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
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 9/12/25
Claims 24-36 are pending.
Claim 30 is amended.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments filed 9/12/25, the Examiner withdraws the objection to Claim 30 for minor informalities.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 9/12/25, pages 7-14) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues: (1) it is possible to have two LC circuits having different values of inductance and capacitance such that they have the same resonant frequency, (2) Kaufman does not teach a person of ordinary skill in the art how or why to use multiple inductor coils having different numbers of turns, (3) the Examiner utilizes improper hindsight because there is no reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have considered combining the teachings of Kaufman and White. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
(1) While the applicant points out that it is possible to have two LC circuits having different values of inductance and capacitance such that they have the same resonant frequency, such a limitation of the taught technology is not disclosed in the prior art. First, White teaches that the inductance of the first and second induction coils may be the same and the capacitance of the first and second capacitors may similarly be the same. ([0050]). Second, Kaufman teaches that the resonant frequency of a resonant section depends on the inductance of the inductor coil and the capacitance of the capacitor. ([0050]). Kaufman also teaches that the first and second inductor coils may be substantially identical but further teaches that the first inductor coil may also have a different value of inductance than the second inductor coil. ([0079]). Kaufman is silent on the capacitance of the capacitors, the relation of the resonant frequencies between the two LC circuits, and/or whether the capacitance of the capacitors must also be modified when the inductances of the two circuits is different. It would not be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, and/or based on the teachings of Kaufman and White, that the resonant frequencies of the two LC circuits must be identical and that the capacitors of the Kaufman LC circuits comprising different inductance values must be further modified such that the resonant frequencies of the circuits are equivalent. Based solely on the teachings of Kaufman and White, a person of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the conclusion that the inductance values of the two LC circuits may be different, the capacitance values of the two circuits may be equal, and; therefore, the resonant frequencies of the two circuits may be different, similarly as claimed.
(2) Kaufman explicitly teaches a person of ordinary skill in the art how/why to use multiple inductor coils having different numbers of turns. Specifically, Kaufman states: “It is envisaged that the first inductor coil 204 may have one or more different characteristics to the second inductor coil 206 based on, for example, how the smokable material within the volume of the susceptor is desired to be heated.” ([0079]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that modifying a characteristic in one of the inductor coils, such as the number of turns, may be useful to alter the desired heating profile of the arrangement.
(3) Applicant argues that the Examiner utilizes improper hindsight because there is no reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have considered combining the teachings of Kaufman and White. While MPEP 707.07(f) does state “[b]ut so long as [any judgment on obviousness] takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper” as identified by the Applicant; as discussed above, Kaufman explicitly states that the inductor coils may be substantially identical or may be different and discloses the motivation behind modifying one of the induction coils of the LC circuit such that the LC circuits comprise different inductance values. ([0079]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based explicitly on the teachings of Kaufman and not just the knowledge of one with of ordinary skill in the art that the teachings of Kaufman and White may be combined to render the claimed invention obvious.
The following rejections are maintained and modified where necessary based on Applicant’s amendments.
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 (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.
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 24-31 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (US 20210093012 A1) in view of Kaufman (US 20190313695 A1).
In regard to Claim 24, White discloses an aerosol-generating device (Device 100. [0041], Fig 1), comprising:
a device cavity configured to receive an aerosol-generating article ("the susceptor 110 and the aerosol generating material 116 form an integral unit that may be inserted and/or removed from the aerosol generating device 100" [0043]);
an inductive heating arrangement configured to heat the aerosol-forming substrate (Inductive heater and susceptor. [0034]), the inductive heating arrangement comprising:
a susceptor arrangement that is heatable by penetration with a varying magnetic field to heat the aerosol-forming substrate (Susceptor 110. [0042], Fig 2),
a first LC circuit comprising: a first inductor coil arranged towards the proximal end of the device cavity (LC circuit 205a, induction element 108a. [0050], Fig 2) and
a first capacitor (Capacitor 210a. [0050], Fig 2)
wherein the first LC circuit has a first resonance frequency (LC circuits exhibit electrical resonance at a particular resonant frequency based on its inductance (L) and capacitance (c). [0035]), and
a second LC circuit comprising: a second inductor coil arranged towards the distal end of the device cavity (LC circuit 205b, induction element 108b. [0050], Fig 2) and
a second capacitor (Capacitor 210b. [0050], Fig 2)
wherein the second LC circuit has a second resonance frequency different from the first resonance frequency of the first LC circuit ("it will be appreciated that the resonant frequency of the LC circuit 205a, 205b may be dependent on the inductance L and capacitance C of the circuit 205a, 205b, which in turn may be dependent on the inductor 108a, 208b, capacitor 210a, 210b and susceptor 110 used." [0053]. Wherein the inductance and capacitance of each LC circuit are different due to different lengths and/or number of turns, the resonant frequency of each circuit is also different. Fig 2), and
a power source (Power Source 104. [0041], Fig 1); and
a controller configured to initiate heating of the aerosol-forming substrate by actively supplying a first varying current from the power supply to the first inductor coil and subsequently actively supplying a second varying current from the power supply to the second inductor coil ("supply bus controller 212 arranged to control the supply bus 210 to supply the switching potential vs 216 to a selectable one or more of the plurality of driving arrangements 204a, 204b in use, i.e. to a selectable one or more of the driver controllers 208a, 208b of the driving arrangements 204a, 204b in use." [0055], Fig 2).
White does not explicitly disclose a device cavity having a proximal end and a distal end opposite the proximal end, wherein the proximal end of the device cavity is substantially open and configured to receive an aerosol-generating article and/or wherein the second inductor coil has a different number of turns than that of the first inductor coil.
Kaufman teaches a similar aerosol generating device (Apparatus 100; [0015], Fig 1) comprising a susceptor arrangement comprising first and second LC circuits (Susceptor 202 generates heat upon penetration by a varying magnetic field. [0023]-[0025], Figs 2 & 3). Kaufman further discloses:
a device cavity having a proximal end and a distal end opposite the proximal end, wherein the proximal end of the device cavity is substantially open and configured to receive an aerosol-generating article ("the smokable material may be contained in a smokable material wrapper or container (not shown), which container can be inserted into the volume within the tubular susceptor 202." [0027], Fig 2 & 3) and
wherein the second inductor coil has a different number of turns than that of the first inductor coil ("the first inductor coil 204 may comprise a different number of turns than the second inductor coil 206." [0079]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the induction heating device of White with a device cavity and/or induction coils with different numbers of turns as taught by Kaufman because White and Kaufman are both directed to induction heating devices comprising dual LC circuits, White is silent on the structural elements of the article receiving components and the number of turns in either induction heating coil, Kaufman teaches the use of a device cavity and induction coils with different numbers of turns, and this merely involves applying a known induction heating device components to a similar induction heating device to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 25, White further discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the controller is further configured to:
drive the first LC circuit with a first AC current for generating a first alternating magnetic field for heating a first portion of the susceptor arrangement, drive the second LC circuit with a second AC current for generating a second alternating magnetic field for heating a second portion of the susceptor arrangement ("The circuitry 106 is arranged to convert an input DC current from the DC power source 104 into a varying, for example alternating, current. The circuitry 106 is arranged to drive the alternating current through one or more, for example each, of the induction elements 108a 108b." [0041], Fig 2),
supply the first AC current with a frequency corresponding to the first resonance frequency of the first LC circuit, and supply the second AC current with a frequency corresponding to the second resonance frequency of the second LC circuit ("Each driver controller 208a, 208b may control the frequency of the alternating current driven through the respective LC circuit 205a, 205b (the drive frequency) to be at or near the resonant frequency of the LC circuit 205a, 205b." [0053]. "Driving the RLC or LC circuit at or near the resonant frequency may therefore provide for effective and/or efficient inductive heating." [0035]).
In regard to Claim 26, White further discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the controller is further configured to:
supply the first AC current to the first LC circuit during a first phase to increase the temperature of the first portion of the susceptor arrangement from an initial temperature to a first operating temperature (The controller may be used to modify the frequency of the current provided to each individual inductor in order to increase or decrease the inductive heating of the respective induction element [0035], [0053]-[0056]), and
supply the first AC current with a frequency corresponding to the first resonance frequency of the first LC circuit during the first phase (Driving the RLC or LC circuit at or near the resonant frequency may therefore provide for effective and/or efficient inductive heating. [0035]).
In regard to Claim 27, White further discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the controller is further configured to:
supply the first AC current to the first LC circuit during a second phase to decrease the temperature of the first portion of the susceptor arrangement from the first operating temperature to a second operating temperature (The controller may be used to modify the frequency of the current provided to each individual inductor in order to increase or decrease the inductive heating of the respective induction element [0035], [0053]-[0056]), and
supply the first AC current with a frequency different from the first resonance frequency of the first LC circuit during the second phase (The induction heating elements may be operated to heat the substrate to a range of temperatures such as about 50° C to about 350° C. [0047]).
In regard to Claim 28, White further discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the controller is further configured to:
supply the second AC current to the second LC circuit during the first phase to increase the temperature of the second portion of the susceptor arrangement from an initial temperature to a third operating temperature, lower than the first operating temperature (The controller may be used to modify the frequency of the current provided to each individual inductor in order to increase or decrease the inductive heating of the respective induction element [0035], [0053]-[0056]) and
supply the second AC current with a frequency different from the second resonance frequency of the second LC circuit during the first phase (The induction heating elements may be operated to heat the substrate to a range of temperatures such as about 50° C to about 350° C. [0047]).
In regard to Claim 29, White further discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the controller is further configured to:
supply the second AC current to the second LC circuit during the second phase to increase the temperature of the second portion of the susceptor arrangement from the third operating temperature to a fourth operating temperature, higher than the second operating temperature (The controller may be used to modify the frequency of the current provided to each individual inductor in order to increase or decrease the inductive heating of the respective induction element [0035], [0053]-[0056]), and
supply the second AC current with a frequency corresponding to the second resonance frequency of the second LC circuit during the second phase (Driving the RLC or LC circuit at or near the resonant frequency may therefore provide for effective and/or efficient inductive heating. [0035]).
In regard to Claim 30, White further discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the power supply is configured to provide power to the inductive heating arrangement (Power Source 104 [0041], Fig 1).
In regard to Claim 31, Kaufman further discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the controller comprises a microcontroller ("controller 106 may comprise control circuitry and a micro-processor arrangement configured and arranged to control the heating arrangement 103" [0017]).
In regard to Claim 34, Kaufman further discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the second coil is wound in a different direction than that of the first coil (The first and second coils may have reverse windings. See Figs 3 and 5. "The relative winding of the first and second inductor coils 204 and 206 may be referred to as the phasing of the first and second inductor coils 204 and 206." [0059]).
In regard to Claim 35, Kaufman further discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the second coil has a different length than that of the first coil ("the first and second inductor coils [may] be different lengths" [0079]).
In regard to Claim 36, White further discloses an aerosol-generating system comprising:
an aerosol-generating device according to claim 24 (See Claim 24 above), and
an aerosol-generating article comprising an aerosol-forming substrate ("the plurality of induction elements being for inductive heating of one or more susceptors for heating aerosol generating material" [0004]).
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White and Kaufman in view of Abi Aoun (US 20200037402 A1).
In regard to Claim 32, White and Kaufman do not explicitly disclose an aerosol-generating device wherein the microcontroller is configured to utilize the clock frequency of the microcontroller as the alternating frequency of the first AC current or of the second AC current
Abi Aoun discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the microcontroller is configured to utilize the clock frequency of the microcontroller as the alternating frequency of the first AC current or of the second AC current ("The controller 114 may comprise a clock generator (not shown) to determine the absolute frequency at which the RLC circuit 100 is to be driven." [0067]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the induction heating devices of White and/or Kaufman to utilize the clock frequency of the microcontroller as the alternating frequency as taught by Abi Aoun because White, Kaufman, and Abi Aoun are all directed to induction heating devices, Abi Aoun teaches the use of the clock frequency of the microcontroller as the alternating frequency for the induction circuit, and this merely involves applying a known use of an induction heating device controller to a similar induction heating device to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 33, White and Kaufman do not explicitly disclose an aerosol-generating device wherein the controller further comprises an oscillator.
However, Abi Aoun further discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the controller further comprises an oscillator configured to generate one or both of the alternating frequency of the first AC current and of the second AC current ("in other examples the RLC resonance circuit 100 may be driven by any suitable driving element for providing an alternating current in the resonance circuit 100, such as an oscillator or the like" [0104]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the induction heating device of White and/or Kaufman with an oscillator configured to generate an alternating frequency as taught by Abi Aoun because White, Kaufman, and Abi Aoun are all directed to induction heating devices, Abi Aoun teaches the use of a controller comprising an oscillator configured to generate the alternating frequency of the AC current, and this merely involves applying a known use of an induction heating device controller to a similar induction heating device to yield predictable results.
Double Patenting
In view of the Notice of Abandonment of copending Application No. 17/624,545 dated 4/10/25, the Examiner withdraws the provisional statutory type double patenting rejection to Claims 24-36.
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 Jeffrey Buckman whose telephone number is (571)270-0888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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.
/JEFFREY A. BUCKMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1755
/PHILIP Y LOUIE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755