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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to claims on 02/13/2026 has been entered. As directed by the amendment: Claims 3 – 6, 8 – 10,15 – 17, 19 – 22 and 24 – 26 are amened. Claims 1 – 2, 7, 11- 14, 18, 23 and 27 are cancelled. claims 28 – 20 are newly added. Thus, claims 3 – 6, 8 – 10, 15 – 17, 19 – 22, 24 – 26 and 28 – 30 are currently pending. Applicant’s arguments regarding the Final Rejection on 11/26/2025 have been fully considered (see “Response to Argument” section) and the following Non-Final Rejection is made herein.
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.
Claim(s) 24, 8 – 10, 20, 28 – 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blandino et al. (US 2017/0055583 A1), hereinafter “Blandino”, in view of Chen Ping (WO 2019/127643 A1) and hereinafter “Ping”.
Regarding claim 24, Blandino discloses a method for manufacturing an induction heater for a device for heating tobacco or aromatic plants or aromatic herbs (an inductive heater for heating smokable materials, such as tobacco or tobacco flavored materials, (0001 – 0002, 0050 and FIGS. 1 - 6)), the induction heater including:
at least one inductor extending about an axis (Y) and comprising two electrically insulating layers and at least one electrically conductive track fixed to said two electrically insulating layers (an inductor coil 122 extends about a longitudinal axis 'A-A' (see FIGS. 2 and 3) and the electrically conductive coil 122 (Copper) comprising electrically insulating layers (130, 140) enveloping the coil, (0074, 0086 - 0087 and see FIGS. 1 - 6));
wherein the at least one electrically conductive track is incorporated in said two electrically insulating layers (the induction coil 122 is embedded in the insulating layers (130, 140), see FIGS. 1 - 6)); and
wherein said at least one inductor is adapted to be arranged about a metal tube of the device, in which part of a cigarette or a wrapper may be inserted, the cigarette or wrapper containing tobacco or aromatic plants or aromatic herbs (the induction coil 122 embedded by insulating layers (130, 140) is arranged to inductively heat an elongate metallic tube heating element 110, which contains tobacco or tobacco flavored materials, (0050, 0075 – 0076, 0079 - 0081 and see FIGS. 1 - 6));
wherein the metal tube is adapted to be heated by induction by said at least one inductor (the elongate metallic tube heating element 110 is adapted to be heated by induction of the inductor coil 122, (0053, 0057, 0075 – 0076 and see FIGS. 1 – 6));
wherein said at least one inductor is arranged about said axis (Y) so as to define a tube (the inductor coil 122 extends about a longitudinal axis 'A-A' a around the metallic tube heating element 110, (see FIGS. 2 and 3), wherein the method comprises the steps of:
providing a component comprising having said two electrically insulating layers and said at least one-electrically conductive track fixed to said two electrically insulating layers (providing a component comprising two electrically insulating layers (130, 140) enveloping the inductive coil track 122 embedded therein, (see FIGS.1 – 3)),
Blandino does not explicitly teach the method for manufacturing the induction heater wherein said providing step includes incorporating the at least one electrically conductive track in said two electrically insulating layers, and forming said component with a flat shape; and deforming said component so that the component extends about said axis (Y) so as to form a tube or tubular body.
However, Ping that relates to a flexible tobacco heating component and its manufacturing process (0001), also teaches a method for manufacturing the induction heater wherein said providing step includes (a manufacturing process for a flexible tobacco heating component including steps (0041 – 0046 and see FIGS.1 – 6))
incorporating the at least one electrically conductive track in said two electrically insulating layers (incorporating electrically conductive track 11 to adhere into upper and lower walls of a flexible insulating layers 2, (0045, see FIGS 1 – 6), and
forming said component with a flat shape (the electrically conductive track 11 is a flat substrate adhered to a flat surfaces of the flexible insulating layer 2 to form a flexible tobacco heating component, (0043 and please see FIGS.1 and 2)); and
deforming said component so that the component extends about said axis (Y) so as to form a tube or tubular body (wounding flexible tobacco heating component into a heating tube 5 about an axis, (0046, and see FIGS. 6 – 7))
Ping further discusses that the flexible tobacco heating component manufactured in this process has the advantage of simplifying the manufacturing process, providing convenient and low cost implementation over exiting electronic cigarette heating devices manufacturing methods that generally suffer from drawbacks such as complex structure, numerous manufacturing processes, limited styles, and uneven heating effects, (0003 – 0004 and 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the provided induction heater of Blandino to include incorporating the at least one electrically conductive track in said two electrically insulating layers, and forming said component with a flat shape; and deforming said component so that the component extends about an axis (Y) so as to form a tube or tubular body as taught in Ping as such method simplifies the manufacturing prosses, providing convenient and low cost implementation over exiting methods as taught in Ping.
Regarding claim 8, Blandino in view of Ping teaches the method according to claim 24, wherein the incorporating step comprises arranging said at least one electrically conductive track in a flat, spiral-like shape (the coil 122 may take any suitable form including the coil 122 being a helical shape coil of electrically-conductive material, Blandino (0074 and see FIG. 1)).
Regarding claim 9, Blandino in view of Ping teaches the method according to claim 24, wherein said at least one electrically conductive track comprises portions which are separate from one another along said axis (Y) (the inductive coil 122 is wound about a longitudinal axis 'A-A', see Blandino’ s FIGS. 1-6, thus has portions separate from one another with respect to the axis)).
Regarding claim 10, Blandino in view of Ping teaches the method according to claim 24, wherein each of said two electrically insulating layers is made of silicone or polyester or polyimide or PEEK (insulating layers (130, 140) are made of a material selected from silicone foam, polystyrene, polyester or polyester filament, Blandino (0085 - 0086), the flexible insulating layers 2 are mad from PEEK materials, Ping (0039)).
Regarding claim 20, Blandino in view of Ping teaches the method according to claim 24, further comprising the step of providing at least one temperature sensor, said at least one temperature sensor being adapted to detect a temperature of the at least one inductor (temperature sensor 126 adapted to detect the temperature of the inductor, Blandino (0081, FIG.2 - 3 and 5)).
Regarding claim 28, Blandino in view of Ping teaches the method according to claim 24, wherein the induction heater comprises said metal tube (the induction heater comprises an elongate metallic tube heating element 110, (see Blandino’ s FIG.1)); and wherein said at least one inductor is arranged about said metal tube (the induction coil 122 embedded by insulating layers (130, 140) is arranged about an elongate metallic tube heating element 110, (see Blandino’ s FIG.1).
Regarding claim 29, Blandino in view of Ping teaches the method according to claim 28, wherein the at least one inductor adheres to an external surface of said metal tube (the induction coil 122 embedded by insulating layers (130, 140) adheres to the external surface of the elongate metallic tube heating element 110, (see Blandino’ s FIG.1 - 2).
Regarding claim 30, Blandino in view of Ping teaches the process according to claim 28, wherein said at least one inductor is spaced apart from said metal tube (the inductor has the induction coil 122 embedded by insulation layers can be spaced apart by a gap G from the metal heating tube 110, (0088 – 0089 and please see Blandino’ s FIG.3)).
Claim(s) 3 – 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blandino in view of Ping in further view of Aoun et al. (US 2021/0137167 A1, foreign priority date march 31, 2017) and hereinafter "Aoun".
Regarding claims 3 – 6, Blandino in view of Ping teaches the method according to claim 24.
Blandino in view of Ping does not explicitly teach, wherein said at least one electrically conductive track has a thickness, parallel to a radial axis(X) with respect to axis (Y), from 10 to 400 µm (claim 3), wherein said at least one electrically conductive track has a thickness, parallel to a radial axis( X) with respect to axis (Y), from 20 to 200 µm (claim 4), wherein said at least one inductor has a thickness, parallel to a radial axis (X) with respect to axis(Y), from 30 to 3000 µm, or from 35 to 3000 µm (claim 5), wherein said thickness of said at least one inductor is from 30 to 500 µm, or from 35 to 500 µm (claim 6).
However, Aoun that relates to an apparatus for heating smokable material to volatilize at least one component of the smokable material (0002), also teaches the thickness of an induction coil can be from 50 µm to more than 200 µm and the thickness of the coil chosen will help determine the resistance of the coil and the degree to which the coil self-heats in use (0054), determining the amount of heat transferred from the coil versus the heat absorbed by the coil.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen the appropriate thickness of the electrically conductive track of induction heater of claim 24 taught by Blandino in view of Ping to be from 10 to 400 µm (claim 3), from 20 to 200 µm (claim 4), from 30 to 3000 µm, or from 35 to 3000 µm (claim 5) or from 30 to 500 µm, or from 35 to 500 µm (claim 6) as such choice is a mere design choice dependent on the determination of the amount of heat transfer required for the specific volatilization of smokable material as taught in Aoun. POSITA apprised of Aoun that teaches the different thicknesses of the induction coil chosen based on resistance and heat transfer required would easily and routinely be motivated to choose the claimed thicknesses, with a reasonable expectation of success, to achieve the same resistance and heat transfer requirements.
Claim(s) 15 – 17, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blandino in view of Ping in further view of Chen et al. (US 2018/0070639 A1) and hereinafter "Chen".
Regarding claims 15 – 17, Blandino in view of Ping teaches the method according to claim 24.
Blandino view of Ping do not explicitly discuss further comprising arranging a polymeric tube arranged about said metal tube; wherein said at least one inductor is fixed to said polymeric tube (claim 15), wherein said at least one inductor is fixed to an external surface of said polymeric tube (claim 16), wherein said polymeric tube is spaced apart from said metal tube; wherein between the polymeric tube and the metal tube there is a space adapted to be crossed by a flow of fluid (claim 17).
However, Chen that relates to an atomizing device and an electronic cigarette having the same (0002), also teaches a tubular heat insulation layer 13 arranged about the metallic heater tube 122, wherein the inductor 121 is fixed to tubular heat insulation layer 13 (claim15), the inductor 121 is adhered to the external surface of insulation layer 13 (claim 16), the tubular heat insulation layer 13 is shown spaced apart from the metallic heater 122 and air can flow at the space therebetween (claim 17), (0028 and please see FIG.1). The tubular layer 13 is further disposed between the inductor 121 and the metallic heater 122 to add heat insulation between the metallic heater and the inductor (0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, to add a tubular insulation layer 13 between the metallic heater and inductor taught by Blandino in view of Ping and make the heat insulation layer 13 be of polymeric material, as it is common to use polymeric materials for heat insulation, in a manner discussed and shown by Chen's atomizing device in order to provide additional heat insulation between the metallic heater and the inductor of the heating component taught by Blandino in view of Ping.
Regarding claim 19, Blandino in view of Ping in further view of Chen teaches the method according to claim 24, wherein the induction heater comprises two or more inductors coaxially serially arranged with respect to one another along the axis (Y), (two inductors 121 are symmetrically disposes about the central axis of the induction heater, Chen (0029, and see FIG. 2a)).
Regarding claim 21, Blandino in view of Ping in further view of Chen teaches the method according to claim 24, further comprising arranging a duct or tube about said at least one inductor and spaced apart from said at least one inductor (cylindrical housings (11,21, 31 and 41) disposed around the inductor shown separate from the inductor, Chen (0023 and see FIGS. 1, 3 – 4)); said duct or tube being adapted to be crossed by a flow of fluid (air naturally flows through the separation space, see Chen FIGS. 1, 3 – 4)).
Claim(s) 22 and 25 – 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blandino in view of ping in further view of Trieu et al. (US 2021/0186100 A1 foreign priority date Oct. 13, 2017) and hereinafter "Trieu".
Regarding claim 22, Blandino in view of ping teaches the method according to claim 24, wherein the at least one electrically conductive track comprises at least two electrically conductive tracks, of which at least one electrically conductive track is adapted to heat the metal tube by induction (more than two conductive tracks of induction coil 122 are shown adapted to heat the metal tube 110 by induction, see Blandino FIGS. 2, 3 and 5).
Blandino in view of Ping does not explicitly teach at least one electrically conductive track is adapted to act as a sensor.
However, Trieu that relates to an electronic cigarette product (0001), also teaches capacitive sensor 65 and coil/inductive sensor 66 of conductive tracks attached to an aerosolizable carrier 23 to monitor the heating of the liquid in the carrier 23 and provide safety function against overheating by the heating element, (0077 - 0080 and see FIG.7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to make one of the electrically conductive tracks of Blandino to be a capacitive sensor to monitor the heating in the heater tube and provide a safety function against overheating as taught in Trieu without the need to have additional sensing element in the overall architecture of the induction heater.
and at least one electrically conductive track is adapted to act as a sensor.
Regarding claim 25, Blandino in view of ping in further view of Trieu teaches the induction heater method according to claim 22, wherein the sensor is a capacitive sensor (the conductive track sensor 65 is capacitive sensor, Trieu (0077 - 0080 and see FIG.7)).
Regarding claim 26, Blandino in view of ping in further view of Trieu teaches the method according to claim 22, wherein the sensor is an inductive sensor (the conductive track sensor 66 is coil/inductive sensor, Trieu (0077 - 0080 and see FIG.7)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Final rejection on 11/26/2025 of claim(s), see Remarks on 02/13/2026, pages 7 – 13, have been fully considered and the following response is given herein.
Objections to the Claims
In view of the amendments and cancellation of claims 27, the claim objections are withdrawn.
The Rejections under 35 U.S.C.103
Claim 24 is now considerably amended and made an independent claim wherein all the other claims reference. The applicant argues that the amended & now independent claim 24 overcomes the obviousness rejections made in the Final Rejection. However, the arguments in the Remarks are now moot because the new ground of rejection relies on Blandino in view of Ping for the rejection of independent claim 24 for the matters specifically challenged in the arguments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILNESSA B BELAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3136. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 8:00 am - 5:30 pm 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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/DILNESSA B BELAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761