DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show "a first portion" and "a second portion" and “chamber lateral walls” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20160360794 A1 (hereinafter LI).
Regarding claim 1, LI discloses a heating device for a cigarette including a housing, a heating chamber, and a power supply (abstract). LI discloses an aerosol generating device (Fig. 2, housing 12, ¶17) comprising a heating chamber (Fig. 2, heating chamber 14, ¶17) extending along a chamber axis between a closed end and an open end (Fig. 1, opening 144, ¶17). LI discloses that in use the cigarette is inserted into the heating chamber via the opening until an end of the cigarette reaches a bottom (i.e. closed end) of the heating chamber (¶23). LI further discloses the heating chamber configured to receive through the open end a tobacco article (¶17). LI further discloses defining a first portion adjacent to the closed end and a second portion adjacent to the open end (See annotated Fig. 2 below). LI further discloses the heating chamber comprising at least two chamber contact walls (Fig. 1, two heating pieces 146, ¶18) facing each other and extending through both portions of the heating chamber. LI further discloses the at least two chamber contact walls being arranged so that a distance between the at least two chamber contact walls in the second portion of the heating chamber is greater than a distance between the at least two chamber contact walls in the first portion of the heating chamber. As shown in Fig. 2, the heating pieces 146 are shown to increase in distance apart from the closed end in the direction of the open end. LI discloses that the heating chamber is shaped so that the maximum distance between the two heating pieces is less than an external diameter of the cigarette (¶18). In this way the heating chamber is able to press the cigarette to conform to the shape of the heating chamber resulting in a tight and secure fit (¶23).
[AltContent: textbox (Chamber Axis)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second portion)][AltContent: textbox (First portion)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
350
275
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
426
301
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, LI discloses the aerosol generating device according to claim 1, as discussed above. LI further discloses wherein each of the at least two chamber contact walls presents a flat surface configured to face the tobacco article. LI discloses that the heating chamber presses the cigarette flat (¶23). Where the cigarette is pressed flat, the heating pieces that shape the cigarette are flat to form the flat cigarette. Further see Fig. 6 which shows a flattened cigarette with flat surfaces formed by the heating pieces.
Regarding claim 6, LI discloses the aerosol generating device according to claim 1, as discussed above. LI further discloses each of the at least two chamber contact walls forms a non-zero angle with the chamber axis. As shown in annotated Fig. 2, the heating pieces angle away from the chamber axis such that there is a non-zero angle (by definition the heating pieces are not parallel to the chamber axis and therefore form a non-zero angle).
Regarding claim 7, LI discloses the aerosol generating device according to claim 5, as discussed above. LI further discloses the at least two chamber contact walls extend from the closed end to the open end of the heating chamber so as to form a V-shape. As shown in Fig.
Regarding claim 13, LI discloses the aerosol generating device according to claim 1, as discussed above. LI further discloses at least one of the at least two chamber contact walls is a heating wall (¶18).
Regarding claim 15, LI discloses the aerosol generating device according to claim 1, as discussed above. LI further discloses an aerosol generating assembly (Fig. 1, heating device 10, ¶16), comprising a tobacco article (Fig. 1, cigarette 20, ¶16) and the aerosol generating device according to claim 1, the aerosol generating device being adapted to operate with the tobacco article (¶18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-4, 12, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI.
Regarding claim 2, LI discloses the aerosol generating device according to claim 1, as discussed above. LI does not disclose the first portion of the heating chamber is configured to receive a substrate part of the tobacco article and the second portion of the heating chamber is configured to receive at least partially a cooling part of the tobacco article.
LI teaches that the heating device is configured for heating a cigarette (¶16). The cigarette is substantially cylindrical and includes a mouthpiece 22 (i.e. cooling part) and a main body 24 (i.e. substrate part). The main body includes substances for generating an aerosol like tobacco shred (¶16). The mouthpiece is a cooling part because as the aerosol moves away from the heating elements to the user heat losses occur which cools the aerosol.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the teachings of LI to provide the first portion of the heating chamber is configured to receive a substrate part of the tobacco article and the second portion of the heating chamber is configured to receive at least partially a cooling part of the tobacco article. A person of ordinary skill in the art would position the substrate part in the first portion of the heating chamber away from the user. This would allow for heating of the substrate in the part of the chamber away from the user. Further a person of ordinary skill in the art would provide a cooling element (i.e. filter) in the section portion closer to the user to both filter the aerosol and cool the aerosol before delivery to the user. A filter that is not heated inherently is a cooling device because thermally as the aerosol travels to the user away from the heat source it will cool. Further LI teaches that the heating device is configured to control the temperature by heating controlling the two heating pieces (¶19). A person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that this is a teaching of intentionally positioning the cigarette in the device for proper temperature control and cooling with predictable results. See MPEP 2143, I., (D), Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, LI teaches the aerosol generating device according to claim 2, as discussed above. LI further discloses wherein the at least two chamber contact walls are configured to be in contact with at least a half of a total external area of the substrate part of the tobacco article. As shown in Fig. 5, the length of the main part 24 (i.e. substrate part) is less than half of the cigarette. Therefore, when the cigarette is placed in the device as shown in Fig. 2, the main part of the cigarette is in contact with at least half of a total external area of the substrate part.
Regarding claim 4, LI teaches the aerosol generating device according to claim 2, as discussed above. LI further discloses the at least two chamber contact walls are configured to be spaced from at least a half of a total external area of the cooling part of the tobacco article. As shown in Fig. 2, the filter, which is made evident in Fig. 5 is greater than ½ of the article, extends far beyond the chamber contact walls. Therefore, the walls are spaced from at least half of the total external area of the filter (i.e. cooling part).
Regarding claim 12, LI discloses the aerosol generating device according to claim 1, as discussed above. LI further teaches the heating chamber forms a rectangular cross-sectional shape, the heating chamber comprising a pair of parallel chamber lateral walls extending along the chamber axis. As shown in Fig. 3, the cross section of the heating chamber is a rectangle. By definition in order to have a rectangular cross-sectional shape as shown in annotated Fig. 3 below the heating chamber must have a pair of parallel chamber walls. Further, the courts have held changes in proportion or shape to be prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that changing the shape is a matter of engineering and aesthetics.
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image3.png
282
188
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, LI discloses the aerosol generating device according to claim 1, as discussed above. Although it is not taught that the heating chamber forms a cup shape, the courts have held changes in proportion or shape to be prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that changing the shape is a matter of engineering and aesthetics. Further the art is replete with art where the heating chamber is a cup shape. Example references are cited below, though not relied upon for the rejection.
Regarding claim 16, LI discloses the aerosol generating device according to claim 12, as discussed above. LI further teaches wherein a distance between the chamber lateral walls is between 3 and 10 times greater than any distance between the at least two chamber contact walls. As informed by applicant’s specification, the distance between chamber lateral walls is to achieve a “flat” surface (page 9, lines 29-33). Therefore, LI teaches this insomuch as LI clearly teaches that the article is pressed flat by the chamber (see Li Fig. 6). As stated above, changes to shape and proportion are prima facie obvious (see the rejection of claim 12)
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2022079751 A1 (hereinafter FUJITA). US reference 20230102855 A1 relied upon for citations.
Regarding claim 8, LI discloses the aerosol generating device according to claim 1, as discussed above. LI does not disclose wherein in the first portion of the heating chamber the at least two chamber contact walls extend parallel to the chamber axis.
FUJITA teaches an inhalation device to improve the quality of experience with targeted temperatures (abstract). FUJITA teaches a chamber 50 to receive a stick-type substrate 150 (Fig. 5, ¶68). As shown in the top view Fig. 6 and 9, the pressing portion 62 that form the walls of the heating chamber extend parallel to the chamber access.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LI to provide wherein in the first portion of the heating chamber the at least two chamber contact walls extend parallel to the chamber axis as taught in FUJITA. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously modify the shape of a heating chamber. Doing so would make effective use of heat radiation from the heater and press the stick in the chamber (FUJITA ¶74).
Regarding claim 9, modified LI discloses the aerosol generating device according to claim 8, as discussed above. LI does not disclose wherein in the second portion of the heating chamber the distance between the at least two chamber contact walls increases gradually from an end adjacent to the first portion until the open end of the heating chamber.
FUJITA teaches an inhalation device to improve the quality of experience with targeted temperatures (abstract). FUJITA teaches a chamber 50 to receive a stick-type substrate 150 (Fig. 5, ¶68). As shown in Fig. 5, the top of the chamber has guides 58 that have tapered surfaces (¶81).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LI to provide wherein in the second portion of the heating chamber the distance between the at least two chamber contact walls increases gradually from an end adjacent to the first portion until the open end of the heating chamber as taught in FUJITA. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously modify the shape of a heating chamber open end. Doing so would provide guides for user insertion of the cigarette (FUJITA ¶81, ¶84).
Regarding claim 10, modified LI discloses the aerosol generating device according to claim 9, as discussed above. LI does not disclose wherein in the second portion of the heating chamber the at least two chamber contact walls form a curved shape. The surface shown in Fig. 8 of FUJITA is considered to be curved (see annotated Fig. 8 below). FUJITA further teaches that the opening of the chamber may have a polygonal or elliptical shape (¶70). FUJITA teaches that inner surfaces may have a flat surface shape or opposing curved shapes (¶72). Further, the courts have held changes in proportion or shape to be prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that changing the shape is a matter of engineering and aesthetics.
Regarding claim 11, modified LI discloses the aerosol generating device according to claim 9, as discussed above. LI further discloses in each portion of the heating chamber, each of the at least two chamber contact walls presents a flat surface configured to face the tobacco article; and the flat surfaces of each of the at least two chamber contact walls form a non-zero angle between the first portion and the second portion. As shown in annotated Fig. 2 above LI discloses that the first portion and the second portion are formed by heating pieces arranged on inner walls (¶18). LI discloses that when the cigarette is inserted into the heating chamber the cigarette is pressed flat (¶23). Therefore the contact walls present a flat surface to the cigarette. Further LI discloses an ever increasing angle from the closed end to the open end with respect to the chamber axis. Therefore there is a non-zero angle between the first portion and the second portion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130152922 A1 which discloses a heating chamber having a cup shape (¶23).
US 20160235122 A1 which discloses a heating chamber having a cup shape (¶65).
US 20180000159 A1 which discloses an aerosol generating system (abstract) with tapering walls to provide an optimum increase in air flow rate in the chamber whilst maintaining a suitable pressure difference (Fig. 3C, ¶26).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE L MOORE whose telephone number is (313)446-6537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9 am to 5 pm.
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.
/STEPHANIE LYNN MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights