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 § 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.
Claims 181-184 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando (2017/0360093) in view of Marks et al. (2018/0221605).
With regard to claim 181, Fernando teaches, as shown in figures 1-4: “An aerosol delivery device 20 comprising: a member 21… comprising an aerosol generator portion 26 located at a downstream end (upper end in figure 3) of the member 21 and a support portion 21, the aerosol generator portion 26 configured to receive a first aerosol precursor; and an air flow passage 22 configured to direct air past the aerosol generator portion 26 to pick up the first aerosol precursor from the aerosol generator portion 26 to form a first aerosol, wherein the aerosol delivery device 20 comprises mutually engaging features (hole in 12 where 20 is received and portion of 20 engaged therein in figure 3) which interlock with each other to maintain the member 21 in the aerosol delivery device 20”.
Fernando does not teach the member “formed of a porous material”.
In the same field of endeavor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, Marks teaches, as shown in figure 1 and taught in paragraph 28, the member 30 “formed of a porous material”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to combine the features of Marks with the invention of Fernando in order to wick the aerosol precursor to the aerosol generator portion (Marks, paragraph 28).
With regard to claim 182, Fernando as modified by Marks teaches: “The aerosol delivery device according to claim 181”, as shown above.
Fernando also teaches, as shown in figures 1-4: “wherein the mutually engaging features comprise a groove (openings in 12 where 20 are received in figure 3) and a protrusion (portions of 23 that engage 20 in figure 3)”.
With regard to claim 183, Fernando as modified by Marks teaches: “The aerosol delivery device according to claim 182”, as shown above.
Fernando also teaches, as shown in figure 1: “wherein the aerosol delivery device 20 comprises a tube 12 for receiving the member 21”.
With regard to claim 184, Fernando as modified by Marks teaches: “The aerosol delivery device according to claim 183”, as shown above.
Neither Fernando nor Marks teaches: “wherein an internal surface of the tube comprises the protrusion and the member comprises the groove”. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the protrusion and groove of Fernando so the tube comprises the protrusion and the member comprises a groove in order to hold the member in the housing. Also, it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 57-70 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 57, the prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious the limitations: “wherein a portion of each of the first and second airflow branches is located upstream of the aerosol generator portion”, when combined with the rest of the limitations of claim 57. Claim 57 is therefore allowable.
Claims 58-70 include all the limitations of claim 57 and are therefore also allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claim 181, the Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Marks with Fernando because Fernando teaches the disadvantages of porous material. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since porous material is known from references like Marks to provide the functionality of wicking the aerosol generating material. The Applicant further argues that Marks teaches the use of porous stone (e.g. silicon carbide) and it would be difficult to replace the “spigot 32” of Marks with porous stone. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, since Marks does not limit the member 30 to silicon carbide and further states in paragraph 23 that the delivery mechanism is preferably a porous stone, so it is not limited to only porous stone and earlier states in paragraph 4 that any porous material that is capable of wicking aerosol generating material can be used for wicking. Also, the spigot 32 is not used for transporting the aerosol generating material in Fernando, but liquid flow path 36 would be replaced with a porous material (see paragraph 64) and disposing a porous material along the path would be more straightforward.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M KRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-0277. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Abdullah A Riyami can be reached at (571)270-3119. 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.
/JUSTIN M KRATT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights