DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 are pending. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
Response to Amendments
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant's response filed on 12/22/2025 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “Mironov, even in further combination with Sur and Sebastian, does not disclose or suggest” the newly added limitations to claim 1. This argument is not persuasive as the newly added limitations are a recitation of intended use (see the rejection of claim 1 below). Specifically, by the amendments to claim 1, the heater is no longer a part of the aerosol-generating article. Instead, the heater is part of a separate aerosol generating device into which the aerosol-generating article is intended to be inserted. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP § 2114(II)). As Mironov teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 1, the claim is obvious over Mironov.
Applicant further argues that Sebastian cannot be combined with Mironov to disclose the features of claim 1. This argument is not persuasive as Sebastian is not needed to be combined with Mironov to disclose the features of claim 1, as discussed above and in the rejection of claim 1 below.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant argues that “independent claim 9 is patentable for at least reasons similar to those discussed above with respect to independent claim 1.” This argument is not persuasive as Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 are directed to the first susceptor material 11 of a filament configuration in the embodiment shown in Fig. 4 of Mironov. The rejection of claim 9, however, uses the embodiment shown in Fig. 3 of Mironov (in both the Non-Final rejection mailed 10/2/2025 and the current rejection of claim 9 below), which does not include a first susceptor material 11 in a filament configuration.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mironov et al. (US 2016/0295921 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mironov discloses an aerosol-generating article (“aerosol-forming substrate 1”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0040) comprising:
a tobacco medium section (“aerosol-forming substrate 1”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0040) prepared from a mixture including tobacco powder (“The aerosol-forming substrate may comprise homogenised tobacco material. Homogenised tobacco material may be formed by agglomerating particulate tobacco”, ¶ 0006) and thermally conductive powder (“second susceptor material 12 may be of particulate configuration”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0040),
wherein the tobacco medium section comprises:
a solid central portion (see Fig. 4 below, annotated by examiner) disposed along a longitudinal axis of the tobacco medium section and comprising a first mixture of the tobacco powder and the thermally conductive powder, the thermally conductive powder of the first mixture being distributed at a first density (“The second susceptor material 12 may be of particulate configuration and may be distributed throughout the solid material 10”, ¶ 0040); and
a solid outer portion (see Fig. 4 below, annotated by examiner) at least partially surrounding an outer surface of the solid central portion, disposed along the longitudinal axis of the tobacco medium section, and comprising a second mixture of the tobacco powder and the thermally conductive powder, the thermally conductive powder of the second mixture being distributed at a second density (“second susceptor material 12” has “local concentration peaks”, ¶ 0040, which, as seen in Fig. 4, are in the solid outer portion),
wherein the second density of the thermally conductive powder is greater than the first density of the thermally conductive powder (as seen in Fig. 4, the local concentration peaks of “second susceptor material 12” are in the solid outer portion).
Mironov does not explicitly disclose wherein the mixture includes, based on dry weight, less than 20 wt% of the thermally conductive powder. However, Mironov teaches that the thermally conductive powder is a susceptor that facilitates heating of the tobacco medium section (“at least a first susceptor material for heating of the aerosol-forming substrate”, Abstract). The efficacy of the thermally conductive powder for this result depends on the amount of thermally conductive powder included in the tobacco medium section. If too little thermally conductive powder is included in the tobacco medium section, the section will not be properly heated. If too much thermally conductive powder is included in the tobacco medium section, there will not be sufficient room in the tobacco medium section for the tobacco powder that is to be heated by the thermally conductive powder. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the amount of thermally conductive powder in the mixture that is used to prepare the tobacco medium section such that it falls within the claimed range. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
PNG
media_image1.png
248
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4, Annotated by Examiner
It is noted that the recitation of “wherein the aerosol-generating article is heated by fitting the aerosol-generating article into an aerosol generating device including a heater for heating the aerosol-generating article, causing heat transferred from the heater heated by power supplied from a battery and inserted into the solid central portion of the tobacco medium section to be in direct contact with the solid central portion of the tobacco medium section” is a recitation of intended use. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP § 2114(II)). Mironov teaches all of the structural limitations of claim 1; therefore, claim 1 is obvious over Mironov.
Regarding claim 2, Mironov teaches the aerosol-generating article of claim 1, as stated above.
Mironov does not explicitly disclose wherein the mixture includes, based on dry weight, 30 wt% to 80 wt% of the tobacco powder. However, Mironov teaches that the tobacco powder forms an aerosol (“The aerosol-forming substrate comprises a solid material capable of releasing volatile compounds that can form an aerosol upon heating of the aerosol-forming substrate”, Abstract). The efficacy of the tobacco powder for this result depends on the amount of tobacco powder included in the tobacco medium section. If too little tobacco powder is included in the tobacco medium section, the section will not produce a sufficient amount of aerosol. If too much tobacco powder is included in the tobacco medium section, there will not be sufficient room in the tobacco medium section for the thermally conductive powder for heating the tobacco medium section. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the amount of tobacco powder in the mixture that is used to prepare the tobacco medium section such that it falls within the claimed range. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Mironov does not explicitly disclose wherein the mixture includes, based on dry weight, at least 0.1 wt% and less than 20 wt% of the thermally conductive powder. However, Mironov teaches that the thermally conductive powder is a susceptor that facilitates heating of the tobacco medium (“at least a first susceptor material for heating of the aerosol-forming substrate”, Abstract). The efficacy of the thermally conductive powder for this result depends on the amount of thermally conductive powder included in the tobacco medium section. If too little thermally conductive powder is included in the tobacco medium section, the section will not be properly heated. If too much thermally conductive powder is included in the tobacco medium section, there will not be sufficient room in the tobacco medium section for the tobacco powder that is to be heated by the thermally conductive powder. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the amount of thermally conductive powder in the mixture that is used to prepare the tobacco medium section such that it falls within the claimed range. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 3, Mironov teaches the aerosol-generating article of claim 1, as stated above. Mironov further discloses wherein the mixture further includes at least one of an additive, a binder and a moisturizer (“additives”, ¶ 0008).
With regards to producing the tobacco medium section in a manner that a slurry, which is produced by adding water to the mixture and then mixing the water with the mixture, is dried in a sheet form and then shaped, this limitation refers to the specific process used to make the product. Therefore, as Mironov teaches the product resulting from these process steps, the claim is unpatentable. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." (In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP § 2113(I)).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mironov et al. (US 2016/0295921 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lang (US 2019/0166904 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Mironov teaches the aerosol-generating article of claim 1, as stated above. Mironov further discloses wherein the mixture further includes an additive (“additives”, ¶ 0008). However, Mironov does not explicitly disclose whether or not the tobacco medium section is produced in a manner that a slurry, which is produced by adding water to the mixture and then mixing the water with the mixture, is dried in a sheet form and then shaped.
Lang, in the same field of endeavor, discloses an aerosol-generating article (“aerosol-generating article 10”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0068) comprising a tobacco medium section (“aerosol-forming substrate 20”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0068) prepared from of a mixture including tobacco powder (“tobacco powder”, ¶ 0060), thermally conductive powder (“metal salt”, ¶ 0019; with the metal selected from “zinc, iron, and copper”, ¶ 0020), and at least one of an additive, a binder and a moisturizer (“cellulose fibres” additive, ¶ 0061; “guar gum” binder, ¶ 0062; and “aerosol former . . . glycerin” moisturizer, ¶ 0034). Lang also discloses that the tobacco medium section is produced in a manner that a slurry, which is produced by adding water to the mixture and then mixing the water with the mixture, is dried in a sheet form and then shaped (¶ 0056).
Therefore, the usage of a mixture of tobacco powder, thermally conductive powder, and additives within the tobacco medium section of an aerosol-generating article, wherein the mixture is produced in a manner that a slurry, which is produced by adding water to the mixture and then mixing the water with the mixture, is dried in a sheet form and then shaped, and the corresponding function were known in the art before the Application’s effective filing date. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have combined the materials in the manner taught by Lang in the article of Mironov, and the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 4, Mironov in view of Lang teaches the aerosol-generating article of claim 3, as stated above. Mironov further discloses wherein the mixture further includes a moisturizer (“aerosol-former . . . glycerine” moisurizer, ¶ 0007). However, Mironov does not explicitly disclose wherein the mixture includes, based on dry weight, 60 wt% to 80 wt% of the tobacco powder, at least 5 wt% and less than 20 wt% of the thermally conductive powder, 3 wt% to 7 wt% of additives, 6 wt% to 10 wt% of the binder, and 5 wt% to 12 wt% of the moisturizer.
Lang further teaches wherein the mixture includes, based on dry weight, 60 wt% to 80 wt% of tobacco powder (Table 1, Tobacco powder, 21% by weight in slurry, corresponds to approximately 77% based on dry weight, as Water is 72.75% by weight in slurry), at least 5 wt% and less than 20 wt% of thermally conductive powder (“between about 0.05 percent and about 5 percent by weight of the metal component . . . based on the total dry weight of the aerosol-forming substrate”, ¶ 0027), and 3 wt% to 7 wt% of additives (“cellulose fibres may be present in a range from about 1 percent to about 3 percent by dry weight”, ¶ 0061). For the tobacco powder, approximately 77 wt% falls within the claimed range of 60 wt% to 80 wt% (MPEP § 2131.03). For the thermally conductive powder, the range between about 0.05 wt% and about 5 wt% overlaps the claimed range of at least 5 wt% and less than 20 wt% (MPEP § 2144.05(I)). For the additive, the range about 1 wt% to about 3 wt % overlaps the claimed range of 3 wt% to 7 wt% (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Lang further discloses wherein the mixture includes, based on dry weight, 6 wt% to 10 wt% of binder (“binder may be present in a range from between about 1 percent to about 5 percent by dry weight”, ¶ 0062), and 5 wt% to 12 wt% of a moisturizer (“aerosol former content of between about 5 percent and about 30 percent by weight”, ¶ 0034). For the binder, the range about 1 wt% to about 5 wt % overlaps the claimed range of 6 wt% to 10 wt% (MPEP § 2144.05(I)). For the moisurizer, the range about 5 wt% to about 30 wt % overlaps the claimed range of 5 wt% to 12 wt% (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Therefore, the usage of a combination tobacco powder, thermally conductive powder, additives, binders, and moisturizer within an aerosol-generating article within the claimed ranges and the corresponding function were known in the art before the Application’s effective filing date. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have combined the materials and weight percentages as taught by Lang in the article of Mironov, and the results of the combination would have been predictable (see MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mironov et al. (US 2016/0295921 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lang (US 2019/0166904 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Mironov teaches the aerosol-generating article of claim 1, as stated above. Mironov does not explicitly disclose that the thermally conductive powder includes aluminum powder, as Mironov does not disclose the composition of the thermally conductive powder.
Sur, in the same field of endeavor, an aerosol-generating article (“aerosol source member 104”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0049) comprising a tobacco medium section (“substrate portion 110”, Figs. 3-4, ¶ 0049) prepared from a mixture including tobacco powder (“substrate material 148” may comprise “tobacco powder”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0049) and thermally conductive powder (“plurality of susceptor particles 160”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0049). Sur further discloses wherein the thermally conductive powder includes aluminum powder (“aluminum”, ¶ 0073). Sur discloses the same corresponding function of the thermally conductive powder as Mironov, in that it functions as a susceptor material (¶ 0029). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that selecting aluminum powder, as taught by Sur, for the material of the thermally conductive powder taught by Mironov, would predictably provide the desired function of susceptor material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have used aluminum powder, as taught by Sur, as the thermally conductive powder taught by Mironov, in order to achieve the desired function of a susceptor material.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mironov et al. (US 2016/0295921 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zuber et al. (US 2014/0345634 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Mironov teaches the aerosol-generating article of claim 1, as stated above. Mironov also discloses the article further comprising:
a filter section (“filter plug 17”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0030).
However, Mironov does not explicitly disclose the article further comprising an aerosol generating section located upstream of the tobacco medium section and including a sheet of non-tobacco material to which a moisturizer is applied or a cooling section located downstream of the tobacco medium section and configured to cool aerosols generated from at least one of the aerosol generating section and the tobacco medium section.
Zuber, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an aerosol generating section (“front-plug”, ¶ 0025) located upstream of a tobacco medium section (“aerosol-forming substrate”, ¶ 0015; “the front-plug can be defined as being upstream of the aerosol-forming substrate”, ¶ 0018) that includes an aerosol-forming substrate (“the front-plug may be partially or entirely formed from an aerosol-forming substrate”, ¶ 0025). Zuber also teaches that aerosol-forming substrates may include a sheet of non-tobacco material to which a moisturizer is applied (¶ 0031-0032; “aerosol-forming substrate” may comprise “sheets” of “herb leaf” with “aerosol former” such as “glycerine” or “propylene glycol” as moisturizer). Zuber teaches a benefit of including an aerosol generating section upstream of a tobacco medium section in that it acts to retain the tobacco medium section within the rod (see abstract). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit in forming the aerosol generating section from an aerosol forming substrate in that it helps with the formation of aerosol. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the aerosol-generating article taught by Mironov to include an aerosol generating section upstream of the tobacco medium section as taught by Zuber made with the materials taught by Zuber in order to achieve these benefits.
Zuber further teaches a cooling section (“transfer section 4”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0058) located downstream of the tobacco medium section (Fig. 1) and configured to cool aerosols generated from at least one of the aerosol generating section and the tobacco medium section (“The volatile substances may cool within the transfer section”, ¶ 0058). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit of including a cooling section downstream of the tobacco medium section in that it helps to cool the aerosol which results in a cooler inhaled product. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the aerosol-generating article taught by Mironov to include a cooling section downstream of the tobacco medium section as taught by Zuber in order to achieve this benefit.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mironov et al. (US 2016/0295921 A1) in view of Sur (US 2020/0237018 A1), as evidenced by Sebastian et al. (US 2020/0237018 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Mironov discloses an aerosol generating system (“aerosol delivery system 100”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0029) comprising:
an aerosol-generating article (“aerosol-forming substrate 1”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0029) including a tobacco medium section (“aerosol-forming substrate 1”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0040) prepared from a mixture including tobacco powder (“The aerosol-forming substrate may comprise homogenised tobacco material. Homogenised tobacco material may be formed by agglomerating particulate tobacco”, ¶ 0006) and thermally conductive powder (“susceptor materials 11 . . . of particulate configuration”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0039); and
an aerosol generating device (“inductive heating device 2”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0029) for heating the aerosol-generating article, a battery (“battery”, ¶ 0029) for supplying power, and a controller (“electronic control circuitry”, ¶ 0020) for controlling supply of power from the battery,
wherein the tobacco medium section comprises:
a solid central portion (see Fig. 3 below, annotated by examiner) disposed along a longitudinal axis of the tobacco medium section and comprising a first mixture of the tobacco powder and the thermally conductive powder, the thermally conductive powder of the first mixture being distributed at a first density (¶ 0039); and
a solid outer portion (see Fig. 3 below, annotated by examiner) at least partially surrounding an outer surface of the solid central portion, disposed along the longitudinal axis of the tobacco medium section, and comprising a second mixture of the tobacco powder and the thermally conductive powder, the thermally conductive powder of the second mixture being distributed at a second density (“local concentration peaks” of “susceptor material 11”, ¶ 0039, which, as seen in Fig. 3, are in the solid outer portion),
wherein the second density of the thermally conductive powder is greater than the first density of the thermally conductive powder (as seen in Fig. 3, the local concentration peaks of “susceptor material 11” are in the outer portion).
Mironov does not explicitly disclose wherein the mixture includes, based on dry weight, less than 20 wt% of the thermally conductive powder. However, Mironov teaches that the thermally conductive powder is a susceptor that facilitates heating of the tobacco medium section (“at least a first susceptor material for heating of the aerosol-forming substrate”, Abstract). The efficacy of the thermally conductive powder for this result depends on the amount of thermally conductive powder included in the tobacco medium section. If too little thermally conductive powder is included in the tobacco medium section, the section will not be properly heated. If too much thermally conductive powder is included in the tobacco medium section, there will not be sufficient room in the tobacco medium section for the tobacco powder that is to be heated by the thermally conductive powder. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the amount of thermally conductive powder in the mixture that is used to prepare the tobacco medium section such that it falls within the claimed range. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
PNG
media_image2.png
454
1372
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 3, Annotated by Examiner
However, Mironov does not explicitly disclose that the aerosol generating devices includes a heater for heating the aerosol-generating article, a battery for supplying power to the heater, and a controller for controlling supply of the power from the battery to the heater, wherein the heater is arranged to be inserted into the solid central portion of the tobacco medium section and to be in direct contact with the solid central portion of the tobacco medium section, wherein the heater is configured to generate heat using the power supplied from the battery and to heat the aerosol-generating article by transferring the heat generated by the heater to the solid central portion of the tobacco medium section, based on the aerosol-generating article being fitted into the aerosol generating device.
Sur, in the same field of endeavor, discloses an aerosol generating system (“aerosol delivery device 100”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0038) comprising:
an aerosol-generating article (“aerosol source member 104”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0038, 0049) including a tobacco medium section (“substrate portion 110”, Figs. 3-4, ¶ 0049) prepared from a mixture including tobacco powder (“substrate material 148” may comprise “tobacco powder”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0049) and thermally conductive powder (“plurality of susceptor particles 160”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0049); and
an aerosol generating device (“control body 102”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0038) including a heater (“receiver prong”, ¶ 0074) for heating the aerosol-generating article, a battery (“power source 124”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0041) for supplying power to the heater, and a controller (“control component 122”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0041) for controlling supply of power from the battery to the heater,1
wherein the tobacco medium section comprises:
a solid central portion (“core portion”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0052) disposed along a longitudinal axis of the tobacco medium section and comprising a first mixture of the tobacco powder and the thermally conductive powder, the thermally conductive powder of the first mixture being distributed at a first density (Fig. 3, ¶ 0052); and
a solid outer portion (“surrounding portion”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0052) at least partially surrounding an outer surface of the solid central portion, disposed along the longitudinal axis of the tobacco medium section, and comprising a second mixture of the tobacco powder and the thermally conductive powder, the thermally conductive powder of the second mixture being distributed at a second density (Fig. 3, ¶ 0052),
wherein the heater is arranged to be inserted into the solid central portion of the tobacco medium section and to be in direct contact with the solid central portion of the tobacco medium section (“receiver prong”, ¶ 0074),
wherein the heater is configured to generate heat using the power supplied from the battery1 and to heat the aerosol-generating article by transferring the heat generated by the heater to the solid central portion of the tobacco medium section, based on the aerosol-generating article being fitted into the aerosol generating device (“receiver prong”, ¶ 0074, is part of the “resonant receiver” which heats the solid central portion of the tobacco medium section, ¶ 0035).
Therefore, the usage of an aerosol-generating article with a tobacco medium section comprising tobacco powder and thermally conductive powder in a solid central portion with a heater arranged to be inserted into the solid central portion was known in the art before the Application’s effective filing date. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to have used the aerosol-generating article taught by Mironov with the insertable heater taught by Sur, and the results of the combination would have been predictable and an obvious alternative to using a heater in which the article is inserted for the same purpose of heating the article (see MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
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 COURTNEY G CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0874. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at (571)270-3882. 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.
/C.G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
1 Although Sur does not explicitly describe that the power is supplied to the “receiver prong” of the heater, Sur indicates that further details of the “receiver prong” are disclosed by Sebastian (U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/799,365 incorporated by reference in ¶ 0074 of Sur; using corresponding PG-PUB US 2020/0237018 A1 for reference). Sebastian discloses that power is supplied to the receiver prong of the heater (see ¶ 0007-0009).