to the second plurality of parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify first plurality of substantially parallel filaments and a second plurality of substantially parallel filaments, the first plurality of substantially parallel filaments substantially orthogonal to the second plurality of substantially parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures to be the first plurality of parallel filaments and a second plurality of parallel filaments, the first plurality of parallel filaments orthogonal to the second plurality of parallel filaments, for the purpose of providing a workable filaments arrangement that would perform equally well at keeping the flavor source of Yamada within the perforated plate of Yamada, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II)
Furthermore, if there is any doubt as to the obviousness of the routine optimization or finding a workable arrangement as stated above, the feature of having the first plurality of filaments being parallel and not substantially parallel, the second plurality of filaments being parallel and not substantially parallel and the first and second plurality of filaments to be orthogonal relative to one another instead of substantially orthogonal would be considered as an obvious design choice, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, it appears that having the first plurality of substantially parallel filaments and a second plurality of substantially parallel filaments, the first plurality of substantially parallel filaments substantially orthogonal to the second plurality of substantially parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures would work equally well relative to having the first plurality of parallel filaments and a second plurality of parallel filaments, the first plurality of parallel filaments orthogonal to the second plurality of parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Yamada (2017/0319799, embodiment fig. 3) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamada (2017/0319799, embodiment fig. 3) in view of Borkovec (2016/0270447).
Regarding claim 8, Yamada discloses an aerosol generating system (entire device in fig. 3, see paragraphs 0046-0050) comprising: a housing (110D, 110A, 131A, paragraphs 0062 and 0073-0074, see the annotated-Yamada fig. 3) defining an airflow outlet of the aerosol generating system (it is noted that because the housing is part of the aerosol generating system, therefore, the airflow outlet is of the aerosol generating system, see the annotated-Yamada fig. 3 above); a liquid aerosol-forming substrate (substrate comprising 111P); a power supply; an aerosol generator (111Q, 111R, paragraphs 0046, 0048, see fig. 3 and figs. 1-2 for reference) configured to generate an aerosol from the liquid aerosol-forming substrate based on power supplied by the power supply (see paragraph 0046, Yamada discloses that 111R is a heating wire, in order to heat a heating wire, there needs to be a power supply that supplies power to the heating wire); and a perforated plate (see the annotated-Yamada fig. 3 above, the perforated plate is the mesh 133A, see fig. 1 for reference and fig. 3, paragraphs 0051 and 0058, a mesh would have perforated holes and as shown, in fig. 1 and 3, the mesh is in the shape of a plate) between the aerosol generator and the airflow outlet, the perforated plate defining a plurality of aperture extending through the perforated plate, the perforated plate covering an entire width of the airflow outlet (see the annotated-Yamada fig. 3 above and paragraphs 0051 and 0058, the mesh 133A is in the shape of a plate and covers an entire width of the outlet as shown, paragraphs 0073-0077), further discloses that the aerosol generator comprises a heating wire (see paragraph 0046), the perforated plate secured directly to the housing (see the annotated-Yamada fig. 3 above, as shown the perforated plate is secured directly to the housing (housing portion 131A)) and at least a portion of the perforated plate having an unobstructed path to the aerosol generator and to the airflow outlet (see the annotated-Yamada fig. 3 above and paragraph 0058, the perforated plate is a mesh 133A, and as shown flow can flow from the aerosol generator to the outlet, therefore, for flow to flow from the aerosol generator to the outlet, there would be an unobstructed path). However, if there is any doubt that Yamada discloses a power supply and that the aerosol generator is configured to generate an aerosol from the liquid aerosol-forming substrate based on power supplied by the power supply.
Borkovec teaches a power supply (12 comprising 18, fig. 1, paragraphs 0019-0022 and 0029) for supplying power to an aerosol generator (28, fig. 1, abstract, paragraphs 0024-0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aerosol generating system and the aerosol generator of Yamada to have the power supply as taught by Borkovec for the purpose of providing portability and to also provide a power source that is rechargeable (see fig. 1 and paragraphs 0019-0022 and 0029 of Borkovec).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Yamada (2017/0319799, embodiment fig. 10) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamada (2017/0319799, embodiment fig. 10) in view of Borkovec (2016/0270447).
Regarding claim 8, Yamada discloses an aerosol generating system (entire device in fig. 10, see paragraphs 0046-0050 and 0104-0108) comprising: a housing (110A, 131A, paragraphs 0062 and 0073-0074, see the annotated-Yamada fig. 10, see paragraphs 0104-0109) defining an airflow outlet of the aerosol generating system (it is noted that because the housing is part of the aerosol generating system, therefore, the airflow outlet is of the aerosol generating system, see the annotated-Yamada fig. 10 above); a liquid aerosol-forming substrate (substrate comprising 111P, see fig. 10); a power supply, an aerosol generator (111Q, 111R, paragraphs 0046, 0048, see fig. 10 and figs. 1-2 for reference) configured to generate an aerosol from the liquid aerosol-forming substrate based on power supplied by the power supply (see paragraphs 0046 and 0104-0109, Yamada discloses that 111R is a heating wire, in order to heat a heating wire, there needs to be a power supply that supplies power to the heating wire); and a perforated plate (see the annotated-Yamada fig. 10 above, the perforated plate is the mesh 133A, see fig. 1 for reference and fig. 10, paragraphs 0051 and 0058, a mesh would have perforated holes and as shown, in fig. 1 and 10, the mesh is in the shape of a plate) between the aerosol generator and the airflow outlet, the perforated plate defining a plurality of aperture extending through the perforated plate, the perforated plate covering an entire width of the airflow outlet (see the annotated-Yamada fig. 10 above and paragraphs 0051 and 0058, the mesh 133A is in the shape of a plate and covers an entire width of the airflow outlet as shown, paragraphs 0104-0109), further discloses that the aerosol generator comprises a heating wire (see paragraph 0046), the perforated plate secured directly to the housing (see the annotated-Yamada fig. 10 above, as shown the perforated plate is secured directly to the housing (housing portion 131A)) and at least a portion of the perforated plate having an unobstructed path to the aerosol generator and to the airflow outlet (see the annotated-Yamada fig. 10 above and paragraph 0058, the perforated plate is a mesh 133A, and as shown flow can flow from the aerosol generator to the outlet, therefore, for flow to flow from the aerosol generator to the outlet, there would be an unobstructed path). However, if there is any doubt that Yamada discloses a power supply and that the aerosol generator is configured to generate an aerosol from the liquid aerosol-forming substrate based on power supplied by the power supply.
Borkovec teaches a power supply (12 comprising 18, fig. 1, paragraphs 0019-0022 and 0029) for supplying power to an aerosol generator (28, fig. 1, abstract, paragraphs 0024-0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aerosol generating system and the aerosol generator of Yamada to have the power supply as taught by Borkovec for the purpose of providing portability and to also provide a power source that is rechargeable (see fig. 1 and paragraphs 0019-0022 and 0029 of Borkovec).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (2017/0319799, embodiment fig. 3) and alternatively in view of Borkovec (2016/0270447) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bianchino (4,235,252).
Regarding claim 14, Yamada or the modified Yamada discloses that the perforated plate includes a plurality of filaments that forms a network (see paragraphs 0051 and 0058 of Yamada, Yamada discloses a mesh, which by definition is a network of wires/thread (filaments)) configured to keep the flavor source within the screen (paragraphs 0050-0051 and 0058 of Yamada), but fails to specifically discloses that the plurality of filaments comprises a first plurality of parallel filaments and a second plurality of parallel filaments, the first plurality of parallel filaments orthogonal to the second plurality of parallel filaments so that the plurality of apertures is a grid of apertures.
However, Bianchino teaches a mesh comprising filaments arrangement comprising a plurality of filaments comprises a first plurality of substantially parallel filaments and a second plurality of substantially parallel filaments, the first plurality of substantially parallel filaments substantially orthogonal to the second plurality of substantially parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures (see the mesh 22 in the annotated-Bianchino fig. 6 above with reference to fig. 8, see col 3, lines 22-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the perforated plate of Yamada or the modified Yamada to have the filament arrangement as taught by Bianchino for the purpose of providing an alternative filaments arrangement that can be utilized as a mesh screen to keep the flavor source of Yamada within the perforated plate of Yamada.
The modified Yamada discloses that the plurality of filaments comprises a first plurality of substantially parallel filaments and a second plurality of substantially parallel filaments, the first plurality of substantially parallel filaments substantially orthogonal to the second plurality of substantially parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures, but fails to specifically disclose that plurality of filaments comprises a first plurality of parallel filaments and a second plurality of parallel filaments, the first plurality of parallel filaments orthogonal to the second plurality of parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify first plurality of substantially parallel filaments and a second plurality of substantially parallel filaments, the first plurality of substantially parallel filaments substantially orthogonal to the second plurality of substantially parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures to be the first plurality of parallel filaments and a second plurality of parallel filaments, the first plurality of parallel filaments orthogonal to the second plurality of parallel filaments, for the purpose of providing a workable filaments arrangement that would perform equally well at keeping the flavor source of Yamada within the perforated plate of Yamada, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II)
Furthermore, if there is any doubt as to the obviousness of the routine optimization or finding a workable arrangement as stated above, the feature of having the first plurality of filaments being parallel and not substantially parallel, the second plurality of filaments being parallel and not substantially parallel and the first and second plurality of filaments to be orthogonal relative to one another instead of substantially orthogonal would be considered as an obvious design choice, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, it appears that having the first plurality of substantially parallel filaments and a second plurality of substantially parallel filaments, the first plurality of substantially parallel filaments substantially orthogonal to the second plurality of substantially parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures would work equally well relative to having the first plurality of parallel filaments and a second plurality of parallel filaments, the first plurality of parallel filaments orthogonal to the second plurality of parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (2017/0319799, embodiment fig. 10) and alternatively in view of Borkovec (2016/0270447) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bianchino (4,235,252).
Regarding claim 14, Yamada or the modified Yamada discloses that the perforated plate includes a plurality of filaments that forms a network (see paragraphs 0051 and 0058, Yamada discloses a mesh, which by definition is a network of wires/thread (filaments)) configured to keep the flavor source within the screen (paragraphs 0050-0051 and 0058), but fails to specifically discloses that the plurality of filaments comprises a first plurality of parallel filaments and a second plurality of parallel filaments, the first plurality of parallel filaments orthogonal to the second plurality of parallel filaments so that the plurality of apertures is a grid of apertures.
However, Bianchino teaches a mesh comprising filaments arrangement comprising a plurality of filaments comprises a first plurality of substantially parallel filaments and a second plurality of substantially parallel filaments, the first plurality of substantially parallel filaments substantially orthogonal to the second plurality of substantially parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures (see the mesh 22 in the annotated-Bianchino fig. 6 above with reference to fig. 8, see col 3, lines 22-63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the perforated plate of Yamada or the modified Yamada to have the filament arrangement as taught by Bianchino for the purpose of providing an alternative filaments arrangement that can be utilized as a mesh screen to keep the flavor source of Yamada within the perforated plate of Yamada.
The modified Yamada discloses that the plurality of filaments comprises a first plurality of substantially parallel filaments and a second plurality of substantially parallel filaments, the first plurality of substantially parallel filaments substantially orthogonal to the second plurality of substantially parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures, but fails to specifically disclose that plurality of filaments comprises a first plurality of parallel filaments and a second plurality of parallel filaments, the first plurality of parallel filaments orthogonal to the second plurality of parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify first plurality of substantially parallel filaments and a second plurality of substantially parallel filaments, the first plurality of substantially parallel filaments substantially orthogonal to the second plurality of substantially parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures to be the first plurality of parallel filaments and a second plurality of parallel filaments, the first plurality of parallel filaments orthogonal to the second plurality of parallel filaments, for the purpose of providing a workable filaments arrangement that would perform equally well at keeping the flavor source of Yamada within the perforated plate of Yamada, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II)
Furthermore, if there is any doubt as to the obviousness of the routine optimization or finding a workable arrangement as stated above, the feature of having the first plurality of filaments being parallel and not substantially parallel, the second plurality of filaments being parallel and not substantially parallel and the first and second plurality of filaments to be orthogonal relative to one another instead of substantially orthogonal would be considered as an obvious design choice, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, it appears that having the first plurality of substantially parallel filaments and a second plurality of substantially parallel filaments, the first plurality of substantially parallel filaments substantially orthogonal to the second plurality of substantially parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures would work equally well relative to having the first plurality of parallel filaments and a second plurality of parallel filaments, the first plurality of parallel filaments orthogonal to the second plurality of parallel filaments so that the plurality of aperture is a grid of apertures.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-7, 9-13 and 15-16 are allowable over the prior art.
Claims 2, 4-7, 9-13 and 15-16 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record Pajalich (5,267,555), Coffee (6,105,571) and Wehner (3,194,236) do not specifically disclose the claimed method as presented in the claims 2, 4-7, 9-13 and 15-16.
Regarding claim 2, Pajalich discloses an aerosol generating system (4, 11, 3, 2, 7, 6, 10A, 10, 8 in fig. 1, col 3, line 26 to col 4, line 48) comprising: a housing (housing 7/6 defining outlet 8, figs. 1 and 2) defining an airflow outlet (outlet at open end of 8, see fig. 1, col 3, lines 26-48); a liquid aerosol-forming substrate (see 4, a meter dose inhaler or an atomizer for a liquid medicament would contain a liquid aerosol-forming substrate (liquid being atomized/aerosolized), see col 3, lines 26-35 for liquid medication); an aerosol generator (see col 3, lines 26-35, to aerosolize or atomize the liquid, there would be a generator that is configured to atomize the liquid) configured to generate an aerosol from the liquid aerosol-forming substrate (see col 3, lines 26-48); and an electrode (15, fig. 2, col 3, line 60 to col 4, line 48) disposed between the aerosol generator and the airflow outlet (see figs. 1-2), a conductor ring (see 20, fig. 2) downstream of the electrode with respect to the airflow outlet and between the electrode and the airflow outlet (see fig. 2, as shown 20 is located between the outlet and air outlet and the electrode 15, and is downstream of the electrode 15, furthermore, Pajalich discloses in col 4, lines 32-48, Pajalich discloses that the ring 20 is connected to current limiting circuit, and further discloses that if a person inadvertently touches or is electrically connected to electrode 15 while the device is energized, the current limiting circuit acts (in known manner) instantaneously to reduce the voltage applied to electrode 15 to ground potential if the current through conductor 21 exceeds ten microamperes, avoid severe electrical shock to the person, therefore, 20 would need to be grounded to perform such function).
Coffee discloses an aerosol generating system (entire system shown in fig. 4b) comprising: a housing defining an airflow outlet (see the annotated-Coffee fig. 4b above); a liquid aerosol-forming substrate (liquid within 13, fig. 4b, col 7, lines 14-29); a liquid ejector (9 and 9a, col 6, lines 25-29 in combination with pump disclosed in col 7, lines 14-28) configured to eject a liquid aerosol-forming substrate (se col 6, lines 25-29, the when liquid leaves the tip, the liquid forms liquid droplets); and an electrode (14, fig. 4b, col 7, lines 29-52 for electrode 14) disposed between the liquid ejector and the airflow outlet (see the annotated-Coffee fig. 4b above), wherein a ground element downstream of the electrode with respect to the airflow outlet and between the electrode and the airflow outlet (see element 7 in the annotated-Coffee fig. 4b above, col 6, line 17 to col 7, line 28 for electrode 7, as shown, element 7 is an electrode and since it is connected to the ground via 8 and 5, element 7 is considered as a grounded element, and as shown, the ground element is between the electrode (14) and the airflow outlet).
Wehner teaches a mesh screen that is charged (see screen 34 in fig. 3 and col 3, line 51 to col 4, line 3). However, Wehner discloses a charged screen being used in combination with radioactive sources and is silent as to the perforated plate covering an entire width of the airflow outlet and an electrode disposed between the aerosol generator and the perforated plate, the electrode configured to generate an electric field which ionizes droplets of the aerosol such that the droplets over a threshold size break apart into smaller droplets.
However, Pajalich, Coffee and Wehner fail to disclose the combination of structures as claimed having an aerosol generator configured to generate an aerosol from the liquid aerosol-forming substrate, a perforated plate between the aerosol generator and the airflow outlet, the perforated plate defining a plurality of aperture extending through the perforated plate, the perforated plate covering an entire width of the airflow outlet and an electrode disposed between the aerosol generator and the perforated plate, the electrode configured to generate an electric field which ionizes droplets of the aerosol such that the droplets over a threshold size break apart into smaller droplets. Therefore, to modify Pajalich, Coffee and Wehner to arrive at the claimed invention would not have been obvious and would be based upon improper hindsight reasoning.
Regarding claim 9, Pajalich discloses an aerosol generating system (4, 11, 3, 2, 7, 6, 10A, 10, 8 in fig. 1, col 3, line 26 to col 4, line 48) comprising: a housing (housing 7/6 defining outlet 8, figs. 1 and 2) defining an airflow outlet (outlet at open end of 8, see fig. 1, col 3, lines 26-48); a liquid aerosol-forming substrate (see 4, a meter dose inhaler or an atomizer for a liquid medicament would contain a liquid aerosol-forming substrate (liquid being atomized/aerosolized), see col 3, lines 26-35 for liquid medication); a power supply (energy source is the portion of 11 for providing voltage and current to electrode 15, see col 3, line 60 to col 4, line 21); a controller (current limiting resistor 16, current delimiter 22 and portion of 11 that supplies voltage to electrode 15, fig. 2, col 4, lines 32-48, current limiter controls the voltage); an aerosol generator configured to generate an aerosol from the liquid aerosol-forming substrate (see col 3, lines 26-35, to aerosolize or atomize the liquid, there would be a generator that is configured to atomize the liquid); an aerosol charging circuit (22, 11, 15, 19, figs. 1-2) including a circuit ground (19, fig. 2) and an electrode (15, fig. 2) arranged for fluid communication with aerosol generated by the aerosol generator (figs. 1-2), wherein the controller is configured to control a supply of electrical power from the power supply to the electrode to charge the electrode to a potential difference of between 0.5 kilovolts and 30 kilovolts with respect to the conductor ring (20, fig. 2, col 4, lines 32-48, see abstract and col 2, lines 5-17, see 1,000 to 50,000 volts, and col 3, line 60 to col 4, line 8, Pajalich discloses that the voltage are being supplied to the charging electrode 15), wherein the conductor ring (see 20, fig. 2) downstream of the electrode with respect to the airflow outlet and between the electrode and the airflow outlet (see fig. 2, as shown 20 is located between the outlet and air outlet and the electrode 15, and is downstream of the electrode 15, furthermore, Pajalich discloses in col 4, lines 32-48, Pajalich discloses that the ring 20 is connected to current limiting circuit, and further discloses that if a person inadvertently touches or is electrically connected to electrode 15 while the device is energized, the current limiting circuit acts (in known manner) instantaneously to reduce the voltage applied to electrode 15 to ground potential if the current through conductor 21 exceeds ten microamperes, avoid severe electrical shock to the person, therefore, 20 would need to be grounded to perform such function).
Coffee discloses an aerosol generating system (entire system shown in fig. 4b) comprising: a housing defining an airflow outlet (see the annotated-Coffee fig. 4b above); a liquid aerosol-forming substrate (liquid within 13, fig. 4b, col 7, lines 14-29); a power supply (see power supply in col 6, lines 2-9); a controller (see switch 8, col 6, lines 17-24); a liquid ejector (9 and 9a, col 6, lines 25-29 in combination with pump disclosed in col 7, lines 14-28) configured to eject a liquid aerosol-forming substrate (se col 6, lines 25-29, the when liquid leaves the tip, the liquid forms liquid droplets); an aerosol charging circuit (ground in the annotated-Coffee fig. 4b, electrode 7 or 14 or both 7 and 14, 5, 8 and associated electrical connection, see fig. 4b) including a circuit ground (see ground in the annotated-Coffee fig. 4b above) and an electrode (14, fig. 4b, col 7, lines 29-52 for electrode 14) arranged for fluid communication with the liquid from the liquid ejector (see the annotated-Coffee fig. 4b above), wherein the controller is configured to control a supply of electrical power from the power supply to the electrode to charge the electrode to a potential difference of between 0.5 kilovolts and 30 kilovolts with respect to the ground element (7, fig. 4b, col 6, line 17 to col 7, line 28 for electrode 7, see col 7, lines 4-13, see one to ten kilovolts), the ground element downstream of the electrode with respect to the airflow outlet and between the electrode and the airflow out (see the annotated-Coffee fig. 4b above, as shown 7 is between the electrode (14) and the airflow outlet).
Wehner teaches a mesh screen that is charged (see screen 34 in fig. 3 and col 3, line 51 to col 4, line 3). However, Wehner discloses a charged screen being used in combination with radioactive sources and is silent as to the perforated plate covering an entire width of the airflow outlet and an electrode arranged for fluid communication with aerosol generated by the aerosol generator, wherein the controller is configured to control a supply of electrical power from the power supply to the electrode to charge the electrode to a potential difference of between 0.5 kilovolts and 30 kilovolts with respect to the perforated plate, the perforated plate downstream of the electrode to the airflow outlet and between the electrode and the airflow outlet.
However, Pajalich, Coffee and Wehner fail to disclose the combination of structures as claimed having an aerosol generator configured to generate an aerosol from the liquid aerosol- forming substrate based on power supplied by the power supply; a perforated plate between the aerosol generator and the airflow outlet, the perforated plate defining a plurality of apertures extending through the perforated plate, the perforated plate covering an entire width of the airflow outlet, an electrode arranged for fluid communication with aerosol generated by the aerosol generator, wherein the controller is configured to control a supply of electrical power from the power supply to the electrode to charge the electrode to a potential difference of between 0.5 kilovolts and 30 kilovolts with respect to the perforated plate, the perforated plate downstream of the electrode to the airflow outlet and between the electrode and the airflow outlet. Therefore, to modify Pajalich, Coffee and Wehner to arrive at the claimed invention would not have been obvious and would be based upon improper hindsight reasoning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant on pages 6-9 of the remarks argues that the outlet of the cartridge 130 is not an outlet of the flavor inhaler 100, but a portion of the flow passage that terminates at the mouthpiece 120, simply, the outlet of the cartridge 130 is completely different from an airflow outlet of the aerosol generating system, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand any part of the cartridge 130, for example, the outer surface 131A of the cartridge as a housing, let alone a housing defining an airflow outlet of the aerosol generating system. Additionally, as noted above, the mesh 133 of Yamada is a part of the cartridge 130 and attached to the cartridge 131. Yamada discloses the cartridge 130 as being inserted into the inhaler body 110, further, as seen in the Office Annotated figures, the cartridge 130 is a separate structure from the inhaler body 110. As such, the mesh 133 of Yamada being attached to the cartridge body 131 and having the flavor source and other one of the mesh 133 on either side is completely different from the perforated plate being secured to the housing as generally required by the amended claim 1. The applicant stated that the examiner’s argument on page 29 of the Office Action stated that “since the cartridge is part of the aerosol generating system, the airflow outlet that is of the cartridge would be an airflow outlet that is of the aerosol generating device, nothing within the claims prevent such interpretation”, however, claim 1 recited “a housing defining an airflow outlet of the aerosol generating system the perforated plate covering an entire width of the airflow outlet, the perforated plate secured directly to the housing and at least a portion of the perforated plate having an unobstructed path to the aerosol generator and to the airflow outlet”. As such, the housing defines the airflow outlet, and the cartridge 130 of Yamada does not define an airflow outlet of the inhaler body 110, but is fit within the inhaler body 110. Further, the mesh 133 of Yamada is not attached to the inhaler body 110, but the cartridge body 131. As such, the mesh 133 of Yamada cannot cover an entire width of the airflow outlet defined by the housing, as the mesh 133 ends at the cartridge body 131 and does not contact the inhaler body 110.
However, the argument is not persuasive because the claim merely claimed that the aerosol generating system comprising a housing defining an airflow outlet of the aerosol generating system, since the cartridge is part of the aerosol generating system, the airflow outlet that is of the cartridge would be an airflow outlet that is of the aerosol generating system, nothing within the claims prevent such interpretation. Furthermore, the term “airflow outlet” is a relative term, any hole/opening/structure that performs the function of an outlet and is downstream from an airflow inlet can be considered as an airflow outlet, it is noted that the rejection above defines the housing as including the cartridge, see “a housing (110A, 131A, paragraphs 0062 and 0073-0074, see the annotated-Yamada fig. 10, see paragraphs 0104-0109) defining an airflow outlet of the aerosol generating system (it is noted that because the housing is part of the aerosol generating system, therefore, the airflow outlet is of the aerosol generating system, see the annotated-Yamada fig. 10 above)”. The applicant is arguing that the outlet is part of the cartridge, not the housing, however, the rejection for claim 1 makes it clear that the cartridge is being interpreted as a structure that forms the housing, therefore, it is unclear how it is unreasonable to say that the outlet of Yamada is part of the housing. Therefore, the rejection still stands.
The applicant on page 9, lines 5-16 of the remarks argues that the office appears to argue, on page 5 of the rejection, that “the perforated plate is a mesh 133A, and as shown flow can flow from the aerosol generator to the outlet, therefore, for flow to flow from the aerosol generator to the outlet, there would be an unobstructed path the mesh 133A of Yamada”. However, as clearly shown in the Office annotated FIG. 3 and 10 of Yamada, the mesh 133A is on one side of the cartridge 130, and any airflow through the cartridge 130 and then another mesh 133B or 133C, as such, there is not an unobstructed path the mesh 133A of Yamada as suggested by the Office. As such, the mesh 133 of Yamada being attached to the cartridge body 131 and having the flavor source and other one of the mesh 133 on either side is completely different from the perforated plate being secured to the housing as generally required by claim 1. However, the argument is not persuasive, for airflow to flow through the mesh to the user, there must be an unobstructed path. If there is/are no unobstructed path(s), how can airflow flows through the mesh of Yamada to the user. The claim merely claims “unobstructed path”, there is/are no limitation(s) within the claim that prevent such interpretation. Furthermore, the applicant merely stated that “there is not an unobstructed path”, but provides no evidence or reasoning as to how there is no unobstructed path in Yamada or provide an explanation as to why the examiner’s interpretation is incorrect. Therefore, the rejection still stands.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TU A VO whose telephone number is (571)270-1045. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571)272-5139. 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.
/TU A VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785