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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are canceled.
Claims 16-30 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 16-18, 20, and 23-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0120224 to Mishra et al. (hereinafter Mishra).
PNG
media_image1.png
192
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 16-18, Mishra teaches a mouthpiece 70 for inhaling an aerosol, the mouthpiece comprising: an airflow path 315,321,384 for an aerosol, the airflow path leading through the mouthpiece; and flavor granules 10a arranged in the airflow path, the flavor granules containing at least one flavoring agent for flavoring the aerosol (para [0066]), wherein the flavor granules are configured to be movable by a user's puff. Note that beads 10a are described as being “loose” within cavity 500 and thus, are “configured” to be movable by a user’s puff as they are capable of doing so when the cavity is not packed tightly. See para [0061]. Mishra further discloses the flavor granules comprise a porous matrix material (a hydrogel) including the at least one flavoring agent, and wherein the porous matrix material has a density of between 0.4 and 2 g/cm³. See paras [0067 and 0069]. The hydrogel encapsulates/embeds a releasable flavorant and is thereby inherently porous. Furthermore, Mishra discloses the hydrogel has a density of about 0.80-1.5 g/cm3, which falls within/overlaps the claimed range.
As to claim 20, the porous matrix of Mishra is a hydrogel. Hydrogels are inherently water-insoluble.
With respect to claims 23 and 24, the granules have a diameter from about 0.2 mm to about 2.0 mm, falling within the claimed ranges.
PNG
media_image2.png
310
242
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 25, the device has a longitudinal axis and the airflow path is partly arranged diagonally to the longitudinal axis. Specifically, air enters at air inlet 440, perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the device. It must then travel at a diagonal through space 335 to enter air flow path 315. See annotated Figure 2.
As to claim 26, the mouthpiece of Mishra includes an inlet portion 321,384 configured for receiving the aerosol and an outlet portion 21 configured for outflow of the aerosol, wherein the airflow path is arranged between the inlet portion and outlet portion. See Figure 2.
With respect to claims 27 and 28, the inlet portion includes a longitudinal tubular outer housing that is detachably connectable to a cartridge 72. See Figure 1; para [0048].
As to claim 29, the device includes an outer wall having an air inlet 440.
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.
Claim(s) 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra and further in view of US 11,910,510 to Rojo-Calderon et al. (hereinafter Rojo-Calderon).
Mishra is relied upon as set forth above.
With respect to claim 19, Mishra is silent as to a porosity of the porous matrix. Rojo-Calderon teaches an aerosol-generating article and pellets for placement within a mouthpiece of an aerosol generating device. The pellets “comprise a defined porosity to cope with a specific air-flow management through the pellet or a specific resistance-to-draw (RTD) of the pellet or of an aerosol-generating system...” The pellets have a porosity in a range from “about 0.2 and about 0.35” (col.5, lines 18-28). It would have been obvious to form the granules of Mishra to have a porosity within the range described by Rojo-Calderon, in order to achieve a desirable air-flow management through the pellet.
As to claim 21, Mishra teaches use of a hydrogel as the porous matrix material. Rojo-Calderon discloses pellets comprising tobacco particles “and other cellulose-based fibers.” See col.8, lines 58-60. As Mishra teaches that the encapsulated flavorants may be in the form of powders (para [0066]) and may include tobacco flavors (para [0072]), it would have been obvious to use the cellulose-containing tobacco particles of Rojo-Calderon in the porous matrix of Mishra, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have had an expectation of success when doing so.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra and further in view of US 12,575,603 to Hubbard et al. (hereinafter Hubbard).
With respect to claim 30, Mishra does not teach that the mouthpiece is detachably connected to the cartridge containing an aerosol-forming material because they are both contained within section 70 of the device. However, Hubbard discloses a device for generating an aerosol from an aerosol-forming material in a cartridge 84 and a mouthpiece 80 detachably connected to the cartridge and containing a flavor-generating component. See Figure 4; col.19, lines 32-35. See also, Figure 2 and col.18, lines 49-67. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the device of Mishra such that the mouthpiece is separable from the remainder of the device so as to permit easy replacement thereof when the flavor granules have been depleted.
Claim(s) 16-18 and 20-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Hubbard view of Mishra.
PNG
media_image3.png
262
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 16 and 18, Hubbard teaches a mouthpiece 56 for inhaling an aerosol, the mouthpiece comprising: an airflow path 58,54 for an aerosol (col.18, lines 53-59), the airflow path leading through the mouthpiece; and flavor granules 62 arranged in the airflow path. For example, Hubbard discloses that the wall structures “may exhibit some level of permeability or porosity that merely reduces or retards (without completely blocking) transport of aerosol between the pathways, such as porous ceramic structures, porous glass structures, or fibrous mat materials (i.e. fiberglass).” See col.7, lines 50-55. Thus the internal walls of mouthpiece 56 may be porous such that aerosol in path 58,54 may flow into the air flow path containing granules 62 before exiting at 70.
Hubbard further teaches the flavor granules containing at least one flavoring agent for flavoring the aerosol (col.8, line 11-col.9, line 62), wherein the flavor granules are “configured” to be movable by a user's puff, for example when the chamber is partly filled. The flavor granules comprise a porous matrix material including the at least one flavoring agent (col.8, lines 35-37). Hubbard is silent to the density of the porous material.
Mishra discloses an aerosol-generating device and porous granules wherein the flavor granules comprise a porous matrix material (a hydrogel) including the at least one flavoring agent, and wherein the porous matrix material has a density of between 0.4 and 2 g/cm³. See paras [0067 and 0069]. As this density has been established by Mishra to be appropriate for flavor generating granules in an aerosol generating device, a POSITA would have found it obvious for use in Hubbard as a density providing suitable properties.
As to claim 17, Hubbard teaches that the flavoring agent is embedded (infused) with the porous matrix. See col.8, lines 35-63.
With respect to claim 20, Hubbard discloses matrix materials that are water insoluble (carbon materials, ceramics, polymers, metals, etc.) See col.8, lines 35-40.
As to claim 21, Hubbard teaches matrices of plastic (col.8, lines 49-51), cellulosic material (col.8, lines 39-40), and ceramic material (col.8, line 39).
With respect to claim 22, Hubbard discloses a matrix of composites including cellulose (col.8, lines 39-40). Hubbard further recognizes the use of non-woven fabric as a wick for a liquid to be aerosolized. See col.17, line 39-col.18, line 5.
As to claims 23 and 24, Hubbard is silent to the size of the granules. Mishra discloses granules having a diameter from about 0.2 mm to about 2.0 mm, falling within the claimed ranges. It would have been obvious to form the granules of Hubbard to have a size within the range of Mishra, as being a size suitable to fit within a hand-held aerosol-generating device like that of Hubbard while also a sufficient size to contain flavorant to be aerosolized.
PNG
media_image4.png
262
416
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 25, as shown in annotated Figure 2, the porous nature of the internal walls would have permitted flow from airflow path 54 through the granules 62, thereby creating diagonally arranged air flow paths.
As to claim 26, Hubbard teaches an inlet portion (internal walls of mouthpiece 56) configured for receiving the aerosol and an outlet portion (open wall portion of internal wall) configured for outflow of the aerosol, wherein the airflow path is arranged between the inlet portion and the outlet portion. See annotated Figure 2 above.
With respect to claims 27 and 28, Hubbard discloses that the flavor-containing cartridge may be disposable and removably attached to the delivery device. See col.13, lines 24-39. In the figures, the flavor-containing cartridge is tubular and arranged along a longitudinal axis of the device.
As to claim 29, Hubbard teaches that an outer wall contains an ambient air inlet 62.
With respect to claim 30, Hubbard discloses a device for generating an aerosol from an aerosol-forming material in a cartridge 84 and a mouthpiece 80 detachably connected to the cartridge and containing a flavor-generating component. See Figure 4; col.19, lines 32-35. See also, Figure 2 and col.18, lines 49-67.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbard and Mishra as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Rojo-Calderon.
Hubbard is silent as to the required porosity of the porous matrix.
Rojo-Calderon teaches an aerosol-generating article and pellets for placement within a mouthpiece of an aerosol generating device. The pellets “comprise a defined porosity to cope with a specific air-flow management through the pellet or a specific resistance-to-draw (RTD) of the pellet or of an aerosol-generating system...” The pellets have a porosity in a range from “about 0.2 and about 0.35” (col.5, lines 18-28). It would have been obvious to form the granules of Hubbard as modified by Mishra to have a porosity within the range described by Rojo-Calderon, in order to achieve a desirable air-flow management through the pellet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH L MCKANE whose telephone number is (571)272-1275. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6:30a-4:30p 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, Patricia Engle can be reached at 571-272-6660. 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.
/ELIZABETH L MCKANE/Specialist, Art Unit 3991
Prosecution Insights