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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 10th 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as the following reasons:
The applicants argue: “…The description of the unit function - i.e., "control" - connotes sufficient, definite structure to one of ordinary skill in the art. Persons of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term in combination with the function performed by the unit as connoting structure.2 Clearly, § 112(f) should not apply to the claim term "control unit." Accordingly, the claim term "control unit" should not be limited to the structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof…”, Remark Page 1.
The applicants argue: “…Prior art Greim fails to disclose at least first and second sensors configured to sense the temperatures of the alleged first and second heating means (summarized)…”, Remark Page 2.
“…Clearly, sensing the temperature of a compartment (such as first and second compartments 6, 8 of Greim's aerosol-generating device 4) of an aerosol-generating article is not the same as measuring the temperature of a heating means. Instead of being configured to sense the temperatures of second external heating element 16b and first external heating element 16a (the alleged first and second heating means), the first and second temperature sensors described in the Greim reference are configured to sense the temperatures of first and second compartments 6, 8…”, Remark Page 4.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitation from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (refer to MPEP 2145. VI). In this case, argument above is based on the claim language as “…first and second sensors configured to sense the temperatures of the first and second heating means, respectively…”, the claim languages only citing “sense”, however, the argument above is arguing as the sensors of prior art Greim would not be able to sense or detect the temperature or heat from the heating means at all, since the prior art Greim sensors are only need to sense the temperature of the heating means and the compartments are heated by the heating means, sensing the temperature of the compartments would eventually stabilize or equalize with the temperature of the heating means, therefore Prior art Greim’s sensor would be sensing the heating mean temperature too. Applicant’s intention of argument is more related to the location of the sensor, not what the sensor is sensing what or not, furthermore, this is a device claims, not a method claims, physical structural limitation would require to overcome the prior art of records . It is suggested that to amend in such “location” direction according to the disclosed specification or as argued in page 4 utilizing a similar term such as “directly sensing” , such that this argument would have a stronger ground to argue on.
Claims Status:
Claims 30-84 is pending.
Claims 56, 58-63, 69-74 64-68, 75-79 and 80-84 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 30-55 and 57 are examined as follow:
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “heating means” in claims 1 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the word “means" coupled with functional language “configured to…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the “means” is not preceded with a sufficient structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “heating means" has been described in Paragraph 0021-0027 and claim 46, as resistive heater and induction heater.
Claim limitation “control unit” in claims 1 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit" coupled with functional language “configured to control…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “control unit" has been described in Paragraph 0197 cited: “…the control unit 120 comprises a microcontroller 121, a power boosting circuit 122, an induction logic 123, and a heater driver 124. The microcontroller 121 supplies power to the resistance heater 151 from the battery 110 by controlling the heater driver 124.…”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 32-33, 36-37, 40 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 32-33, 36-37, 40 and 43 are indefinite, because the term “VG” is unclear, there is no further explanation of what “VG” is representing in the specification. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, Examiner assumed that such “VG” term is interpreted as vegetable.
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 30-44 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GREIM et al (US2016/0022930 previously cited) herein set forth as GREIM, in view of MEMARI et al (US2015/0245668A1 previously cited) herein set forth as MEMARI.
Regarding claim 30, GREIM discloses a complex heating type aerosol generating device (#4, fig.1), which is grippable and portable-sized, for a smoking article (#2, fig.1) having a first aerosol-forming substrate (#8, fig.1) and a second aerosol-forming substrate (#6, fig.1) arranged at an upstream of the first aerosol-forming substrate (#8, fig.1), the complex heating type aerosol generating device (#4, fig.1) comprising: a cavity (refer to the cavity of the whole #2 in fig.1) into which the smoking article (#2, fig.1) can be inserted; a first heating means (#16b, fig.1) configured to heat an interior or exterior of the first aerosol-forming substrate (#8, fig.1) of the smoking article (#2, fig.1) within a first temperature range (refer to Paragraph 0181); a second heating means (#16a, fig.1) configured to heat an interior or exterior of the second aerosol- forming substrate (#6, fig.1) of the smoking article (#2, fig.1) within a second temperature range (refer to Paragraph 0181); first and second sensors (refer to Paragraph 0172 cited: “…The aerosol-generating device 4 comprises a housing comprising a power source 12, a controller 14, an external heater comprising a first external heating element 16a and a second external heating element 16b, a first temperature sensor (not shown) configured to sense the temperature of the first compartment of the aerosol-generating article 2 and a second temperature sensor (not shown) configured to sense the temperature of the second compartment of the aerosol-generating article 2. The first external heating element 16a and the second external heating element 16b are electrically resistive external heating elements.…”) configured to sense the temperatures of the first and second heating means (#16 a and b, fig.1), respectively.;
a #12, fig.1) configured to function as a direct current power source (Examiner note: all battery are DC current power source); and
a control unit (#14, fig.1) electrically connected to the first and second sensors (refer to Paragraph 0172) and the battery (#12, fig.1), and configured to control the first (#16b, fig.1) and second (#16a, fig.1) heating means according to the sensed values (refer to Paragraph 0181) of the first and second sensors (refer to Paragraph 0172), respectively, by receiving direct current power (Examiner note: all battery are DC current power source) from the battery (#12, fig.1).
PNG
media_image1.png
337
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
GREIM does not disclose the battery is a rechargeable battery.
In the similar field of aerosol generating device, MEMARI discloses the use of rechargeable battery (refer to Paragraph 0017 cited: “…Most portable devices contain a rechargeable battery, which tends to be the largest component of an electronic cigarette…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GREIM’s battery to be a rechargeable battery, as taught by MAMARI, in order to provide the convince of rechargeable battery, would require lesser battery changes and convince of recharging the battery, such that would increase the marketability of the invention.
Regarding claim 31, the modification of GREIM and MEMARI discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 30, GREIM further discloses wherein the first aerosol-forming substrate (#8, fig.1) provided in the smoking article (#2, fig.1) is a liquid cartridge (refer to Paragraph 0066 cited: “…the volatile delivery enhancing compound is a volatile liquid…”), and wherein the second aerosol-forming substrate (#6, fig.1) provided in the smoking article (#2, fig.1) is a tobacco filler (refer to Paragraph 0066 cited: “…the volatile delivery enhancing compound is a volatile liquid…”).
Regarding claim 32, in line with the 112b assumption above, the modification of GREIM and MEMARI discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 31, GREIM does not discloses wherein the tobacco filler contains glycerin VG.
In the similar field of aerosol generating device, MEMARI discloses the use of glycerin VG (refer to Paragraph 0020 cited: “…The main ingredients of e-liquids are usually a mix of propylene glycol (PG), vegetable glycerin (VG), and/or polyethylene glycol 400 (PEG400), sometimes with differing levels of alcohol mixed with concentrated or extracted flavorings; and a variable concentration of tobacco-derived nicotine. There is variability in the purity, kinds and concentrations of chemicals used in liquids, and significant variability between labeled content and concentration and actual content and concentration …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GREIM’s invention with wherein the tobacco filler contains glycerin VG, as taught by MEMARI, in order to provide different vaiability in purity, kind of concentrations of chemicals used in the liquids (refer to Paragraph 0020 cited: “…There is variability in the purity, kinds and concentrations of chemicals used in liquids, and significant variability between labeled content and concentration and actual content and concentration …”).
Regarding claim 33, in line with the 112b assumption above, the modification of GREIM and MEMARI discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 31, GREIM does not discloses wherein the liquid cartridge comprises a liquid or gel composition containing glycerin VG.
In the similar field of aerosol generating device, MEMARI discloses the use of glycerin VG (refer to Paragraph 0020 cited: “…The main ingredients of e-liquids are usually a mix of propylene glycol (PG), vegetable glycerin (VG), and/or polyethylene glycol 400 (PEG400), sometimes with differing levels of alcohol mixed with concentrated or extracted flavorings; and a variable concentration of tobacco-derived nicotine. There is variability in the purity, kinds and concentrations of chemicals used in liquids, and significant variability between labeled content and concentration and actual content and concentration …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GREIM’s invention with wherein the tobacco filler contains glycerin VG, as taught by MEMARI, in order to provide different variability in purity, kind of concentrations of chemicals used in the liquids (refer to Paragraph 0020 cited: “…There is variability in the purity, kinds and concentrations of chemicals used in liquids, and significant variability between labeled content and concentration and actual content and concentration …”).
Regarding claim 34, the modification of GREIM and MEMARI discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 31, GREIM further discloses wherein the smoking article (#2, fig.1) further comprises a filter (refer to Paragraph 0055 cited: “…the mouthpiece may comprise a filter. The filter may have a low particulate filtration efficiency or very low particulate filtration efficiency. Alternatively, the mouthpiece may comprise a hollow tube…”) and a tube (#18, fig.1), and wherein the filter (refer to Paragraph 0055 cited: “…the mouthpiece may comprise a filter. The filter may have a low particulate filtration efficiency or very low particulate filtration efficiency. Alternatively, the mouthpiece may comprise a hollow tube…”), the tube (#18, fig.1), the tobacco filler (#8, fig.1), and the liquid cartridge (#6, fig.1) are wrapped in single wrapping paper (refer to Paragraph 0133 cited: “…Suitable sensible heat storage materials include silica gel, alumina, carbon, glass mat, glass fibre, minerals, a metal or alloy such as aluminium, silver or lead, and a cellulose material such as paper. Other suitable materials which release heat via a reversible phase change include paraffin, sodium acetate, naphthalene, wax, polyethylene oxide, a metal, a metal salt, a mixture of eutectic salts or an alloy. …”).
Regarding claim 35, the modification of GREIM and MEMARI discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 30, GREIM further discloses wherein the first aerosol-forming substrate (#8, fig.1) provided in the smoking article (#2, fig.1) is a tobacco filler (refer to Paragraph 0066 cited: “…the volatile delivery enhancing compound is a volatile liquid…”), and wherein the second aerosol-forming substrate (#6, fig.1) provided in the smoking article (#2, fig.1) is a liquid cartridge (refer to Paragraph 0066 cited: “…the volatile delivery enhancing compound is a volatile liquid…”).
Regarding claim 36, in line with the 112b assumption above, the modification of GREIM and MEMARI discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 35, GREIM does not discloses wherein the tobacco filler contains glycerin VG.
In the similar field of aerosol generating device, MEMARI discloses the use of glycerin VG (refer to Paragraph 0020 cited: “…The main ingredients of e-liquids are usually a mix of propylene glycol (PG), vegetable glycerin (VG), and/or polyethylene glycol 400 (PEG400), sometimes with differing levels of alcohol mixed with concentrated or extracted flavorings; and a variable concentration of tobacco-derived nicotine. There is variability in the purity, kinds and concentrations of chemicals used in liquids, and significant variability between labeled content and concentration and actual content and concentration …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GREIM’s invention with wherein the tobacco filler contains glycerin VG, as taught by MEMARI, in order to provide different vaiability in purity, kind of concentrations of chemicals used in the liquids (refer to Paragraph 0020 cited: “…There is variability in the purity, kinds and concentrations of chemicals used in liquids, and significant variability between labeled content and concentration and actual content and concentration …”).
Regarding claim 37, in line with the 112b assumption above, the modification of GREIM and MEMARI discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 35, GREIM does not discloses wherein the liquid cartridge comprises a liquid or gel composition containing glycerin VG.
In the similar field of aerosol generating device, MEMARI discloses the use of glycerin VG (refer to Paragraph 0020 cited: “…The main ingredients of e-liquids are usually a mix of propylene glycol (PG), vegetable glycerin (VG), and/or polyethylene glycol 400 (PEG400), sometimes with differing levels of alcohol mixed with concentrated or extracted flavorings; and a variable concentration of tobacco-derived nicotine. There is variability in the purity, kinds and concentrations of chemicals used in liquids, and significant variability between labeled content and concentration and actual content and concentration …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GREIM’s invention with wherein the tobacco filler contains glycerin VG, as taught by MEMARI, in order to provide different variability in purity, kind of concentrations of chemicals used in the liquids (refer to Paragraph 0020 cited: “…There is variability in the purity, kinds and concentrations of chemicals used in liquids, and significant variability between labeled content and concentration and actual content and concentration …”).
Regarding claim 38, the modification of GREIM and MEMARI discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 35, GREIM further discloses wherein the smoking article (#2, fig.1) further comprises a filter (refer to Paragraph 0055 cited: “…the mouthpiece may comprise a filter. The filter may have a low particulate filtration efficiency or very low particulate filtration efficiency. Alternatively, the mouthpiece may comprise a hollow tube…”) and a tube (#18, fig.1), and wherein the filter (refer to Paragraph 0055 cited: “…the mouthpiece may comprise a filter. The filter may have a low particulate filtration efficiency or very low particulate filtration efficiency. Alternatively, the mouthpiece may comprise a hollow tube…”), the tube (#18, fig.1), the tobacco filler (#8, fig.1), and the liquid cartridge (#6, fig.1) are wrapped in single wrapping paper (refer to Paragraph 0133 cited: “…Suitable sensible heat storage materials include silica gel, alumina, carbon, glass mat, glass fibre, minerals, a metal or alloy such as aluminium, silver or lead, and a cellulose material such as paper. Other suitable materials which release heat via a reversible phase change include paraffin, sodium acetate, naphthalene, wax, polyethylene oxide, a metal, a metal salt, a mixture of eutectic salts or an alloy. …”).
Regarding claim 39, the modification of GREIM and MEMARI discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 30, GREIM further discloses wherein the first aerosol-forming substrate (#8, fig.1) and second aerosol-forming substrate (#6, fig.1) provided in the smoking article (#2, fig.1) are tobacco fillers (refer to Paragraph 0066 cited: “…the volatile delivery enhancing compound is a volatile liquid…”).
Regarding claim 40, in line with the 112b assumption above, the modification of GREIM and MEMARI discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 39, GREIM does not discloses wherein the tobacco filler contains glycerin VG.
In the similar field of aerosol generating device, MEMARI discloses the use of glycerin VG (refer to Paragraph 0020 cited: “…The main ingredients of e-liquids are usually a mix of propylene glycol (PG), vegetable glycerin (VG), and/or polyethylene glycol 400 (PEG400), sometimes with differing levels of alcohol mixed with concentrated or extracted flavorings; and a variable concentration of tobacco-derived nicotine. There is variability in the purity, kinds and concentrations of chemicals used in liquids, and significant variability between labeled content and concentration and actual content and concentration …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GREIM’s invention with wherein the tobacco filler contains glycerin VG, as taught by MEMARI, in order to provide different vaiability in purity, kind of concentrations of chemicals used in the liquids (refer to Paragraph 0020 cited: “…There is variability in the purity, kinds and concentrations of chemicals used in liquids, and significant variability between labeled content and concentration and actual content and concentration …”).
Regarding claim 41, the modification of GREIM and MEMARI discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 39, GREIM further discloses wherein the smoking article (#2, fig.1) further comprises a filter (refer to Paragraph 0055 cited: “…the mouthpiece may comprise a filter. The filter may have a low particulate filtration efficiency or very low particulate filtration efficiency. Alternatively, the mouthpiece may comprise a hollow tube…”) and a tube (#18, fig.1), and wherein the filter (refer to Paragraph 0055 cited: “…the mouthpiece may comprise a filter. The filter may have a low particulate filtration efficiency or very low particulate filtration efficiency. Alternatively, the mouthpiece may comprise a hollow tube…”), the tube (#18, fig.1), the tobacco filler (#8, fig.1), and the liquid cartridge (#6, fig.1) are wrapped in single wrapping paper (refer to Paragraph 0133 cited: “…Suitable sensible heat storage materials include silica gel, alumina, carbon, glass mat, glass fibre, minerals, a metal or alloy such as aluminium, silver or lead, and a cellulose material such as paper. Other suitable materials which release heat via a reversible phase change include paraffin, sodium acetate, naphthalene, wax, polyethylene oxide, a metal, a metal salt, a mixture of eutectic salts or an alloy. …”).
Regarding claim 42, the modification of GREIM and MEMARI discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 30, GREIM further discloses wherein the first aerosol-forming substrate (#8, fig.1) and second aerosol-forming substrate (#6, fig.1) provided in the smoking article (#2, fig.1) are liquid cartridges (refer to Paragraph 0066 cited: “…the volatile delivery enhancing compound is a volatile liquid…”).
Regarding claim 43, in line with the 112b assumption above, the modification of GREIM and MEMARI discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 42, GREIM does not discloses wherein the liquid cartridge comprises a liquid or gel composition containing glycerin VG.
In the similar field of aerosol generating device, MEMARI discloses the use of glycerin VG (refer to Paragraph 0020 cited: “…The main ingredients of e-liquids are usually a mix of propylene glycol (PG), vegetable glycerin (VG), and/or polyethylene glycol 400 (PEG400), sometimes with differing levels of alcohol mixed with concentrated or extracted flavorings; and a variable concentration of tobacco-derived nicotine. There is variability in the purity, kinds and concentrations of chemicals used in liquids, and significant variability between labeled content and concentration and actual content and concentration …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GREIM’s invention with wherein the tobacco filler contains glycerin VG, as taught by MEMARI, in order to provide different variability in purity, kind of concentrations of chemicals used in the liquids (refer to Paragraph 0020 cited: “…There is variability in the purity, kinds and concentrations of chemicals used in liquids, and significant variability between labeled content and concentration and actual content and concentration …”).
Regarding claim 44, the modification of GREIM and MEMARI discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 42, GREIM further discloses wherein the smoking article (#2, fig.1) further comprises a filter (refer to Paragraph 0055 cited: “…the mouthpiece may comprise a filter. The filter may have a low particulate filtration efficiency or very low particulate filtration efficiency. Alternatively, the mouthpiece may comprise a hollow tube…”) and a tube (#18, fig.1), and wherein the filter (refer to Paragraph 0055 cited: “…the mouthpiece may comprise a filter. The filter may have a low particulate filtration efficiency or very low particulate filtration efficiency. Alternatively, the mouthpiece may comprise a hollow tube…”), the tube (#18, fig.1), the tobacco filler (#8, fig.1), and the liquid cartridge (#6, fig.1) are wrapped in single wrapping paper (refer to Paragraph 0133 cited: “…Suitable sensible heat storage materials include silica gel, alumina, carbon, glass mat, glass fibre, minerals, a metal or alloy such as aluminium, silver or lead, and a cellulose material such as paper. Other suitable materials which release heat via a reversible phase change include paraffin, sodium acetate, naphthalene, wax, polyethylene oxide, a metal, a metal salt, a mixture of eutectic salts or an alloy. …”).
Regarding claim 45, the modification of GREIM and MEMARI discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 30, GREIM does not disclose a pressure sensor electrically connected to the control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to control the first heating means and/or the second heating means according to a cumulative integral value by calculating an integral value of puff volume according to a sensed value from the pressure sensor.
In the similar field of aerosol generating device, MEMARI discloses a pressure sensor electrically connected to the control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to control the first heating means and/or the second heating means according to a cumulative integral value by calculating an integral value of puff volume according to a sensed value from the pressure sensor (refer to Paragraph 0583 cited: “…an indication of how much substance has been vapourised is shown in FIG. 59, in which the quantity of vapour inhaled is inferred using a pressure sensor that senses when a user inhales (and optionally the strength of the inhalation or the volume inhaled), plus a time sensor that measure for how long an inhalation lasts.…” and Paragraph 0586 cited: “…Single light changes colour to show how much has been inhaled. A traffic light system (green, amber, red) or change in brightness of light (dimming with usage) could be used and when the light shows red or is fully dimmed out it means that the dose has been provided; the PV may at this time stop working for a set period…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GREIM’s invention with a pressure sensor electrically connected to the control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to control the first heating means and/or the second heating means according to a cumulative integral value by calculating an integral value of puff volume according to a sensed value from the pressure sensor, as taught by MEMARI, in order to provide control to the total amount of usage of the device, such that would allow monitoring or habit correction.
Regarding claim 46, the modification of GREIM and MEMARI discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 30, GREIM further discloses wherein the first heating means is a resistance heater and the second heating means is an induction heater (refer to Paragraph 0132 cited: “…the one or more external heating elements are heated electrically. However, other heating schemes may be used to heat the one or more external heating elements. For example, the one or more external heating elements may be heated by conduction from another heat source. Alternatively, each heating element may comprise an infra-red heating element, a photonic source, or an inductive heating element.…”).
Regarding claim 57, the modification of GREIM and MEMARI discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 30, GREIM further discloses wherein the resistance heater is a pipe heater with resistance heating patterns (refer to Paragraph 0130 cited: “…The one or more external heating elements may extend fully or partially around the circumference of the cavity. …”).
Claims 47 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GREIM et al (US2016/0022930 previously cited) herein set forth as GREIM, in view of MEMARI et al (US20150245668A1 previously cited) herein set forth as MEMARI, and further in view of DAVIS et al (US2017/0127722A1 previously cited) herein set forth Davis.
Regarding claim 47, the modification of GREIM and MEMARI discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 46, GREIM does not explicitly disclose herein the induction heater is comprised of an excitation coil and a susceptor reacting with the excitation coil such that induction heating occurs due to eddy current losses to heat the smoking article.
In the similar field of aerosol delivery device, Davis discloses the induction heater is comprised of an excitation coil and a susceptor reacting with the excitation coil such that induction heating occurs due to eddy current losses to heat the smoking article (refer to Paragraph 0006 cited: “…the aerosol delivery devices may include an induction receiver and an induction transmitter, which may cooperate to form an electrical transformer. The induction transmitter may include a coil configured to create an oscillating magnetic field (e.g., a magnetic field that varies periodically with time) when alternating current is directed therethrough. The induction receiver may be at least partially received within the induction transmitter and may include a conductive material. Thereby, by directing alternating current through the induction transmitter, eddy currents may be generated in the induction receiver via induction. The eddy currents flowing through the resistance of the material defining the induction receiver may heat it by Joule heating. Thereby, the induction receiver, which may define an atomizer, may be wirelessly heated to form an aerosol from an aerosol precursor composition positioned in proximity to the induction receiver. …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GREIM’s invention with the induction heater is comprised of an excitation coil and a susceptor reacting with the excitation coil such that induction heating occurs due to eddy current losses to heat the smoking article, as taught by Sur, in order to provide a better heating control and more efficiency.
Regarding claim 54, the modification of GREIM, MEMARI and David discloses all features set forth in claim 47, GREIM does not disclose wherein the susceptor is provided as a hollow pipe inserted into a center of the first aerosol-forming substrate and/or the second aerosol-forming substrate.
In the similar field of aerosol delivery device, Davis discloses wherein the susceptor (#202, fig.7) is provided as a hollow pipe inserted into a center of the first aerosol-forming substrate and/or the second aerosol-forming substrate (#204, fig.7).
PNG
media_image2.png
476
539
media_image2.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 have modified GREIM’s invention with wherein the susceptor is provided as a hollow pipe inserted into a center of the first aerosol-forming substrate and/or the second aerosol-forming substrate, as taught by Sur, in order to provide a better heating control and more efficiency heating element.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GREIM et al (US2016/0022930 previously cited) herein set forth as GREIM, in view of MEMARI et al (US20150245668A1 previously cited) herein set forth as MEMARI, further in view of DAVIS et al (US2017/0127722A1 previously cited) herein set forth Davis and further in view of Sur (US2017/0202266A1 previously cited) here in set forth as Sur.
Regarding claim 48, the modification of GREIM, MEMARI and David discloses all features set forth in claim 47, GREIM does not disclose a plurality of capacitor switches connected between the control unit and the excitation coil, wherein the control unit is configured to control a frequency of an alternating current supplied to the excitation coil, by controlling on or off of at least one of the capacitor switches.
In the similar field of aerosol delivery device, Sur discloses a plurality of capacitor switches connected between the control unit (refer to “control component” in Paragraph 0104 below) and the excitation coil (refer to “coil 404” in paragraph 0104 below), wherein the control unit (refer to “control component” in Paragraph 0104 below) is configured to control a frequency (refer to the “alternately switchable” in paragraph 0104 below) of an alternating current (refer to the “discharge and thereby direct current in a negative direction through the coil 404“ in paragraph 0104 below) supplied to the excitation coil (refer to “coil 404” in paragraph 0104 below), by controlling on or off of at least one of the capacitor switches (refer to Paragraph 0104 cited: “…The control component 308 and induction transmitter 302 may also include respectively a capacitor C (or parallel capacitors) and coil 404 (shown as inductor L1) that form a tank circuit 1204. In these examples, the control component 308 may direct the current in cycles each of which includes a positive half and a negative half. In the positive half, the first and second switches Q1, Q2 may be alternately switchable to charge the capacitor C and direct current in a positive direction through the coil 404. In the negative half, then, the first and second switches Q1, Q2 may be alternately switchable to cause the capacitor C to discharge and thereby direct current in a negative direction through the coil 404.…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GREIM’s invention with a plurality of capacitor switches connected between the control unit and the excitation coil, wherein the control unit is configured to control a frequency of an alternating current supplied to the excitation coil, by controlling on or off of at least one of the capacitor switches, as taught by Sur, in order to provide a compact mean to convert direct current back to alternating current without a big size of invertor, such that can keep the invention small and compact.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GREIM et al (US2016/0022930 previously cited) herein set forth as GREIM, in view of MEMARI et al (US20150245668A1 previously cited) herein set forth as MEMARI, further in view of DAVIS et al (US2017/0127721A1 previously cited) herein set forth Davis and further in view of Gadgil (US5307018 previously cited) here in set forth as Gadgil.
Regarding claim 49, the modification of GREIM, MEMARI and David discloses all features set forth in claim 47, GREIM does not disclose a sensor configured to sense an inductance of the excitation coil.
In the similar field of inductor coil error detection from aerosol, Gadgil discloses a sensor configured to sense an inductance of the excitation coil (refer to Claim 24 cited: “…measuring the impedance between the first contact and the second contact; comparing the measured impedance to a predetermined value; and warning of the impending circuit failure responsive to the comparison of the measured impedance and the predetermined value.…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GREIM’s invention with a sensor configured to sense an inductance of the excitation coil, as taught by Gadgil, in order to provide error detection for the inductor coil by aerosol, such that would improve on the operational life span, and increase reliability.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GREIM et al (US2016/0022930 previously cited) herein set forth as GREIM, in view of MEMARI et al (US20150245668A1 previously cited) herein set forth as MEMARI, further in view of DAVIS et al (US2017/0127721A1 previously cited) herein set forth Davis, and further in view of MIRONOV (US2017/0095003A1 previously cited) herein set forth as MIRONOV.
Regarding claim 50, the modification of GREIM, MEMARI and David discloses all features set forth in claim 47, GREIM does not disclose a sensor configured to sense an impedance of the excitation coil.
In the similar field of aerosol delivery device, MIRONOV discloses a sensor configured to sense an impedance of the excitation coil (refer to abstract cited: “…and a controller configured to measure an inductance of the inductor and to control a supply of electrical current to the heater element in response to the measured inductance..…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GREIM’s invention with a sensor configured to sense an impedance of the excitation coil, as taught by MIRONOV, in order to provide better control of the amount of vapor being generated and control the quality of the each puff, and provide a better experience for the user (refer to paragraph 0004 cited: “…there may be a number of different smoking articles which are each configured for use with the system, but which each provide a different smoking experience for the user…”).
Claims 51-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GREIM et al (US2016/0022930 previously cited) herein set forth as GREIM, in view of MEMARI et al (US20150245668A1 previously cited) herein set forth as MEMARI, further in view of DAVIS et al (US2017/0127721A1 previously cited) herein set forth Davis, and further in view of WU et al (US2019/0230987A1 previously cited) herein set forth as WU.
Regarding claim 51, the modification of GREIM, MEMARI and David discloses all features set forth in claim 47, GREIM does not disclose an insulating part provided between the susceptor and the excitation coil to prevent heat of the susceptor from being transferred to the excitation coil.
In the similar field of aerosol delivery device, WU discloses an insulating part provided between the susceptor and the excitation coil to prevent heat of the susceptor from being transferred to the excitation coil (refer to Paragraph 0014 cited: “…the heating device further includes a heat insulating layer, the heat insulating layer is disposed between the electromagnetic inductive coil and the at least one first heating element, the heat insulating layer is configured to reduce heat in the chamber transferring outside.…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GREIM’s invention with an insulating part provided between the susceptor and the excitation coil to prevent heat of the susceptor from being transferred to the excitation coil, as taught by WU, in order to provide the thermal protection of the inductive coil, such that would extend the operation life span of the induction coil.
Regarding claim 52, the modification of GREIM, MEMARI, David and WU discloses all features set forth in claim 51, GREIM does not disclose wherein in the insulating part, an insulating film using an insulating filler having an insulating and shielding function is attached to an outer wall of an insulating pipe.
In the similar field of aerosol delivery device, WU discloses wherein in the insulating part, an insulating film using an insulating filler having an insulating and shielding function is attached to an outer wall of an insulating pipe (refer to Paragraph 0014 cited: “…the heating device further includes a heat insulating layer, the heat insulating layer is disposed between the electromagnetic inductive coil and the at least one first heating element, the heat insulating layer is configured to reduce heat in the chamber transferring outside.…”, Examiner note: since GREIM’s heating mean is circular in pipe shape, therefore the insulation film would form a insulating pipe shape to match GREIM’s heating mean shape, therefore with WU modification, GRIEM would also have an insulating pipe).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GREIM’s invention with wherein in the insulating part, an insulating film using an insulating filler having an insulating and shielding function is attached to an outer wall of an insulating pipe, as taught by WU, in order to provide the thermal protection of the inductive coil, such that would extend the operation life span of the induction coil.
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GREIM et al (US2016/0022930 previously cited) herein set forth as GREIM, in view of MEMARI et al (US20150245668A1 previously cited) herein set forth as MEMARI, further in view of DAVIS et al (US2017/0127721A1 previously cited) herein set forth Davis, further in view of WU et al (US2019/0230987A1 previously cited) herein set forth as WU, and further in view of Matsui et al (US2002/0168554A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Matsui.
Regarding claim 53, the modification of GREIM, MEMARI, David and WU discloses all features set forth in claim 52, GREIM does not disclose the insulating filler comprises ceramic powder.
In the field of heating insulating material, Matsui discloses the insulating filler comprises ceramic powder (refer to Paragraph 0111 cited: “…applying a raw material mix of the constituents of the surface hardening material to a surface of the formed body of inorganic heat insulating fiber and then spraying a refractory ceramic powder material by flame fusion coating onto the surface of the raw material mix of the constituents of the surface hardening material…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GREIM’s invention with the insulating filler comprises ceramic powder, as taught by Matusi, in order to provide a better heat insulation and reduce the heat transfer to unwanted surface that will cause discomfort to user.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GREIM et al (US2016/0022930 previously cited) herein set forth as GREIM, in view of MEMARI et al (US20150245668A1 previously cited) herein set forth as MEMARI, further in view of DAVIS et al (US2017/0127721A1 previously cited) herein set forth Davis, and further in view Rogan (US2020/0404968A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Rogan.
Regarding claim 55, the modification of GREIM, MEMARI and David discloses all features set forth in claim 54, GREIM does not disclose wherein the susceptor is made of at least one material selected from the group consisting of stainless steel, nickel, and cobalt.
In the similar field of aerosol delivery device, Rogan discloses wherein the susceptor is made of at least one material selected from the group consisting of stainless steel, nickel, and cobalt (refer to Paragraph 0039 cited: “…The induction heatable susceptor may comprise one or more, but not limited, of aluminium, iron, nickel, stainless steel and alloys thereof, e.g. Nickel Chromium or Nickel Copper. With the application of an electromagnetic field in its vicinity, the susceptor may generate heat due to eddy currents and magnetic hysteresis losses resulting in a conversion of energy from electromagnetic to heat. …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GREIM’s invention with wherein the susceptor is made of at least one material selected from the group consisting of stainless steel, nickel, and cobalt, as taught by Rogan, in order to reduce the eddy currents and magnetic hysteresis losses resulting in a conversion of energy, such that would improve the efficient of the induction heater and also a widely available material for manufacturing, such that would reduce design and manufacturing complexity.
Response to Amendment
With respect to the Specification Objection: the amendment/argument filed on March 10th 2026 that overcame the Specification objection in the previous office action.
With respect to the Rejection 112b: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on March 10th 2026 that overcame the Rejection 112b in the previous office action.
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 YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 April 18th 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights