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.
Claim 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mironov et al. (US 2021/0204604 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mironov teaches a vaporization device (aerosol-generating system 1 comprising aerosol-generating device 70 and aerosol-generating article 20, ¶ [0083]), comprising:
a host (main body 80, ¶ [0084]);
a suction nozzle detachably connected to the host (mouthpiece 90 releasably attachable to main body 80 by corresponding bayonet mounts 84 and 94, ¶ [0084]);
an aerosol-generating product connected between the host and the suction nozzle (aerosol-generating article 20 attached to aerosol-generating device 70 and securely mounted in cavity 95 of mouthpiece 90, ¶ [0084]), the aerosol-generating product comprising a container (liquid reservoir 50 having outer wall 51 and proximal end wall 53, ¶ [0073]), an accommodating cavity being formed in the container, the accommodating cavity being configured to accommodate an aerosol-generating substrate (reservoir volume 55 containing aerosol-forming liquid within liquid-retention element 30, ¶ [0073]);
wherein the host comprises a heating assembly configured to heat the aerosol-generating substrate (induction coil 75 supported by cylindrical coil support 76 attached to main body 80 and configured to generate an alternating magnetic field through susceptor assembly 10, ¶ [0086]); and
wherein the suction nozzle comprises an air outlet channel through which the accommodating cavity is in communication with an outside (mouthpiece 90 having an airflow path extending through cavity 95 to air outlet 92, wherein vaporized aerosol-forming liquid passes through fluid-permeable susceptor tube 11, becomes entrained in the airflow, and exits through outlet 92, ¶ [0086]).
Regarding claim 3, Mironov further teaches wherein one end of the aerosol-generating product is detachably connected to the suction nozzle, and another end of the aerosol-generating product is detachably connected to the host (aerosol-generating article 20 is securely mounted within cavity 95 of removable mouthpiece 90 and attached to aerosol-generating device 70, ¶ [0084]).
Regarding claim 4, Mironov further teaches wherein a vaporization cavity is formed at an end of the host connected to the suction nozzle (cavity 95 formed by mouthpiece 90 at the end of main body 80, ¶ [0084]), and the aerosol-generating product is at least partially detachably accommodated in the vaporization cavity (aerosol-generating article 20 removably mounted within cavity 95 when attached to aerosol-generating device 70, ¶ [0084]).
Regarding claim 6, Mironov further teaches wherein the heating assembly comprises an inductive heating source configured to generate a fluctuating electromagnetic field (induction coil 75 configured to generate an alternating magnetic field, ¶ [0083]), wherein the aerosol-generating product is configured to be at least partially located in the fluctuating electromagnetic field when being joined to the host (aerosol-generating article 20 is attached to aerosol-generating device 70 such that susceptor assembly 10 is positioned for interaction with the alternating magnetic field generated by induction coil 75, ¶¶ [0083]–[0084]).
Regarding claim 8, Mironov further teaches wherein the aerosol-generating product comprises a heating element configured to generate heat under the fluctuating electromagnetic field (susceptor assembly 10 of aerosol-generating article 20 is inductively heated by the alternating magnetic field generated by induction coil 75, ¶ [0086]).
Regarding claim 12, Mironov further teaches wherein the aerosol-generating substrate is accommodated in the accommodating cavity (aerosol-forming liquid is contained within liquid-retention element 30 in reservoir volume 55 of liquid reservoir 50, ¶ [0073]).
Regarding claim 13, Mironov further teaches an air inlet channel through which the accommodating cavity is in communication with the outside (an airflow path extending from lateral air inlets 93 through cavity 95 and central airflow passage 21, ¶ [0084]).
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.
Claim 2, 5 and 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mironov et al. (US 2021/0204604 A1) in view of Monsees et al. (US 2016/0345631 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Mironov teaches the vaporization device of claim 1, including a suction nozzle detachably connected to the host (mouthpiece 90 releasably attachable to main body 80 by corresponding bayonet mounts 84 and 94, Mironov ¶ [0084]).
Mironov does not teach wherein the suction nozzle is connected to the host by a magnetic force.
Monsees teaches a removable mouthpiece connected to a vaporizer body by magnetic force (the mouthpiece attaches to the body using a rare-earth magnet, Monsees ¶ [0151]).
Both Mironov and Monsees are directed to portable vaporization devices having removable mouthpieces secured to a device body. Monsees’s magnetic connection performs the same mouthpiece-retaining function as Mironov’s bayonet connection and is compatible with Mironov’s detachable mouthpiece arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute Monsees’s known magnetic mouthpiece connection for Mironov’s bayonet connection to obtain the predictable result of detachably securing the mouthpiece to the host using magnetic force, consistent with the substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results set forth in MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 5, Mironov teaches the vaporization device of claim 4, including a vaporization cavity configured to accommodate the aerosol-generating product (cavity 95 accommodating aerosol-generating article 20, Mironov ¶ [0084]) and a heating assembly extending into the vaporization cavity (induction coil 75 carried by cylindrical coil support 76 extending into cavity 95, Mironov ¶ [0085]).
Mironov does not teach wherein the vaporization cavity is at least partially formed in the heating assembly.
Monsees teaches a thin-wall metal heating chamber or oven that receives the vaporizable material for heating (Monsees ¶ [0127]). Because the heating chamber itself defines the space receiving the vaporizable material, Monsees teaches the vaporization cavity being at least partially formed in the heating assembly.
Both Mironov and Monsees are directed to portable vaporization devices having a heating assembly arranged to heat vaporizable material received in a chamber. Monsees’s cavity-defining heating chamber is compatible with Mironov’s article-receiving heating arrangement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure Mironov’s heating assembly to include Monsees’s cavity-defining heating chamber so that the vaporization cavity is at least partially formed in the heating assembly, thereby maintaining the aerosol-generating product in operative alignment with the heating assembly and obtaining the predictable result of heating the product within the cavity, consistent with combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results under MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 9, Mironov teaches the vaporization device of claim 8, including a heating element configured to generate heat under the fluctuating electromagnetic field (susceptor assembly 10 inductively heated by the alternating magnetic field generated by induction coil 75, Mironov ¶ [0086]).
Mironov does not teach a heating cavity configured to accommodate the aerosol-generating substrate being formed in the heating element.
Monsees teaches a deep-drawn stainless-steel heating chamber having a thin-film heater applied thereto and configured to receive a cartridge containing vaporizable material (Monsees ¶ [0157]). Thus, the heater-applied heating chamber forms a cavity configured to accommodate the aerosol-generating substrate.
Both Mironov and Monsees are directed to vaporization devices in which a heating structure heats vaporizable material received within a chamber. Monsees’s cavity-forming heating structure is compatible with Mironov’s heating element and aerosol-generating product.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure Mironov’s heating element as the heater-applied heating chamber taught by Monsees such that a heating cavity configured to accommodate the aerosol-generating substrate is formed in the heating element, thereby positioning the substrate within the heating structure for efficient heat transfer and obtaining the predictable result of heating the substrate within the cavity, consistent with combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results under MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mironov et al. (US 2021/0204604 A1) in view of Mironov et al. (US 2019/0208827 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Mironov ’604 teaches the vaporization device of claim 6, including a container of the aerosol-generating product (liquid reservoir 50, Mironov ’604 ¶ [0073]) and a susceptor assembly configured to be inductively heated (susceptor assembly 10, Mironov ’604 ¶ [0086]).
Mironov ’604 does not teach wherein the container comprises a susceptor material.
Mironov ’827 teaches that the entire container may be formed from the susceptor material (Mironov ’827 ¶ [0050]). Mironov ’827 further teaches that forming at least part of the container from the susceptor material may simplify manufacture and assembly by eliminating the need to insert a separate susceptor into an already formed container and may facilitate heating using an external induction coil because no container is positioned between the induction coil and the susceptor material (Mironov ’827 ¶¶ [0048]–[0049]).
Both references are directed to inductively heated aerosol-generating products having a container for aerosol-forming substrate and a susceptor heated by an external induction source.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form Mironov ’604’s liquid reservoir 50 from susceptor material, as taught by Mironov ’827, to simplify manufacture and assembly and facilitate inductive heating by eliminating an intervening container between the induction coil and the susceptor material, consistent with combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results under MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 14, Mironov ’604 teaches the vaporization device of claim 13, including a suction nozzle comprising an air-outlet channel (mouthpiece 90 comprising an airflow path extending through cavity 95 to air outlet 92, Mironov ’604 ¶ [0084]).
Mironov ’604 does not teach wherein the suction nozzle comprises an air-guide tube, wherein an inner wall surface of the air-guide tube defines an air-guide channel, and wherein one of the air-inlet channel and the air-outlet channel comprises the air-guide channel.
Mironov ’827 teaches a mouthpiece comprising a hollow mouthpiece tube through which aerosol flows to the user (Mironov ’827 ¶ [0106]). The inner wall of the hollow mouthpiece tube defines the airflow channel through the tube.
Both references are directed to aerosol-generating systems having airflow passages that convey aerosol from an aerosol-generating article through a mouthpiece.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure Mironov ’604’s mouthpiece airflow path using the hollow mouthpiece tube taught by Mironov ’827 to provide a defined passage for conveying aerosol through the mouthpiece, thereby obtaining the predictable result of directing aerosol to the mouthpiece outlet, consistent with combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results under MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claims 10, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mironov et al. (US 2021/0204604 A1) in view of Batista et al. (WO 2023/031204 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Mironov teaches the vaporization device of claim 1, including a suction nozzle comprising an air-outlet channel (mouthpiece 90 having an airflow path extending through cavity 95 to air outlet 92, Mironov ¶ [0084]).
Mironov does not teach the suction nozzle comprising a temperature sensor arranged in the air-outlet channel, two first electrodes electrically connected to the temperature sensor, the host comprising two second electrodes, and the two first electrodes and the two second electrodes being conducted upon abutting against each other.
Batista teaches a temperature sensor located in the airflow path of a replaceable mouthpiece and a controller electrically connected to the temperature sensor (Batista, p. 2, ll. 20–35). Batista also teaches additional electrical contacts that electrically connect controller 72 in main unit 40 to an electrical component in replaceable mouthpiece 10 when the mouthpiece is attached to the main unit (Batista, p. 13, ll. 13–16).
Both Mironov and Batista are directed to aerosol-generating devices having removable mouthpieces with airflow paths for conveying aerosol to a user. Batista’s temperature sensor permits the temperature of airflow through the mouthpiece to be detected, while its detachable electrical-contact arrangement permits an electrical component in the removable mouthpiece to communicate with the controller when the mouthpiece is assembled with the main unit. Because the temperature sensor is an electrical component requiring electrical communication with the controller, Batista’s disclosed contact arrangement is suitable for connecting the mouthpiece-mounted temperature sensor to the main unit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Mironov’s mouthpiece airflow path with Batista’s temperature sensor and to use Batista’s corresponding detachable electrical contacts to connect the sensor to the host controller when the mouthpiece and host are brought together, thereby permitting temperature-responsive control while maintaining the removability of the mouthpiece and obtaining the predictable result of completing the sensor circuit upon assembly, consistent with combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results under MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 17, Mironov teaches the vaporization device of claim 13, including an air-inlet channel through which the accommodating cavity communicates with the outside (airflow path extending from lateral air inlets 93 through cavity 95 and central airflow passage 21, ¶ [0084]).
Mironov does not teach the air-inlet channel comprising at least one side air-inlet passage extending inward in a horizontal direction from an outer side surface of the suction nozzle and at least one inner air-inlet passage communicating with the side air-inlet passage, wherein the inner air-inlet passage is located inside the suction nozzle and extends longitudinally.
Batista teaches ambient air entering lateral air inlets 14 from the outer side surface of mouthpiece 10 into a first portion of the airflow path and then flowing through a communicating second portion extending longitudinally inside mouthpiece 10 toward aerosolization zone 56 (Batista, p. 14, ll. 5–10; Fig. 3). Thus, lateral air inlets 14 provide side air-inlet passages extending inward substantially horizontally relative to the longitudinal axis, while the downstream airflow space inside mouthpiece 10 provides the communicating longitudinal inner air-inlet passage.
Both Mironov and Batista are directed to aerosol-generating devices having detachable mouthpieces and inlet airflow paths that convey ambient air toward an aerosol-generating region. Batista’s lateral-to-longitudinal inlet arrangement is compatible with Mironov’s mouthpiece airflow arrangement and provides a defined route for introducing ambient air through the side of the mouthpiece.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure Mironov’s mouthpiece air-inlet channel according to Batista with a lateral side air-inlet passage communicating with a longitudinal inner air-inlet passage to direct ambient air from the exterior of the mouthpiece toward the aerosol-generating region, thereby obtaining the predictable result of providing a compact inlet airflow path, consistent with combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results under MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 15-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mironov et al. (US 2021/0204604 A1) in view of Mironov et al. (US 2019/0208827 A1) and Batista et al. (WO 2023/031204 A1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Mironov teaches the vaporization device of claim 14, including a suction nozzle comprising an air-guide tube having an air-guide channel (hollow mouthpiece tube through which aerosol flows, Mironov ’827 ¶ [0106]).
Modified Mironov does not teach an end of the container having an opening, the air-guide tube extending into the opening, a vent gap formed between an outer wall surface of the air-guide tube and an inner wall surface of the opening, and the other of the air-inlet channel and the air-outlet channel being in communication with the vent gap.
Batista teaches liquid storage portion 44 surrounding tubular cavity 46 having open proximal end 48, wherein the inner diameter of tubular cavity 46 is larger than the outer diameter of hollow tubular element 18 of mouthpiece 10 (Batista, p. 13, ll. 1–4; Figs. 1–3). Batista further teaches air flowing through the annular space formed between walls 18, 20 of the mouthpiece and walls 66 of cartridge-and-heating section 42 toward aerosolization zone 56 (Batista, p. 14, ll. 5–10). Thus, Batista’s hollow tubular element extends into the open tubular cavity, and the surrounding annular space forms a vent gap communicating with the air-inlet channel.
Mironov and Batista are directed to aerosol-generating devices having detachable mouthpieces and airflow paths extending between a substrate-containing product and a mouthpiece. Batista’s tube-and-annular-gap arrangement is compatible with modified Mironov’s hollow mouthpiece tube and provides a defined inlet airflow path around the tube.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure modified Mironov’s air-guide tube and container opening according to Batista so that the air-guide tube extends into the opening and an annular vent gap communicates with the air-inlet channel, thereby defining separate airflow paths through and around the air-guide tube and obtaining the predictable result of directing inlet air toward the aerosol-generating region, consistent with combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results under MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 16, modified Mironov teaches the vaporization device of claim 14, including an air-inlet channel and an air-outlet channel associated with the aerosol-generating product and suction nozzle (Mironov ’604 ¶ [0084]; Mironov ’827 ¶ [0106]).
Modified Mironov does not teach at least one air-inlet passage and at least one air-outlet passage formed at an end of the aerosol-generating product, wherein the air-inlet channel communicates with the air-inlet passage and the air-outlet channel communicates with the air-outlet passage.
Batista teaches that, at the mouthpiece-facing end of cartridge-and-heating section 42, inlet air passes through an annular passage formed between the mouthpiece and cartridge-and-heating section toward aerosolization zone 56, while generated aerosol passes through tube inlet opening 22 into hollow tubular element 18 and toward air outlet 34 (Batista, p. 14, ll. 5–16; Figs. 2–3). Thus, Batista teaches separate inlet and outlet passages at the end of the aerosol-generating product, respectively communicating with the inlet and outlet airflow channels.
Mironov and Batista are directed to aerosol-generating systems having detachable mouthpieces and airflow paths extending through an aerosol-generating product. Batista’s separate inlet and outlet passages are compatible with modified Mironov’s mouthpiece and cartridge arrangement and provide defined flow paths for incoming air and generated aerosol.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the mouthpiece-facing end of modified Mironov’s aerosol-generating product with Batista’s separate inlet and outlet passages so that the air-inlet channel communicates with the inlet passage and the air-outlet channel communicates with the outlet passage, thereby separating incoming airflow from outgoing aerosol flow and obtaining the predictable result of directing air to the aerosol-generating region and aerosol to the user, consistent with combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results under MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mironov et al. (US 2021/0204604 A1) in view of Apetrei Birza (US 2019/0053535 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Mironov teaches the vaporization device of claim 1, including an aerosol-generating product comprising an accommodating cavity containing an aerosol-generating substrate (reservoir volume 55 containing aerosol-forming liquid within liquid-retention element 30, Mironov ¶ [0073]).
Mironov does not teach wherein the aerosol-generating product comprises a mesh sheet arranged in the accommodating cavity.
Apetrei Birza teaches that the susceptor material may be provided in the form of a mesh or sheet (Apetrei Birza ¶ [0027]) and that aerosol-forming substrate may be provided as a sheet including or carrying susceptor material (Apetrei Birza ¶ [0031]). Apetrei Birza further teaches the substrate and susceptor structures being arranged within the capsule cavity (Apetrei Birza ¶ [0105]).
Both references are directed to inductively heated aerosol-generating articles containing aerosol-forming substrate within an internal cavity. Apetrei Birza’s mesh or sheet susceptor configuration is compatible with Mironov’s substrate-containing reservoir and provides a known structure for supporting and inductively heating aerosol-forming substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the mesh sheet taught by Apetrei Birza within the accommodating cavity of Mironov’s aerosol-generating product to support and heat the aerosol-generating substrate and obtain the predictable result of aerosol generation from substrate carried by the mesh sheet, consistent with combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results under MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. 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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights