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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 7, 11-14, 16, 21, 23, 25, 27, and 38, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN108968154A) in view of Barrios et al. (US 20150068637A1) and 3M Glass Bubbles (2019) and ““3M Glass Bubbles, K, S, and iM Series” (2013) as evidence.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 11, 12, 25, 27, and 38, Chen et al. disclose a electronic cigarette/aerosol generator that has a heating tube (i.e. receptacle) for an aerosol generating article with a heating element to heat the article (see figure 2). The heating tube of the device can have an insulation sleeve, “made of other insulation materials such as insulation ceramics, Teflon, or polyether ether ketone (PEEK).” [0045].
Although Chen et al. disclose that the insulation may be a polymer composition (PEEK), a polymer composition that also contains a filler with a specific thermal conductivity is not disclosed. However, it is known to use fillers in polymers intended to provide thermal insulation. In particular, Barrios et al. disclose that hollow glass microspheres, such as 3M iM30K glass bubbles, can combined with a thermoplastic polymer binder, including PEEK [0091] to create insulation materials [0089]. Further 3M discloses that, “The addition of 3M Glass Bubbles to a resin system can decrease thermal conductivity, depending on the grade and amount of microspheres used.” (page 8, “Thermal insulation” section). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the insulation material disclosed by Barrios et al. composed of PEEK and a filler of hollow glass bubbles as the insulation material in the invention of Chen et al. because it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 (I)) and that substituting equivalents known to be used for the same purpose, in this case, thermal insulation, are obvious (see MPEP 2144.06).
Regarding claim 6, PEEK is a semi-crystalline thermoplastic.
Regarding claim 13, 3M Glass Bubbles discloses that the mean particle size of iM30K glass bubbles is 18 micrometers (page 11).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 14, Chen et al. and Barrios et al. do not disclose the thermal conductivity of the polymer or the filler. However, the applicant discloses that PEEK has a thermal conductivity of about 0.32 W/mK [0079]. This disclosure is evidence that the polymer claimed as well as the identical polymer disclosed in the prior art have the disclosed property. 3M discloses that thermal conductivity of the iM30K is 0.200 W/mK (page 2, Thermal Conductivity table). Therefore, the thermal conductivity of the filler (0.20 W/mK) is less than the thermal conductivity of the polymer (0/32 W/mK).
Regarding claim 16, the composition disclosed by Chen et al. will inherently have a thermal conductivity of less than 0.4 W/mK because the thermal conductivity of the ingredients are all less than 0.4 W/mK.
Regarding claims 21 and 23, Barrios et al. disclose that, “The composite particles and the binder may be combined in any ratio, which ratio will typically be strongly influenced by the intended application.” [0089]. 3M Glass Bubbles discloses that, “The addition of 3M Glass Bubbles to a resin system can decrease thermal conductivity, depending on the grade and amount of microspheres used.” (page 8, “Thermal insulation” section). It would have been obvious to change the amount of microspheres to obtain various decreases in thermal conductivity because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and the relationship between the variable of the amount of microspheres and result of decreased thermal conductivity is explicitly disclosed by both Barrios et al. and 3M Glass Bubbles. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA). Furthermore, Barrios et al. illustrate an example of microspheres in a resin (figure 2) and it would provide direction to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of mixture would be between 10% and 90% polymer and 10% and 90% of filler.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN108968154A), Barrios et al. (US 20150068637A1) and 3M Glass Bubbles (2019) and ““3M Glass Bubbles, K, S, and iM Series” (2013) as evidence as applied to claims 1and 25 above and in further view of Aoun et al. (CA3131723A1).
Regarding claim 26, Chen et al. do not disclose an induction heating system However, induction heating is well-known in the art. Aoun et al. disclose an analogous aerosol provision device that uses an induction coil and a susceptor to heat an aerosol generating article (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use induction heating as disclosed by Aoun et al. as a simple substitution of the resistive heating system of Chen et al. It has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 (I)) and that substituting equivalents known to be used for the same purpose, in this case, thermal insulation, are obvious (see MPEP 2144.06).
Claim(s) 31 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN108968154A), Barrios et al. (US 20150068637A1) and 3M Glass Bubbles (2019) and ““3M Glass Bubbles, K, S, and iM Series” (2013) as evidence as applied to claims 1and 25 above and in further view of Blandino et al. (US 20170055580 A1).
Regarding claims 31 and 32, Chen et al. do not disclose at least partially embedding the heating element within the insulating member. However, Blandino et al. disclose an analogous electronic smoking/aerosol generator and disclose that the heating element (coil 122) may be surrounded by [0126] or be embedded in a body of thermal insulation [0127]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing to surround (i.e. cover) or embed the heating elements of Chen et al. with insulation as disclosed by Blandino et al. Doing so would help to reduce the transfer of heating energy from the heating element to an outer surface of the apparatus [0126] as taught by Blandino et al. Embedding the heating element would also help maintain the relative positioning of the coil as taught by Blandino et al. [0127].
Claim(s) 33 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN108968154A), Barrios et al. (US 20150068637A1) and 3M Glass Bubbles (2019) and ““3M Glass Bubbles, K, S, and iM Series” (2013) as evidence as applied to claims 1 and 25 above and in further view of Goirgini (US 20190259982 A1).
Regarding claim 33, the references applied to claims 1 and 25 above do not disclose at least partially surrounding the power source with one or more insulating members. However, it is well known in the art that electronics components such as printed circuit boards, power supplies, batteries, and wireless charging components (i.e. printed circuit boards) are often partially or fully encapsulated in a “potting” compound. Goirgini discloses that:
In general, potting is the process of partially or completely filling or embedding an enclosure with a material for the purpose of maintaining objects within the enclosure in spatial relationship to one another and to the enclosure. Potting may be used to provide resistance to shock and vibration. Certain compositions used for potting may be designed for creating a seal against moisture, solvents, and corrosive agents. [0003]
Materials used to form potting compounds vary in hardness from very soft to hard and rigid, and are designed to withstand various environments. [0004]
Although Goirgini discloses this in terms of a battery module and not an electronic cigarette, the problem faced is the same as that of the instant invention and the prior art, namely how to protect circuitry from the environment. Furthermore, Gorigini discloses using a polymer bulk material [0021] and microballoons [0023]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing to use the thermal insulation of Barrios as potting to partially or fully encapsulate the electronic components of Chen et al. Further motivation is provided by 3M Glass Bubbles (2019), which states, “
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN108968154A), Barrios et al. (US 20150068637A1) and 3M Glass Bubbles (2019) and ““3M Glass Bubbles, K, S, and iM Series” (2013) as evidence as applied to claims 1 and 25 above and in further view of Zhiyong et al. (CN 201928066 U) and Goirgini (US 20190259982 A1).
Regarding claim 33, the references applied to claims 1 and 25 above do not disclose wireless charging components or that the components are at least partially surrounded with one or more insulating members.
First, it is known in the art to use wireless charging to recharge electronic smoking articles such as the invention of Chen et al. Zhiyong et al. disclose a wireless charging device that is part of the electronic cigarette body (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the wireless charging components of Zhiyong et al in the invention of Chen et al. in order to allow users to wirelessly charge the smoking device. Zhiyong et al. disclose that wired charging is inconvenient for users which is solved by allowing wireless charging (page 1).
Second, it is well known in the art that electronics components such as printed circuit boards, power supplies, batteries, and wireless charging components (i.e. printed circuit boards) are often partially or fully encapsulated in a “potting” compound. Goirgini discloses that:
In general, potting is the process of partially or completely filling or embedding an enclosure with a material for the purpose of maintaining objects within the enclosure in spatial relationship to one another and to the enclosure. Potting may be used to provide resistance to shock and vibration. Certain compositions used for potting may be designed for creating a seal against moisture, solvents, and corrosive agents. [0003]
Materials used to form potting compounds vary in hardness from very soft to hard and rigid, and are designed to withstand various environments. [0004]
Although Goirgini discloses this in terms of a battery module and not an electronic cigarette, the problem faced is the same as that of the instant invention and the prior art, namely how to protect circuitry from the environment. Furthermore, Gorigini discloses using a polymer bulk material [0021] and microballoons [0023]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention/filing to use the thermal insulation of Barrios as potting to partially or fully encapsulate the electronic components of Chen et al. and Zhiyong.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4805. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Thursday-Friday 7:00-4:30, Wednesday 7:00-1:00.
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 J Felton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights