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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I, claims 16-26 in the reply filed on 7/17/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 27-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/17/2026.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 11,406,134) in view of Weigensberg (US 9,943,107).
Regarding claim 16, Zhou discloses an electronic cigarette (abstract) having a first air hole in the shape of a truncated cone that gets wider in the airflow direction (column 3, lines 54-57, figure 3, reference numeral 110). Zhou does not explicitly disclose a flavor compartment.
Weigensberg teaches an electronic cigarette that has a flavor enhancement to provide additional flavor to a user (abstract). A sticker (figure 2, reference numeral 5) impregnated with a flavor agent is adhered to the interior wall (figure 2, reference numeral 204) of the cartomizer (figure 2, reference numeral 1130 so that it mixes with the air flow (column 5, lines 25-42, figure 2, reference numeral 206). The air flow is flow of the main e-liquid (column 5, lines 43-62) that has already been atomized (column 5, lines 25-42), indicating that the sticker is located downstream of the heating element.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the central portion of the first air hole of Zhou with the sticker of Weigensberg. One would have been motivated to do so since Weigensberg teaches a sticker that gives additional flavor to a user.
Regarding claim 17, Zhou discloses that the first air hole becomes continuously wider in the airflow direction (figure 3), which meets the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 19, Weigensburg teaches that the sticker is made from paper (column 5, lines 63-67, column 6, lines 1-4), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a porous material.
Regarding claim 21, Zhou discloses that a user draws through the first air hole (column 5, lines 46-53). The upper end of the first air hole is considered to define an outlet portion, and the lower portion of the first air hole is considered to meet the claim limitation of an inlet portion.
Regarding claim 22, Zhou discloses that the mouthpiece is detachably connected to a top cover by a threaded screw (column 8, lines 3-33). The top cover is connected to an atomizing component (column 3, lines 39-53), which together are considered to meet the claim limitation of an aerosol generating device.
Regarding claim 23, modified Zhou teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Zhou does not explicitly teach the inlet portion of the first air hole being tubular.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the inlet portion of the first air hole be tubular. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding claim 24, Zhou discloses that the first air hole extends longitudinally along the mouthpiece (figure 3).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 11,406,134) in view of Weigensberg (US 9,943,107) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Tarrant (US 3,796,223).
Regarding claim 18, modified Zhou teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Zhou does not explicitly teach portions of the first air hole remaining partly the same.
Tarrant teaches a mouthpiece (figure 6, reference numeral 11) that extends between a conical flare at its downstream end (column 4, lines 29-41, figure 6, reference numeral 25) to a smoke expansion chamber (figure 6, reference numeral 57) at its upstream end that are connected by a bore having a smaller, constant cross sectional area in the central portion of the mouthpiece (column 4, lines 43-68, column 5, lines 1-2, figure 6, reference numeral 26). The bore is considered to define areas both upstream and downstream of the center of the mouthpiece having constant cross sectional areas. Tarrant additionally teaches that this arrangement avoids tongue burn since it causes the smoke to cool (column 4, lines 29-41).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the first air hole of modified Zhou with the channel shape of Tarrant. One would have been motivated to do so since Tarrant teaches a mouthpiece that avoids tongue burn by causing cooling.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 11,406,134) in view of Weigensberg (US 9,943,107) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Wilson (US 215,422).
Regarding claim 20, modified Zhou teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Zhou does not explicitly teach the paper being a nonwoven material.
Wilson teaches a process of forming paper in which pulp is compressed against a blanket to form paper and then dried so that it can be taken from the manufacturing machine (page 1, right column, fourth paragraph). The manufacturing machine only requires an operator to handle the paper once (page 1, left column, first paragraph). It is evident that there is no weaving of the paper in this process.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the papermaking process of Wilson to make the paper of modified Zhou. One would have been motivated to do so since Wilson teaches a simple process for manufacturing paper.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 11,406,134) in view of Weigensberg (US 9,943,107) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Alston (US 12,471,629).
Regarding claim 25, modified Zhou teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Zhou additionally discloses that the mouthpiece has an outer wall (figure 3). Modified Zhou does not explicitly teach a mouthpiece air inlet.
Alston teaches a mouthpiece having a balanced air inlet inlet that extends through the outer wall of the mouthpiece so that the heated airflow is cooled prior to user inhalation (column 17, lines 18-50, figure 5, reference numeral 140).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the mouthpiece of modified Zhou with the balanced air inlet of Alston. One would have been motivated to do so since Alston teaches air inlets that cool airflow prior to inhalation.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 11,406,134) in view of Weigensberg (US 9,943,107) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Wengert (US 2008/0302374).
Regarding claim 26, modified Zhou teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Zhou does not explicitly teach an outlet sealing layer.
Wengert teaches a smoke free cigarette (abstract) having a mouthpiece that is covered with a plastic foil that is removed before use so that a volatile flavoring does not evaporate prior to use [0035], indicating that the foil seals the mouthpiece.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the outlet of the first air hole of modified Zhou with the plastic foil of Wengert. One would have been motivated to do so since Wengert teaches plastic foil that prevents volatile flavoring from evaporating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-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, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights