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
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.
Claim(s) 16-26 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saygili (WO2020115302) in view of Decker et al. (WO2019200194) and further in view of Taurino et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210137170).
Regarding claim 16, Saygili discloses an aerosol-generating device, comprising:
an air inlet (16, fig. 1) configured to allow ambient air to enter the aerosol-generating device; an airflow channel fluidly (see channel with arrows from reference sign 16 to reference sign 22 of fig. 1) connected with the air inlet; a filter element (24, fig. 1) arranged in the airflow channel adjacent the air inlet and configured to filter the ambient air entering the aerosol-generating device; Saygili does not expressly discloses a heating element is configured to heat the ambient air entering the aerosol-generating device.
Decker discloses an aerosol-generating device with a pre-heater (corresponding to the claimed heating element) wherein the pre-heater is configured to heat the ambient air entering the aerosol-generating device (Abstract [0005]). Taurino discloses a preferred normal ambient temperature range between about 15 0C and about 25 0C [0029-0030] (within the claimed range) so that the aerosol-generating system may not need to adjust the power supply to compensate for the effect of the ambient temperature. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add a heating element configured to heat the ambient air entering the aerosol-generating device to a temperature range between about 15 0C and about 25 0C [0029-0030] to ensure the device of Saygili to have a preferred ambient temperature so that the system may not need to adjust the power supply to compensate for the effect of the ambient temperature.
Regarding claim 17, Saygili discloses wherein the filter element comprises a porous element (mesh) (page 2, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 18, Saygili discloses wherein the filter element is configured as a porous element (mesh) (page 2, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 19, Saygili discloses wherein the filter element (24, fig. 1) is further arranged in the airflow channel such that the ambient air entering the aerosol-generating device flows through the filter element.
Regarding claim 20, Saygili discloses the filter element is further configured to one or both of diffuse and spread (the mesh spreads/diffuse air passing through) the ambient air entering the aerosol-generating device (page 2, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Saygili, Decker and Taurino taken together as a whole discloses the heating element is further configured to heat the ambient air entering the aerosol-generating device to a temperature of between about 10 °C and about 30 °C ([0030] of Taurnio). In case of overlapping ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Saygili, Decker and Taurino taken together as a whole discloses the heating element is further configured to heat the ambient air entering the aerosol-generating device to a temperature of between about 15 °C and about 25 °C ([0030] of Taurnio) (the claimed temperature is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 23, Decker discloses wherein the heating element is further arranged at least partly surrounding the airflow channel (by reference sign 211, fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 24, Taurino discloses the aerosol-generating device further comprises a temperature sensor and a controller, wherein the temperature sensor is configured to measure a temperature of the ambient air entering the aerosol-generating device upstream of the heating element, and wherein the controller is configured to control the heating element based upon an output of the temperature sensor ([0005][0010]).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Saygili, Decker and Taurino taken together as a whole suggests the controller is further configured to operate the heating element if the temperature sensor detects that the temperature of the ambient air is below 20 °C to get to the upper range of normal temperature of about 30 °C ([0030] of Taurino). .
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Saygili, Decker and Taurino taken together as a whole suggests the controller is further configured to operate the heating element if the temperature sensor detects that the temperature of the ambient air is below 5 °C since the normal preferred range of ambient temperature is between about 15 °C to about 5 °C ([0030] of Taurino).
Regarding claim 30, Decker discloses the heating element is further arranged in the airflow channel (by reference sign 32, fig. 1).
Claim(s) 27-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saygili (WO2020115302) in view of, Decker et al. (WO2019200194) and Taurino et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210137170) as applied above for claim 16 and further in view of Trzecieski (Pub. No. 20200221778).
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), (MPEP 2113). In this case the heating element disclosed by Trzecieski is manufactured from a porous material (e.g. porous ceramics capable of performing the filtering function as the claimed filter element).
Regarding claim 27, Saygili does not expressly disclose the heating element is overmolded onto the filter element. However, as explained above, in this case the heating element disclosed by Trzecieski is manufactured from a porous material (e.g. porous ceramics capable of performing the filtering function as the claimed filter element). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the filter element with the heating element as taught by Trzecieski for its heating property as well as controlling passage by its porosity.
Regarding claim 28, Trzecieski discloses the heating element is printed onto the filter element [0731].
Regarding claim 29, as explained above, the combination of Saygili, Decker, Taurino and Trzecieski taken together as a whole discloses the heating element is further configured to heat the filter element to thereby heat the ambient air entering the aerosol-generating device.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Saygili, Taurino and Trzecieski discloses the heating element is further arranged in the airflow channel (by reference sign 32, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 31, Trzecieski discloses the heating element is fluid-permeable [0492].
Regarding claim 32, Trzecieski discloses the heating/filter element is made of a ceramic material [0492].
Regarding claim 33, Trzecieski discloses the heating/filter element has a preferred porosity of between 40 % and 50 % within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 34, Trzecieski discloses the heating/filter element has a preferred porosity of between 40 % and 50 % overlapping with the claimed range. In case of overlapping ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to pick the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHU H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5931. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 5712703882. 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.
/PHU H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights