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 16-31 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claim 31 has been withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 2/13/2026 containing
remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 16 was rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019/115464, herein referred to as Ricardo, in view of WO2019/129844, herein referred to as Gill.
On page 3, the Applicant argues that the temperatures intended to be measured by Ricardo and Gill are different, as Ricardo teaches measuring the temperature of the heating element and Gill teaches measuring a temperature related to heat generated from the susceptor, and as such one of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered modifying Ricardo in view of Gill. The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive. First, Ricardo teaches that the temperature sensor measures a temperature of the heating element (page 1, sixth paragraph) and by controlling maximum temperature of the heating element prevents the release of undesirable chemical compounds (page 1, first paragraph). Further, Ricardo teaches in cases of an inductive coil and susceptor heating system, the temperature of the system cannot be measured directly and instead the temperature at the susceptor is based on an apparent ohmic resistance across the inductive coil (page 20, third paragraph). As such, the temperature sensor of Ricardo is related to heat generated from the susceptor. Gill teaches that temperature monitoring in induction coil and susceptor systems have been found to be unreliable (page 1, last paragraph), and teaches a way to accurately measure a temperature related to heat generated from the susceptor (page 2, lines 7-30). As such, both the systems of Ricardo and Gill are used to measure the temperature related to susceptors, but they do so in different ways. Second, Gill gives motivation for measuring the temperature in the particular way as taught by Gill, that being where the temperature sensor is located within the region in which the body is located allowing the temperature sensor to provide more representative monitored temperature (page 4, third paragraph). Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the temperature sensor of Ricardo in view of Gill as Gill teaches this allows the temperature sensor to provide more representative monitored temperature.
On page 4, the Applicant further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be dissuaded from replacing Ricardo’s sensor with Gill’s sensor as Gill describes the temperature sensor is arranged on the central longitudinal axis of the coil, and as such the temperature sensor of modified Ricardo would not be the temperature of Ricardo’s external heating element which contracts the purpose of Ricardo’s temperature sensor. The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive because the purpose of the temperature sensor of Ricardo is to measure the temperature of the susceptor for control of the heating element to prevents the release of undesirable chemical compounds. Utilizing the temperature sensor of Gill would still achieve this, as it measures a temperature related to heat generated from the susceptor, and Gill teaches this is a more accurate method to monitor temperature.
On pages 4-5, the Applicant further argues that Ricardo teaches away from replacing its temperature sensor for embodiments using inductive susceptor heating with temperature sensors provided in the cavity and being configured to penetrate the aerosol-forming substrate received in the cavity. The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive. Ricardo teaches that the temperature at the susceptor cannot be measured directly. This does not contradict the claim requirement, as it is not a direct measurement of the susceptor but a measurement of the aerosol-forming substrate which relates to the heat generated from a temperature of the susceptor.
The following is the maintained rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 16-17, 20-22, 24 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricardo (WO2019/115464) in view of Gill (WO2019/129844, cited in IDS dated 7/27/2023).
Regarding claim 16, Ricardo discloses:
An aerosol-generating device (420, figure 5, page 19, last paragraph) comprising:
A cavity configured to receive an aerosol-forming substrate (cavity 424, figure 5, page 19, last paragraph).
An external heating element of the aerosol-generating device configured to exclusively externally heat the aerosol-forming substrate when the aerosol-forming substrate is received in the cavity, wherein exclusively externally heat relates to application of heat solely from a position external to the aerosol-forming substrate (susceptor 472 that may be a susceptor tube surrounding cavity 424, page 20, second paragraph).
A temperature sensor for measuring a temperature of the heating element (page 1, fifth paragraph).
Ricardo does not appear to disclose an elongate temperature sensor provided in the cavity and being configured to penetrate the aerosol-forming substrate when the aerosol-forming substrate is received in the cavity.
Gill, directed to an aerosol-generating device, teaches:
An aerosol-generating device (induction heating assembly 10, figures 1-2, Pg. 15, lines 11-19), comprising a cavity (heating compartment 12) configured to receive an aerosol-forming substrate (cartridge 20, figure 2, Pg. 15, lines 20-33).
An elongate temperature sensor (temperature sensor 11, figures 1-2) provided in the cavity (as shown in figures 1-2) and being configured to penetrate the aerosol-forming substrate when the aerosol-forming substrate is received in the cavity (Pg. 13, lines 9-13, wherein the temperature sensor can be provided with a sharp pointed end which displaces a small amount of the tobacco material when entering the cartridge, and thus reading on the claim limitation being configured to penetrate the aerosol-forming substrate).
The temperature sensor is located within the region in which the body is located allowing the body to surround the temperature sensor when located in the heating compartment. This allows the temperature sensor to provide more representative monitored temperature since it is located in the environment in which the heat is generated and surrounded by the substance to which the heat is passed during the heating (page 4, third paragraph).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the temperature sensor of Ricardo to be an elongate temperature sensor provided in the cavity and being configured to penetrate the aerosol-forming substrate when the aerosol-forming substrate is received in the cavity as taught by Gill, because both Ricardo and Gill are directed to an aerosol-generating device comprising a cavity for receiving an aerosol-generating substrate, Gill teaches this allows the temperature sensor to provide more representative monitored temperature, and this merely involves incorporating a known way to configure a temperature sensor (i.e. elongate to penetrate an aerosol-forming substrate) to a similar aerosol-generating device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Gill further teaches:
Wherein the elongate temperature sensor comprises a thermal sensing point (Pg. 18, lines 32-34, wherein the surface of the temperature sensor is considered to be the thermal sensing point).
Regarding claim 20, Gill further teaches:
Wherein the elongate temperature sensor is tubular, solid, or partially solid (Pg. 13, lines 9-13, wherein the temperature sensor can be provided with a sharp pointed end, and is therefore considered to be solid or partially solid).
Regarding claim 21, Ricardo further teaches wherein the external heating element at least partially defines the cavity (as the susceptor may be a susceptor tube surrounding the cavity 424, page 20, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 22, Ricardo further teaches wherein the external heating element is an inductive heating element comprising an induction coil and susceptor arrangement (The susceptor 472, as energized by the inductive coil 470, forms the heating element, page 20, third paragraph).
Regarding claim 24, Ricardo further teaches wherein the induction coil is disposed radially outward from the susceptor arrangement (as shown in figure 5).
Regarding claim 30, Ricardo further teaches:
An aerosol-generating system (article 400and device 420, figure 5) comprising:
An aerosol-generating device according to claim 16 (see claim 16).
An aerosol-generating article inserted into the cavity of the aerosol-generating device (aerosol-forming article 400 received in the cavity 424, figure 5, page 19, last paragraph).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricardo (WO2019/115464) in view of Gill (WO2019/129844, cited in IDS dated 7/27/2023) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Multipoint Thermocouple, cited previously.
Regarding claim 18, modified Ricardo is silent to the type of thermal sensing point.
Multipoint Thermocouple, directed to a type of temperature sensor, teaches:
The Rosemount 1080C is a compact multipoint sensor. The sensing elements are single ungrounded thermocouples (Pg. 5, first paragraph), which reads on the claim limitation wherein the thermal sensing point is a thermocouple.
The high number of measurement points allow the monitoring of a temperature profile with very good local resolution, and is often used for temperature profile monitoring (Pg. 5, first paragraph).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the temperature sensor of modified Ricardo to be a compact multipoint sensor as taught by Multipoint Thermocouple, because both modified Ricardo and Multipoint Thermocouple are directed to temperature sensors, Multipoint Thermocouple teaches the compact multipoint sensor has a high number of measurement points that allows for temperature profile monitoring with very good local resolution, and this merely involves simple substitution of one known type of temperature sensor for another (i.e. compact multipoint sensor) to yield the predictable result of measuring a temperature profile.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricardo (WO2019/115464) in view of Gill (WO2019/129844, cited in IDS dated 7/27/2023) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Multipoint Thermocouple, cited previously.
Regarding claim 19, modified Ricardo does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the elongate temperature sensor comprises one or more thermal sensing points disposed at different positions along a length of the elongate temperature sensor.
Multipoint Thermocouple, directed to a type of temperature sensor, teaches:
Multipoint Temperature Profiling Sensors measure the temperature at different points along its length (Pg. 3, first paragraph), which reads on the claim limitation a temperature sensor comprising one or more thermal sensing points disposed at different positions along a length of the elongate temperature sensor.
The high number of measurement points allow the monitoring of a temperature profile with very good local resolution, and is often used for temperature profile monitoring (Pg. 5, first paragraph).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the temperature sensor of modified Ricardo to measure the temperature at different points along its length as taught by Multipoint Thermocouple, because both modified Ricardo and Multipoint Thermocouple are directed to temperature sensors, Multipoint Thermocouple teaches the high number of measurement points allows for temperature profile monitoring with very good local resolution, and this merely involves simple substitution of one known type of temperature sensor for another (i.e. multipoint temperature profiling sensors) to yield the predictable result of measuring a temperature profile.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricardo (WO2019/115464) in view of Gill (WO2019/129844, cited in IDS dated 7/27/2023) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Wu (US2019/0230987).
Regarding claim 23, Ricardo does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the inductive heating element further comprises a plurality of induction coils.
Wu, directed to an electronic cigarette, discloses:
An electronic smoking set (300) with a heating device (100) (figures 1-4, [0034]).
Two electromagnetic induction coils 50 are provided, including a first coil and a second coil ([0046], which reads on the claim limitation a plurality of induction coils). The number of the first coils and the second coils are different, so as to change heating speed of the at least first heating element 50 and the second heating element 40, therefore the heating effect is more flexible ([0046]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the inductive heating element of Ricardo to have two induction coils as taught by Wu, because both Ricardo and Wu are directed to smoking devices, Wu teaches the two induction coils allows the heating effect to be more flexible, and this merely involves incorporating a known induction coil configuration (i.e. a plurality of induction coils) to a similar smoking device to yield predicable results.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ricardo (WO2019/115464) in view of Gill (WO2019/129844, cited in IDS dated 7/27/2023) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Bernhard (WO2019/121811).
Regarding claim 25, modified Ricardo further teaches:
The temperature sensor can be provided with a (sharp) pointed end which displaces just a small amount of the tobacco material when entering the cartridge (Gill, Pg. 13, lines 9-15).
Modified Ricardo does not appear to explicitly disclose a protection mechanism configured to protect the elongate temperature sensor in the cavity.
Bernhard, directed to an aerosol generation device, teaches:
An aerosol generation device (102) comprising a cavity configured to receive an aerosol forming substrate (heating chamber 106, figures 1-2, Pg. 13, lines 13-25).
An elongated element (heater 130) provided in the cavity and being configured to penetrate the aerosol-forming substrate when the aerosol-forming substrate is received in the cavity (figure 2, Pg. 13, lines 34-38).
A residue collector (1) that is located in the cavity and surrounds the base portion of the elongated heating element that may facilitate removal of debris from the cavity (figure 2, Pg. 16, lines 28-37, Pg. 17, lines 1-2).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ricardo in view of Gill by incorporating the residue collector to be in the bottom of the cavity and surrounding the elongated element as taught by Bernhard, because both Ricardo, Gill, and Bernhard are directed to aerosol-generating devices, Bernhard teaches the residue collector removes debris from the cavity, and this merely involves incorporating a known element that surrounds an elongated element that penetrate an aerosol-forming substrate (i.e. residue collector) to a similar aerosol-generating device to yield predicable results.
As modified Ricardo would have the debris collector surrounding the base portion of the temperature sensor, the debris collector collecting debris that falls into the cavity, the debris collector is considered to read on the claim limitation a protection mechanism configured to protect the elongate temperature sensor in the cavity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-29 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
No prior art alone or in combination with references discloses or reasonably suggests the aerosol-generating device as recited in claims 26-29. Specifically, the prior art fails to disclose an aerosol-generating device comprising a protection mechanism that comprises a movable piston that is arranged inside the cavity between the cavity walls and the elongate temperature sensor. As there is absent a specific definition in the specification, the dictionary definition of a piston is being used, specifically a piston is defined as “a sliding piece moved by or moved against fluid pressure”.
Bernhard teaches a residue collector (reference numeral 1, figure 2, Pg. 16, lines 28-37, Pg. 17, lines 1-2), which defines a protection mechanism, and in combination with Gill would be arranged inside the cavity between the cavity walls and the elongate temperature sensor. However, the residue collector is not structurally a piston as it is inserted into the cavity by a user and is not moved by or moved against fluid pressure.
Liu (US2020/0367562), directed to an electronic cigarette, discloses:
In a first embodiment of the electronic cigarette (Figs. 1-4; see [0027]) a heating needle assembly (45) including a heating needle (3) and thermocouples 34 (see Fig 1).
A cartridge pushing assembly (43) arranged inside a case and between the heating needle assembly and the case (see Fig. 3) and a spring (433) arranged at one end to restore the sliding support automatically restore the cartridge (42) to its original state and thus increases convenience to operate ([0039]).
The cartridge pushing assembly comprises a slider button (431) and a sliding support (432), ([0037, see Figs. 3-4).
However, the cartridge pushing assembly does not structurally define a piston as it is slidably operated through a user’s force with the slider button, and not moved by or moved against fluid pressure.
Therefore, claims 26-29 are indicated as being allowable over the prior art.
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 Nicole A Szumigalski whose telephone number is (703)756-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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.
/N.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755