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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 06/05/2025. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1 and 39-40 has/have been amended; claim(s) 24 and 47 has/have been cancelled and no new claim(s) has/have been added. Thus, claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-11, 13, 16, 18-19, 26, 29-30, 33, 36, 39-41, and 44 are presently pending in this application.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 13, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsutani et al (JPWO2016199893) in view of Stelzer et al (US 2009/0251257).
Regarding claim 1, Matsutani discloses a method of forming an inductor coil for an aerosol provision device, the method comprising: providing a wire, wherein at least one of the plurality of wire strands comprises a bondable coating (Page 4 para. 6);
winding the wire around a support member such that the wire is received in a channel formed in an outer surface of the support member (Page 4 para. 6);
activating the bondable coating such that the wire retains a shape determined by the channel (Page 4 para. 6);
and removing the multi-strand wire from the support member (Page 5 para. 2).
However, Matsutani does not disclose the wire being a multi-strand wire.
Nonetheless, Stelzer in the same field of endeavor being forming of induction coils, teaches a multi-strand wire ([0045] lines 1-6 ---" The term "conductor" as used herein refers to a string-like piece or filament of relatively rigid or flexible material, commonly referred to as cable or wire, being of the type comprising either a single conductive strand or multiple ones of such strands grouped together as one functional conductive path.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire of Matsutani by incorporating the multi-strand wire of Stelzer for the benefit of having a wire that will conform to a desired profile when ran through a forming die. (Stelzer [0049])
Regarding claim 11, Matsutani discloses a support member for use in forming an inductor coil of an aerosol provision device, comprising:
an axis defined by the support member about which a multi- strand wire of the inductor coil is windable (Fig. 5A #36 through hole defines the axis), and an outer surface comprising a channel (Fig. 5A #523 groove) to receive the multi-strand wire.
However, Matsutani does not disclose wherein the channel has a greatest depth dimension measured in direction perpendicular to the axis and a greatest width dimension measured in a direction perpendicular to the greatest depth dimension and wherein the greatest depth dimension is different from the greatest width dimension.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the greatest depth dimension being different from the greatest width dimension, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984),
Regarding claim 13, Matsutani teaches the support member as appears above (see the rejection of claim 11), but does not teach wherein: the channel comprises a tapered mouth portion leading to a wire receiving portion configured to receive the multi-strand wire; the wire receiving portion has a greatest depth measured in direction perpendicular to the axis and a greatest width measured in a direction perpendicular to the greatest depth; and the greatest depth is different from the greatest width.
Nonetheless, Stelzer teaches wherein: the channel (Fig. 8C-1 #30 channel) comprises a tapered mouth portion (Fig. 8C-1 #266 and 279 sides of the vortex region) leading to a wire receiving portion (Fig. 8C-1 V vortex region) configured to receive the multi-strand wire.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support member of Matsutani by incorporating the mouth and receiving portions as taught by Stelzer for the benefit of achieving a relatively high conductor density.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the greatest depth being different from the greatest width, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984),
Regarding claim 16, Matsutani in view of Stelzer teaches the support member as appears above (see the rejection of claim 13), and Matsutani teaches wherein the channel is a helical channel (Page 6 para. 3).
Regarding claim 18, Matsutani teaches the support member as appears above (see the rejection of claim 11), but does not teach wherein the channel has a width dimension that reduces with distance towards a floor of the channel.
Nonetheless, Stelzer teaches wherein the channel has a width dimension that reduces with distance towards a floor of the channel (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
224
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support member of Matsutani by incorporating the reducing width of the channel as taught by Stelzer for the benefit of achieving a relatively high conductor density.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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.
Claims 4 and 6 depend directly or indirectly from claim 2.
Claim 7 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.
Claim 10 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.
Claim 41 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.
Claims 19, 26, 29, 30, 36, 40-41, and 44 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art does not disclose, teach, or suggest the manufacturing system of claim 19, or a second configuration, in which a cross sectional width of the support member perpendicular to the axis is smaller than when the support member is in the first configuration thereby to facilitate removal of the wire from the support member of claim 26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For claim 1:
Applicant argues that the use of multi-strand wire in Matsutani’s method would not have been obvious because the multi-strand wire provides unique benefits the enable the wire to be constricted in one or more dimensions to acquire “a shape determined by the channel.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Stelzer is relied upon to teach a multi-strand wire. Stelzer also teaches that the cross section of the multi-strand wire is manipulatable to in a desired profile.[0049].
For claim 11:
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or suggest “wherein the channel has a greatest depth dimension measured in direction perpendicular to the axis and a greatest width dimension measured in a direction perpendicular to the greatest depth dimension and wherein the greatest depth dimension is different from the greatest width dimension.” Examiner respectfully agrees.
However, Stelzer teaches that that the dimensions of the channels may be formed in a variety of different shapes. Figures 8C-1 through 8D-3 shows channels of varying dimensions. Figure 8D-1 shows the channel shaped in a way where the wire would be held in place. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to have a channel where the greatest depth dimension being different from the greatest width dimension, since Stelzer teaches that channel dimension can be manipulated to achieve the predictable result of the wire being held in place by the channel.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights