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 .
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear what locations of the dummy load would be considered to be “in a vicinity of the chamber,” rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required the dummy load to be a component of the aerosol generation device.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 11-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparklin (US 10,219,544) in view of Weisglass (US 2023/0217984) and Lee (US 2006/0021980).
Regarding claims 1 and 11-12, Sparklin discloses an aerosol delivery device (abstract) having a heating chamber (figure 2A, reference numeral 106) that contains an aerosol precursor composition (column 4, lines 22-42, figure 2A, reference numeral 108) that is engaged with a microwave radiation emitting device that generates microwaves using an antenna (column 4, lines 43-57, figure 2A, reference numeral 110). The radiation emitting device is powered by a battery (column 5, lines 7-31), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a power source. Air enters the device through an airflow channel (column 6, lines 31-48, figure 2A, reference numeral 120), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an air flow path. The device is defined by an enclosure (column 4, lines 4-21, figure 2A, reference numeral 104). Sparklin does not explicitly disclose (a) generating the microwaves using the oscillator and (b) an isolator.
Regarding (a), Weisglass teaches a coffee roaster having a microwave oscillator that is a solid state oscillator [0232] that has a waveguide that channels the microwaves generated at the oscillator to a chamber via an antenna [0234]. Coffee beans are hated in the chamber using the electromagnetic wave [0064].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Sparklin with the microwave generator and antenna of Weisglass. One would have been motivated to do so since Weisglass teaches a specific generator for generating the microwaves of Sparklin. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See MPEP § 2143, D.
Regarding (b), Lee teaches a system for controlling power distribution in a microwave cavity (abstract) in which a microwave power head (figure 3, reference numeral 72) generates microwaves that then pass through a circulator (figure 3, reference numeral 78) that diverts retrogressing microwaves to a dummy load ([0040], figure 3, reference numeral 78). The circulator and dummy load together make up an isolator ([0040], figure 3, reference numeral 74).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the isolator between the heating chamber and antenna of modified Sparklin. One would have been motivated to do so since Lee teaches an isolator that diverts retrogressing microwaves.
Regarding claim 2, it is evident that the dummy load of modified Sparklin would become heated since microwaves cause loads of any sort to become heated.
Regarding claim 8, it evident that all components are part of the device of modified Sparklin.
Regarding claim 9, Sparklin discloses that a shielding element is located within the airflow channel (column 6, lines 31-48, figure 2A, reference numeral 116).
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches that the isolator is provided on a waveguide ([0040], figure 3, reference numeral 90).
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches that the oscillator is located along a waveguide that extends in two directions from the oscillator-one towards the cavity, where the antenna of the combination is located, and one towards the microwave generator ([0040], figure 3, reference numeral 90), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of two ports. The dummy load is located at a third port from the oscillator.
Regarding claim 16, it is evident that the dummy load of modified Sparklin functions as a termination resistor since it absorbs the microwaves the microwaves that are directed to it rather than allowing them to be returned to the oscillator.
Regarding claim 17, Sparklin discloses that a shield is located on the inner surface of the heating chamber (column 6, lines 31-48, figure 2A, reference numeral 116B).
Regarding claim 19, Lee teaches that a tuner is located along the waveguide that matches the impedance of the microwaves ([0041], figure 3, reference numeral 88). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in order to match the tuner must be configured to either reduce or increase the power as necessary.
Regarding claim 20, Sparklin discloses an aerosol delivery device (abstract) having a heating chamber (figure 2A, reference numeral 106) that contains an aerosol precursor composition (column 4, lines 22-42, figure 2A, reference numeral 108) that is engaged with a microwave radiation emitting device that generates microwaves using an antenna (column 4, lines 43-57, figure 2A, reference numeral 110). The radiation emitting device is powered by a battery (column 5, lines 7-31), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a power source. Air enters the device through an airflow channel (column 6, lines 31-48, figure 2A, reference numeral 120), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an air flow path. The device is defined by an enclosure (column 4, lines 4-21, figure 2A, reference numeral 104). A shielding element is located within the airflow channel (column 6, lines 31-48, figure 2A, reference numeral 116). Sparklin does not explicitly disclose (a) generating the microwaves using the oscillator and (b) an isolator.
Regarding (a), Weisglass teaches a coffee roaster having a microwave oscillator that is a solid state oscillator [0232] that has a waveguide that channels the microwaves generated at the oscillator to a chamber via an antenna [0234]. Coffee beans are hated in the chamber using the electromagnetic wave [0064].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Sparklin with the microwave generator and antenna of Weisglass. One would have been motivated to do so since Weisglass teaches a specific generator for generating the microwaves of Sparklin. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See MPEP § 2143, D.
Regarding (b), Lee teaches a system for controlling power distribution in a microwave cavity (abstract) in which a microwave power head (figure 3, reference numeral 72) generates microwaves that then pass through a circulator (figure 3, reference numeral 78) that diverts retrogressing microwaves to a dummy load ([0040], figure 3, reference numeral 78). The circulator and dummy load together make up an isolator ([0040], figure 3, reference numeral 74).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the isolator between the heating chamber and antenna of modified Sparklin. One would have been motivated to do so since Lee teaches an isolator that diverts retrogressing microwaves.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparklin (US 10,219,544) in view of Weisglass (US 2023/0217984) and Lee (US 2006/0021980) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Rogers (US 2013/0219737).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sparklin teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Sparklin does not explicitly teach the dummy load exchanging heat with air inside the device of modified Sparklin.
Rogers teaches an apparatus that delivers electromagnetic energy to an application zone in the form of high powered microwaves that are generated at an RF power supply [0109]. The device has a dummy load that absorbs heat reflected from the application zone, which is then directed to air to heat the air so that it can perform a drying operation [0122].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the dummy load of modified Sparklin such that it heats the air flow within the device. One would have been motivated to do so since Rogers teaches using a dummy load to heat air that is then used to heat something else.
Regarding claim 4, modified Sparklin teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Sparklin does not explicitly teach the dummy load being located in the air flow path.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the dummy load transferring heat to the air flow within the air flow path itself. One would have been motivated to do so since there is no evidence of record that the specific location of the dummy load is critical, so long as it is exchanging heat with the air flow. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Sparklin discloses that a shielding element is located within the airflow channel (column 6, lines 31-48, figure 2A, reference numeral 116).
Regarding claim 6, it is evident that some portion of the dummy load must be a heat conductive member since some heat must be released from the dummy load to the heat the air of Rogers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparklin (US 10,219,544) in view of Weisglass (US 2023/0217984) and Lee (US 2006/0021980) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Llamas (US 2015/0181924).
Regarding claim 10, modified Sparklin teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Sparklin does not explicitly teach the composition containing a flavor.
Llamas teaches a liquid composition for use in a smoking device (abstract) that has a flavor enhancer to substantially change the flavor of the smoke [0038].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the composition of modified Sparklin with the flavor of Llamas. One would have been motivated to do so since Llamas teaches a flavor that changes the flavor of smoke.
Claim 14 is under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparklin (US 10,219,544) in view of Weisglass (US 2023/0217984) and Lee (US 2006/0021980) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kahner III (US 2005/0066537).
Regarding claim 14, modified Sparklin teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Sparklin additionally discloses that the composition contains a polyhydric alcohol (column 8, lines 50-67), which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize are polar. Modified Sparklin does not explicitly teach the frequency of the microwaves.
Kahner III teaches using high frequency microwaves that are released at 2.45 GHz to cause optimal heating of polar molecules [0044].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the frequency of Kahner III to operate the microwave of modified Sparklin. One would have been motivated to do so since Kahner III teaches an ideal frequency for heating polar molecules.
Claim 18 is under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sparklin (US 10,219,544) in view of Weisglass (US 2023/0217984) and Lee (US 2006/0021980) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Williams (US 2009/0293892).
Regarding claim 18, modified Sparklin teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Sparklin additionally discloses that the aerosol precursor composition is in solid form (column 8, lines 50-67). Modified Sparklin does not explicitly teach the solid being inserted through a guide.
Williams teaches a portable vaporizer (abstract) having a plant material chamber (figure 3, reference numeral 30) that is covered by a lid during use ([0036], figure 3, reference numeral 32). The lid is flush with the housing when closed ([0036], figure 2, reference numeral 40), indicating a portion of the interior of the chamber is covered by the lid when closed and does not form part of the chamber proper. This space occupied by the lid considered to meet the claim limitation of a guide. Williams additionally teaches that the lid can be removed to add plant material to the device [0038].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of modified Sparklin with the lid of Williams. One would have been motivated to do so since Williams teaches a lid that allows solid material to be added to a heating chamber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-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, 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights