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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 323, described at [0052] as exhaust port 323.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 61, 62, 63, 70, 84, 216, 305, shown in Figs. 2-3 and 5.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: AEROSOL GENERATING DEVICE WITH GAP BETWEEN SENSING HOLE AND INLET.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-4, 8-9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jain (JP 2019-528696 A, of record, provided in IDS dated 06/26/2025, US 2019/0274359 A1 cited herein as English equivalent).
Regarding claim 1, Jain discloses an aerosol provision system (“aerosol generating device”) [0002, 0016-17]:
The system includes a body 20 (“body”) ([0043], Fig. 2);
The system includes a cartridge assembly 30 (“cartridge”) which may be detached from or coupled to the body 20 ([0042-43], Fig. 2). The cartridge assembly 30 has an air flow path 66 with inlet holes 24 on the side of the cartridge 30 (the path 66 and holes 24 reading on the “inlet that is open at a side of the cartridge”) ([0043], compare Fig. 2 with Applicant’s Figs. 6-8 showing inlet 301);
The body 20 has an aperture 64 (“sensing hole”) adjacent to the airflow path 66 when the body 20 and cartridge 30 are coupled ([0044], Fig. 2);
As shown in Fig. 2, the aperture 64 and airflow path 66 are positioned such that a “gap” is formed between them allowing the inflow of air via inlet holes 24 (compare Fig. 2 with Applicant’s Figs. 6-8 showing inlet 301, sensing hole 144, and gap 146);
The system includes a pressure sensor 62 (“sensor”) in communication with the aperture 64 for detecting air pressure changes ([0044], Fig. 2);
As shown in Fig. 2, the aperture 64 is “positioned to overlap” the airflow path 66 in a longitudinal direction (compare Fig. 2 with Applicant’s Figs. 6-8 showing inlet 301 and sensing hole 144).
PNG
media_image1.png
454
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, as shown in Fig. 2, the aperture 64 is narrower than a wide portion of the airflow path 66 containing a heating element 40 (which reads on “a circumference of the [aperture 64] is less than a circumference of the [airflow path 66]”; under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim language is interpreted as requiring that the sensing hole circumference be less than the inlet circumference at any point).
Regarding claim 3, as shown in Fig. 2, the planes of the aperture 64 and the airflow path 66 overlap one another in a longitudinal direction, which reads on “wherein a boundary of a projection of the sensing hole facing the gap is located inside a boundary of a projection of the inlet facing the gap”.
Regarding claim 4, as shown in Fig. 2, the center axes of the aperture 64 and the airflow path 66 overlap one another in a longitudinal direction, which reads on “wherein a center axis of the sensing hole is closer to a center axis of the inlet than it is to the boundary of the projection of the inlet”.
Regarding claim 8, the airflow path 66 is “open at an upper end portion” of the cartridge 30, as shown in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 9, the body 20 includes a chamber 60 (“extension portion”) having the aperture 64, extending toward both sides of the body 20, and defining the “gap” between the airflow path 66 and aperture 64 ([0044], Fig. 2). The sensor 62 is located in the chamber 60 ([0044], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is similarly anticipated by Jain. Specifically, Jain discloses an aerosol provision system (“aerosol generating device”) [0002, 0016-17]:
The system includes a body 20 (“body”) ([0043], Fig. 2);
The system includes a cartridge assembly 30 (“cartridge”) which may be detached from or coupled to the body 20 ([0042-43], Fig. 2). The cartridge assembly 30 has an air flow path 66 (“inlet)” with inlet holes 24 ([0043], compare Fig. 2 with Applicant’s Figs. 6-8 showing inlet 301);
The body 20 has an aperture 64 (“sensing hole”) which is in fluid communication with the airflow path 66 when the body 20 and cartridge 30 are coupled ([0044], Fig. 2);
As shown in Fig. 2, coupling of the cartridge 30 and body 20 forms a “gap” between the aperture 64 and airflow path 66 allowing the inflow of air via inlet holes 24 and via the gap (compare Fig. 2 with Applicant’s Figs. 6-8 showing inlet 301, sensing hole 144, and gap 146);
The system includes a pressure sensor 62 (“sensor”) in the body 20 and in communication with the aperture 64 for detecting air pressure changes ([0044], Fig. 2);
As shown in Fig. 2, the aperture 64 is “positioned to overlap at least a portion” of the airflow path 66 in a longitudinal direction (compare Fig. 2 with Applicant’s Figs. 6-8 showing inlet 301 and sensing hole 144).
Regarding claim 13, as shown in Fig. 2, the center axes of the aperture 64 and the airflow path 66 overlap one another in a longitudinal direction, which reads on “wherein a center axis of the sensing hole is closer to a center axis of the inlet than it is to the boundary of the projection of the inlet”.
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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (JP 2019-528696 A of record, US 2019/0274359 A1 cited herein) as applied to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Jain discloses the device of claim 9 as set forth above. Jain fails to explicitly disclose “a sealer contacting the sensor and the extension portion and being shaped to seal a periphery of the sensing hole, wherein the sealer is shaped to define a sealer hole that is in communication with the sensing hole” with respect to the embodiment of Fig. 2.
However, Jain teaches that the system may be susceptible to liquid leakage undesirably contacting the sensor 62 ([0045], Fig. 2). Jain further discloses employing a liquid flow restrictor such as a nozzle in an aperture to prevent the liquid leakage ([0067], Figs. 3-5). A nozzle 70b (“sealer”) with a central bore may be arranged in communication with a sensor 62 and a chamber 60 ([0070], Fig. 11) (which reads on “a sealer contacting…the extension portion and being shaped to seal a periphery of the sensing hole, wherein the sealer is shaped to define a sealer hole that is in communication with the sensing hole”). Jain fails to explicitly disclose the nozzle 70b “contacting the sensor” 62 in Fig. 11, but it would be a simple design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the nozzle 70b and/or sensor 62 to contact one another (in view of their proximity and fluid communication shown in Fig. 11), which is therefore obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C); see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); see also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide the aperture 64 shown in Fig. 2 with a nozzle 70b contacting the sensor 62, in order to prevent liquid leakage while maintaining accurate air sensing as taught by Jain, which reads on the claim language.
PNG
media_image2.png
539
747
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Jain teaches that nozzles 70b as small as 0.125 mm can accurately sense airflow while preventing liquid leakage ([0068-78, Figs. 10-13). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the nozzle 70b diameter to be smaller than the airflow path 66 diameter (which reads on “wherein a circumference of the sealer hole is less than a circumference of the inlet”), because Fig. 11 illustrates the nozzle 70b being narrower than the airflow path 66, and because liquid can flow through the airflow path 66 but not the nozzle 70b ([0076-78], Fig. 11).
Claims 5-7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (JP 2019-528696 A of record, US 2019/0274359 A1 cited herein) as applied to claims 1 and 12, in view of Rogan (US 2023/0354906 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Jain discloses the device of claim 1 as set forth above, but as shown in Fig. 2, the aperture 64 and airflow path 66 are parallel to one another and perpendicular to the flow of air entering from side holes 24, and thus Jain fails to disclose “wherein the sensing hole is shaped to form an incline that slants toward the inlet”.
Rogan is directed to an electronic smoking system with an airflow channel between consumable and device (Title, Abstract), which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. The system includes a fluid inlet 3 leading to a primary fluid channel 4, with a junction point 41 branching to a secondary fluid channel 40 containing a chamber 5a with side walls 5c, 5f, back wall 5e, and an airflow sensor 5 ([0065-67], Fig. 1). Rogan teaches that the angle between the channels 4 and 40 may be different than 90 degrees [0012], and Rogan teaches that the side wall 5c and back wall 5e may be arranged at an angle between 60-150 degrees [0067]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Jain’s aperture 64 and chamber 60 walls could similarly be offset by non-90 degree angles from the path of air flowing in from side holes 24 (and thus the aperture 64 would be “shaped to form an incline that slants toward” the airflow path 66 as claimed), because this would be a simple design choice accomplished by changing the shape of the aperture 64 and chamber 60. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B); see also In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
PNG
media_image3.png
910
742
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jain by arranging the aperture 64 and chamber 60 walls to be offset by a non-90 degree angle from the path of air flowing in from side holes 24, because both Jain and Rogan are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Rogan teaches the secondary channel 40 being offset by non-90 degree angles which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as a simple design choice which could be similarly applied to Jain’s aperture 60 via a mere change in shape, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claims 6-7, modified Jain’s offset chamber 60 and aperture 64 have planes extending into the end portion of the airflow path 66, which reads on “wherein a projection of the sensing hole at the incline overlaps a plane of an end portion of the inlet that faces the gap” per claim 6 and “wherein a boundary of the projection of the sensing hole is located inside a boundary of the end portion of the inlet” per claim 7 (compare annotated Fig. 2 below with Applicant’s Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image4.png
458
738
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the same limitation as claim 5, and is obvious over Jain and Rogan for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (JP 2021-526010 A, of record, provided in IDS dated 02/27/2025, US 2022/0248768 A1 cited herein as English equivalent) discloses an aerosol generating device 5 including a cartridge 20, main body 10, air inlet 125 leading to first air channel 120, and second air channel 140 leading to sensor 130 ([0083-87], Fig. 5). Lee is considered particularly relevant to claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, and 12-13.
PNG
media_image5.png
528
339
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Mironov (CN 112074200 A, of record, provided in IDS dated 12/16/2025, US 2021/0195962 A1 cited herein as English equivalent) discloses a system including a cartridge 500/700, main body 600/750, air inlets 650/755, puff sensor 620/780 ([0080, 0087, 0091, 0095], Figs. 3-4). Mironov is considered particularly relevant to claims 1, 3-9, and 12-14.
PNG
media_image6.png
681
574
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
593
568
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Chen (US 2022/0183384 A1) discloses an e-cigarette 1 with a reusable part 2, a cartridge part 4, and an air inlet 28 leading to an air path 30 which branches off to a chamber 18 with a pressure sensor 16 ([0031, 0041], Fig. 1). Chen is considered particularly relevant to claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, and 12-13.
PNG
media_image8.png
479
1089
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 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.
/MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights