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, see “Remarks”, filed on January 30, 2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims of record under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered. In view of Applicant’s persuasive arguments that an indicative /resistive heating element causing thermal infrared radiation within a heated article does not constitute “optical light source” that “illuminates” the article under broadest reasonable interpretation, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Blandino et al in view of Lakraa (US. Pat. App. Pub. 2024/0164445) as follows:
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 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 1-5, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blandino et al (US. Pat. App. Pub.2017/0055580) in view of Lakraa (US. Pat. App. Pub. 2024/0164445).
Regarding independent claim 1, Blandino et al discloses an aerosol-generating device (100) comprising:
-an outer body part housing a power supply section (121) and a cavity (113) having an opening (111) accessible at the outer body part configured to receive an aerosol-generating article (500) (See Figs. 2-3, paras. [0081],[0085]; and
-an elongate penetrating member (130) extending into said cavity from an end (12) opposite the opening to penetrate at least partly the aerosol-generating article (500) upon insertion into the cavity (Fig. 2, para. [0087]).
Blandino et al fails to explicitly disclose that the penetrating member comprises an optical light source arranged to illuminate at least part of the aerosol-generating article from inside the article, and/or an optical reader system arranged to detect the light issuing from the article after illumination by the optical light source. However, Lakraa discloses an aerosol-generating device comprising an optical light source configured to illuminate an aerosol-generating article and an optical reader system configured to detect light issuing from the article to identify, verify, or inspect the consumable (see para. [0005]-[0039]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the optical the optical light source and optical reader system of Lakraa onto/within the central penetrating member of Blandino et al because placing the optical emitter and sensor directly on/in the central penetrating pin allows non-destructive, direct optical inspection and authentication of the consumable at its internal core upon insertion. This prevents use of counterfeit articles and allows the controller to adjust heating parameters based on the core’s material properties.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Blandino et al device teaches an aerosol device with an optical light source; however, it fails to teach that its light source comprises a waveguide; however, incorporating a waveguide to direct light from an emitter to an internal target is a routine selection of a known optical transmitter/coupling element (see MPEP 2143(A), KSR). Further, it is well known in the art of optical and small electronic devices that LEDs or light emitters are frequently paired with waveguides to efficiently transport and direct light from the source to a remote location. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a waveguide into the optical light source of the modified Blandino et al device.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Blandino et al device fails to explicitly recite that the optical light source comprises an illuminating extremity being one of a diffuser, a V-shaped illuminating tip, a ball-shaped illuminating tip, a metallic reflector tip, or a conical shaped tip”; however, it is well known in the optical arts that the distal end of an optical waveguide is typically provided with a specific geometric profile (e.g., conical, rounded/ball or angles) depending on the desired light dispersion pattern for directing light in small receiving cavities. Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the illuminating extremity of the optical light source of the modified Blandino et al device to include one of the claimed tip designs in order to optimize the spatial distribution of light emitted inside the aerosol-generating article, ensuring uniform illumination across the target core region.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Blandino et al device fails to recite that the illuminating extremity comprises an “electrically addressable light source”; however, mounting a tiny electrically addressable LED directly at the tip of an insertion probe is well-known in the electronic art for eliminating optical transmission losses associated with long light guides. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned an electrically addressable light source directly at the illuminating extremity of the penetrating probe in order to maximize light intensity delivered into the core of the aerosol-generating article.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Blandino et al device fails to recite that the “optical light source comprises a light collecting waveguide”, but it is well known in the art that waveguides are routinely provided with light-collecting features to optimize optical efficiency by ensuring that the maximum amount of light is directed along the optical path to illuminate the aerosol-generating article.
Regarding claim 17, the modified Blandino et al device fails to explicitly recited that the electrically addressable light source is a LED light source; however, it is well known in the electronic arts that LEDs are the standard, conventional choice for electrically addressable light sources due to their compact size, low power consumption, long life, and ease of control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specified by the electrically addressable light source of the modified Blandino device is an LED light source to provide energy-efficient illumination within the compact housing of the aerosol-generating device.
Regarding claim 21, the modified Blandino et al device fails to explicitly show that the “optical light source is configured to direct light from the optical light source towards the aerosol-generating article within the cavity”; however, Lakraa explicitly discloses an optical light source positioned inside/adjacent to the receiving cavity, wherein the optical light source emits light directly into the cavity to illuminate an inserted aerosol-generating article. Positioning a light source in this manner necessarily configures the light source to direct its light towards that object. In the alternative, to the extent that directing light towards the aerosol-generating article within the cavity is not deemed inherent, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient or align the optical light source of the modified Blandino et al device such that its light path is directed towards the aerosol-generating article within the cavity in order to maximize optical power delivery onto/into the article, and ensure clear detection by the sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONNE WALLS MAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5836. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays and Thursdays, 8:00AM - 4:00PM (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 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.
/DIONNE W. MAYES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights