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 .
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-14, 18, 19, 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogan et al. (WO 2019/224073) in view of Richmond et al. (US 2018/0192688).
Claims 1-3, 8, and 12-14. Rogan et al. discloses an aerosol generating article and system comprising an aerosol generating article having aerosol generating material having first and second regions and an inductively heatable susceptor in the first region (Page 2, lines 3-6). The aerosol generating article is for use with an aerosol generating device for heating the aerosol generating material (Page 2, lines 13-16). The inductively heatable susceptor may include an elongate part which extends from the first end to the intermediate point. The inductively heatable susceptor extends fully through the first region ensuring that the aerosol generating material in the first region is heated in the most effective manner by heat transferred from the inductively heatable susceptor (Page 3, lines 13-19). The inductively heatable susceptor may be tubular. The wall thickness of tubular inductively heatable susceptor may be between 50 µm and 500 µm, may typically be between 75 µm and 300 µm and may more typically be between 100 µm and 200 µm. In one example, the wall thickness maybe approximately 150 µm. A wall thickness within these ranges facilitates insertion of the tubular inductively heatable susceptor into the first region of the aerosol generating material. For example, if the wall thickness is too low, the tubular inductively heatable susceptor may be deformed during insertion into the aerosol generating material. If, on the other hand, the wall thickness is too great, insertion of the tubular inductively heatable susceptor may be difficult and the aerosol generating material may be deformed or displaced. In addition, a wall thickness within these ranges ensures that that the tubular inductively heatable susceptor is heated quickly during use of the aerosol generating article in an aerosol generating device (Page 4, lines 16-32). The inductively heatable susceptor may include a sharpened or pointed end and may possibly include a plurality of sharpened or pointed ends. The or each sharpened or pointed end may be positioned at the intermediate point of the aerosol generating material. The provision of an inductively heatable susceptor with a sharpened or pointed end allows the inductively heatable susceptor to be easily positioned in the aerosol generating material, for example by being inserted into the aerosol generating material from the first end or the second end, during manufacture of the aerosol generating article (Page 5, lines 13-20). Electrical energy is provided to the induction coil when a user activates the device which in turn generates an alternating electromagnetic field. The susceptor couples with the electromagnetic field and generates heat which is transferred, for example by conduction, to the aerosol generating material and an aerosol is generated as the aerosol generating material is heated (Page 1, lines 16-26).
Rogan et al. does not explicitly disclose that the susceptor is shaped to provide a lower resistance to movement of the susceptor into the object in a first direction than out of the object in a second direction opposite to the first direction.
Richmond et al. discloses a smokeable product comprising compressed smokeable product 108 ([0038]; Figure 3). A device 200 is used for smoking the compressed smokeable product 108. The housing 204 has an open first end 206 and a second end 208 which is distal to the first end 206, with a mouthpiece 234 proximate to the second end 208. The housing 204 has a receiving region 216 proximate to the first end 206 for receiving the compressed smokeable product 108. Inside the receiving region 216, and proximate to the first end 206, is a burning section 210. The burning section 210 is an area in which the smokeable product is ignited or combusted. The compressed smokeable product 108 of the invention can be sized to fit within the receiving region 216. The longitudinally extending opening 114 can be placed on an elongated hollow shaft 230 ([0061]-[0062]; Figure 3). The shaft 230 can contain one or more openings 232 in the burning section 210, such as radial holes, that can allow the passage of smoke from the combusted compressed smokeable product 108 through the opening 232, then through a longitudinal hole 231 in the center of the shaft 230, and finally to an inhalation section 212. The shaft 230 can be made out of a rigid material such as metal. The shaft 230 can have means for retaining the smokeable product within the housing, such as, for example, barbs 260 (projections) at the end of the shaft 230 proximate to the first end 206 of the housing 204 ([0063]; Figure 3).
Richmond et al. teaches that the barbs 260 (projections) at the end of the shaft 230 help to retain the smokable product within the housing (preventing smokable product 108 from falling out of housing 204) (Figure 4, [0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include barbs at the end of the susceptor 22 disclosed by Rogan et al. in order to prevent the aerosol generating material 10 from being separated from the susceptor 22 as taught by Richmond et al.
Claim 4. Modified Rogan et al. discloses that electrical energy is provided to the induction coil when a user activates the device which in turn generates an alternating electromagnetic field. The susceptor couples with the electromagnetic field and generates heat which is transferred, for example by conduction, to the aerosol generating material and an aerosol is generated as the aerosol generating material is heated (Rogan Page 1, lines 16-26).
Claims 5 and 6. Modified Rogan et al. discloses that the barbs 260 (projections) at the end of the shaft 230 are integrally formed with the shaft 230 (Richmond Figure 3). Since the shaft 230 of Richmond is made of metal ([0063]) and the susceptor of Rogan et al is also made of metal (Page 14, lines 30-32) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the barbs 260 (projections) be made of the same metal as the susceptor body and thus are capable of being heated by penetration with a varying magnetic field.
Claim 7. Modified Rogan et al. discloses at least two barbs 260 on opposite sides of shaft 230 (Richmond Figure 3).
Claim 9. Modified Rogan et al. discloses that the aerosol generating material 10 and the filter 11 are wrapped by a sheet of material, for example a paper wrapper 26, to maintain the positional relationship between the first and second regions 12, 14 of the aerosol generating material 10 and the filter 11 (Page 18, lines 8-13).
Claims 10 and 11. Modified Rogan et al. discloses that in order to position the tubular inductively heatable susceptor 22 in the first region 12 of the aerosol generating material 10, a pusher 74 is engaged with an end of the tubular inductively heatable susceptor 22 and moved towards the aerosol generating material 10 to push the tubular inductively heatable susceptor 22 into the first region 12 from the first end 16 (Page 26, lines 8-15).
Claim 18. Rogan et al. discloses that an end of the inductively heatable susceptor, for example the flat part, may be embedded in the first end or the second end of the aerosol generating material. Embedding the end of the inductively heatable susceptor in the aerosol generating material may allow an aerosol or vapour to be generated more effectively because the whole of the inductively heatable susceptor is surrounded by aerosol generating material and, therefore, heat transfer from the inductively heatable susceptor to the aerosol generating material is maximized (Page 8, lines 4-15).
Claim 19. Rogan et al. discloses that the susceptor is substantially coaxial with a central axis of the aerosol generating article (Figures 1a, 2a, 3a and 4a).
Claim 25. Rogan et al. discloses that the susceptor couples with the electromagnetic field and generates heat which is transferred, for example by conduction, to the aerosol generating material and an aerosol is generated as the aerosol generating material is heated (Page 1, lines 16-26).
Claim 26. Rogan et al. discloses the aerosol generating article of claim 12 and an aerosol generating device 42 comprising a housing 44. The aerosol generating device 42 comprises an induction heating assembly 52 for heating an aerosol generating material. The induction heating assembly 52 comprises a generally cylindrical cavity 54 (heating zone) which is arranged to receive a correspondingly shaped generally cylindrical aerosol generating article (Page 22, lines 20-32).
Claim 27. Rogan et al. discloses that heat is transferred from the inductively heatable susceptor 22 to the aerosol generating material 10 in the first region 12, for example by conduction, radiation and convection, resulting in the generation of an aerosol (Page 23, line 21 – Page 24, line 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/2/26 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Rogan’s susceptor because Rogan does not identify any problem related to susceptor retention or separation from the aerosol generating material. Examiner argues that rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness include the use of a known technique (Richmond et al. using barbs for retaining smokable product within the housing) to improve a similar device (device of Rogan et al.) in the same way (See MPEP §2143(I)).
Applicant also argues that Richmond addresses a fundamentally different problem than Rogan since Richmond addresses the problem of smoking loose smokable material by compressing the smokable material. Examiner notes that Richmond teaches inserting a compressed smokeable product 108 into a device 200 for smoking. The smokable material of Richmond is not a loose material when it is inserted into the device 200, Richmond teaches compressing the loose smokeable material into a rod to form the compressed smokeable product 108 ([0038]).
Applicant also notes that the aerosol generating material is inductively heated, not burned as it is in Richmond et al. Examiner notes that the smokeable products of Rogan and Richmond are both configured to receive an inserted object – an inductively heatable susceptor in Rogan and a shaft 230 in Richmond. Though the susceptor in Rogan and the shaft in Richmond serve different purposes, they are both configured to be retained in the smokable material. Richmond et al. teaches that the barbs 260 (projections) at the end of the shaft 230 help to retain the smokable product within the housing (Figure 4, [0063]). Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include barbs at the end of the susceptor 22 disclosed by Rogan et al. in order to prevent the aerosol generating material 10 from being separated from the susceptor 22 as taught by Richmond et al.
Applicant argues that the proposed modification of Rogan’s susceptor would contradict Rogan’s explicit teaching about the size of the susceptor. Applicant states that Richmond’s barbed shaft extends half the width of the compressed smokable material. However, Examiner finds no explicit teaching in Richmond regarding the size of the barbs. Furthermore, Richmond does not state that the drawings are to scale and proportions of features in a drawing are not evidence of actual proportions when the drawings are not to scale (See MPEP §2125(II)). Richmond teaches that the barbs are “means for retaining the smokeable product within the housing”, thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would recognize that the barbs would be sized to accomplish their intended function and need not be so large as to cause deformation and displacement of the aerosol generating material as Applicant alleges.
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 Katherine A Will whose telephone number is (571)270-0516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00AM-6:00PM(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, Michael Wilson can be reached at (571)270-3882. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHERINE A WILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights