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 are subject to this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 12-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Angell (WO2019/038521).
Regarding claim 1, Angell discloses:
A cartridge (cartridge 2, fig. 1) comprising:
a first chamber configured to store liquid (space outside the air channel and inside the housing part 32, page 10, last paragraph);
a second chamber configured to allow air to pass therethrough (housing inner tube 62, fig. 3a, page 7, fourth paragraph);
a wick (capillary wick, page 8, third paragraph) extending across the second chamber and configured to receive the liquid from the first chamber (page 10, last paragraph to page 11, first paragraph); and
a heating coil configured to heat the wick (heater 40, page 11, second paragraph),
wherein the wick is a silica wick (Fig. 7 showing results of a silica glass fiber wick by the vapor provision system of figs. 1-2, page 23, paragraphs 3-4).
wherein the heating coil has an electrical resistance in a range of 1.0 ohm to 1.3 ohms (1.2 ohms, Table 1, page 24).
Regarding claim 3, Angell discloses wherein the heating coil has an electrical resistance in a range of 1.2 ohms to 1.25 ohms (1.2 ohms, Table 1, page 24).
Regarding claims 12-13, Angell discloses leads electrically connected to two ends of the heating coil and extending away from the wick (leads 41, page 8, fourth paragraph), wherein the leads are made of a material having a lower temperature coefficient of resistance (TCR) than a material of the heating coil and are made of nickel (the leads comprise N6 Nickel wire (page 8, fourth paragraph)) and the heating coil is made of nichrome (page 8, fourth paragraph).
Regarding claim 15, Angell discloses:
an aerosol-generating device comprising: the cartridge described in claim 1 (cartridge 2);
a body configured to allow the cartridge to be coupled thereto (control unit 4, fig. 1, page 4, third paragraph);
and an elongated insertion space defined in the body (receptable 8) and configured to allow communication between the cartridge and an outside of the aerosol generating device (via air inlet openings 14, fig. 1, page 6, first paragraph).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angell (WO2019/038521).
Regarding claim 2, Angell does not explicitly disclose wherein the electrical resistance of the heating coil is 1.15 ohms.
However, Angell discloses the heating coil has an electrical resistance of 1.2 ohms (Table 1, page 24) which is merely close, ~4%, to the claimed 1.15 ohms. The Courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 4, Angell discloses wherein the heating coil has a length of more than 3 mm in a longitudinal direction of the wick (length the coil may extend along the wicking material, page 19, last paragraph). The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of 3.0 mm to 3.5 mm and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Angell discloses the coil is wound more than seven times around the wick (complete turns of wire around the wick material, page 19, sixth paragraph). The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of seven to nine times around the wick and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Angell discloses the coil is wound more than seven times around the wick (complete turns of wire around the wick material, page 19, sixth paragraph). The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed eight times around the wick and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Angell discloses wherein the heating coil comprises a wire wound around the wick such that turns of the wire are spaced apart from each other by an interval of more than 0.4 mm in the longitudinal direction of the wick (pitch, page 19, fifth paragraph). The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of 0.38 mm to 0.42 mm and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Angell discloses a pair of wick grooves formed at opposite sides of the second chamber each configured to accommodate a corresponding end of the wick (recesses 110, 90, fig. 2, page 8, fifth paragraph), wherein the heating coil is wound around the wick between the pair of wick grooves (fig. 2).
Angell is silent to a distance between the pair of wick grooves is in a range of 4.7 mm to 5.1 mm.
However, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A. Therefore it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to make the distance between the pair of wick grooves be in a range of 4.7 mm to 5.1 mm as this merely involves a change in size without resulting in a different performance.
Regarding claim 8, Angell discloses wherein the wick has a length of more than 10 mm (page 21, last paragraph). The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of 6 mm to 12 mm and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Angell discloses wherein the wick has an outer diameter of more than 2.7 mm (characteristic diameter, page 16, first paragraph). The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of 2.5 mm to 3.0 mm and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Angell discloses wherein the wick has an outer diameter of more than 2.2 mm (characteristic diameter of more than 2.7 with a tolerance of -0.5 mm, page 16, first paragraph). The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed 2.5 mm and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Angell discloses wherein a central portion of the wick around which the heating coil is wound has an outer diameter of more than 1.9 mm and less than 2.1 mm (inner diameter for the coil which corresponds to the outer diameter of the portion of the wick compressed by the heating element, page 19, fourth paragraph). The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of 1.9 mm to 2.1 mm and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Angell discloses wherein a peripheral portion of the wick around which the heating coil is not wound has an outer diameter of more than 2.7 mm (characteristic diameter, page 16, first paragraph). The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of 2.5 mm to 3.0 mm and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angell (WO2019/038521) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gallagher (US2022/0015448).
Regarding claim 14, Angell discloses in this example the heater wire comprises a nickel chrome (NiChrome) alloy, for example an 80:20 Ni:Cr alloy. However, it will be appreciated in other examples different materials may be used, for example other electrically resistive wires of the kind previously used in electronic cigarettes (page 18, second paragraph).
Angell does not appeal to disclose wherein the heating coil comprises 316L stainless steel.
Gallagher, directed to a nicotine electronic vaping device, teaches a resistance heated constructed from 316L grade stainless steel.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to make the heating coil of Angell constructed from 316L stainless steel as taught by Gallagher, because both Angell and Gallagher are directed to resistive heaters for electronic vaping devices, and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicole A Szumigalski whose telephone number is (703)756-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 4:30 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, Philip 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.
/N.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights