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 Claims
Claims 1 – 15 are pending and are the subject of this office action. This is the first office action
on the merits of the claims.
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 5 and 7 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites ‘the yard comprises a single strand of first-level yarn or wherein the yarn comprises 2 strands to 8 strands of second-level yarn’. The terms ‘first-level yarn’ and ‘second-level yarn’ are not a common term in the art, and the specification does not provide any specifics as to what a ‘first-level yarn’ or ‘second-level yarn’ is. Thus, the claim is indefinite as it is unclear what is being claimed by first-level or second-level yarn. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted as any yarn with a single strand is a first level-yarn and any yarn having 2-8 strands is a second-level yarn.
Regarding claim 7, the claim requires ‘a fineness of the yarn is greater than or equal to 10 and less than or equal to 60’. However, the fineness of yarn requires units (for example Denier, Tex, meters/gram). Since the claim nor specification recite any units to the fineness, the claim is indefinite as it is unclear how the fineness is being measured.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 213587436 U (Chen) and further in view of US 20140261487 A1 (Chapman).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a liquid-guiding cotton atomizing unit including a heating element (10), a liquid guiding cotton (20), and a guiding support tube (30) (paragraph 33 of translation; figure 2). Chen further teaches that the liquid-conducting support tube (30) is inserted inside the liquid-conducting cotton (20), which expands the outer diameter of the liquid-conducting cotton (20) so that it can fully contact the heating element (10) (paragraph 35 of translation; figure 2). The liquid guiding cotton reads on the claim limitation of a conduction layer arranged on an outer side of the support tube.
Chen does not teach that the conduction layer comprises an integrally braided structure. Chapman teaches a smoking article comprising a heating element using a braided wick for liquid transport (paragraph 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the atomizing unit of Chen with a braided wick structure of Chapman, with reasonable expectation of success, because Chapman indicates that by providing the wick in a braid, the porosity of the filaments used in the wick can be controlled to alter the capillary action and can include controlling average pore size and total porosity, controlling filament geometry, controlling overall wick shape, and controlling surface characteristics (paragraph 85).
Regarding claim 3, Chen modified by Chapman teaches a heating element as described by claim 1. Chen further teaches an atomizing unit comprising a heating element (10), a liquid-guiding cotton (20), and a liquid-guiding support tube (30) (paragraph 33; figure 2).
Chen does not teach that the conduction layer comprises cotton thread or cotton yarn, or that the conduction layer is formed into the integrally braided structure by the cotton thread or the cotton yarn with a braiding method. Chapman teaches the braided wick can be formed from at least 3 separate fibers or yarns (paragraph 87).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the conduction layer of Chen with the braided structure of cotton yarn of Chapman, with reasonable expectation of success, because Chapman indicates that by braiding the wick, porosity of the filaments used in the wick also can be controlled to alter the capillary action and can include controlling average pore size and total porosity, controlling filament geometry, controlling overall wick shape, and controlling surface characteristics (paragraph 85). Additionally, patentability of a product does not depend on the 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 (MPEP 2133).
Regarding claim 4, Chen modified by Chapman teaches a heating element as described by claim 3. Chapman further teaches that the braided wick can be formed from at least 3 separate fibers or yarns. Further, the braided wick can be formed from at least 4, at least 6, at least 8, at least 10, at least 12, at least 14, or at least 16 separate fibers or yarns (paragraph 87).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cotton yarn of Chen with the 3 – 16 fibers of Chapman, with reasonable expectation of success because Chapaman indicates that by altering the yarn of the capillary wick, porosity of the filaments used in the wick can be controlled to alter the capillary action and can include controlling average pore size and total porosity, controlling filament geometry, controlling overall wick shape, and controlling surface characteristics (paragraph 85).
Regarding claim 6, Chen modified by Chapman teaches a heating element as described in claim 4. Chapman further teaches several experimental embodiments where the yarn diameter was altered to study how wick parameters impact aerosol delivery performance over time. Chapman teaches embodiments with the yarn wick having diameters of 0.054 inches (1.37 mm), 0.052 inches (1.32 mm), 0.047 inches (1.19 mm) or 0.043 inches (1.09mm) (paragraphs 104 – 106). If a prior art reference discloses a point or range within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the conduction layer of Chen, with yarn fibers of a diameter suggested by Chapman, with reasonable expectation of success, because Chapman indicates that by modifying the dimensions of their wick fibers, the wicks exhibited improved performance over the life of the article including higher total particulate matter yield, reduced change in total particulate matter yield over time, and greater physical integrity (paragraph 106).
Regarding claim 8, Chen modified by Chapman teaches a heating element as described by claim 8. Chen further teaches that the heating element (10) is a spiral structure (paragraph 36; figures 1 & 2). Figures 1 and 2 further show the heating element (10) comprising a plurality of winding portions. Chen further teaches that the liquid conducing support tube (30) is inserted inside the liquid-conducting cotton (20), which expands the outer diameter of the liquid-conducting cotton (20) so that it can fully contact the heating element (10) (paragraph 35 of translation; figures 2, 5, 6 & 7).
Regarding claim 9, Chen modified by Chapman teaches a heating element as described by claim 1. Chen further teaches that the liquid support tube is provided with at least one liquid outlet hole (31) corresponding to the heating part (11). Due to its hollow structure, the liquid-conducting support tube (30) has open ports at both ends, allowing the liquid to enter from the two ports and exit through the liquid outlet (31) before being conducted to the heating element (11) via the liquid-conducting cotton (20) for heating and atomization (paragraph 39 of translation; figures 3 & 4). Additionally, figures 3 and 4 show a plurality of through holes.
Regarding claim 12, Chen modified by Chapman teaches a heating element as described by claim 9. Chen modified by Chapman does not teach that the hole diameter of the through-hole is greater than or equal to 0.01mm and less than or equal to 3mm. However, the hole diameter is a result effect variable modifying the rate of diffusion of the aerosolizable material from the support tube to the cotton wick. Since applicants did not provide any criticality regarding the recited parameter, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the through hole diameter through routine experimentation for optimum result, see MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 213587436 U (Chen) and US 20140261487 A1 (Chapman) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2019193310 A1 (Potter).
Regarding claim 2, Chen modified by Chapman teaches a heating element as described by claim 1. Chen modified by Chapman does not teach that the thickness of the conduction layer is greater than or equal to 0.1mm and less than or equal to 3mm. Potter teaches a liquid transport element for a vapor provision system (page 3 lines 10 – 11). And that the wicking material comprises cotton (page 13 lines 10 – 11). Potter further teaches that the wick has a nominal diameter of 3mm and a length of around 20mm and that the wicking material has a thickness of 0.2mm (page 11 lines 32 – 35). If a prior art reference discloses a point or range within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the conduction layer thickness to the dimensions of Potter, with reasonable expectation of success, because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to similar wicks for workable ranges for wick thicknesses.
Claims 5, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 213587436 U (Chen) and US 20140261487 A1 (Chapman) as applied to claim 4 and claim 9 above, and further in view of US 20210378306 A1 (Angell).
Regarding claim 5, Chen modified by Chapman teaches a heating element as described by claim 4. Chen modified by Chapman does not teach that the yarn comprises a single strand of first-level yarn, or wherein the yarn comprises 2 strands to 8 strands of second-level yarn. Angell teaches a vaporizer assembly for use in a vapor provision system (paragraph 7) wherein the vaporizer assembly comprises a liquid transport element formed of cotton and a heating element comprising a coil of resistive wire wound around a portion of the liquid transport element (paragraph 35) and that the liquid transport element (42) comprises a capillary wick (paragraph 36; figure 2). Figure 4 displays a flow diagram for a method of forming material for the liquid transport element. Step 7 of figure 4 indicates that two cotton threads are twisted together to form the wick material and that in other examples, there may be more than two twisted cotton threads, for example three, four, five or more twisted cotton threads (paragraph 60; figure 4). As first-level and second-level yarn are not defined in the specification, and are not common phrases in the art, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the 2 – 5 or more twisted cotton threads read on the claim limitation of second-level yarn comprising 2 – 8 strands.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the conductive layer of Chen modified by Chapman, to have the cotton yarn comprising 2 – 5 strands of second level yarn as in Angell, with reasonable expectation of success, because it would have been obvious to have selected yarn structure which produced a wick that had the desired size and strength for efficient aerosolization during heating.
Regarding claim 7, Chen modified by Chapman teaches a heating element as described by claim 4. Chen modified by Chapman does not teach that the fineness of the yarn is greater than or equal to 10 and less than or equal to 60. However, yarn fineness is a result effect variable modifying the size (diameter) and strength for efficient aerosolization during heating. Since applicants did not provide any criticality regarding the recited parameter, one skilled in the art would have found obvious to optimize the yarn fineness through routine experimentation for optimum result. See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 11, Chen modified by Chapman teaches a heating element as described by claim 9. Chen further teaches that the length of the support tube (30) is greater than the length of the heating element (paragraph 9 of translation) and that the length of the fluid conducting support tube (30) is less than the length of the fluid conducting cotton (20) (paragraph 39 of translation). Chen modified by Chapman does not teach that an axial length of the body is greater than or equal to 3mm and less than or equal to 30 mm. Figures 5 and 6 of Angell show the length of the wick to be 20mm, and the width of the heating coils to be 5mm. Combining the teachings of Chen with the dimensions of Angell would give an axial length of the support tube between 5mm and 20mm. If a prior art reference discloses a point or range within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the heating element of Chen modified by Chapman, with the length dimensions of Angell, with reasonable expectation of success, because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to similar heating elements of aerosol generating devices for suitable ranges for the dimensions of the support tube.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 213587436 U (Chen) and US 20140261487 A1 (Chapman) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US 20240041123 A1 (Radtke).
Regarding claim 10, Chen modified by Chapman teaches a heating element as described by claim 9. Chen modified by Chapman does not teach that the inner diameter of the body is greater than or equal to 0.3mm and less than or equal to 3mm. Radtke teaches an aerosol generating device comprising a capillary tube having an inlet and an outlet and being configured to convey vaporizable liquid. A heater element is provided in thermal contact with the capillary tube (paragraph 17). The capillary tube may have a length of 35 – 45 millimeters and a diameter of up to 2 millimeters (paragraph 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the support body of Chen modified by Chapman, to have the diameter of Radtke, with reasonable expectation of success, because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to similar heating elements of aerosol generating devices for suitable ranges for the dimensions of the support tube.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 213587436 U (Chen) and US 20140261487 A1 (Chapman) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020006031 A1 (Sebastian).
Regarding claim 13, Chen modified by Chapman teaches a heating element as described by claim 1. Chen modified by Chapman does not teach that the material of the support tube comprises at least one of a metal material, a ceramic material, glass, or engineering plastic. Sebastian teaches an aerosol delivery device configured to yield an inhalable substance, and an aerosol source member, that includes a substrate portion (paragraph 6). The aerosol source member (104) may be formed of any material suitable for forming and maintaining an appropriate conformation such as a tubular shape. It may be formed of a material which is heat resistant so as to retain its structure integrity, such as ceramic materials (paragraph 52). The aerosol source member reads on the claim limitation of a support tube.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the support tube of Chen modified by Chapman, with the ceramic aerosol source member of Sebastian, with reasonable expectation of success, because Sebastian indicates that an insulating material may be used in order to not move heat away from the substrate. The aerosol source member may be formed of a heat-resistant material so as to retain its structural integrity at temperatures generated by the heating member (paragraph 52).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140261487 A1 (Chapman) and further in view of CN 213587436 U (Chen).
Regarding claim 14, Chapman teaches a smoking article with related components and methods (paragraph 5) including an atomizer comprising a liquid transport element that is a continuous wick (509) and a heating coil (510) that is in connection with the wick (509) (paragraph 65; figure 3). Chapman further teaches that the wick is a braided wick and is in fluid communication with the reservoir to provide aerosol generating material to the atomizer (paragraph 7). The wick reads on the claim limitation of a conduction layer.
Chapman does not teach a support tube and that the conduction layer is arranged on an outer side of the support tube. Chen teaches a liquid-guiding cotton atomizing unit comprising a heating element (10), a liquid guiding cotton (20) and a liquid guiding support tube (30). The liquid-conducting cotton (20) is axially inserted into the heating element (10); the liquid-conducting support tube (30) is parallel to the axial direction of the liquid-conducting cotton (20) and is inserted into the liquid-conducting cotton (20) (paragraph 33 of translation; figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the continuous wick of Chapman with the support tube of Chen, with reasonable expectation of success, because Chen indicates that the liquid-guiding support tube expands the outer diameter of the liquid guiding cotton, allowing the liquid guiding cotton and the heating element to make full contact, avoiding the problem of local high temperature burning caused by poor contact. It also improves the structural strength of the entire atomizing unit, making it less prone to deformation, with controllable size, improving the consistency and reliability of the atomizing unit, and facilitating installation (paragraph 19 of translation).
Regarding claim 15, Chapman modified by Chen teaches an aerosol generation device as described in claim 14. Chapman further teaches an electronic smoking article that includes an electrical power source and a reservoir that includes cellulose acetate and is configured to hold a product. The product can include an aerosol precursor composition (paragraph 5). The smoking article can include a battery or other electrical power source to provide a current flow sufficient to provide various functionalities to the article, such as resistive heating, power of control systems, powering of indicators and the like (paragraph 29).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brendon Juengst whose telephone number is (571)272-8750. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/BRENDON THOMAS JUENGST/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
