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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/25/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, 13, 15-17 and 19-24 are pending.
Claims 22 and 23 remain withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 24 have been amended.
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 1 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.
The terms “relatively quickly” and “relatively slowly” in claim 1 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “relatively quickly” and “relatively slowly” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how one would determine if heating is considered relatively quickly or relatively slowly, and as claimed it is not explicitly clear that the relative heating speed is comparative to each other or comparative to an unrecited speed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/1/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 24 under CN203762288 (LI hereinafter) in view of CN203952405 (ZHAO hereinafter) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20060047368 (MAHARAJH hereinafter).
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 7/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argument A:
A person of ordinary skill in the art, considering the explicit teaching in Li to provide uniform heating, would not modify the tobacco heating device therein to intentionally cause one region of smokable material to be heated faster than another, let alone in the specific manner to cause a second region to continue to generate aerosol after the generation of a first region declines.
Examiner Response A:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant appears to be arguing that because Song results in a temperature field at each point on the workpiece surface that is more uniform, the VPC coil cannot produce a different strength of varying magnetic field by different portions of the coil. This is incorrect.
SONG teaches that when a VPC coil is used, the magnetic field inside the coil is distributed in a gradient. Thus, a different strength of varying magnetic field is produced by different portions of the coil so as to cause different portions of the elongate heater element to be heated differently. The result is a temperature field at each point on the workpiece surface that is more uniform.
Furthermore, the specification states “The provision of a varying pitch may enable the strength of a varying magnetic field produced by the coil 122 to be different at different portions of the coil 122, which may help provide progressive heating of the heating element 110 and heating zone 113.” Thus, the claim limitations are a property of the claimed coil with a varying pitch. The courts have held that that a material and its properties are inseparable and the recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN203762288 (LI hereinafter) in view of “Experimental and numerical study of the effect of coil structure on induction nitriding temperature field” (SONG hereinafter).
Regarding claims 1-3, 13 and 15-17, LI teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising:
a heater zone (1022) configured to receive tobacco material (104) ([0024]);
a magnetic field generator (103);
and an elongate heater element (102) disposed around the heater zone and including heater material that is heatable by penetration with the varying magnetic field, specifically iron ([0026]), to thereby heat the heater zone. The elongate heater element (102) comprises an elongate tubular heating member extending around the heating zone and consisting entirely of the heating material (page 10 , lines 5-8).
LI teaches that the heater zone (1022) is defined by the heater element (102), wherein the heater zone forms a chamber defined by heater element (102) which just contains the smokable material ([0026]), and therefore is free of any heater material.
Li teaches the magnetic field generator comprises a coil (103) and comprises a device (201) for passing a varying electrical current through the coil ([0042]), such that the magnetic field generator is configured to generate a varying magnetic field.
LI shows the inductor coil is an equal pitch coil (EPC).
SONG teaches the axial and radial temperature distributions of three types of induction coils; an equal pitch coil (EPC), a variable pitch coil (VPC) and a variable radius coil (VRC) with the intent of achieving better temperature distribution along the length of a workpiece subjected to induction heating. SONG teaches that when a VPC coil is used, the magnetic field inside the coil is distributed in a gradient, so that the workpiece obtains a relatively uniform eddy field, resulting in a temperature field at each point on the workpiece surface that is more uniform (page 14).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the equal pitch induction coil within the aerosol-generating device of LI with a variable pitch coil as taught by SONG so that the heater zone obtains a relatively uniform eddy field, resulting in a temperature field at each point on the workpiece surface that is more uniform (SONG, page 14).
Regarding the limitation that, “the coil has a varying pitch such that a different strength of varying magnetic field is produced by different portions of the coil so as to cause different respective portions of the elongate heater element to be heated differently, such that a first region of the smokable material is heated relatively quickly by the elongate heater element, and a second region of the smokable material is heated relatively slowly in order to continue to form aerosol after the generation of aerosol by the first region declines” the original specification states on page 14, lines 15-19 of WO 2017/036955, “The provision of a varying pitch may enable the strength of a varying magnetic field produced by the coil 122 to be different at different portions of the coil 122, which may help provide progressive heating of the heating element 110 and heating zone 113, and thus any article located in the heating zone 113, in a manner similar to that described above.” Thus, this claim limitation is a property of the claimed coil with a varying pitch. The courts have held that that a material and its properties are inseparable. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773. Applicant bears responsibility for proving that reference composition does not possess the characteristics recited in the claims. In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 597, In re Best, 195 USPQ 430.
Regarding claims 4 and 7, LI teaches a mass of thermal insulation between the coil and the heater element ([0027]).
Regarding claim 6, LI teaches that the coil (103) encircles the heater element (102) (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, LI teaches the insulation encircling the coil ([0027]).
Regarding claim 10, LI does not explicitly state the dimensions of the gap between the heater element and the innermost surface of the coil (shown in Fig. 1). However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized the size of the gap, so that the gap is not too small such that insulation cannot fit in the gap, but not too large that the device has unnecessary empty space within it contributing to the bulk, with reasonable expectation of success and predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, LI does not explicitly state that impedance of the coil is substantially equal to impedance of the heater element, however, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have done this in order to optimize energy transfer.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI in view of SONG as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 2014/0196716 (LIU hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings of LI and SONG do not expressly teach the material of the insulation.
LIU teaches an e-cigarette with thermal insulation made of high temperature resistant cotton or non-woven fabrics ([0054]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have applied the cotton or non-woven fabric as the thermal insulation in LI with predictable results and reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI in view of SONG as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 5613505 (CAMPELL hereinafter).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings of LI and SONG do not expressly teach a first portion of the heater element that is more susceptible to eddy currents than a second portion.
CAMPELL teaches an inductive heating system for smoking articles comprising a multi-portioned heater element (Fig. 4, 102 and 114), wherein only one portion (102) is susceptible to eddy currents. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have included a multicomponent heater element in the invention of LI because it provides for a more customized heating of the smokable material.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI in view of SONG as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5591368 (FLEISCHHAUER hereinafter).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teaching of LI and SONG teaches the heater element includes an elongate heater member (102) comprising the heater material iron ([0026]). LI does not explicitly teach a coating on the heater member.
FLEISCHHAUER teaches a heater for use in an electrical smoking system with a coating of a ceramic material to further avoid oxidation and reaction (col. 17, lines 10-14). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have coated the inner surface of the heater member of LI with ceramic in order to help halt oxidation and reaction of the heater element from the volatilization of the smokable material in the heater zone.
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI in view of SONG as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20060196518 (HON hereinafter).
Regarding claim 21, the combined teaching of LI and SONG teaches a body (Fig. 1) including a magnetic field generator (103); and a mouthpiece (105) that defines a passageway (107) that is in fluid communication with the heater zone (1022) ([0024]); and LI teaches that the mouthpiece is movable relative to the body to permit access to the heater zone ([0031]).
LI does not expressly teach that the mouthpiece includes the elongate heater element.
HON teaches an e-cigarette wherein the heater element is in the mouthpiece ([0020]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have extended the heater element of LI into the mouthpiece with a reasonable expectation success and predictable results.
Claim 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN203762288 (LI hereinafter) in view of CN203952405 (ZHAO hereinafter) and further in view of US 20060047368 (MAHARAJH hereinafter).
Regarding claim 24, LI teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising: a heater zone (1022) configured to receive smokable material (104) ([0024]); a magnetic field generator (103); and an elongate heater element (102) disposed around the heater zone and including heater material that is heatable by penetration with the varying magnetic field (1021) to thereby heat the heater zone ([0026]).
LI teaches an electrical power source (202) which is electrically connected to the magnetic field generator (Embodiment 3).
LI does not expressly teach a first coil and a second coil such that the first and second varying magnetic fields penetrate different first and second respective portions of the heater element disposed at least partially around the heater zone, such that the first portion of the elongate heating element is heated independently of the second portion of the elongate heating element, and to generate the first and second respective portions of the heater element are heated at least partially together at the same time.
ZHAO teaches an aerosol generating article comprising an inductor and a susceptor (abstract) wherein the inductor may comprise three coils that independently generate a fluctuating magnetic field (page 4, paragraph (4)), which would result in a first coil configured to generate a first varying magnetic field and a second coil configured to generate a second varying magnetic field, thereby leading to the magnetic field generator arranged to generate a plurality of varying magnetic fields. ZHAO teaches three separate EM induction systems, each with their own controller (third paragraph from the end of ZHAO) and with an overall controller (‘guidance panel’ 29 in ZHAO) which would result in the overall controller connected to the first coil and the second coil, respectively, and controlling a supply of electrical power from the electrical power source to the first coil and the second coil. It also would have resulted in the plurality of varying magnetic fields penetrating different portions of the elongate heater element, such that the first varying magnetic field penetrates a first portion of the elongate heating element (the portion of the heating element adjacent the first coil) and the second varying magnetic field penetrates a second portion of the elongate heater element (the portion of the heating element adjacent the second coil). Zhao teaches that the ‘guidance panel’ 29 is on the casing 21, thus the controller would be within the casing since the ‘guidance panel’ is the outermost part of the overall controller.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included multiple coils surrounding the cavity, as taught by ZHAO, in the invention taught by LI with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results, specifically such that the first portion of the elongate heater element heated independently of the second portion of the elongate heater element.
Regarding the limitation, “wherein the controller is configured to adjust a characteristic of electric current passing through the first coil in order to control heating provided by the first coil, and adjust a characteristic of the electrical current passing through the second coil in order to control heating provided by the second coil, such that the controller controls heating provided by the first and second coils independently” since the controller of LI in view of ZHAO teaches three separate EM induction systems, each with their own controller (third paragraph from the end of ZHAO) and with an overall controller (‘guidance panel’ 29 in ZHAO) this would result in the overall controller controlling a supply of electrical power from the electrical power source to the first coil and the second coil independently.
Modified LI does not make expressly clear whether the ‘guidance panel’ 29 (ZHAO) is part of the overall controller in Modified LI, or whether the ‘guidance panel’ 29 (ZHAO) is connected, but separate, from the overall controller in Modified LI.
MAHARAJH teaches a system for controlling a vapor generator (abstract). MAHARAJH teaches the controller can be operated by a user interface, which allows selection of various programmable variables to be input into memory for operation of the instrument ([0046]). MAHARAJH teaches that the profiler is started by either manual command of a user through a user interface to the controller, or by the user interface automatically detecting a change in the operating parameters ([0071]). MAHARAJH teaches that the controller and the user-interface are distinct components of the system (claim 22). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the guidance panel of Modified LI a distinct, but connected, component from the controller, as suggested by MAHARAJH, such that a user can use the guidance panel to input information to the controller, or the guidance panel can automatically detect parameters relevant to the controller on its own, with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANA B KRINKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
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.
YANA B. KRINKER
Examiner
Art Unit 1755
/YANA B KRINKER/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights