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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9 of the reply, applicant argues “Grendys fails to remedy the deficiencies of Taschner with respect to at least "the pair of second contacts contacting the electric heater on locations on the electric heater physically separate from, and electrically insulated from, locations on the electric heater that the pair of first contacts contact the electric heater," (emphasis added) features of previously presented claim 1. Applicants note that Grendys is completely silent with respect to a "pair of second contacts which contact the electric heater on locations on the electric heater physically separate from, and electrically insulated from, locations on the electric heater that the pair of first contacts contact the electric heater" as required by claim 1, and the Examiner fails to identify any section of Grendys which are the equivalent of the second pair of contacts of claim 1, and thus, Grendys cannot disclose or suggest this feature of claim 1.”
However, this argument mischaracterized the rejection. This was briefly addressed in the rejection of Taschner in view of Grendys. Taschner is used to disclose the second contact points being physically separate from the points where the first contacts contact the electric heater. Figs 5A and 5B show the contacts 505 and 506 being physically separate from each others contact points on the heater 502. As the separate locations are already disclosed by Taschner, Grendys is only relied up for disclosing it would have been obvious to insulate the pairs of contacts.
Applicant does not claim (in claim 1) which material the provides the electrical insulation. The pairs of contacts in Taschner are separated by air. Air is used as an insulator meaning the air in the device would electrically insulate the contact pairs from each other. However, is it not clear whether or not this would be consistent with a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Applicant reiterates the Examiner fails to identify any section of Grendys which are the equivalent of the second pair of contacts of claim 1, and thus, Grendys cannot disclose or suggest this feature of claim 1.” However, the second pair of contacts is already disclosed by Taschner. The question would be is it obvious to insulate connectors from each other. Grendys discloses it would have been obvious to insulate the contacts for preventing the other contacts and heating elements from interfering with the sensing voltage. Logically, if there are two pairs of contacts, all the contacts would interfere with the sensing voltage. It would have been obvious to electrically insulate any number of contacts for the same reason.
On pages 9-11 of the reply Applicant argues the references are directed toward different types of devices. However, the internal components of the devices are the same, there are contacts connected to a heating element. Claim 1 does not require any elements specific to an aerosol generating system, only a heating element and how the contacts are connected.
Applicant argues any combination of Grendys with Taschner would frustrate the purpose of Taschner. Grendys is only relied upon for the insulating element. Applicant has not provided any evidence of how insulating the contacts of Taschner would frustrate its purpose. The reason for the combination is clearly stated.
On page 11 of the reply, applicant argues impermissible hindsight. As a reason for the combination is clearly stated in the rejection “for preventing the other contacts and heating elements from interfering with the sensing voltage” the reason for the combination is disclosed in the prior art and would not be considered “impermissible hindsight”.
No arguments against the additional references recited in the rejections of claims 7, 12, 16, 18 are made.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9 and 10 under Bilat (WO 2016/0150922) 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.
-It should be noted, the heating element in Taschner is shown (Figs 5A and 5B) to have holes in it or a pattern of openings. This could be considered the be a mesh heating element.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 17, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taschner et al (US 2018/0000160) in view of Grendys (US 5,034,595)
Claim 1 as disclosed by Taschner: 1. An aerosol-generating (intended use) system, comprising: an electric heater 502; a pair of first contacts (pair 505) configured to deliver electrical power to the electric heater; and a pair of second contacts (pair 506) contacting the electric heater and configured to measure a voltage between the second contacts (¶54-56 four terminal,¶55 voltage,fig 5A), the pair of second contacts contacting the electric heater on locations on the electric heater physically separate from, and electrically insulated from(contact points 506 used as voltage sensing insulates them from each other), locations on the electric heater that the pair of first contacts contact the electric heater(fig 5A, ¶54-56).
The claim differs in that the pair of second contacts…and electrically insulated from, locations on the electric heater that the pair of first contacts contact the electric heater. However notched-tube heater 502 may be held in the air path, and coupled to the inner chamber of the vaporizer device 500 by a small number of contact points, or thermally or electrically insulating couplings, insulating lining, or the like, to minimize thermal transfer. (¶51)
PNG
media_image1.png
475
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The aerosol-generating system according to claim 1, wherein the system further comprises: electric circuitry; and a power source, and wherein the electric circuitry is configured to control the electrical power supplied from the power source to the electric heater based upon the measured voltage.(¶¶29,54-56,55 “measurement circuit may be a multi-terminal (e.g., four-terminal) sensing system that uses, e.g., two smaller leads 506 to sense the voltage drop across a region of the heater 502”,fig 5A).
Grendys discloses a heater assembly having at least two pairs of contacts as shown in Figs 4-6. The contacts 25, 26, 23, 24, 33, 35 are insulated from each other via insulating end plug 29, electrical insulating material 19 and insulating core 42. (See Column 5, Lines 40-45, Column 6, Lines 1-10) The contacts 33 and 35 are further insulated via flexible insulating jackets 34. The issue is whether or not it would have been obvious to insulate the contacts from each other and the electric heater. It would have been obvious to adapt Taschner in view of Grendys to provide the pair of second contacts…and electrically insulated from, locations on the electric heater that the pair of first contacts contact the electric heater for electrically isolating the contacts and the heating element and preventing the other contacts and the heating elements from interfering with sensing of a voltage.
Taschner discloses, regarding claim 2, electric circuitry; and a power source, and wherein the electric circuitry is configured to control the electrical power supplied from the power source to the electric heater based upon the measured voltage.(¶¶29,54-56,55 “measurement circuit may be a multi-terminal (e.g., four-terminal) sensing system that uses, e.g., two smaller leads 506 to sense the voltage drop across a region of the heater 502”,fig 5A). Regarding claims 3 and 4, measure the voltage between the pair of second contacts; determine a resistance of the electric heater based upon the measured voltage; and control the electrical power supplied to the electric heater based upon the determined resistance.(¶¶29,54-57,55 “measurement circuit may be a multi-terminal (e.g., four-terminal) sensing system that uses, e.g., two smaller leads 506 to sense the voltage drop across a region of the heater 502”,fig 5A ¶8 “regulating a heater temperature of the heater to control the heater temperature in response to changes in resistance of the heater”, ¶48). A heater element 502 and two electrodes(¶29 input to heater, heater power leads/inputs, pins 305,¶56 power leads welded to heater, constitutes electrodes for contacts); the pair of first contacts 505 are configured to contact the two electrodes(electrodes connected to contacts 505 for power); and the pair of second contacts 506 are configured to directly contact the heater element(fig 5A). Regarding claims 6 and 11, wherein the heating element of the electric heater is an electric coil, a heated capillary, a heated mesh, a heated metal plate, or one or more heater blades (¶¶28 coil,38 plate,42,44,fig 5A,5C), a heater element 502 and two electrodes(¶29 input to heater, heater power leads/inputs, pins 305,¶56 power leads welded to heater, constitutes electrodes for contacts); the pair of first contacts 505 are configured to contact the two electrodes(electrodes connected to contacts 505 for power); and the pair of second contacts 506 are configured to directly contact the heater element(fig 5A). Regarding claim 11, the heating element of the electric heater is an electric coil, a heated capillary, a heated mesh, a heated metal plate, or one or more heater blades (¶¶28 coil,38 plate,42, 44, fig 5A,5C). Regarding claim 13, an aerosol-generating device 100, wherein the aerosol-generating device comprises the pair of first contacts and the pair of second contacts, and wherein the aerosol- generating device comprises the electric circuitry (216, 620, fig 7) and the power source (240, 170, 305, 505, 720). Regarding claim 17, wherein the pair of second contacts are configured to directly contact the electric heater (fig 5A,5C). Regarding claim 19, wherein the electric circuitry is further configured to control the electrical power supplied to the electric heater by: adjusting an amount of the electrical power supplied to the electric heater based upon the determined resistance to provide a constant desired temperature (¶¶8,30,48,55,56). Regarding claim 20, the electric circuitry is further configured to control the electrical power supplied to the electric heater by: providing a constant amount of the electrical power to the electric heater based upon the determined resistance (¶29,30,31,48).
Taschner discloses, regarding claim 8, The aerosol-generating system according to claim 7, wherein the pair of first contacts are blade contacts provided on the conductive material.
The claims differ in that first contacts are covered by or provided on conductive sheets and the first contacts are blade contacts.
Claim 8 further differs in a blade contact.
Grendys teaches a heater 10 having lead pins that are flat 39, 40 attached to lead wires 31, 32 (fig 1,2). Flat lead pins are blade contacts.
The advantage is secured connections within an end assembly which minimizes the amount of unheated length which is added to the terminal end of the electrical heater assembly and for positioning the heater.
The references are in the same field of endeavor of electrically operated aerosol-generating systems and address the same or similar problem.
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 Taschner by using a blade contact as taught by Grendys for end assembly which minimizes the amount of unheated length which is added to the terminal end of the electrical heater assembly and for positioning the heater.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taschner et al (US 2018/0000160) and Grendys (US 5,034,595) in view of Hatton et al (US 2018/0077967).
Taschner discloses, regarding claim 5, the pair of second contacts are configured as pogo pins(spring loaded 335 power pins 305).
The claim differs in that the second contacts are configured as pogo pins.
Hatton teaches pogo pins to be conventional contact in fig 16 element 1035.
The advantage is facilitation of connection and proper electrical connection.
The references are in the same field of endeavor of contact for electrical heaters and address the same or similar problem.
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 Taschner in view of Hatton by providing second contacts configured as pogo pins as taught by Hatton for facilitation of connection and proper electrical connection.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taschner et al (US 2018/0000160) and Grendys (US 5,034,595) in view of Liu (US 2014/0224244).
Taschner discloses, regarding claim 7, aerosol-generating system according to claim 6, wherein at least one of the two electrodes of the electric heater is covered by a conductive material.
Liu teaches in the abstract, par 32, 36 that use of a coating or sheet, for example tin, on a heater electrode is known to increase electrical conductivity or reduce electrical resistivity of an electrode.
The advantage is obtaining stable resistance values.
The references are in the same field of endeavor contact for electrical heaters and address the same or similar problem.
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 Taschner by coating electrodes or contacts as taught by Liu for obtaining stable resistance values.
Claims 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taschner et al (US 2018/0000160) and Grendys (US 5,034,595) in view of Tucker et al (US 2013/0213419).
Taschner discloses, regarding claims 9 and 10, the aerosol-generating system according to claim 6, wherein the heating element of the electric heater is a mesh element. The aerosol-generating system according to claim 9, wherein at least one of the two electrodes is a mesh element with a denser mesh density compared to the mesh density of the mesh element in a center region of the heating element (Taschner ¶¶28,42,44, fig 5A,5C middle less dense for non -mesh heater).
The claim differs in a mesh element for the heating element.
Tucker discloses an aerosol generating device having an electric heater 14. The heater is a mesh element for the heating element. (See Paragraphs [0030], [0031].
It would have been obvious to adapt Taschner in view of Tucker to provide the mesh heating element for increasing the surface area contact between the heater and the wick. The capillary action would also be increased.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taschner et al (US 2018/0000160) and Grendys (US 5,034,595) in view of Batista (WO 2016/096762).
Taschner discloses, regarding claim 12, The aerosol-generating system according to claim 1, wherein the system further comprises: a cartridge(¶2 cartridge), wherein the cartridge comprises an aerosol-generating substance(¶2 active ingredients by inhalation of the vapor) , and wherein the electric heater is provided in the cartridge.
Claim 12 differs in that the heater is located in the cartridge.
Batista teaches a heater in a cartridge in par 4,21.
The advantage is continued high quality aerosol generation.
The references are in the same field of endeavor of vaporization and address the same or similar problem.
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 Taschner by locating the heater in a cartridge as taught by Batista for continued high quality aerosol generation.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taschner et al (US 2018/0000160) and Grendys (US 5,034,595) in view of Talon et al (US 2014/0345633).
Taschner discloses, regarding claim 16, aerosol-generating system according to claim 2, wherein the electric circuitry is further configured to: determine at least one parasitical resistance of the aerosol-generating system; and control the electrical power supplied to the electric heater based upon the determined at least one parasitical resistance.
The claim differs in that parasitical resistance is determined.
Talon teaches in ¶¶15,48,90,94,96,99 “detecting an electrical characteristic of the aerosol-forming substrate, such as a characteristic resistance”, between measurement unit 50 and heater 20,(fig 2). Talon teaches determining resistance and voltage using an algorithm and look up table.
Parasitical resistance is not defined in appellant’s specification. However ¶¶4,30,38 of appellant’s specification disclose that to be variation of power or resistance, perhaps from contacts, with ¶38 disclosing a formula that is not recited in the claims and geometry appears to be a function. Wikipedia teaches in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic _element _(electrical networks), Parasitic element(electrical networks), “In electrical networks, a parasitic element is a circuit element (resistance, inductance or capacitance) that is possessed by an electrical component but which it is not desirable for it to have for its intended purpose. For instance, a resistor is designed to possess resistance, but will also possess unwanted parasitic capacitance.
Parasitic elements are unavoidable. All conductors possess resistance and inductance and the principles of duality ensure that where there is inductance, there will also be capacitance.”
The references are in the same field of endeavor of vaporization and address the same or similar problem.
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 Taschner by determining parasitical resistance and use of independent/separate second contacts to measure resistance as taught by Talon for both heat and measurement functions.
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taschner et al (US 2018/0000160) and Grendys (US 5,034,595) in view of Manabu et al (KR 20180083916).
Taschner discloses, regarding claim 18, aerosol-generating system according to claim 1, wherein the electric heater includes a heater element and a first pair of uncovered regions, and the heater element including a pair of electrodes; the pair of first contacts are configured to contact the first pair of electrodes; and the pair of second contacts are configured to contact the pair of uncovered regions (506 contacts connected to heater 502,fig 5A,5C,7).
The claim differs in second pair of electrodes.
Manabu teaches a second pair of electrodes 128 for a heater for electric smoking article for control circuit 50 includes a detecting section 52 for detecting a predetermined current.
The advantage is current control.
The references are in the same field of endeavor of electrically operated aerosol-generating systems and address the same or similar problem.
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 Taschner-Zhang by adding a second pair of electrodes as taught by Manabu for control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights