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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending and subject to this Office Action. This is the First Action on the merits of the claims.
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 1 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, et al (WO2021198652A1) and further in view of Fraser, et al (US20190208821A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches an aerosol delivery system that is comprised of:
An air inlet and air outlet (p3 ln 13-14) (p34 ln 11-12)
An airflow channel (path) that connects the air inlet to the aerosol source and to the mouthpiece (outlet) (p10 ln 14-19)
A generally planar aerosol generating component (heater) that is suspended within the aerosol generating chamber (p 1 ln 30-31) where the aerosol generating component may comprise one or more apertures. (p2 ln 14-15) Chen teaches the heating element is forms of metal mesh fibers that which it is possible for air to permeate through said structures. (p11 ln 23-24)
Chen teaches the heating element generally extends across the aerosol generation chamber a design; however, Chen is silent with respect to the heating element spanning across the flow path.
Fraser, directed to the design of electronic vapor provision devices, teaches a similar device that comprised of:
One or more air inlets
A mouthpiece (outlet)
A flow path form the inlet to the mouthpiece [0038]
A heater and wick (or similar) combination is sometimes referred to as an atomizer [0036], extends across the airflow passage [0043], and can be planar ([0045], fig 2). The heater can be made from a metallic mesh configured to be both porous and able to perform a wicking function. [0036]
Fraser teaches the airflow inlet can be more than one inlet where the airflow enters the inlets downstream of the heater and then enters the airflow channel leading to the heater. [0044] The use of more than one airflow inlet is considered to read on the sub inlets of the instant claim.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen by having a heating element that spans the airflow path as taught by Fraser because both Chen and Fraser are directed to aerosol generating devices, Fraser teaches the wick is extended into the reservoir on both sides of the passageway and allows the liquid passes through the reservoir walls to absorb the liquid while also being sealed to prevent leakage [0043], and this involves a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable result.
Regarding claim 10, Chen teaches the device can have multiple air inlets (sub-inlets) and one or more of the air vents may have a reduced cross-sectional area to change the inlet air distribution to the heating chamber. (p34 ln 1-6) The cross-sectional area of a first inlet being a given size and a second inlet being a reduced size is considered to read on a first area of a sub-inlet being larger than a second area of a second sub-inlet.
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses that the air inlets would be parallel to one another. (FIG 16a-e)
Regarding claim 12, Chen teaches the inlets may be evenly located on respective sides of the generally planar aerosol generating component, or may be unevenly located on respective sides of the generally planar aerosol generating component and deliver air to the proximity of both surfaces. (p34 ln 12-18)
Regarding claim 13, Chen teaches the air inlet has an aperture width of less than 1.5mm. (p 34 ln 7-8) The claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 14, Chen does not explicitly disclose the distance between the air inlets and the aerosol generating component. Chen teaches that “by configuring the position of the air inlet relative to the aerosol generating component, it is possible to influence the total amount of aerosol delivered by the system.” (p30 ln 16-18; 27-29) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the distance between the air inlets and the aerosol generating component since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed [parameter] is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the distance between the air inlets and the aerosol generating component motivated by the desire to control the particle size in the aerosol (p30 ln 16-17) and the amount of aerosol delivered to the user. (p 30 ln 28-29)
Regarding claim 15, Fraser teaches the heater can be an electrically conductive mesh. [0045] As discussed in claim 1, Fraser teaches the mesh can act as a wicking element which Fraser also teaches would be a porous element. [0043]
Additionally, Chen teaches the planar heating element can be both electrically conductive (resistive) and porous. (p11 ln 9-11)
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, et al (WO2021198652A1) and Fraser, et al (US20190208821A1) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Lau, et al (US20220015426A1).
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches the air inlets can be arranged in a configuration having an air inlet distribution. (p 31 ln 27-28) However, Chen does not explicitly teach the air flow inlets would be in an array.
Lau teaches the sidewall has a plurality of airflow inlets that are arranged in an array.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen and Fraser by having an array of air inlets as taught by Lau because Chen, Fraser, and Lau are directed to aerosol generating devices, Lau teaches the array of inlets facilitates the intake of ambient air [0091], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 3, Lau teaches the array of inlets are arranged in multiple rows [0051] which can be in a honeycomb pattern. [0091]
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches the air inlet has an aperture width of less than 1.5mm. (p 34 ln 7-8) Lau teaches the array is comprised of at least ten total air inlets [0044] Based on the teaching of Chen and Lau, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill that an array of 10 air inlets each having a diameter of up to 1.5 mm would have an area that would be at least 6 mm2.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed in claim 3, Lau teaches the array can be in the shape that has multiple rows, specifically teaching a polygonal shape of a honeycomb pattern.
Regarding claim 6, Lau teaches the airflow inlets can have various shapes and be arranged in other shapes and arrangements formed from an array of air inlets. Lau teaches that the use of a quadrilateral shape would be possible. [0044] A person having ordinary skill would recognize that the use of a rectangular shape array would be reasonable as long as the array had the minimum number of total air inlets.
Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches the air inlet has an aperture width of less than 1.5mm. (p 34 ln 7-8) Lau teaches the array is comprised of at least ten total air inlets. [0044] Based on the teaching of Chen and Lau, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill that an array of 10 air inlets each having a diameter of up to 1.5 mm would have at least one side that would be at least 5mm across in one direction.
Regarding claim 8, Chen teaches the inlets may be evenly located on respective sides of the generally planar aerosol generating component, or may be unevenly located on respective sides of the generally planar aerosol generating component and deliver air to the proximity of both surfaces. (p34 ln 12-18)
Regarding claim 9, Chen, as modified by Lau, teaches an array of air inlets on an aerosol generating device. Lau teaches that the array can be up to 44 air inlets in a circumferential arrangement around the sleeve section. Based on the teaching of Chen and Lau, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill that an array of 44 air inlets each having a diameter of up to 1.5 mm would result in the air inlet array being at least 20% of the sleeve section, absent evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRGINIA R BIEGER whose telephone number is (703)756-1014. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7:30-4:30.
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, Phillip 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.
/V.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights