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 .
th
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "120" and "110" have both been used to designate the heating element (see instant specification [0022].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because on line 2 it recites the informality: “…to form a least a first…”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogan (US20180014574A1), cited by Applicant via IDS 5-23-2024, in view of Monsees (US20170035115A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Rogan discloses a method for increasing a flow rate of a vaporizable liquid in a liquid reservoir [0059] and [0075], comprising:
drawing air into an airflow path of the liquid reservoir ([0059], Rogan discloses the airflow route is defined from an air inlet to an air outlet, aerosol guiding device 1, chamber 10, air inlet 11, air outlet 12, see also [0072]
to form a first pressure (pressure at the air inlet) and a second pressure (pressure just after the constriction in the third section) within the airflow path (Rogan teaches tapered chamber providing pressure differential along airflow path, [0062], from upstream portion 14, downstream portion 15, constricted section/portion 13, and pressure drop between air inlet and constricted portion 13 [0066]; and
increasing the flow rate in response to forming the first pressure and the second pressure. (see [0073], the flow rate is increased in response to the forming of the first and second pressures along the airflow path).
However, Rogan fails to explicitly disclose the liquid reservoir is in a cartridge.
However, Monsees teaches a liquid reservoir 32 is in a cartridge 30 for generating an inhalable aerosol [0256] and teaches the cartridge forms an air inlet channel when the cartridge is inserted into the device body 10. Monsees teaches the cartridge 30 contains an airflow path comprising channels 40, 41, 42, a heating chamber 37, and outlet port 47 [0298]-[0299], see also FIG 8b and 10a-10c. Thus Monsees teaches incorporating a fluid storage compartment, heater, and airflow path within a cartridge, and further that the cartridge is conveniently replaceable [0174].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Rogan with the cartridge structure of Monsees’, because Monsees’ teaches known cartridge packaging of the same basic airflow generation components, airflow path, fluid storage component, aerosol generating compartment etc. The modification would predictably provide Rogan’s controlled pressure differential and improved liquid supply in Monsees’ replaceable cartridge format while retaining the known function of each component with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 2, Rogan teaches the airflow path comprises:
a first section having a first diameter (inlet 11 [0060], [0066], see also FIG 1B, section has tapering variable diameter, see [0023]);
a second section having a second diameter ([0060], constricted section 13; and
a third section having a third diameter (outlet 12 [0060], [0066], see also [0023] for examples of ranges of diameters, as section has variable tapering diameter).
Regarding Claim 3, Rogan teaches the first diameter is greater than the second diameter ([0065], cross sectional shape decreases from the air inlet to the constricted section 13);
the second diameter is less than the third diameter ([0065], cross sectional shape increases from the constricted section 13 to the air outlet 12); and
the third diameter is substantially equal to the first diameter (see [0066], 12 and 13 have same dimensions/diameters see also [0023] for examples of ranges of diameters which would overlap along the tapering length and have diameters that are substantially equal between the third and the first, e.g., 10-15 mm along the length of the taper, see FIG 1B).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Rogan teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Rogan teaches the second diameter which is the narrower diameter as set forth above ranges from 1-5 mm and the first diameter which includes the diameter at the widest part which ranges from 10-15 mm. Therefore, Rogan teaches the ratio of ranges of the second diameter is from about 1/15 to about 1/2 of the first diameter which overlaps with the claimed range of the second diameter is equal to about one-half the first diameter (See also FIG 1B). In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Rogan teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Rogan teaches the second diameter which is the narrower diameter as set forth above ranges from 1-5 mm and the first diameter which includes the diameter at the widest part which ranges from 10-15 mm. Therefore, Rogan teaches the ratio of ranges of the second diameter is from about 1/15 to about 1/2 of the first diameter which overlaps with the claimed range of the second diameter is equal to about one-third the first diameter (see also FIG 1B). In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 6, Rogan teaches the air flows through the second section to form the second pressure at the third section, e.g., after the air passes through the constricted second section, the resulting downstream airflow has a second pressure just after the constriction in the third section, this second pressure in the initial part of the third section which is the second pressure would have a lower pressure than the first pressure, accordingly Rogan teaches the first pressure is greater than the second pressure, see [0066] which teaches that the relative tapering of the upstream portion 14 and downstream portion 15 of the chamber 10 can be selected to provide pressure control means for controlling the pressure differential between the air inlet 11 and the air outlet 12 of the chamber 10 which can be used to create a pressure drop across chamber 10 which advantageously gives the pressure drop of a conventional cigarette and also meets the claim requirement [0066], the requirement of a pressure drop between the first section and the third section shows that the second pressure in the third section is lower than the first pressure in the first section, see also pressure relationship as described by Rogan at [0004].
Regarding Claim 7, modified Rogan teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Rogan teaches the vaporizable liquid flows from a reservoir disposed within the device to a heating element disposed within the airflow path at a flow rate. [0073], additionally see [0078], the unshown heating element/coil heater can be located at the narrowest part of the chamber 20. The wicks 25 are also received by the chamber 20 at the narrowest part 23 with the wick in communication with the reservoir.
Rogan as modified by Monsees’ (see claim 1) teaches the vaporizable liquid flows from a liquid reservoir disposed within a cartridge
Regarding Claim 8, Rogan teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Rogan teaches the flow rate is proportional to the difference between the first pressure and the second pressure (e.g., see [0073], by virtue of the Venturi effect air flows faster or slower depending on the airflow through the air passageway proportional to its diameter, see also the pressure relationship as described by Rogan at [0004], which teaches that air flow through a wider section must conversely/proportionally decrease in speed while its pressure increases.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael T Fulton whose telephone number is (703)756-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 - 4:30 ET.
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.
/M.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights