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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-16, 22, 24-29, and 62 are pending. Claims 1-5 are withdrawn. Claim 7, and 24 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended claim 7 such that it in part the amended claim now requires first and second susceptor portions, with a connector joining the two susceptor portions to each other, where the first and second portions are spaced apart from each other by the connector and are located on the connector. Claim 8, dependent on claim 7, requires that the connector comprises a weakened region of the susceptor arrangement, and claim 9, dependent on claim 8, requires that the susceptor portions are integrally formed with the weakened region (of the susceptor arrangement), understood to require a weakened portion of the susceptor as at least a part of the connecting portion.
Claim 11, dependent on claim 7, requires that the connector comprises a carrier to which the susceptor portions are affixed.
Examiner believes that these claim limitations are all consistent with each other and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
First and second susceptor portions may be integrally spaced apart from each other by a weakened portion of susceptor material between the two susceptor portions. The weakened portion of susceptor material between the first and second portion of susceptor material must be considered a part of the connector, because claim 8 requires that the connector comprises this weakened region, and claim 9 requires that the susceptor portions are integrally formed with the weakened region.
PNG
media_image1.png
381
1073
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Fig 3, Morke does not depict the first and second susceptor portions located upon the connector. Examiner argues that the carrier of Fig 4, which includes a similar susceptor arrangement to Fig 3, where the carrier supports the first and second susceptor portions as well as the weakened region, meets the additional limitation that the first and second susceptor portions are located on the connector, because the carrier is part of the connector, see claim 11, the connector comprises a carrier to which the susceptor portions are affixed. Applicant arguments that Morke does not meet these limitations are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image2.png
469
1361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
According to claim 11, only dependent on claim 7, the connector may comprise a carrier to which the susceptor portions are affixed.
Examiner asserts that as claimed, these limitations are all consistent with a single embodiment, disclosed by Morke. Morke discloses a carrier that spans the distance between the first and second susceptor, meeting the limitation of a connector upon which the susceptor portions are located. Morke discloses two susceptor portions joined by a weakened portion integrally formed with the first and second susceptor portions. This interpretation is consistent with the present Specification, and avoids an issue of indefiniteness that may be raised by Applicant arguments. Because if this interpretation is not correct, it is unclear exactly how the connector is a weakened region of the susceptor arrangement, where the susceptor portions are integrally formed with the weakened region, but are also located on the connector. Under the arguments made by Applicant, it would appear that the integrally formed weakened region of the susceptor material that is part of the connector must be located upon itself, which would seem to require an indefinite rejection. Examiner interprets the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the Specification.
Taken together, dependent claim 8 requires that the first and second susceptor portions are joined by a weakened connecting portion of the susceptor that comprises a portion of the connector, where the two susceptor portions are located upon the carrier, the carrier also being part of the connector.
As explained in the annotated figures above, Morke discloses two susceptor portions with an integrally formed weakened region that connects the two susceptor portions, and discloses a carrier that extends from one susceptor portion to the other susceptor portion upon which the two susceptor portions and weakened region are located.
Applicant arguments that Morke does not meet the limitation where the susceptor portions are located on the connector are unpersuasive.
Applicant further makes arguments regarding the modification of Morke with Mironov, arguing that the nickel is only used to regulate temperature and is disclosed as in the form of discrete patches. Applicant has read Mironov far too narrowly, and has quoted narrow embodiments that do not represent the full disclosure of Mironov.
Applicant argues that the second susceptor material is provided in no greater volume than is required to provide a detectable second Curie point, ([0021]). This omits an important qualification. “If the first susceptor material is optimized for heating of the substrate it may be preferred that there is no greater volume of the second susceptor material than is required to provide a detectable second Curie point.” This optimization is not required according to the broad disclosure of Mironov. Instead, Mironov contemplates that the second susceptor material may also make a contribution to heating of the susceptor, and while this property is less important than its Curie temperature, of the first susceptor material is optimized for heating is not required; Mironov further suggests that the second material may be nickel, because its Curie temperature may be ideal for temperature control of heating in an aerosol generating article, ([0019]). Mironov also suggests the first susceptor may be iron, an iron alloy, or even an iron nickel alloy, ([0017]).While Mironov describes embodiments where the use of the second susceptor may be minimized and present as patches, ([0022]), it also describes embodiments where the first and second susceptor material are co-laminated in the form of an elongated strip, ([0023]), and also describes other embodiments inconsistent with the limited reading Applicant urges. ([0024]). Applicant arguments regarding the Mironov reference, and Applicant arguments regarding what the required combination would produce are unpersuasive. These references are valid for all that they disclose and teach, not just the narrow embodiments suggested by Applicant.
The additional limitations regarding the composition of the first and second susceptor portions, and the composition of the integrally formed weakened region connecting the two susceptor portions, are suggested to be a ferromagnetic metal or alloy, ([0005]), This composition is compatible with modification by Mironov where Mironov starts with a first susceptor material that may be iron, an iron alloy, or even an iron nickel alloy, ([0017]). The modification of Morke by Mironov encompasses a second susceptor co-laminated along its length with a second susceptor, ([0023]), and the second susceptor material is preferably disclosed as nickel or a nickel alloy, ([0019]). Thus, the further limitations are rendered obvious by the references cited in the previous rejections.
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.
Claim(s) 7-16, 22, 24-29, and 62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morke (EP 3552500 A1) (English Machine Translation relied upon) in view of Mironov et al. (US 2019/0008210 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Morke discloses:
a susceptor arrangement for use in a method of manufacturing a consumable for use with a non-combustible aerosol provision device, ([0002]-[0003], [0005]; see annotated Fig 4),
PNG
media_image2.png
469
1361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the depicted susceptor arrangement comprising:
first and second susceptor portions, where the susceptor portions are integrally formed (a single piece with) a weakened region of the susceptor arrangement and the connector (a portion of the susceptor arrangement that spans the distance between the first susceptor and second susceptor, includes both the weakened region of the susceptor arrangement and a carrier upon which the first susceptor and the second susceptor are located.
The connector joining the first and second susceptor portions to each other, wherein the first and second susceptor portions are spaced apart from each other by the connector, ([0024]-[0028] Fig 1-4), comprises heating material that is heatable by penetration with a varying magnetic field, 7), because unmodified Morke discloses that the weakened region of the susceptor material is present in the connector.
In particular, Morke discloses that heating material can be produced from a single material, where the weak points are formed by cut outs. Thus, the connector and susceptors are formed of the same heating material throughout, which may be inductively heated. Thus, the limitation requiring the connector comprises heating material heatable by penetration with a varying magnetic field is met, because in the embodiment depicted by annotated Fig 4, the connector comprises heating material that is the composition of the susceptor material. Morke further discloses that the composition of the heating material necessarily including the composition of the first and second susceptor portions, and the composition of the integrally formed weakened region connecting the two susceptor portions, may be a ferromagnetic metal or alloy, ([0005]), which would be consistent with a selection of iron or an iron alloy for the first and second susceptor portions.
Mork does not explicitly suggest that connector the heating material also includes nickel.
Mironov teaches an aerosol generating article with susceptor arrangement, ([0002]), and thus is within the Applicant’s field of endeavor. Mironov teaches that a susceptor arrangement may comprise a layered arrangement of two susceptors, ([0013]), with one susceptor optimized for heating efficiency and the second susceptor that provides heating as well as temperature control, ([0013]-[0015]). The first susceptor is preferably iron, or an iron alloy, such as steel, ([0015]-[0018]). The second susceptor is preferably a ferro magnetic metal such as nickel or a nickel alloy, because nickel has a curie temperature which may be ideal for temperature control of heating in an aerosol generating article, ([0019]). The first susceptor and the second susceptor material are in intimate contact, ([0020]), and the intimate contact between the first susceptor material and the second susceptor material may be made by any suitable means, ([0021]), and in some embodiments it is suggested that the first and second susceptor materials are co-laminated together along their length, ([0023]).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Morke according to the teachings of Mironov, to incorporate a second susceptor in intimate contact with the heating material of Morke, for the disclosed advantage of adding the temperature control of the second susceptor material made of nickel taught by Mironov to the unspecified ferromagnetic susceptor material of Morke, which may be iron or an iron alloy. Morke discloses all of the limitations of claim 7, but does not clearly include nickel as a heating material within the connector. The modification of Morke by Mironov adds nickel along the entire length of the carrier, providing nickel along the entire susceptor arrangement, including the weakened regions that are integrally formed with the weakened region, which is considered to be a part of the connector. The nickel modification to Morke would function to provide heating as well as temperature control, just as it functions in Mironov and this supplies the motivation for the modification. The susceptor material of nickel would all be located all along the carrier of Morke. The combination of Morke as modified by Mironov renders claim 7 obvious.
Regarding claim 8, modified Morke discloses the susceptor arrangement of claim 7, the connector comprises a weakened region of the susceptor arrangement, ([0026] see annotated Fig 4 above).
Regarding claim 9, modified Morke discloses the susceptor arrangement of claim 8, the susceptor portions are integrally formed with the weakened region, ([0027] the heating strip is manufactured from a single material).
Regarding claim 10, modified Morke discloses the susceptor arrangement of claim 9, the susceptor arrangement comprises at least one further susceptor portion and at least one further connector, wherein the susceptor arrangement is arranged such that a repeating sequence of susceptor portion followed by connector followed by susceptor portion is present, (annotated Fig 4 above).
Regarding claim 11, modified Morke discloses the susceptor arrangement of claim 7, the connector comprises a carrier to which the susceptor portions are affixed, ([0028] the sheathing as depicted acts as a carrier, and may be a cellulose layer (paper), a film, or the like; annotated Fig 4 above).
Regarding claim 12, modified Morke discloses the susceptor arrangement of claim 11, the susceptor arrangement comprises at least one further susceptor portion and wherein the first susceptor portion, the second susceptor portion and at least one further susceptor portion are affixed to the carrier, ([0028] annotated Fig 4 above).
Regarding claim 13, modified Morke discloses the susceptor arrangement of claim 11, the susceptor portions are spaced apart from one another on the carrier, and wherein the carrier comprises a weakened region between the susceptor portions, ([0028] the sheathing (carrier) has a weakened layer structure in the connection area annotated Fig 4 above).
Regarding claim 15-16, modified Morke discloses the susceptor arrangement of claim 11. Moke further discloses that the carrier is free from heating material that is heatable by penetration with a varying magnetic field, (0028] disclosing the carrier may be a cellulose material (paper)).
Regarding claim 22 and 24-27, modified Morke discloses the susceptor arrangement of claim 7. Morke discloses an assembly for use in a method of manufacturing a consumable for use with a non-combustible aerosol provision device, the assembly comprising: the susceptor arrangement of claim 7; and aerosol-generating material in thermal contact with the susceptor arrangement; wherein the assembly is dividable by a process comprising dividing the connector and the aerosol-generating material, ([0029]-[0031] Fig 5, depicting the connector portion extending to one end of the aerosol generating material).
Regarding claim 28, modified Morke discloses the consumable arrangement of claim 24, the or each susceptor portion is at least partially embedded in the aerosol-generating material, ([0024] the process describing introducing the susceptor assembly into the tobacco material, where it is folded together with a crimped tobacco sheet, meeting the limitation of at least partially embedding the susceptor material into the aerosol generating material).
Regarding claim 29, modified Morke discloses the consumable arrangement of claim 24, wherein the or each susceptor portion is substantially coaxial with a central axis of the consumable, ([0024] the susceptor arrangement is introduced centrally, see also Fig 5),
Regarding claim 62, modified Morke the consumable arrangement of claim 24. Morke discloses a non-combustible aerosol provision device for causing heating of the aerosol generating material of the consumable to volatilize at least one component of the aerosol generating material, wherein the device comprises a heating zone for receiving the consumable and a magnetic field generator for generating a varying magnetic field for penetrating the susceptor portion of the consumable, when the consumable is in the heating zone, thereby to cause heating of the aerosol generating material. ([0002]-[0003]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morke (EP 3552500 A1) (English Machine Translation relied upon) in view of Mironov et al. (US 2019/0008210 A1), as applied to claim 11 above and in further view of Emmett et a. (US 2021/0251287 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Morke discloses the susceptor arrangement of claim 11. Morke discloses that the carrier may be a cellulose layer (paper), a film, or the like; annotated Fig 4). Mirnov modifies Moke to include nickel along the length of the susceptor arrangement, and suggests that the nickel can be placed into intimate contact with the first susceptor material by any means, ([0021]). Both Morke and Mirnov are silent as to whether or not the carrier may additionally comprises the second susceptor material, upon which the first susceptor material of Morke may be affixed.
Emmett teaches an aerosol generating device and aerosol generating articles for use in aerosol generating devices, ([0001]), and thus is within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Emmett teaches the article may include a carrier made from a cellulosic material, ([0057], and the carrier may include a layer of indictive material such as nickel, ([0060]).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to further modify Morke according to the teachings of Mironov, where the second susceptor of Mironov is placed into intimate contact with the first susceptor of Morke by including the second susceptor as part of the carrier, as taught by Emmett. This is a simple rearrangement of parts, where the disclosure of Morke is modified by using the cellulosic nickel carrier combination of Emmett to achieve the modification taught by Mironov, using an existing arrangement disclosed within the prior art. Rearrangement of parts in this situation, such that the second susceptor is part of the carrier to take advantage of an existing combination, would be obvious because Morke already discloses combining the first susceptor with a cellulosic carrier, and by using the disclosed nickel on a cellulosic carrier of Emmett, the step of laminating the nickel susceptor of Mironov to the iron susceptor Morke is eliminated, streamlining the manufacturing process of producing modified Morke.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL E VAKILI whose telephone number is (571)272-5171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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 H. 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.
/DANIEL EDWARD VAKILI/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
