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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 8‒12 and 15‒18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Griffith, Jr. et al. (US 20130255702 A1), hereinafter GRIFFITH.
Regarding Claim 1, GRIFFITH discloses a cartridge of an electronic article (Figure 1, element 90) comprising a cartridge shell (element 91) with a mouth opening (element 18) at the mouth end (element 11) and an orifice opposite the mouth piece (Figure 1, element 83). GRIFFITH further teaches a dilution air aperture (Figure 3, element 117) located between the orifice (Figure 3, element 83) and a mouthpiece (Figure 3, element 11). Additionally, GRIFFITH discloses a substrate (Figure 1, element 53) comprising cellulose acetate ([0077]) capable of being formed or rolled into a tube shape ([0111]).
Regarding Claim 2, GRIFFITH teaches the elements of claim 1. GRIFFITH also teaches an open cavity situated between an orifice (element 83) and secondary substrate tube (element 53) (see Figures 1 and 3).
Regarding Claim 4, GRIFFITH discloses the elements of claim 1. Specifically, GRIFFITH also teaches that the smoking article has a shape that can be substantially tubular or cylindrical ([0130]). As shown in GRIFFITH’s Figure 3, the dilution air aperture (element 117) is located on the surface of the cartridge shell (element 91).
A standard cylindrical housing inherently possesses a longitudinal side surface extending perpendicular to its end. Arranging the dilution air aperture on the surface of the cartridge shell to access the internal components represents an inherent structural configuration. Therefore, GRIFFITH discloses the claimed structural arrangement of the housing, the dilution air aperture, and its perpendicular orientation, thereby anticipating the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 8, GRIFFITH teaches the elements of claim 1. GRIFFITH does not explicitly teach that a hollow acetate tube further includes a first additive, the first additive including a flavor, an aerosol modifier, an aromatic material, a pH modifying agent, a chemesthesis agent, nicotine, or any combination thereof. However, GRIFFITH discloses a secondary substrate (Figure 1, element 53) comprising cellulose acetate ([0077]) capable of being formed or rolled into a tube shape ([0111] and further teaches that flavor, medicament, or other inhalable materials can be deposited on a secondary substrate ([0085] & [0086]), whereby such deposition of a flavor, medicament or other inhalable materials onto the tubular cellulose acetate substrate structurally and functionally satisfies the claimed limitation of a hollow acetate tube including a first additive because the resulting assembly yields a tubular acetate structure incorporating the specified additive material.
Regarding Claim 9, GRIFFITH teaches the elements of claim 8. Furthermore, GRIFFITH teaches that the inhalable substance can comprise a tobacco component or a tobacco-derived material ([0085]).
Regarding Claim 10, GRIFFITH discloses the limitations of claim 8. Specifically, GRIFFITH suggests using a second additive along with a first additive [0086]. Furthermore, GRIFFITH discloses that the aerosol precursor material‒either alone or in combination with a flavorant, medicament and/or other inhalable substance‒can be coated on the substrate ([0089]).
PNG
media_image1.png
310
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, GRIFFITH teaches the elements of claim 1. Furthermore, GRIFFITH teaches a resistive heating element (Figure 1, element 50) in the cartridge shell and a channel connecting the heater to the orifice (see annotated Figure 3 of GRIFFITH, [0142] & [0143]).
Annotated Figure 3 of GRIFFITH
Regarding Claim 12, GRIFFITH discloses a smoking article (Figure 1, element 10) comprising a cartridge (Figure 1, element 90), a cartridge shell (element 91). The cartridge shell features a mouth opening (element 18) at the mouth end (element 11) and an orifice opposite the mouth piece (Figure 1, element 83). GRIFFITH further teaches a dilution air aperture (Figure 3, element 117) located between the orifice (Figure 3, element 83) and a mouthpiece (Figure 3, element 11). Additionally, GRIFFITH discloses a substrate (Figure 1, element 53) comprising cellulose acetate ([0077]) that is capable of being formed or rolled into a tube shape ([0111]) and is located between the dilution air aperture and the mouth piece. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 3, GRIFFITH discloses a control body (element 80) connectable to the cartridge, wherein the control body includes a battery (element 40) as a power supply source.
Regarding Claim 15, GRIFFITH teaches the elements of claim 12. GRIFFITH does not explicitly teach that a hollow acetate tube further includes a first additive, the first additive including a flavor, an aerosol modifier, an aromatic material, a pH modifying agent, a chemesthesis agent, nicotine, or any combination thereof. However, GRIFFITH discloses a secondary substrate (Figure 1, element 53) comprising cellulose acetate ([0077]) capable of being formed or rolled into a tube shape ([0111]) and further teaches that flavor, medicament, or other inhalable materials can be deposited on a secondary substrate ([0085] & [0086]), whereby such deposition of a flavor, medicament or other inhalable materials onto the tubular cellulose acetate substrate structurally and functionally satisfies the claimed limitation of a hollow acetate tube including a first additive because the resulting assembly yields a tubular acetate structure incorporating the specified additive material.
Regarding Claim 16, GRIFFITH teaches the elements of claim 15. Furthermore, GRIFFITH teaches that the inhalable substance can comprise a tobacco component or a tobacco-derived material ([0085]).
Regarding Claim 17, GRIFFITH discloses the limitations of claim 15. Specifically, GRIFFITH suggests using a second additive along with a first additive [0086]. Furthermore, GRIFFITH discloses that the aerosol precursor material‒either alone or in combination with a flavorant, medicament and/or other inhalable substance‒can be coated on the substrate ([0089]).
Regarding Claim 18, GRIFFITH teaches the elements of claim 12. Furthermore, GRIFFITH teaches a resistive heating element (Figure 1, element 50) in the cartridge shell and a channel connecting the heater to the orifice (see annotated Figure 3 of GRIFFITH, above; [0142] & [0143]).
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, 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffith, Jr. et al. (US 20130255702 A1), hereinafter GRIFFITH, in view of Potter et al. (US 20140261486 A1), hereinafter POTTER.
Regarding Claim 3, GRIFFITH teaches the elements of claim 1. GRIFFITH also teaches that the shape of the smoking article can be substantially tubular or cylindrical ([0130]). While GRIFFITH does not teach the orifice is aligned with the hollow inner core of the hollow acetate tube along a longitudinal axis of the housing, POTTER teaches an orifice (see annotated Figure 3 of POTTER, below) and the cellulose acetate filter element (Figure 4A, element 600, [0080]) with a hollow center portion ([0096]) that may be longitudinally retained in the housing ([0089] and [0090]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the cartridge of GRIFFITH by aligning the orifice with the hollow inner core of the hollow acetate tube along a longitudinal axis of the housing, as taught by POTTER. One would be motivated to make this modification to ensure a continuous, unobstructed path for smoke flow through the aligned hollow center portion to the user.
PNG
media_image2.png
657
483
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 of POTTER
Regarding Claim 7, GRIFFITH teaches the elements of claim 1. While GRIFFITH does not explicitly teach that the hollow acetate tube is detachable from the housing, POTTER discloses a cellulose acetate filter element that is detachable (Figures 4A and 4B, element 600, [0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device of GRIFFITH by incorporating the detachable hollow acetate tube configuration as taught by POTTER to allow for efficient component replacement and improved maintenance.
Regarding Claim 20, GRIFFITH teaches the elements of claim 12. GRIFFITH also teaches an open cavity situated between an orifice (element 83) and secondary substrate tube (element 53) (see Figures 1 and 3). GRIFFITH further teaches that the smoking article has a shape that can be substantially tubular or cylindrical ([0130]). As shown in GRIFFITH’s Figure 3, the dilution air aperture (element 117) is located on the surface of the cartridge shell (element 91). A standard cylindrical housing inherently possesses a longitudinal side surface extending perpendicular to its end. Arranging the dilution air aperture on the surface of the cartridge shell to access the internal components represents an inherent structural configuration. Therefore, GRIFFITH discloses the claimed structural arrangement of the housing, the dilution air aperture, and its perpendicular orientation, thereby anticipating the claimed invention.
While GRIFFITH does not teach the orifice is aligned with the hollow inner core of the hollow acetate tube along a longitudinal axis of the housing, POTTER teaches an orifice (see annotated Figure 3 of POTTER) and the cellulose acetate filter element (Figure 4A, element 600, [0080]) with a hollow center portion ([0096]) that may be longitudinally retained in the housing ([0089] and [0090]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the smoking article of GRIFFITH by aligning the orifice with the hollow inner core of the hollow acetate tube along a longitudinal axis of the housing, as taught by POTTER. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification to ensure a continuous, unobstructed path for smoke flow through the aligned hollow center portion to the user.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffith, Jr. et al. (US 20130255702 A1), hereinafter GRIFFITH, in view of Fiebelkorn (US 20110186063 A1), hereinafter FIEBELKORN.
Regarding Claim 5, GRIFFITH teaches the elements of claim 1. GRIFFITH does not explicitly disclose that the hollow acetate tube has a length, and the hollow inner core has an inner diameter that varies along the length of the hollow acetate tube. FIEBELKORN discloses a variable dimeter of an inner hollow core which improves the filtration efficacy ([Figure 3, [0039] and [0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the inner core of the acetate tube of GRIFFITH to feature a variable inner diameter, as taught by FIEBELKORN. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve filtration efficacy.
Regarding Claim 13, GRIFFITH teaches the elements of claim 12. GRIFFITH does not explicitly disclose that the hollow acetate tube has a length, and the hollow inner core has an inner diameter that varies along the length of the hollow acetate tube. FIEBELKORN discloses a variable dimeter of an inner hollow core ([Figure 3, 0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the inner core of the acetate tube of GRIFFITH to feature a variable inner diameter, as taught by FIEBELKORN. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve filtration efficacy ([0042]).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffith, Jr. et al. (US 20130255702 A1), hereinafter GRIFFITH, in view of Fiebelkorn (US 20110186063 A1), hereinafter FIEBELKORN, and Braunshteyn et al. (US 20080047571 A1), hereinafter, BRAUNSHTEYN.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of GRIFFITH and FIEBELKORN discloses the limitations of claim 5 but fails to explicitly disclose a hollow acetate tube with length ranging from 2 mm to 30 mm. However, BRAUNSHTEYN teaches a smoking article (Figure 1, element 10) comprising a hollow acetate tube filter (Figure 15, element 100) with a length of approximately 15mm, which falls within the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combination of GRIFFITH and FIEBELKORN by incorporating a hollow acetate tube filter having a length approximately 15mm as taught by BRAUNSHTEYN because it is a known length of a hollow acetate filter tube.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of GRIFFITH and FIEBELKORN discloses the limitations of claim 13 but fails to explicitly disclose a hollow acetate tube with length ranging from 2 mm to 30 mm. However, BRAUNSHTEYN teaches a smoking article (Figure 1, element 10) comprising a hollow acetate tube filter (Figure 15, element 100) with a length of approximately 15mm, which falls within the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combination of GRIFFITH and FIEBELKORN by incorporating a hollow acetate tube filter having a length approximately 15 mm as taught by BRAUNSHTEYN because it is a known length of a hollow acetate filter tube.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffith, Jr. et al. (US 20130255702 A1), hereinafter GRIFFITH, in view of Johnson et al. (WO 2013040193 A2), hereinafter, JOHNSON.
PNG
media_image3.png
283
696
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, GRIFFITH teaches the elements of claim 12 but does not explicitly disclose that the battery section further comprises: a heater connected to the power supply; and a channel connecting the heater to the orifice. However, JOHNSON discloses an electronic cigarette (element 15) comprising a first section (element 20) housing a battery as an electrical power source and a heater (element 26) coupled to the battery (element 21) via microprocessor (element 24). JOHNSON also discloses an airstream channel connecting the heater to a seal which is pierced (see annotated Figure 2 of JOHNSON, ([0012]).
Annotated Figure 2 of JOHNSON
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the battery section of GRIFFITH by incorporating the heater, power supply connection, and corresponding airstream channel as taught by JOHNSON. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings to optimize thermal delivery and streamline airflow to the orifice, achieving the predictable result.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 5-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. US 11974602 B2 (hereinafter “patent‘602”).
Independent claim 1 of patent’602 requires all the limitations of instant independent claim 1 except for the following: “an orifice opposite the mouthpiece; an air inlet between the orifice and the mouthpiece; and hollow inner core between the air inlet and the mouthpiece”.
While the conflicting claim does not explicitly state an orifice opposite the mouthpiece, this would occur in the conflicting claim because an air channel is disposed between the heater and the filter, and a discharge orifice fluidically connecting the air channel to an open space between the air channel and the filter. Likewise, although conflicting claim does not explicitly state an air inlet between the orifice and the mouthpiece, this structural relationship is necessarily established because air inlet is positioned between the heater and the filter and the orifice is situated between the air channel and the filter. Similarly, while the conflicting claim does not explicitly state that the hollow acetate tube is between the air inlet and the mouthpiece, this would occur in the conflicting claim because the filter is between the heater and the mouthpiece and the air inlet is between the heater and the filter.
Independent claim 1 of patent’602 requires all the limitations of instant dependent claim 2 except for “the hollow acetate tube is spaced apart from the orifice by an open space defined by the housing, the open space between the orifice and the hollow acetate tube”. While the conflicting claim does not explicitly state that the hollow acetate tube is spaced apart from the orifice by an open space defined by the housing (which is the open space between the orifice and the hollow acetate tube), this would occur in the conflicting claim because the discharge orifice connects to an “open space defined by the housing,” and explicitly positions this open space “between the air channel and the filter” (where the acetate tube is located). Because the open space separates the orifice side from the filter side, it naturally creates the required gap that spaces the hollow acetate tube apart from the orifice.
Dependent claims 5, 6 and 7 of the instant application recites the same limitations of dependent claims 2, 3 and 4, of the conflicting patent’602, respectively.
Dependent claim 8 of the instant application recites the limitations of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 5 of the conflicting patent’602. While the conflicting patent’602 does not explicitly recite “the hollow acetate tube further includes a first additive, the first additive including a flavor, an aerosol modifier, an aromatic material, a pH modifying agent, a chemesthesis agent, nicotine, or any combination thereof,” claim 1 of the conflicting patent’602 discloses a filter comprising a hollow acetate tube and an encapsulated first additive. Furthermore, dependent claim 5 of the conflicting patent’602 specifies that the first additive includes a flavor, an aerosol modifier, an aromatic material, a pH modifying agent, a chemesthesis agent, nicotine, or any combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to incorporate these specific additive materials directly within the hollow acetate tube component of the filter. Because the hollow acetate tube is already designated as a structural part of the filter assembly in claim 1 of the conflicting patent’602, modifying the location of the additive to be within the tube rather than generally within the filter, represents a routine design choice and optimization of the component placement. Such a modification would achieve the same predictable sensory, chemical or aerosol-modifying effects.
Dependent claims 9 and 10 of the instant application recites the same limitations of dependent claims 6 and 7 of the conflicting patent’602.
Independent claim 1 of patent’602 requires all the limitations of instant dependent claim 11 except for “a channel connecting the heater to the orifice”. While the conflicting claim does not explicitly state “a channel connecting the heater to the orifice”, this this would occur in the conflicting patent’602 because the heater is situated in the housing, an air channel between the heater and a filter, and a discharge orifice fluidically connecting the air channel to the housing (independent claim 1 of conflicting patent’602).
Independent claim 9 of patent’602 requires all the limitations of instant independent claim 12 except for the following: “an orifice opposite the mouthpiece; an air inlet between the orifice and the mouthpiece; and hollow inner core between the air inlet and the mouthpiece”. While the conflicting claim does not explicitly state an orifice opposite the mouthpiece, this would occur in the conflicting claim because an air channel is disposed between the heater and the filter, and a discharge orifice fluidically connecting the air channel to an open space between the air channel and the filter. Likewise, although conflicting claim does not explicitly state an air inlet between the orifice and the mouthpiece, this structural relationship is necessarily established because air inlet is positioned between the heater and the filter and the orifice is situated between the air channel and the filter. Similarly, while the conflicting claim does not explicitly state that the hollow acetate tube is between the air inlet and the mouthpiece, this would occur in the conflicting claim because the filter is between the heater and the mouthpiece and the air inlet is between the heater and the filter.
Dependent claims 13 and 14 of the instant application recites the same limitations of dependent claims 10 and 11 of the conflicting patent’602.
Dependent claim 15 of the instant application recites the limitations of independent claim 9 and dependent claim 12 of the conflicting Patent’602. While the conflicting patent’602 does not explicitly recite “the hollow acetate tube further includes a first additive, the first additive including a flavor, an aerosol modifier, an aromatic material, a pH modifying agent, a chemesthesis agent, nicotine, or any combination thereof,” claim 9 of the conflicting patent’602 discloses a filter comprising a hollow acetate tube and an encapsulated first additive. Furthermore, dependent claim 12 of the conflicting patent’602 specifies that the first additive includes a flavor, an aerosol modifier, an aromatic material, a pH modifying agent, a chemesthesis agent, nicotine, or any combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to incorporate these specific additive materials directly within the hollow acetate tube component of the filter. Because the hollow acetate tube is already designated as a structural part of the filter assembly in claim 9 of the conflicting patent’602, modifying the location of the additive to be within the tube rather than generally within the filter, represents a routine design choice and optimization of the component placement. Such a modification would achieve the same predictable sensory, chemical or aerosol-modifying effects.
this this would occur in the conflicting patent because the filter includes a hollow acetate tube and a first additive (independent claim 1 of conflicting patent) and the first additive includes a flavor, an aerosol modifier, an aromatic material, a pH modifying agent, a chemesthesis agent, nicotine, or any combination thereof (dependent claim 5 of conflicting patent’602). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to include the first additive within the hollow acetate tube of the filter, as the combination of these known elements provides a predictable result.
Dependent claims 16 and 17 of the instant application recites the same limitations of dependent claims 13 and 14 of the conflicting patent’602.
Independent claim 9 of patent’602 requires all the limitations of instant independent claims 18 and 19 except for the following: “a heater in the housing connected to the power supply; and a channel connecting the heater to the orifice”. While the conflicting claim does not explicitly state “a heater in the housing connected to the power supply; and a channel connecting the heater to the orifice”, this would occur in the conflicting claim because a battery section including a power supply is configured to supply power to the heater, air channel is situated between heater and the filter and a discharge orifice is fluidically connects air channel to the housing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRADEEP PAUDEL whose telephone number is (571)429-6993. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:30-5:00 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, 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.
/PRADEEP PAUDEL/Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights