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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/13/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 16-24 and 27-32 are pending. Claims 16 and 30 have been amended. Claims 31 and 32 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of Remarks filed 3/13/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 16 to include limitations that were not previously presented and are not anticipated by Slurink. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made over Slurink in combination with previously presented prior art Focke.
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 16-18, 20-24, and 27-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slurink et al. (US 2018/0299501 A1) in view of Focke et al. (EP 1 419 967 A1, a translation of which was previously provided for reference).
Regarding claim 16, Slurink discloses a system for determining a resistivity of a heating system for an aerosol generating article (“testing apparatus 1”, Figs. 3-4, ¶ 0070), the system comprising:
a receptacle (“holding construction part 12”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0070) configured to receive a plurality of elements (“vaporizers 6”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0070), each element comprising a heating system to be tested (“Each vaporizer comprises a heating element . . . . A measuring part measures at least one electric quantity representative of an electric resistance and/or inductance of the heating element”, ¶ 0108); and
a testing assembly (“contact construction part 80”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0072) comprising:
a plurality of sensor units (“multiple electrical contact members 82”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0072), each sensor unit comprising at least a pair of electrical contacts (“electric contacts 652, 654 (FIG. 6b) of an associated contact member 82”, ¶ 0083) configured to pass an electric current therethrough (“supply a DC or AC current, or a predetermined DC or AC current, through first and second lines 112, 114, when the electric contacts of contact member 82 contacts the electric terminals of a heating element of a vaporizer 6”, ¶ 0090) and being configured to obtain signals related to properties of the heating system of each of the plurality of elements (“measure at least one electric quantity representative of an electric resistance and/or inductance of a heating element of a vaporizer 6 being tested when the power electric terminals 96a, 96b contact a slip contact 92 or slip contacts 93 associated with a contact member 82 associated with a holding unit 10 holding the vaporizer 6”, ¶ 0092), and
a processor (“measuring part 110”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0092) configured to receive the signals obtained by the sensor units and determine a resistivity of the heating system of each of the plurality of elements (“determine an electric quantity representative of the electric resistance and/or inductance of the heating element. The comparing unit 118 of the measuring part 110 compares the measured quantity with a predetermined range and, if the measured quantity is outside the range, outputs a rejection signal R”, ¶ 0103),
wherein each sensor is movably disposed in a vertical direction in a respective vertical channel within the testing assembly (“the contact members 82 slide in channels 81 provided in the contact construction part 80”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0073) so as to be moveable between a first position (“a second position in which the contact member 82 does not contact an electric terminal of the vaporizer 6”, ¶ 0073) in which said each sensor unit hangs downwardly in the vertical direction by a shoulder portion (“cam track followers 84”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0073), and a second position (“a first position in which the contact member contacts at least one electric terminal of a vaporizer 6”, ¶ 0073) in which each sensor unit is displaced in the vertical direction to accommodate an incorrectly positioned element in the receptacle (as seen in the portion of Fig. 3 below, the sensor extends above the top surface of the testing assembly when in the second position and, therefore, will accommodate an element which incorrectly slips down in its receptacle onto the surface of the testing assembly by pushing that element back up).
PNG
media_image1.png
385
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Portion of Figure 3 of Slurink
However, Slurink does not disclose wherein each sensor is freely movably disposed at any rotational position of the testing assembly.
Focke, in the same field of endeavor, discloses using springs with testing sensors to vary the position of the sensor (see Fig. 2 below, annotated by the examiner). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit to using springs to vary the position of the sensor in that allows for articles of different lengths to be tested. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further include springs for each sensor such that that each sensor is held by a spring so as to be moveable against a bias of the spring wherein the springs return the sensor units from the second testing configuration to the first non-testing configuration upon removal of the plurality of elements from the receptacle in order to obtain this benefit. In the resulting configuration, each sensor is freely movably disposed, at any rotational position of the testing assembly, in a vertical direction in the respective vertical channel.
PNG
media_image2.png
789
849
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Focke, Annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 17, Slurink in view of Focke discloses the system according to claim 16, as stated above. Slurink further discloses wherein the signals related to properties of the heating system of each of the plurality of elements are obtained substantially simultaneously by the sensor units (¶ 0037; multiple contact members may be used to measure multiple elements at the same time).
Regarding claim 18, Slurink in view of Focke discloses the system according to claim 16, as stated above. Slurink further discloses wherein the testing assembly is configured to obtain the signals when the testing assembly is in a testing configuration (the “testing configuration” may be considered to be the state in which the system is powered on, and the testing assembly is configured to obtain the signals in this powered on state, ¶ 0090, 0099).
Regarding claim 20, Slurink in view of Focke discloses the system according to claim 16, as stated above. Slurink further discloses wherein the signals obtained relate to current (“current”, ¶ 0023).
Regarding claim 21, Slurink in view of Focke discloses the system according to claim 16, as stated above. Slurink further discloses wherein the properties of the heating system tested relate to resistivity of the element (“electric quantity representative of an electric resistance and/or inductance of the heating element of the vaporizer”, ¶ 0023).
Regarding claim 22, Slurink in view of Focke discloses the system according to claim 16, as stated above. Slurink further discloses wherein the determined resistivity is conformity of the heating system to a predetermination condition (“the measuring part further is configured to compare the measured quantity with a predetermined range and, if the measured quantity is outside the range, output a rejection signal”, ¶ 0024).
Regarding claim 23, Slurink in view of Focke discloses the system according to claim 16, as stated above. Slurink further discloses wherein the receptable is a plate with a plurality of cavities (cavities of “holding units 10”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0070), each cavity being configured to receive an element (“places the vaporizers 6 in holding units 10 of a holding construction part 12”, ¶ 0070).
Regarding claim 24, Slurink in view of Focke discloses the system according to claim 16, as stated above. Further, as the element is not itself part of the system but is, instead, an article worked upon the apparatus, the specific heating system of the element does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP § 2115). In other words, as the system of Slurink could be used on an element in which the heating system comprises a mesh foil, the claim is satisfied.
Regarding claim 27, Slurink in view of Focke discloses a method for determining a state of a heating system for an aerosol generating article (“measure at least one electric quantity representative of an electric resistance and/or inductance of a heating element of a vaporizer 6 being tested”, ¶ 0092), the method comprising:
providing a system according to claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above);
populating the receptacle with a plurality of elements (“In operation, vaporizers 6 are supplied to holding units 10 by the supply unit 4 at a receiving location along a holding unit trajectory of the holding construction part 12”, ¶ 0095), each element comprising a heating system to be tested (“Each vaporizer comprises a heating element”, ¶ 0007);
actuating the plurality of sensors (“bringing the contact members 82 by displacement of their cam track followers 84 to the first position thereof to contact at least one electric terminal of the vaporizers 6 held in the associated holding units 10”, ¶ 0074) to obtain signals related to properties of the heating system of each of the plurality of elements (“measure at least one electric quantity representative of an electric resistance and/or inductance of a heating element of a vaporizer 6 being tested when the power electric terminals 96a, 96b contact a slip contact 92 or slip contacts 93 associated with a contact member 82 associated with a holding unit 10 holding the vaporizer 6”, ¶ 0092); and
determining, with the processor, a resistivity of the heating system of each of the plurality of elements from the obtained signals (“The measuring part 110 is adapted to measure at least one electric quantity representative of an electric resistance and/or inductance of a heating element of a vaporizer 6 being tested”, ¶ 0092).
Regarding claim 28, Slurink in view of Focke discloses the method according to claim 27, as stated above. Slurink further discloses bringing the testing assembly into a testing configuration (the “testing configuration” may be considered to be the state in which the system is powered on, and the testing assembly is configured to obtain the signals in this powered on state, ¶ 0090, 0099).
Regarding claim 29, Slurink in view of Focke discloses the method according to claim 27, as stated above. Slurink further discloses removing the plurality of elements from the receptacle and repopulating the receptacle with a further plurality of elements (“vaporizers 6 may be transferred from a holding unit 8 to a holding unit 10, from a holding unit 10 to a holding unit 16, and from a holding unit 16 to a holding unit 20”, Fig. 1, ¶ 0071).
Regarding claim 30, Slurink discloses a system for determining a resistivity of a heating system for an aerosol generating article (“testing apparatus 1”, Figs. 3-4, ¶ 0070), the system comprising:
a receptacle (“holding construction part 12”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0070) configured to receive a plurality of elements (“vaporizers 6”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0070), each element comprising a heating system to be tested (“Each vaporizer comprises a heating element . . . . A measuring part measures at least one electric quantity representative of an electric resistance and/or inductance of the heating element”, ¶ 0108); and
a testing assembly (“contact construction part 80”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0072) comprising:
a plurality of sensor units (“multiple electrical contact members 82”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0072), each sensor unit comprising at least a pair of electrical contacts (“electric contacts 652, 654 (FIG. 6b) of an associated contact member 82”, ¶ 0083) configured to pass an electric current therethrough (“supply a DC or AC current, or a predetermined DC or AC current, through first and second lines 112, 114, when the electric contacts of contact member 82 contacts the electric terminals of a heating element of a vaporizer 6”, ¶ 0090) and being configured to obtain signals related to properties of the heating system of each of the plurality of elements (“measure at least one electric quantity representative of an electric resistance and/or inductance of a heating element of a vaporizer 6 being tested when the power electric terminals 96a, 96b contact a slip contact 92 or slip contacts 93 associated with a contact member 82 associated with a holding unit 10 holding the vaporizer 6”, ¶ 0092), and
a processor (“measuring part 110”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0092) configured to receive the signals obtained by the sensor units and determine a resistivity of the heating system of each of the plurality of elements (“determine an electric quantity representative of the electric resistance and/or inductance of the heating element. The comparing unit 118 of the measuring part 110 compares the measured quantity with a predetermined range and, if the measured quantity is outside the range, outputs a rejection signal R”, ¶ 0103),
wherein each sensor is freely movably disposed in a vertical direction in a respective vertical channel within the testing assembly (“the contact members 82 slide in channels 81 provided in the contact construction part 80”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0073) so as to be moveable between a first non-testing configuration in which said each sensor unit does not contact a respective element of the plurality of elements (“a second position in which the contact member 82 does not contact an electric terminal of the vaporizer 6”, ¶ 0073) to a second testing configuration in which said each sensor unit contacts the respective element (“a first position in which the contact member contacts at least one electric terminal of a vaporizer 6”, ¶ 0073).
However, Slurink does not disclose that each sensor is held by a spring so as to be freely moveable, at any rotational position of the testing assembly, against a bias of the spring wherein the springs return the sensor units from the second testing configuration to the first non-testing configuration upon removal of the plurality of elements from the receptacle.
Focke, in the same field of endeavor, discloses using springs with testing sensors to vary the position of the sensor (see Fig. 2 below, annotated by the examiner). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit to using springs to vary the position of the sensor in that allows for articles of different lengths to be tested. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further include springs for each sensor such that that each sensor is held by a spring so as to be moveable against a bias of the spring wherein the springs return the sensor units from the second testing configuration to the first non-testing configuration upon removal of the plurality of elements from the receptacle in order to obtain this benefit. In the resulting configuration, each sensor is freely movable, at any rotational position of the testing assembly, against a bias of the spring.
PNG
media_image2.png
789
849
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Focke, Annotated by Examiner
Regarding claim 31, Slurink in view of Focke discloses the method according to claim 16, as stated above. In the shown orientation of Fig. 4 of Slurink, the shoulder portion is at a bottom of each sensor instead of at a top of each sensor. However, as the system of Slurink is attached to a frame plate for mounting (“frame plate 2 for mounting different parts”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0070), the system may be oriented 180 degrees from the orientation shown in Fig. 4. In this orientation, the shoulder portion is at a top of each sensor.
Regarding claim 32, Slurink in view of Focke discloses the method according to claim 16, as stated above. In the shown orientation of Fig. 4 of Slurink, the receptacle is positioned above a top of the electrical contacts instead of below a bottom of the electrical contacts. However, as the system of Slurink is attached to a frame plate for mounting (“frame plate 2 for mounting different parts”, Fig. 2, ¶ 0070), the system may be oriented 180 degrees from the orientation shown in Fig. 4. In this orientation, the receptacle is positioned below a bottom of the electrical contacts.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slurink et al. (US 2018/0299501 A1) in view of Focke et al. (EP 1 419 967 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Zaniboni (US 2021/0208084 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Slurink in view of Focke discloses the system according to claim 16, as stated above. However, Slurink does not disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of sensor units comprises at least an optical sensor.
Zaniboni, in the same field of endeavor, discloses using optical sensors in sensor units (“optical sensor”, ¶ 0158). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit to using an optical sensor in that it allows for a visual inspection of an element to determine if it is defective (¶ 0073). 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 further included an optical sensor in the sensor units of Slurink in order to obtain this benefit.
Conclusion
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