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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 February 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13-17, 27, 29-30, 48, and 57 are pending and subject to this Office Action. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 5 has been canceled. Claims 6-9, 11, 13-17, and 48 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, pages 6-7, filed 17 February 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 1 has been amended to incorporate the limitation wherein the susceptor is hollow or perforated, or comprises indentations into a surface of the susceptor, a mesh or an expanded metal.
Applicant argues, pages 6-7, that neither Sanna nor Zinovik teach or suggest this new limitation.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sanna teaches the embedded susceptor profile can take many shapes including polygonal shapes having the form of roman letters “T”, “X”, “U”, “C” or “I” (p 6 ln 26-29) which would result in a non-linear cross-sectional shape. The susceptor with a cross-section in the shape of the letters “T”, “X”, “U”, and “C” have areas that are indented by having portions of the susceptor surface that are depressed or cut into the surface of the susceptor material to form the cross-sectional shape taught by Sanna.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 27, 29-30, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanna, et al (US20200107571A1). .
Claims 1-4, 27, 29-30, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanna, et al (US20200107571A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sanna teaches the manufacturing of an inductively heatable aerosol-forming rods comprises embedding a continuous profile of a susceptor into the rod (Abstract) and that the susceptor can have a cross-section in the shape of oval, a circle, a triangle, or a polygon. [0020] Sanna teaches the susceptor being made of metal or carbon that can be inductively heated and is preferentially a ferromagnetic material siting various known metals as being preferred. [0018]
Sanna teaches the embedded susceptor profile can take many shapes including polygonal shapes having the form of roman letters “T”, “X”, “U”, “C” or “I” (p 6 ln 26-29) which would result in a non-linear cross-sectional shape. The susceptor with a cross-section in the shape of the letters “T”, “X”, “U”, and “C” have areas that are indented, having a deep recess or notch, by having portions of the susceptor surface that are depressed or cut into the surface of the susceptor material to form the cross-sectional shape taught by Sanna, similarly as described by the Applicant’s specification (Figure 2, reference number 8).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Sanna teaches the susceptor profile can take many shapes including polygonal shapes having the form of roman letters “T”, “X”, “U”, “C” or “I”. (p 6 ln 26-29) The letters “T”, “X”, “U”, and “C” have areas that are indented and thus read on the claim limitation. Additionally the letters “U” and “C” have an indentation that would be considered to read on a corrugation.
Regarding claim 4, Sanna teaches that the susceptor can be in the shape of the roman letter “C”. This shape is considered to read on the limitation of a cross-sectional shape that comprises a crescent.
Regarding claim 27, Sanna teaches that the susceptor of claim 1 is intended to be used with an aerosol-forming substrate may comprise a tobacco web, preferably a crimped web.(p2 ln 28-29, p3 ln 18-19) This web is a sheet of tobacco material that is a designed to be gathered. (Abstract)
Regarding claim 29, Sanna teaches that the susceptor profile taught in claim 1 that is intended to extend along the entire longitudinal axis of the entire rod of aerosol generating material. (p 26 ln 28-30)
Regarding claim 30, Sanna teaches the susceptor profile may comprise a first susceptor material and a second susceptor material and that the two susceptors would be different materials. Sanna gives possible materials for the first and second susceptor materials; the first susceptor material being aluminum or a ferrous material while the second susceptor material could include nickel and nickel alloys. [0019]
Regarding claim 57, As discussed in claims 2 and 3, Sanna teaches the use of polygonal shapes including Roman letters “C” and “U” that would be a strip of material that has been shaped into a form that has a non-linear cross-section. Sanna teaches the susceptor profile is selected so that it will be dimensionally stable throughout the aerosol rod manufacturing process.(p10 ln 17-19) The selection of the susceptor profile and the use of polygonal shapes, including roman letters, to provide dimensional stability is considered to read on the rigidity of the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRGINIA R BIEGER whose telephone number is (703)756-1014. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7:30-4:30.
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, Phillip 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.
/V.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755