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
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 1, 4, 7, 10-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blandino et al. (US 11,659,863) in view of Rojo et al. (KR 2018-0071323).
Regarding claim 1, Blandino discloses an aerosol generating system comprising: an aerosol generating device comprising: a device body (110); an aerosol generating space (111) for receiving aerosol generating material; an induction coil (114) extending around the aerosol generating space; a mouthpiece (120) removably mounted on the device body to allow access to the generating space; and a controller (117); a susceptor (22) mounted on the mouthpiece (120) and extending from the mouthpiece into the aerosol generating space (111) when the mouthpiece is positioned on the device body (110, Fig. 5), wherein the susceptor (22) is formed with the mouthpiece as an integral component (susceptor and mouthpiece are integral components, they are also attached to each other), and having an outer cylindrical surface that encloses an inner passage, the susceptor being inductively heatable in the presence of a time varying electromagnetic field; wherein the susceptor is separable from aerosol generating material (material and susceptor are discrete elements) located, in use, in the aerosol generating space, the susceptor, in use, in the aerosol generating space.
Rojo teaches the use of a susceptor being a tube (30) that fully encloses an inner space; and wherein the aerosol generating material (20, 21) is located, in use, inside and outside of the susceptor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to form the susceptor being a tube that fully encloses an inner space, as taught by Rojo, in order to increase the heading surface and provide the desired heating.
Regarding claim 4, Blandino discloses a controller (117) and a sensor (116). That the controller is configured to detect the mounting of the susceptor in the aerosol generating space, represents an intended use which is incidental to an apparatus claim. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. In this case, the controller and sensor of Blandino can detect mounting of the susceptor base on the temperature of the space. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to configure the controller and sensor of Blandino to detect any number of statuses based on the temperature read, in order to adjust the current to provide a more efficient device (col. 13, lines 54-61).
Regarding claim 7, Blandino discloses a controller (117) and a sensor (116). That the controller is configured to detect the consumption of aerosol generating material by detecting at least one of the following: the number of puffs; the length of the total puff period; the number of placements of aerosol generating material in the aerosol generating space; the movement of one or more components of the aerosol generating device that are required to allow the placement of aerosol generating material in the aerosol generating space, represents an intended use which is incidental to an apparatus claim. A recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. In this case, the controller and sensor of Blandino can detect at least one of the following: the number of puffs; the length of the total puff period; the number of placements of aerosol generating material in the aerosol generating space; the movement of one or more components of the aerosol generating device that are required to allow the placement of aerosol generating material in the aerosol generating space, based on the temperature and temperature changes of the space. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to configure the controller and sensor of Blandino to detect any number of statuses based on the temperature read, in order to adjust the current to provide a more efficient device.
Regarding claim 10, Blandino discloses the susceptor positioned in the aerosol generating space so that a longitudinal axis of the susceptor is substantially aligned with a longitudinal axis of the induction coil (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Blandino discloses the aerosol generating space comprises a cavity (111).
Regarding claim 12, Blandino discloses the aerosol generating material comprises a non-liquid aerosol generating material (tabaco).
Regarding claim 13, Blandino discloses the aerosol generating material comprising one or more selected from the group consisting of granules, particles, gel, strips, loose leaves, cut filler, pellets, powder, shreds, strands, foam material and sheets (tabaco).
Regarding claim 14, Blandino discloses the aerosol generating material provided in a housing (10) connected to a mouthpiece (120, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 20, Blandino discloses an aerosol generating article (1) comprising aerosol generating material (30), wherein the susceptor is configured to penetrate and extend into the aerosol generating material when the aerosol generating article is positioned, in use, in the aerosol generating space (intended use, Fig. 5).
Claims 5, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blandino and Rojo, and further in view of Xiang (US 10,398,177).
Regarding claim 5, Xiang teaches a controller (203, 202) configured to detect a predetermined power level supplied to the induction coil and to indicate (by display 204) a timing change of the susceptor based on the detected power level.
Regarding claim 6, Xiang teaches the controller configured to detect (by sensor 202) a predetermined power level supplied to the induction coil after positioning a susceptor in the aerosol generating space and is further configured to indicate (by display 204) a timing change of the susceptor based on the detected power level and/or to cease power supply to the induction coil until a replacement susceptor is positioned in the aerosol generating space.
Regarding claim 8, Xiang teaches the controller configured to detect (by sensor 202) a predetermined level of consumption of aerosol generating material and to indicate (by display 204) a timing change of the susceptor based on the detected consumption level.
Regarding claim 9, Xiang teaches the controller configured to detect (by sensor 202) a predetermined level of consumption of aerosol generating material after positioning a susceptor in the aerosol generating space and is further configured to indicate (by display 204) a timing change of the susceptor based on the detected consumption level and/or to cease power supply to the induction coil until a replacement susceptor is positioned in the aerosol generating space.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to use a sensor and display arrangement, as taught by Xiang, in order to provide replacement timing information to the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as applied.
The examiner notes that the claim describes a process of manufacturing (i.e. formed with) which is incidental to the claim apparatus. Please note that the method of forming a device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. It is well established that a claimed apparatus cannot be distinguished over the prior art by a process limitation.
Additionally, it has been held that the term “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973).
In this case, Figure 5 of Blandino shows the susceptor (22) mounted on the mouthpiece (120) by way of article (1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELIX O FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-2003. 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, Renee Luebke can be reached on (571)727-2009. 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.
/FELIX O FIGUEROA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833
Prosecution Insights