DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 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 Claims 6-9, 11, 13-17, and 48 are withdrawn.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, filed 29 May 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4, 27, 29-30, and 57 under U.S.C. 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of previously applied art and the newly found art of Batista, et al (WO2020174027A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to remove the limitation that the susceptor comprises indentations into a surface of the susceptor.
Applicant argues, pages 6, that neither Sanna does not teach that the susceptor is hollow or perforated, or comprises a mesh or an expanded metal.
The Examiner acknowledges that Sanna is silent with respect to the structure of the susceptor outside of possible profile shapes. Sanna teaches that the susceptor profile can be multiple shapes [0020] and that the profile shape is selected to obtain the optimal ratio between susceptor volume and heat releasing susceptor surface. [0043]
Sanna is silent with respect to the structure of the susceptor element outside of the profile shape that could be used to optimize this ratio.
Batista, directed to the design of inductively heated aerosol forming rods, teaches an aerosol forming rod where the susceptor is sandwiched two aerosol forming materials. (Abstract) Batista teaches a susceptor that may be made from multiple materials (p14 ln 19-20) that can be in the form of a pin, rod filament, or a strip (p15 ln 10-12) where the strip shape can be a susceptor sheet (p15 ln 16-17) having a rectangular cross-section. (p15 ln 18-19) This design is similar to the design taught by Sanna. Batista teaches the susceptor may consist of an expanded metal sheet and comprising a plurality of openings through the sheet. (17 ln 14-20) The prior art teaches the use of an expanded metal sheet for the susceptor improves the proportional rate between total mass and heat emission surface. (p17 ln 21-25)
Additionally, Batista discloses a susceptor that is also in the shape of a roman letter “X” (Fig. 7)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 27, 29-30, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanna, et al (US20200107571A1) and further in view of Batista, et al (WO2020174027A1).
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 citing various known metals as being preferred. [0018]
Sanna teaches a susceptor that can have a profile of an oval or elliptical or circular or square or rectangular or triangular or polygonal cross-section. [0020] The prior art teaches the susceptor is preferably a sheet as the susceptor sheet advantageously provides heat in a highly sufficient manner because the oblong or flat cross-section of the susceptor sheet yields an advantageous ratio between the susceptor volume and the heat releasing susceptor surface. ([0020], [0042-0043])
Sanna teaches the susceptor is formed from any material that can be inductively heated and can be layered and made from a multiple materials. [0018] While Sanna teaches the profile shape and the materials of manufacture, the prior art is silent with respect to the form of the susceptor material.
Batista, directed to the design of inductively heated aerosol forming rods, teaches an aerosol forming rod where the susceptor is sandwiched two aerosol forming materials. (Abstract) Batista teaches a susceptor that may be made from multiple materials (p14 ln 19-20) that can be in the form of a pin, rod filament, or a strip (p15 ln 10-12) where the strip shape can be a susceptor sheet (p15 ln 16-17) having a rectangular cross-section. (p15 ln 18-19) This design is similar to the design taught by Sanna. Batista teaches the susceptor may consist of an expanded metal sheet and comprising a plurality of openings through the sheet. (17 ln 14-20) Additionally, Batista discloses a susceptor that is also in the shape of a roman letter “X” (Fig. 7)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sanna by using an expanded metal sheet for the susceptor as taught by Batista because both Sanna and Batista are directed to inductively heated aerosol generating articles, Batista teaches the use of an expanded metal sheet for the susceptor improves the proportional rate between total mass and heat emission surface. (p17 ln 21-25), and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way
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.
Additionally or alternatively, Batista teaches the susceptor can be made of a perforated metal that extends through the sheet (p18 ln 17-19) The perforation that extends through the sheet is considered to read on the indentation of the instant claim.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights