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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s election filed August 7, 2026. Claims 1-6, 9-10, and 13-14 have been elected. Claims 11-12 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-12 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 7, 2026.
Applicant’s right to pursue patent protection for the withdrawn claims in a divisional application is acknowledged.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the filed abstract is more than 150 words. The abstract has been filed as the. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-6, 9-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4284089 (hereinafter RAY) in view of US 4416295 A (hereinafter GREIG).
Regarding claim 1, RAY discloses a simulated smoking device that releases nicotine vapors into air drawn through the passageway of the container (abstract). RAY discloses an air passage (Figs. 1-2, container 12, Col. 6, lines 3-7) defined between an air inlet (Figs. 1-2, intake end 18) and an outlet (Figs. 1-2,mouth end 16); a vapour generator (Figs. 1-2, combination of absorbent member 14 and nicotine mixture) arranged in the air passage, wherein the vapour generator comprises a substrate (Figs. 1-2, absorbent member 14) loaded with a source of an active ingredient (nicotine mixture, Col. 4, lines 12-20) for generation of the vapour. RAY further discloses the vapour generator comprising a constricted air flow region (Figs. 1-2, tubular passageway 28). RAY further discloses that this region is adapted to provide a higher air flow velocity in the constricted air flow region than an air flow velocity in the air passage upstream of the vapour generator for a given air flow rate from the air inlet to the outlet, the constricted air flow region being bounded on at least one side by the substrate to extract vapour from the substrate into the air flow in the constricted air flow region (Col. 6, lines 33-44). RAY discloses that the vapour is drawn from the substrate via the venturi principle created from the pressure change at the air constriction (Col. 6, lines 37-44).
RAY does not disclose wherein the constricted air flow region comprises multiple bores through the substrate, each bore of the multiple bores configured to enable air to travel from the air inlet to the outlet
GREIG teaches a rod of smoking material formed by a multiplicity of smoking elements in face-to face contact with each other to create an acceptable pressure drop through the element (abstract). GREIG teaches the shape of the cross-sectional passageway will alter the pressure drop and inclusion of a hexagonal cross section for the air passageways yields a higher pressure drop than that of a circular cross section but less than a triangle (Col. 3, lines 14-29). GREIG teaches then that by varying the number and shape of the passage ways it is possible to obtain various rod weights for a given pressure drop (Col. 3, lines 30-32). GREIG teaches that adjusting the angular orientations a desired pressure drop can be achieved with a low weight and desired degree of tortuosity can be varied independent of rod density (GREIG 4, lines 41-53).
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 RAY to provide wherein the constricted air flow region comprises multiple bores through the substrate, each bore of the multiple bores configured to enable air to travel from the air inlet to the outlet as taught in GREIG. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously include multiple bores through the air flow region. Doing so would achieve a desirable pressure drop while also achieving a low weight (GREIG 4, lines 41-53). Further regarding the inclusion of multiple bores, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04, VI, Part B. In this case, inclusion of multiple bores would provide expected results as outlined in RAY to adjust the constriction and provide vapor through the venturi effect without heating with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, modified RAY discloses the vapour delivery apparatus according to claim 1 as discussed above. RAY further discloses wherein the substrate comprises nicotine and/or a flavourant (nicotine mixture, Col. 4, lines 12-20). The recitation of “and/or” in the claim results in only one of the options to be disclosed to read on the claim. Here, RAY discloses nicotine (nicotine mixture, Col. 4, lines 12-20). Additionally, RAY discloses flavorants like orange (Col 7, lines 5-13).
Regarding claim 3, modified RAY discloses the vapour delivery apparatus according to claim 1 as discussed above. RAY further teaches in another embodiment wherein the substrate comprises air impermeable walls. RAY teaches that the container has non porous (i.e. air impermeable) sidewalls (Fig. 3, 46 and 52). 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 apply the teachings of RAY to result in a wherein the substrate comprises air impermeable walls. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide air impermeable walls. Doing so ensures that the device may be effectively controlled so that the devices is in a static condition and the mixture is evenly distributed to control the nicotine mixture (Col 9, lines 20-35).
Regarding claim 4, modified RAY discloses the vapour delivery apparatus according to claim 1 as discussed above. RAY further discloses wherein the substrate comprises a material of limited air-permeability. RAY discloses that there is liquid nicotine mixture contained within the absorbent member (Col. 6, lines 60-63). RAY discloses that when air flows through the device the constriction of the path operates to promote effect vaporization (Col. 6, lines 30-44). The air-permeability of the absorbent member is lower than that of the channel and therefore meets the limitation of having “limited” air-permeability. RAY provides an example of high quality laboratory filter paper as a possible absorbent member (Col. 8, lines 3-9) though RAY discloses that other materials can be used to achieve the proper porosity (Col. 5, lines 16-20). Laboratory filter paper has limited air-permeability.
Regarding claim 5, modified RAY discloses the vapour delivery apparatus according to claim 1 as discussed above. RAY further discloses wherein the substrate comprises a liquid permeable material. RAY discloses that there is liquid nicotine mixture contained within the absorbent member (Col. 6, lines 60-63). This means that the substrate is made of a liquid permeable material. RAY provides an example of high quality laboratory filter paper as a possible absorbent member (Col. 8, lines 3-9) though RAY discloses that other materials can be used to achieve the proper porosity (Col. 5, lines 16-20).
Regarding claim 6, modified RAY discloses the vapour delivery apparatus according to claim 1 as discussed above. RAY further discloses wherein the constricted air flow region passes axially through the substrate. This can be seen in Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 9, modified RAY discloses the vapour delivery apparatus according to claim 1 as discussed above. RAY further teaches in another embodiment wherein the apparatus comprises more than one vapour generator. RAY discloses an annular divider 64 that has on one side a first absorbent member 66 and a second absorbent member 68 (Fig. 5, Col. 10, lines 38-47).
Regarding claim 10, modified RAY discloses the vapour delivery apparatus according to claim 1 as discussed above. RAY further discloses that the device does not include a source of heat (Col. 6, lines 33-37).
Regarding claim 13, modified RAY discloses the vapour delivery apparatus according to claim 1 as discussed above. RAY does not disclose wherein the multiple bores are arranged in a hexagonal packing arrangement.
GREIG teaches a rod of smoking material formed by a multiplicity of smoking elements in face-to face contact with each other to create an acceptable pressure drop through the element (abstract). GREIG teaches the shape of the cross-sectional passageway will alter the pressure drop and inclusion of a hexagonal cross section for the air passageways yields a higher pressure drop than that of a circular cross section but less than a triangle (Col. 3, lines 14-29). GREIG teaches then that by varying the number and shape of the passage ways it is possible to obtain various rod weights for a given pressure drop (Col. 3, lines 30-32). GREIG teaches that adjusting the angular orientations a desired pressure drop can be achieved with a low weight and desired degree of tortuosity can be varied independent of rod density (GREIG 4, lines 41-53).
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 RAY to provide wherein the multiple bores are arranged in a hexagonal packing arrangement as taught in GREIG. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously vary the shape of the bores. Doing so would achieve a desirable pressure drop while also achieving a low weight (GREIG 4, lines 41-53).
Regarding claim 14, modified RAY discloses the vapour delivery apparatus according to claim 1 as discussed above. RAY does not disclose wherein the bores have substantially uniform cross sectional area along their length.
GREIG teaches a rod of smoking material formed by a multiplicity of smoking elements in face-to face contact with each other to create an acceptable pressure drop through the element (abstract). GREIG teaches the shape of the cross-sectional passageway will alter the pressure drop and inclusion of a hexagonal cross section for the air passageways yields a higher pressure drop than that of a circular cross section but less than a triangle (Col. 3, lines 14-29). GREIG teaches that the disposition of the holes is uniform throughout the elements (Col. 2, lines 66-68 cont Col. 2, lines 1-3). As shown on Figs. 1-4, the area of each cross-sectional bore is uniform. GREIG teaches then that by varying the number and shape of the passage ways it is possible to obtain various rod weights for a given pressure drop (Col. 3, lines 30-32). GREIG teaches that adjusting the angular orientations a desired pressure drop can be achieved with a low weight and desired degree of tortuosity can be varied independent of rod density (GREIG 4, lines 41-53).
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 RAY to provide wherein the bores have substantially uniform cross sectional area along their length as taught in GREIG. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide bores with a uniform cross-sectional area. Doing so would achieve a desirable pressure drop while also achieving a low weight (GREIG 4, lines 41-53).
Conclusion
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
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights