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.
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, 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CARRARO et al. (US 2015/0289566) in view of LORD (WO 2020/089091 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 2, CARRARO et al. discloses a smoking article that forms an aerosol (Abstract) comprising a medium portion, 104 (Paragraph [0077]), a support structure, 106, downstream of the medium portion and includes a first tubular structure (e.g., material 136 formed around 134) that includes a first hollow, 134, (Paragraph [0083] and [0084]), a cooling structure, 108, disposed downstream of the supporting structure and includes a hollow second tubular structure, 142 (Paragraphs [0088], [0089]), a mouthpiece potion, 110 (Paragraph [0089]) disposed downstream of the cooling structure. The medium, cooling structure and the mouthpiece portions are in abutting relationship (Paragraph [0077]; Figure 1). As seen in figure 1, the cooling portion has a cross-sectional area greater than that of the first hollow portion.
CARRARO et al. does not explicitly disclose the claimed plurality of perforations.
LORD discloses an aerosol forming article that comprises radial airflow paths into the article (Abstract) so that when the user inhales, air can enter the radial airflow paths (“plurality of perforations”) and mix with the vapor prior to inhalation and held cool said vapor (Page 3, lines 10-20 Figures 1-4). The plurality of perforations penetrated the cooling structure around the periphery thereof so as to allow air inside and outside of the cooling structure to be in fluid communication with each other (Page 11, lines 13-20; Page 10, lines 20-30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a plurality of perforations around the cooling structure of CARRARO et al., as taught by LORD, so that air can pass into these perforations from outside of the cooling structure and into the cooling structure to mix (“dilute”; claim 2) with the vapor and cool said vapor prior to inhalation through the mouthpiece.
With respect to claim 8, MAEDER et al. discloses that the diameters of the smoking articles are substantially uniform. Substantially uniform includes slight variations in the diameters of the components of the smoking articles. As such, any portion of the expansion chamber that varies from the desired diameter necessarily creates a portion of the expansion chamber having larger/smaller diameters than the remaining portions of the expansion chamber.
_____________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 3-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CARRARO et al. (US 2015/0289566) in view of LORD (WO 2020/089091 A1) as applied to claims 1, 2 and 8 above, and further in view of MIRONOV et al. (US 2016/0073684).
With respect to claims 3 and 4, modified CARRARO et al. does not explicitly disclose that the cross-sectional area of the second hollow is 2 times larger than that of the first hollow.
MIRONOV et al discloses a smoking article for generating an aerosol (Abstract). The support structure has an inner diameter ranging from 5-9 mm at its largest to 2-5 mm at its smallest diameter (Paragraph [0017]). The largest diameter of the support structure is about the same inner diameter as the expansion chamber (Figures 1 and 2). The support structure as configured allows cooling of the aerosols generated in the aerosol-forming substrate 9paragraph [0013]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the first hollow with an interior diameter of from 2-5 mm at its smallest diameter and 5-9 mm at its largest diameter, which approximates the interior diameter of the second hollow, in the invention of CARRARO et al., as taught by MIRONOV et al so that the aerosol can be further cooled.
With an interior diameter of 5mm mm in the cooling chamber of modified CARRARO et al., and compared to an interior diameter of 3.5355 mm at the smallest interior diameter of the first hollow, the area of the second hollow (19.635 mm2 ) is about 2 times larger than that of the first hollow (9.8175 mm2).
With respect to claim 5, MIRONOV et al discloses that the inner diameter of the second hollow (see rejection of claim 2) is between 5 and 9 mm, while the inner diameter of the first hollow ranges from 2-9 mm. Thus, the diameter ratio of the first tubular structure to the second includes 4.5:9 (or 1:2).
With respect to claim 6, MIRONOV et al discloses that the inner diameter of the second hollow (see rejection of claim 2) is between 5 and 9 mm, while the inner diameter of the first hollow ranges from 2-9 mm. Thus, the diameter difference of the first tubular structure to the second includes about 7mm to 0 mm.
With respect to claim 7, MIRONOV et al discloses that the inner diameter of the second hollow (see rejection of claim 2) is between 5 and 9 mm, while the inner diameter of the first hollow ranges from 2-9 mm.
With respect to claim 9, modified CARRARO et al. discloses that the length of the expansion chamber is between 5 and 20 mm (MAEDER et al.; Paragraph [0075]). Thus, with a diameter of the expansion chamber being between 5 and 9 mm (according to MIRONOV et al), the length of the cooling chamber is between 1 and 2.2 times the diameter of the expansion chamber
_______________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CARRARO et al. (US 2015/0289566) in view of LORD (WO 2020/089091 A1) as applied to claims 1, 2 and 8 above, and further in view of ENGLAND (US 2019/0116875).
With respect to claim 10¸ modified CARRARO et al. does not explicitly disclose the claimed dilution rate. ENGLAND discloses an article for use in an apparatus for heating a smokable material (Abstract; Title). The article comprises a ventilation region having ventilation holes, 317, (“perforations”) around the outer layer of the article for cooling the article upon inhalation (Paragraph [0044], [0045]). The ventilation ratio (“dilution rate”) is 15% which enables the heated volatilized components to be made visible (Paragraph [0071]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a dilution ratio of 15% in modified CARRARO et al., as taught by ENGLAND, so that the enables the heated volatilized components can still be made visible.
With respect to claims 11 and 12¸modified CARRARO et al. does not explicitly disclose the spacing of the perforations. ENGLAND discloses that the perforations are spaced about 17-20 mm from the proximal end, 313, of the article (“apart from a downstream end of the aerosol generating article in an upstream direction) (as required by claim 12). This prevents the user from blocking the ventilation holes in use (Paragraphs [0047], [0048]). LORD discloses that the filter, 5, is immediately adjacent to the cooling structure (Figure 1) and has a length of 12 mm (Page 10, lines 7-15). Thus, the plurality of perforations are formed at a position of about 5 to 8 mm (i.e., 17 to 20 mm minus 12 mm of the length of the filter element) (as required by claim 11) from a downstream end of the cooling structure in an upstream direction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claim invention to position the perforations of modified CARRARO et al. in the position disclosed by ENGLAND so that the user doesn’t cover the perforations during use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX B EFTA whose telephone number is (313)446-6548. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights