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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-8, 10-14, 21 and 22 are pending.
Claims 9 and 15-20 have been cancelled.
Claims 21 and 22 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/6/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under TW201544024 (Mironov hereinafter) in view of US 20160150825 (Zinovik hereinafter) and further in view of WO2018184787 (Courbat hereinafter) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 1 to include limitations that were not previously presented, specifically that the wicking region comprises a plurality of radial legs that extend into contact with the aerosol precursor staged within the reservoir. The prior art of record does not appear to disclose the new limitations. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of TW201544024 (Mironov hereinafter) in view of US 20160150825 (Zinovik hereinafter) and further in view of US 20140000638 (Sebastian hereinafter).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-8, 10, 12-14 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TW201544024 (Mironov hereinafter) in view of US 20160150825 (Zinovik hereinafter) and further in view of Sebastian (US 20140000638).
US20170105452 is applied as a translation of TW201544024. All citations to ‘Mironov’ refer to US20170105452.
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 6-8, Mironov teaches an aerosol delivery device (Fig. 1) comprising: an aerosol precursor staged within a reservoir (250, Fig. 5, Fig. 6 and [0060]); and an atomizer configured to generate heat through induction ([0060], wherein the atomizer comprises an induction transmitter, or coil (152, Fig. 7), and an induction receiver, or wick (252), wherein the induction receiver is in operational contact with the aerosol precursor within the reservoir and is configured to wick the aerosol precursor into range of the induction transmitter to be heated and vaporized ([0060]-[0061]).
The “susceptor region” of the induction receiver is the portion of the induction receiver near the metal coil (152) and the “wicking region” of the induction receiver is the portion of the induction receiver that is not part of the “susceptor region.” The “wicking region” and the “susceptor region” are located on the same part, namely the wick or induction receiver. It is noted that neither “susceptor region” nor “wicking region” are explicitly defined in the original disclosure.
Mironov teaches that at least a portion of the wicking region (on wick 252) is in direct contact with the aerosol precursor staged in the reservoir (250) (Fig. 5). The “susceptor region” of the induction receiver is the portion of the induction receiver near the metal coil (152) and the “wicking region” of the induction receiver is the portion of the induction receiver that is not part of the “susceptor region.” The “wicking region” and the “susceptor region” are located on the same part, namely the wick or induction receiver. It is noted that neither “susceptor region” nor “wicking region” are explicitly defined in the original disclosure. The aerosol delivery device further defines an air intake (154), and wherein the wicking region and the susceptor region are located on the same end of the longitudinal axis, specifically both the wicking region and the susceptor region and the induction transmitter (152) are located on the same end of the longitudinal axis with respect to the air intake (see Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
425
619
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mironov teaches that the susceptor can be a plurality of materials (“If the susceptor element is made from more than one material, the materials of the susceptor element can be optimized with respect to further aspects. For example, the materials can be selected such that a first material of the susceptor element may have a Curie temperature which is above the maximum temperature to which the susceptor element should be heated. This first material of the susceptor element may then be optimized, for example, with respect to maximum heat generation and transfer to the aerosol-forming substrate to provide for an efficient heating of the susceptor on one hand. However, the susceptor element may then additionally comprise a second material having a Curie temperature which corresponds to the maximum temperature to which the susceptor should be heated, and once the susceptor element reaches this Curie temperature the magnetic properties of the susceptor element as a whole change.” [0019]).
Mironov further teaches that the susceptor can be fibers but it can also be a mesh, flat spiral coil or a fabric (“The material and the geometry for the susceptor element can be chosen to provide a desired electrical resistance and heat generation. The susceptor element may comprise, for example, a mesh, flat spiral coil, fibres or a fabric.” [0012])
Mironov does not expressly teach that the “wicking region” and the “susceptor region” comprise different materials or that the materials have different thermal conductivities.
Zinovik teaches an aerosol-generating article including a bi-material susceptor which has the advantage of providing an accurate temperature control ([0012]). Zinovik teaches that the first and second susceptor materials make intimate contact in a number of ways including plating, depositing, coating, cladding or welding ([0019]). Zinovik teaches that the first susceptor material and the second susceptor material have different thermal conductivities ([0015] and [0017]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the induction receiver of Mironov to be a bi-material induction receiver, as taught by Zinovik, with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results, namely accurate temperature control ([0012]).
Modified Mironov does not expressly teach that the wicking region comprises a plurality of radial legs that extend into contact with the aerosol precursor staged within the reservoir.
Sebastian teaches an aerosol delivery device (abstract) and teaches that a wick can be designed to promote radial wicking. Through appropriate design, the filament also can be caused to promote radial wicking--i.e., outward from the axis of the filament. For example, radial wicking can be facilitated through wick construction with randomly oriented fiber or with fibrillation of the fiber surface. Such design particularly can be useful in the area of the filaments that are in proximity to or in contact with the heater as it can cause more of the precursor composition to be available for aerosolization in the specific area of the heater ([0103]), wherein “fibrillation of the fiber surface” meets the limitation “comprises a plurality of radial legs that extend”. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the wicking region of the induction receiver of modified Mironov comprise fibers with fibrillation of the fiber surface, or another material capable of fibrillation of the surface, as suggested by Sebastian, to cause more of the precursor composition to be available for aerosolization in the specific area of the heater (Sebastian, [0103]).
Regarding claim 10, Mironov teaches that the induction receiver comprises ferrite fibers ([0060]).
Regarding claims 12-14, modified Mironov teaches that the induction receiver comprises a wicking core, made of ceramic, and a metallic coating (Zinovik, [0040], [0019], and [0021]), which is conductive or semi-conductive. Modified Mironov teaches that the second susceptor material is welded, or sintered, to the first susceptor material (Zinovik, [0019]).
Regarding claim 22, modified Mironov does not expressly teach that the legs are equally spaced in a radial direction.
However, Sebastian teaches that the purpose of having a plurality of radial legs is for radial wicking to cause more of the precursor composition to be available for aerosolization in the specific area of the heater (Sebastian, [0103]). 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 radial legs extend equally spaced in a radial direction on the wicking region of modified Mironov to maximize surface coverage of the wicking region and increase the absorption potential of the wicking region.
Claims 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Mironov as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US 2015/0144145 (Chang hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, Mironov teaches a power source (102) and a reservoir (200) but Mironov does not expressly state that the housing is separable into a control body housing the power source and a cartridge defining the reservoir.
Chang teaches an aerosol delivery device (100) wherein a control body housing (102) houses a power source (110) which is separably attached, via threading ([0033]), to cartridge (104), which at least partially defines reservoir (144, Fig. 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have separated the housing of Mironov into two parts, as taught by Chang, with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Mironov teaches that the induction receiver preferably comprises iron ([0012]), but does not expressly teach that the iron is in the form of porous iron foam.
Chang teaches an aerosol delivery device (100) the wick is comprised of metals, ceramics, and carbon foams ([0067]). Given that it was known to use foam as the wick material, as taught by Chang, and that it was preferable to make the wick out of iron, as taught by Mironov, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have chosen iron of any reasonable form for the wick, which includes iron foam since it is known that foams are suitable wick material, with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results.
Claims 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Mironov in view of Chang as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 2017/0127722 (Davis hereinafter).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the combined teaching of Mironov and Chang teach a control body (104) but do not expressly teach that the induction transmitter and the control body wirelessly convey energy from the control body to the cartridge.
Davis teaches an aerosol delivery device (abstract) wherein the induction transmitter and the control body wirelessly convey energy from the control body to the cartridge ([0006] and [0009]), and the induction transmitter is at least partially housed within the cartridge to be separable from the control body ([0049]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have included wireless heating, as taught by Davis, in the invention of Mironov and Chang because lack of physical connections between the power supply and the cartridge allows for a more streamlined design of the device ([0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
No prior art discloses the claimed induction receiver. Specifically, the prior art does not teach or make obvious that the induction receiver further comprises a ring from which the plurality of radial legs extend.
The closest prior art of record is Mironov. Mironov teaches an aerosol delivery device (Fig. 1) comprising: an aerosol precursor staged within a reservoir (250, Fig. 5, Fig. 6 and [0060]); and an atomizer configured to generate heat through induction ([0060], wherein the atomizer comprises an induction transmitter, or coil (152, Fig. 7), and an induction receiver, or wick (252), wherein the induction receiver is in operational contact with the aerosol precursor within the reservoir and is configured to wick the aerosol precursor into range of the induction transmitter to be heated and vaporized ([0060]-[0061]). Mironov does not teach that the wicking region of the induction receiver comprises a plurality of radial legs that extend into contact with the aerosol precursor and that the induction receiver further comprises a ring from which the plurality of radial legs extend.
Zinovik teaches an aerosol-generating article including a bi-material susceptor which has the advantage of providing an accurate temperature control ([0012]). Zinovik teaches that the first and second susceptor materials make intimate contact in a number of ways including plating, depositing, coating, cladding or welding ([0019]). Zinovik teaches that the first susceptor material and the second susceptor material have different thermal conductivities ([0015] and [0017]). However, Zinovik does not teach that the wicking region of the induction receiver comprises a plurality of radial legs that extend into contact with the aerosol precursor and that the induction receiver further comprises a ring from which the plurality of radial legs extend.
Sebastian teaches an aerosol delivery device (abstract) and teaches that a wick can be designed to promote radial wicking. Through appropriate design, the filament also can be caused to promote radial wicking--i.e., outward from the axis of the filament. For example, radial wicking can be facilitated through wick construction with randomly oriented fiber or with fibrillation of the fiber surface. Such design particularly can be useful in the area of the filaments that are in proximity to or in contact with the heater as it can cause more of the precursor composition to be available for aerosolization in the specific area of the heater ([0103]), wherein “fibrillation of the fiber surface” meets the limitation “comprises a plurality of radial legs that extend.” Thus Sebastian makes obvious making the wicking region of the combined teaching of Mironov and Zinovik comprise a plurality of radial legs that extend into contact with the aerosol precursor, but does not teach or make obvious that the induction receiver further comprises a ring from which the plurality of radial legs extend.
Thus, Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 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