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)(4) because reference character “42” has been used to designate both second part and first part (See instant specification paragraph [33], [35] and compare to [38]-[40]).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “522” has been used to designate both through hole [34] and outer wall [40].
The drawings are all objected to because 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) requires view numbers to be preceded by “FIG.” and not “Figure” or “Fig.” and 37 CFR 1.84(u)(2) says view numbers must not be used with brackets. E.g., FIG 1-FIG 12 should be labeled as e.g., “FIG. 1” and not “[Figure 1]” or “[Fig.1].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because at line 6 the abstract recites “…at least a portion the wick…”. The word “of” appears to have been omitted. 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 7 the claim recites “…at least a portion the wick…”. The word “of” appears to have been omitted. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted to include the word “of”, e.g., “at least a portion of the wick…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “pan coil” which renders the claim indefinite because the claim does not identify the structural characteristics that distinguish a “pan coil” from any other other coils having plural turns extending from an innermost turn to an outermost turn. For example, it is unclear whether the term requires a planar spiral, a particular axial thickness, a particular relation between turn diameter and coil height, a single layer configuration, a multilayer configuration, curved planar coil flat planar coil, or some other geometry. The instant specification uses the term to describe the coil 80 but fails to define the term or introduce an objective standard for determining the scope of the term “pan coil”. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonable apprised of the metes and bounds of the claimed second coil configuration. For the purposes of this office action and in the interest of compact prosecution the claim limitation is interpreted to include a curved planar coil flat planar coil.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “corresponding to” which render the claim indefinite because the claim does not identify what structural feature of the second coil must correspond to the referenced wick portion or outer circumferential surface. For example, it is unclear whether “corresponding to” requires matching shape, length, curvature, surface area, proximal surface, orientation, spacing, proximity or some other relationship.
Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed second coil configuration are not reasonably clear. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim limitation “corresponding to” is interpreted to require similar shape, proximal surface, curvature, or spacing which is consistent with the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “corresponding to” which renders the claim indefinite because the claim does not identify what structural feature of the second coil must correspond to the referenced wick portion or outer circumferential surface. For example, it is unclear whether “corresponding to” requires matching shape, length, curvature, surface area, proximal surface, orientation, spacing, proximity or some other relationship.
Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed second coil configuration are not reasonably clear. For the purposes of this office action and compact prosecution, the claim limitation “corresponding to” is interpreted to require similar shape, proximal surface, curvature, or spacing which is consistent with the claim.
The modifier “generally” in claim 10 further fails to provide an objective boundary for the required degree of correspondence and does not limit the claim. Thus the purposes of this office action and compact prosecution, the claim limitation “generally” is interpreted to not be limiting.
Claim 13 recites the limitation the second coil is curved in a circumferential direction of the wick to generally correspond to an outer circumferential surface of the wick. However, it is unclear what additional structural requirement or structural relationship is intended to be required by “generally correspond to an outer circumferential surface of the wick.” It only loosely characterizes the relationship of that curvature of the coil to the wick’s circumferential direction but otherwise fails to further structurally limit the claim requirements. For the purposes of this office action and compact prosecution the claim language is interpreted to require the second coil is curved in the wick’s circumferential direction, which is consistent with the claim language.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davis (US-20170127722A1) cited by Applicant via IDS submitted 9-4-2025.
Regarding Claim 1, Davis teaches an aerosol generating device comprising: a main body (control body 300 which includes outer body 304, [0047]);
a container (200/200a) shaped to define a storage space that contains a liquid (see [0070]-[0071], the cartridge 200A includes a container 206 and an internal compartment 214 that is shaped to define a space that contains a liquid), wherein
the container is detachably coupled to the main body (e.g., cartridge 200A and control body 300 are detachable aligned, see FIG 11 which illustrates 200A coupled to 300), the coupling may be threaded, press fit, interference fit, magnetic, etc, which meets detachable coupled, see [0047]);
a wick (210) that is elongated and disposed inside the container (wick 210 extends through the sealing member 208 into 214 of the cartridge 200A (see FIG 11), 210 may be a liquid transport wick that receives liquid from internal compartment 214, [0070]), wherein
the wick includes a portion that is in communication with the liquid contained in the storage space (210 may be a liquid transport wick that receives liquid from internal compartment 214, [0070]);
a first coil (202) wound around at least a portion the wick (210) and along a longitudinal direction of the wick (e.g., see [0084]-[0085], e.g., the first coil is a wound helix and is placed around wick 210, see also FIG 11 which illustrates coil 202 receiver which is positioned around the wick liquid transport element); and
a second coil (e.g., coil 302A/305, see [0049] and [0054], see also FIG 11) disposed at the main body and positioned relative to the first coil (disposed in the main body 300 [0049] and is positioned relative to the first coil in the main body), wherein
Davis teaches the first coil is an induction heating receiver coil taught as taught in [0085], Davis also teaches in [0090] that wireless power transmission may be employed with wire coil resistive heating elements. Thus Davis requires positioning the second coil 302a relative to the first coil 202 of [0085] so that the transmitter wirelessly and inductively heats the coil in order to wirelessly heat the atomizer.
Regarding Claim 6, Davis discloses the claim limitations as set forth above.
Additionally, Davis discloses the main body comprises: a housing accommodating a power source electrically connected to the second coil (see FIG 3, housing 304 accommodates the power source 316, [0049]); and
a mount (support 303, [0054] and FIG 4) disposed at the housing, detachably coupled to the container (see exploded FIG 3, end for cartridge engagement to connect to detachable cartridge 200, see [0053], engagement end 304’ of outer body 304 may be configured to engage the cartridge 200), and having the second coil disposed thereon (the coil mount support 303 holds the coil 302A/305 so that it doesn’t move around or short circuit [0054]).
Regarding Claim 11, Davis discloses an aerosol generating device [0029] comprising:
a main body (100);
a power source (316) located in the main body, see [0049] and FIG 3;
a container (200/206) shaped to define a storage space that contains a liquid [0069]-[0070],
the container is detachably coupled to the main body ([0047] cartridge/container 200 is detachable);
a wick that includes a portion that is in communication with the liquid contained in the storage space (see [0070], wick 210 is a liquid transport element that transports liquid from the container 200/206);
a first coil (202) wound around at least a portion of the wick (210) and along a longitudinal direction of the wick ([0084]-[0085] coil 202 is helically wound around the wick 210 along the longitudinal direction of the wick 210, see also FIG 11;
a second coil (302A/305, [0054]) disposed at the main body and being in electrical communication with the power source (316) [0080]-[0081],
the second coil is positioned relative to the first coil [0080] the receiver 202 may be positioned inside inner chamber 324 about which the induction transmitter 302A extends [0080]; and
a controller (312) configured to control power supplied by the power source (316) to the second coil (302A/305) to cause the second coil to generate an induced magnetic field that passes through the first coil and heats the first coil (see [0080]-[0081]).
Regarding Claim 13, Davis discloses the wick (210) is formed in a cylindrical shape (see FIG 6), and wherein the second coil is curved in a circumferential direction of the wick to generally correspond to an outer circumferential surface of the wick (See FIG 11, the second coil curves circumferentially to correspond to the outer surface of the wick as claimed).
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 20170127722 A1) cited by Applicant via IDS submitted 9-4-2025 as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Yilmaz (US 20200383379 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Davis teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Davis does not disclose an insertion space and specifically fails to explicitly disclose teaches the container comprises: an inner wall that is elongated and includes a portion that is shaped to define an insertion space; and an outer wall surrounding the inner wall, wherein the outer wall and the inner wall define the storage space that contains the liquid.
However, Yilmaz teaches an aerosol generating device that also has a downstream container and teaches the container (104, see [0038] and FIG 1) comprises: an inner wall (wall of channel 105 [0047]) that is elongated and includes a portion that is shaped to define an insertion space (e.g., see [0047] channel 105 is shaped to define an insertion space to receive 124, see also FIG 1); and
an outer wall (outside wall of the container 104, see FIG 1 and [0038]) surrounding the inner wall, wherein the outer wall and the inner wall define the storage space that contains the liquid (See FIG 1 and [0047], the outer wall and inner wall define the annular liquid storage 108).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Davis’ liquid container compartment (Davis compartment section including 214, see FIG 11) with Yilmaz’ annular liquid container arrangement surrounding the longitudinal channel because Yilmaz teaches this configuration to provide a central channel that can receive a flavor element [0040] which enhances the smoking experience while also serving as an airflow passage, with aerosolizable liquid retained circumferentially around the passage and supplied to a wick extending through the channel defining wall [0040]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated this known and predictable cartridge geometry into Davis’ detachable cartridge to provide a flavor providing insert receiving airflow passage while retaining liquid in a compact coaxial reservoir. This configuration is a predictable substitution of one known liquid reservoir configuration for another that provides a flavor element that enhances the smoking experience.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Davis teaches the claim limitations as set forth above.
Davis fails to explicitly disclose the claimed first and second part structure with a flow space communicating with the interior space.
However, Yilmaz teaches the container comprises:
a first part (upper part including channel 105 just above the wick) having the inner wall elongated with one end and another end which are both shaped to define an opening (see annotated FIG 1, channel 105 is elongated and has two ends and both ends are shaped in such a way than they define an opening for recieving the element 124 and the bottom for allowing the flow of inlet air through path A, see FIG 1 and [0053]-[0054]) ; and
a second part (see annotated FIG 1, just upstream of the first part, the top of the second part includes the wick 107) having an inner wall and being coupled to the one end of the first part and shaped to define a flow space (see FIG 1 flow space B) therein for allowing communication with the insertion space (flow space B allows inlet air to communicate with the insertion space in channel 105),
the wick (107) passes through the inner wall of the second part to communicate with the liquid contained in the storage space (e.g., the wick passes through the inner wall of the second part to communicate liquid from the storage space, see [0040])
PNG
media_image1.png
815
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, modified Davis teaches the claim limitations as set forth above.
Davis alone fails to explicitly disclose further comprising a stopper protruding from the inner wall of the first part toward the insertion space, and disposed adjacent to the one end of the first part adjacent to the wick.
Yilmaz teaches a stopper protruding from the inner wall of the first part toward the insertion space, and disposed adjacent to the one end of the first part adjacent to the wick. (e.g., Yilmaz teaches a stopper 130a and 130b which project into the channel 105 insertion space, 130a is adjacent to the wick 107, to retain the element 124, see FIG 1 and [0053])
Regarding Claim 5, modified Davis teaches the claim limitations as set forth above.
Davis fails to explicitly disclose the second part includes a lateral wall that is coupled to the inner wall of the second part and is shaped to define an inlet that allows the flow space to communicate with an outside of the container.
Yilmaz teaches the second part includes a lateral wall (wall of inlet path 109, see annotated FIG 1) that is coupled to the inner wall of the second part and is shaped to define an inlet that allows the flow space to communicate with an outside of the container (e.g., see path A of FIG 1, which illustrates an inlet flow path (lateral wall of inlet 109, see [0057] and FIG 1), the sides of which include a lateral wall that is coupled to the inner wall of the second part and shaped to define an inlet that allows the flow space to communicate air with an outside of the container).
Claims 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 20170127722 A1) cited by Applicant via IDS submitted 9-4-2025 as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Zinovik (US20220030946A1)
Regarding Claim 7, modified Davis teaches the claim limitations as set forth above.
Additionally, Davis teaches the wick is elongated with a first end and a second end (see 210 in FIG 6, first end is the left side of 210, second end is the right side of wick 210, see FIG 6), and has an outer circumferential surface connecting the first end and the second end (the outer circumferential surface connected the first and the second end), and teaches the second coil faces the outer circumferential surface of the wick, e.g., Davis teaches its transmitter 302a is near/faces the circumferential surface of receiver 202 which surrounds the wick/substrate 210 with a induction magnetic field [0081]-[0084].
Davis fails to explicitly disclose the second coil is formed as a pan coil type geometry wound with a plurality of turns from an innermost turn to an outermost turn and faces the outer circumferential surface of the wick.
Zinovik teaches the second coil shape can be formed as a pancake coil (pan coil) or a curved planar coil flat planar coil [0048], Zinovik teaches that helical coils and flat planar coils are equivalent and can also be configured to be shaped to conform to any surface [0048], and expressly teaches the coil is a four-turn single layer flat spiral coil. An ordinary artisan would appreciate that a single layer flat four turn coil has radially successive turns where the successive turns extend from its innermost turn to its outermost turn. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the second coil of Davis to be formed as a pan coil as taught by Zinovik because Zinovik teaches that helical coils like those taught by Davis are equivalent to planar coils and therefore the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP § 2143, B.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Davis teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Davis teaches the second coil is spaced apart from a portion of the outer circumferential surface of the wick, around which the first coil is wound, in a direction intersecting a longitudinal direction of the wick (e.g., Davis’ induction receiver 202 which may be a helix [0085] is the first coil around the wick 210, Davis’ transmitter coil 302A surrounds receiver 202 which surrounds the wick, See FIG 11. Thus, second coil 302A is radially spaced from the wick portion around which receiver 202 is wound and that radial direction of that spacing intersects with the wick’s longitudinal direction. [0080]-[0085].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Davis teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Davis teaches the second coil has a shape corresponding to a longitudinal section of the portion of the wick around which the first coil is wound. (e.g., see Davis FIG 11, Davis teaches the second coil 302A has a shape corresponding to a longitudinal section of the portion of the wick 210 around which the first coil 202 is wound as required by the claim, see also [0085] coil 202 is a wound helix, see also FIG 11 which shows coil 202 positioned around wick 210)
Regarding Claim 10, modified Davis teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Davis teaches the wick is formed in a cylindrical shape, and wherein the second coil is curved in a circumferential direction of the wick to generally correspond to the outer circumferential surface of the wick. (see FIG 11, the wick 202 is a cylindrical shape and the second coil 302A is curved in a circumferential direction of the wick to generally correspond to the outer circumferential surface of the wick)
Regarding Claim 12,
Davis fails to explicitly disclose the container comprises: a first part having an inner wall elongated with one end and another end which are both shaped to define an opening; and a second part having an inner wall and being positioned relative to the one end of the first part and shaped to define a flow space therein for allowing communication with an insertion space, wherein the wick passes through the inner wall of the second part to communicate with the liquid contained in the storage space.
However, Yilmaz teaches the container (104, see [0038] and FIG 1) comprises:
a first part (upper part including channel 105 just above the wick) having the an inner wall (wall of channel 105 [0047]) that is elongated and includes a portion that is shaped to define an insertion space (e.g., see [0047] channel 105 is shaped to define an insertion space, see also FIG 1); (see annotated FIG 1, channel 105 is elongated and has two ends and both ends are shaped in such a way than they define an opening for receiving the element 124 and the bottom for allowing the flow of inlet air through path A, see FIG 1 and [0053]-[0054]) ; and
a second part (see annotated FIG 1, just upstream of the first part, the top of the second part includes the wick 107) having an inner wall and being coupled to the one end of the first part and shaped to define a flow space (see FIG 1 flow space B) therein for allowing communication with the insertion space (flow space B allows inlet air to communicate with the insertion space in channel 105),
the wick (107) passes through the inner wall of the second part to communicate with the liquid contained in the storage space (e.g., the wick passes through the inner wall of the second part to communicate liquid from the storage space, see [0040])
PNG
media_image1.png
815
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Davis’ liquid container compartment with Yilmaz’ annular liquid container arrangement surrounding the longitudinal channel because Yilmaz teaches this configuration to provide a central channel that can receive a flavor element [0040] which enhances the smoking experience while also serving as an airflow passage, with aerosolizable liquid retained circumferentially around the passage and supplied to a wick extending through the channel defining wall. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated this known and predictable cartridge geometry into Davis’ detachable cartridge to provide a flavor providing insert receiving airflow passage while retaining liquid in a compact coaxial reservoir. This configuration is a predictable substitution of one known liquid reservoir configuration for another that provides a flavor element that enhances the smoking experience.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael T Fulton whose telephone number is (703)756-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 - 4:30 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.
/M.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights