DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 04/27/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 2 and 38 has/have been amended; no claim(s) has/have been cancelled and no new claim(s) has/have been added. Thus, claims 1-10and 29-44 are presently pending in this application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 9, 29, 35, 38-39, and 43-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorsen et al (WO 2018054793 A1) in view of Buchberger et al (WO 2018211252 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Thorsen discloses an article for use with an electrically operated non-combustible aerosol delivery system, the article comprising:
an aerosol generating component (Fig. 2 #23 heater arrangement) suspended within an aerosol generating chamber (Fig. 3 #29 hollow interior heating chamber), the aerosol generating chamber (Fig. 3 #29 hollow interior heating chamber) having one or more air inlets (Fig. 2 #61 ventilation paths) and one or more outlets (Fig. 2 #21b tip of mouthpiece assembly) defining a flow path therebetween,
wherein during activation of the aerosol generating component (Fig. 2 #23 heater arrangement) a first temperature profile (Page 4 para. 4 ---"In the example of Figure 13, the temperature, at which the centre of the heater arrangement 23 (and the heating chamber 29) is desired to be, is 250°C.” The target temperature of 250°C is considered a temperature profile.) having a negative gradient (Fig. 13 #137 length temperature gradient indicates the temperature decreasing towards the mouthpiece end of the heater arrangement) is established along a portion of the flow path from the one or more air inlets (Fig. 2 #61 ventilation paths) to the one or more outlets (Fig. 2 #21b tip of mouthpiece assembly).
However, Thorsen does not disclose the aerosol generating component being generally planar.
However, Buchberger in the same field of endeavor being aerosol generating devices teaches an aerosol generating component (Fig. 2 #103 planar heating element) being generally planar.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an aerosol generating component being generally planar, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Thorsen.
Regarding claim 2, Thorsen in view of Buchberger teaches the article as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Thorsen teaches wherein a longitudinal axis of the aerosol generating component (Fig. 2 #23 heater arrangement) is substantially parallel to the flow path (Page 8 para. 8 ---"The primary flow path for the heated volatilised components from the smokable material 21a is axially through the consumable article 21, through the space 2 Id, the filter/cooling element 21c and the further space 21e before entering a user's mouth through the open end of the mouthpiece assembly 21b.”).
Regarding claim 6, Thorsen in view of Buchberger teaches the article as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Thorsen teaches wherein the negative temperature gradient (Fig. 13 #137 length temperature gradient indicates the temperature decreasing towards the mouthpiece end of the heater arrangement) is established from a peak temperature of above 250 ºC (Page 4 para. 4 ---"The line 138a indicates the maximum acceptable temperature of 255°C, and the line 138b indicates the minimum acceptable temperature of 245°C when the desired temperature is 250°C.”).
Regarding claim 7, Thorsen in view of Buchberger teaches the article as appears above (see the rejection of claim 6), and Thorsen teaches wherein the peak temperature (Page 4 para. 4 ---"The line 138a indicates the maximum acceptable temperature of 255°C, and the line 138b indicates the minimum acceptable temperature of 245°C when the desired temperature is 250°C.”) is established in proximity to the one or more air inlet(s) (Fig. 2 #61 ventilation paths) of the aerosol-generating chamber.
Regarding claim 9, Thorsen in view of Buchberger teaches the article as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Thorsen teaches wherein the aerosol generating component (Fig. 2 #23 heater arrangement) is configured to dissipate greater energy at an upstream location relative to a downstream location (The aerosol generating component is surrounded by Fig. 4 #35 chamber which comprises a cooling structure Fig. 5a #35f plurality of fins. Fig. 4 #35 chamber is located upstream and the cooling affect would be greater upstream because of the Fig. 4 #35 chamber.).
Regarding claim 29, Thorsen in view of Buchberger teaches the article as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Thorsen teaches wherein an upstream portion of the aerosol generating component is configured to have a relatively greater electrical resistance than a corresponding downstream portion (Page 9 para 10 to Page 10 ---" In this example, the first sub-heating zone 222, the second sub-heating zone 224 and the third sub-heating zone 226 of the first heating zone 220 all provide different heating watt densities, with the first sub-heating zone 222 providing a higher watt density than does the second sub-heating zone 224 which provides a higher watt density than does the third sub-heating zone 226.”). Regarding claim 35, Thorsen in view of Buchberger teaches the article as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Thorsen teaches wherein a second temperature profile is established along a subsequent portion of the flow path (Page 13 para. 4 ---" In examples of the device 1, the controller may be configured to vary the first and second target temperatures for the zones 220 and 230 respectively, independently during a session of use of the device 1. In one example, the controller is configured to control the first and second target temperatures for the zones 220 and 230 such that they are not set to the same temperature or they do not reach the same temperature at substantially any point during a session of use of the device 1.” The target temperature of the second zone is considered to be the second temperature profile.).
Regarding claim 38, Thorsen discloses an aerosol generating component for use with an electrically operated non- combustible aerosol delivery system, the aerosol generating component defining a longitudinal axis and being configured to be heated heterogeneously along the longitudinal axis (Page 11 para. 4 ---" In other words, the temperature sensors 320 and 330 are positioned such that if the first and second control loops were to control the heater arrangement 23 to heat the heating zones 220 and 230 to first and second target temperatures set equal to each other, the temperature between the sensors 320 and 330 would be substantially constant as a function of the length of the heating zones.”).
However, Thorsen does not disclose, wherein the aerosol generating component is generally planar.
Nonetheless, Buchberger teaches wherein the aerosol generating component (Fig. 2 #103 planar heating element) is generally planar.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an aerosol generating component being generally planar, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Thorsen.
Regarding claim 39, Thorsen in view of Buchberger teaches the component as appears above (see the rejection of claim 38), and Thorsen teaches wherein during activation of the aerosol generating component a first temperature profile (Page 4 para. 4 ---"In the example of Figure 13, the temperature, at which the centre of the heater arrangement 23 (and the heating chamber 29) is desired to be, is 250°C.” The target temperature of 250°C is considered a temperature profile.) with a negative gradient (Fig. 13 #137 length temperature gradient indicates the temperature decreasing towards the mouthpiece end of the heater arrangement) is established along a portion of the longitudinal axis of the aerosol generating component.
Regarding claim 43, Thorsen in view of Buchberger teaches the component as appears above (see the rejection of claim 38), and Buchberger teaches wherein the aerosol generating component is formed from a woven or weave structure, a mesh structure (Page 2 Background para. 3 --- As an alternative, other devices employ a heating element in the form of a porous conductive sheet such as a metal mesh.”), a fabric structure, an open-pored fiber structure, an open-pored sintered structure, an open-pored foam, or an open-pored deposition structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aerosol generating component of Thorsen in view of Buchberger by incorporating the metal mesh as taught by Buchberger for the benefit of providing a heater having a wicking function as well as a heating function. (Buchberger Page 2 Background para. 3)
Regarding claim 44, Thorsen in view of Buchberger discloses a non-combustible aerosol provision system comprising the article of claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1),
and a device comprising a power source (Fig. 2 #27 power source) and a control unit (Fig. 2 #25 control circuitry).
Regarding claim 45, Thorsen in view of Buchberger discloses a non-combustible aerosol provision system comprising the article of claim 38 (See the rejection of claim 38),
and a device comprising a power source (Fig. 2 #27 power source) and a control unit (Fig. 2 #25 control circuitry).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorsen et al (WO 2018054793 A1) in view of Buchberger et al (WO 2018211252 A1) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Thorsen in view of Buchberger teaches the article as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the negative temperature gradient is established along less than 50% of the flow path.
Nonetheless, Thorsen do(es), however, teach that controlling the temperature profile of the heating zones affects the temperature gradient (Page 11 para. 3-4; Fig. 13 is an example of one temperature profile having at least one negative temperature gradient.). Therefore, the temperature profile is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the temperature gradient can be adjusted. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the temperature gradient is affected by the temperature profile of the heater, were disclosed in the prior art by Thorsen, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the negative temperature gradient established along less than 50% of the flow path.
Regarding claim 4, Thorsen in view of Buchberger teaches the article as appears above (see the rejection of claim 3), but does not teach wherein the negative temperature gradient is established along less than 20% of the flow path.
Nonetheless, Thorsen do(es), however, teach that controlling the temperature profile of the heating zones affects the temperature gradient (Page 11 para. 3-4; Fig. 13 is an example of one temperature profile having at least one negative temperature gradient.). Therefore, the temperature profile is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the temperature gradient can be adjusted. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the temperature gradient is affected by the temperature profile of the heater, were disclosed in the prior art by Thorsen, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the negative temperature gradient being established along less than 20% of the flow path.
Regarding claim 5, Thorsen in view of Buchberger teaches the article as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the negative temperature gradient is established along a first 5% of the flow path.
Nonetheless, Thorsen do(es), however, teach that controlling the temperature profile of the heating zones affects the temperature gradient (Page 11 para. 3-4; Fig. 13 is an example of one temperature profile having at least one negative temperature gradient.). Therefore, the temperature profile is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the temperature gradient can be adjusted. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the temperature gradient is affected by the temperature profile of the heater, were disclosed in the prior art by Thorsen, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the negative temperature gradient being established along a first 5% of the flow path.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorsen et al (WO 2018054793 A1) in view of Buchberger et al (WO 2018211252 A1) as applied to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Thorsen in view of Buchberger teaches the article as appears above (see the rejection of claim 7), but does not teach wherein the peak temperature is established within 20% of an opening of the one or more air inlets into the aerosol generating chamber.
Nonetheless, Thorsen do(es), however, teach that controlling the temperature profile of the individually controlled heating zones affects the peak temperature at any position in any zone (Page 11 para. 1; Page 9 para. 9; Heating zone 220 is closest to the air inlets.). Therefore, the temperature profile of the individually controlled heating zones is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the temperature gradient can be adjusted. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the heating zones can be controlled individually, were disclosed in the prior art by Thorsen, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the peak temperature being established within 20% of an opening of the one or more air inlets into the aerosol generating chamber.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorsen et al (WO 2018054793 A1) in view of Buchberger et al (WO 2018211252 A1) as applied to claim 9, further in view of Nguyen et al (US 2004/0129793).
Regarding claim 10, Thorsen in view of Buchberger teaches the article as appears above (see the rejection of claim 9), but does not teach wherein the aerosol generating component is configured with a capillary structure at an upstream portion which has a capillarity inferior in terms of feed rate compared to a capillary structure at a corresponding downstream portion.
However, Nguyen in the same field of endeavor being aerosol generating devices teaches wherein the aerosol generating component is configured with a capillary structure at an upstream portion which has a capillarity inferior in terms of feed rate compared to a capillary structure at a corresponding downstream portion ([0040] lines 1-16 ---" The capillary passage can have more than two sections having different cross-sectional areas from each other (not shown), i.e, more than one section that acts as an outlet section relative to the adjacent upstream section as the fluid moves through the capillary passage. For example, the capillary passage can include three sections having different cross-sectional areas from each other. In such embodiments, the cross-sectional area of the capillary passage can decrease or increase in size from the first section to the second section, and decrease or increase in size from the second section to the third section, i.e., the exit outlet section. Accordingly, the velocity of the fluid is changed (increased or decreased) as the fluid moves from the first section into the second section, and then changed again (increased or decreased) as it moves from the second section into the third section.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article of Thorsen in view of Buchberger by incorporating the capillary structure as taught by Nguyen for the benefit of controlling the exit velocity of vapor. (Nguyen [0040])
Claim(s) 30-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorsen et al (WO 2018054793 A1) in view of Buchberger et al (WO 2018211252 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Monsees et al (US 10,045,567).
Regarding claim 30, Thorsen in view of Buchberger teaches the article as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the aerosol generating component further comprises one or more apertures or slots extending from one surface of the planar aerosol generating component to an opposite surface.
Nonetheless, Monsees teaches wherein the aerosol generating component further comprises one or more apertures (Fig. 10A 50 air inlet opening) or slots extending from one surface of the planar aerosol generating component to an opposite surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article of Thorsen in view of Buchberger by incorporating the one or more apertures as taught by Monsees for the benefit of introducing air into the heating chamber for producing vapor.
Regarding claim 31, Thorsen in view of Buchberger and Monsees teaches the article as appears above (see the rejection of claim 30), and Monsees teaches wherein the one or more apertures (Fig. 10A 50 air inlet opening) or slots originate from a periphery of the aerosol generating component (Shown in Fig. 10A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article of Thorsen in view of Buchberger and Monsees by incorporating the one or more apertures as taught by Monsees for the benefit of introducing air into the heating chamber for producing vapor.
Regarding claim 32, Thorsen in view of Buchberger and Monsees teaches the article as appears above (see the rejection of claim 31), and Monsees teaches wherein the one or more apertures (Fig. 10A 50 air inlet opening) or slots are arranged perpendicularly to a longitudinal extent of the aerosol generating component such that a plurality of portions extending perpendicularly to the longitudinal extent of the aerosol generating component are formed (Shown in Fig. 10A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article of Thorsen in view of Buchberger and Monsees by incorporating the one or more apertures as taught by Monsees for the benefit of introducing air into the heating chamber for producing vapor.
Regarding claim 33, Thorsen in view of Buchberger and Monsees teaches the article as appears above (see the rejection of claim 31), and Monsees teaches wherein a width of an upstream portion (Fig. 4A #423 airflow channel) is less than a width of a subsequent downstream portion (Fig. 4A #421 air inlet and #404 oven region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article of Thorsen in view of Buchberger and Monsees by incorporating the size of the apertures as taught by Monsees for the benefit of adjusting the amount of air introduced into the heating chamber for producing vapor.
Regarding claim 34, Thorsen in view of Buchberger and Monsees teaches the article as appears above (see the rejection of claim 31), but does not teach wherein a ratio of the width of the upstream portion to the subsequent downstream portion is less than 1, but not less than 0.5.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a ratio of the width of the upstream portion to the subsequent downstream portion being less than 1, but not less than 0.5, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984),
Claim(s) 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorsen et al (WO 2018054793 A1) in view of Buchberger et al (WO 2018211252 A1) as applied to claim 35.
Regarding claim 36, Thorsen in view of Buchberger teaches the article as appears above (see the rejection of claim 35), but does not teach wherein the second temperature profile has a negative gradient which is smaller than the first temperature profile.
Nonetheless, Thorsen do(es), however, teach that controlling the temperature profile of the heating zones affects the temperature gradient (Page 11 para. 3-4; Fig. 13 is an example of one temperature profile having at least one negative temperature gradient.). Therefore, the temperature profile is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the temperature gradient can be adjusted. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the temperature gradient is affected by the temperature profile of the heater, were disclosed in the prior art by Thorsen, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the second temperature profile having a negative gradient which is smaller than the first temperature profile.
Regarding claim 37, Thorsen in view of Buchberger teaches the article as appears above (see the rejection of claim 35), but does not teach wherein the second temperature profile has a negative gradient which is greater than the first temperature profile.
Nonetheless, Thorsen do(es), however, teach that controlling the temperature profile of the heating zones affects the temperature gradient (Page 11 para. 3-4; Fig. 13 is an example of one temperature profile having at least one negative temperature gradient.). Therefore, the temperature profile is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the temperature gradient can be adjusted. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the temperature gradient is affected by the temperature profile of the heater, were disclosed in the prior art by Thorsen, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the second temperature profile having a negative gradient which is greater than the first temperature profile.
Claim(s) 40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorsen et al (WO 2018054793 A1) in view of Buchberger et al (WO 2018211252 A1) as applied to claim 39.
Regarding claim 40, Thorsen in view of Buchberger teaches the component as appears above (see the rejection of claim 39), but does not teach wherein the negative gradient is established along less than 50% of the longitudinal axis of the aerosol generating component.
Nonetheless, Thorsen do(es), however, teach that controlling the temperature profile of the heating zones affects the temperature gradient (Page 11 para. 3-4; Fig. 13 is an example of one temperature profile having at least one negative temperature gradient.). Therefore, the temperature profile is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the temperature gradient can be adjusted. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the temperature gradient is affected by the temperature profile of the heater, were disclosed in the prior art by Thorsen, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the negative gradient being established along less than 50% of the longitudinal axis of the aerosol generating component.
Regarding claim 41, Thorsen in view of Buchberger teaches the component as appears above (see the rejection of claim 40), but does not teach wherein the negative gradient is established along less than 20% of the longitudinal axis of the aerosol generating component.
Nonetheless, Thorsen do(es), however, teach that controlling the temperature profile of the heating zones affects the temperature gradient (Page 11 para. 3-4; Fig. 13 is an example of one temperature profile having at least one negative temperature gradient.). Therefore, the temperature profile is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the temperature gradient can be adjusted. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the temperature gradient is affected by the temperature profile of the heater, were disclosed in the prior art by Thorsen, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the negative gradient being established along less than 20% of the longitudinal axis of the aerosol generating component.
Regarding claim 42, Thorsen in view of Buchberger teaches the component as appears above (see the rejection of claim 39), but does not teach wherein the negative gradient is established along a first 5% of the longitudinal axis of the aerosol generating component.
Nonetheless, Thorsen do(es), however, teach that controlling the temperature profile of the heating zones affects the temperature gradient (Page 11 para. 3-4; Fig. 13 is an example of one temperature profile having at least one negative temperature gradient.). Therefore, the temperature profile is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the temperature gradient can be adjusted. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the temperature gradient is affected by the temperature profile of the heater, were disclosed in the prior art by Thorsen, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the negative gradient being established along a first 5% of the longitudinal axis of the aerosol generating component.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed 04/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 9, 29, 35, 38-39, and 44-45 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claims 3-5, 8, 10, 30-34, 36-37, and40-43 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Buchberger et al (WO 2018211252 A1).
Applicant argues that Thorsen does not disclose a planar aerosol generating component. Examiner respectfully agrees.
However, Buchberger does teach a planar aerosol generating component. Furthermore, Thorsen discloses in the specification that other different heater arrangements are possible to use with the present disclosure. It would be obvious to incorporate a planar heating arrangement as taught by Buchberger in the article of Thorsen since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application.
Furthermore, Applicant argues that Thorsen teaches away from replacing the cylindrical heating element arrangement with a planar configuration. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
A plurality of planar heating elements could be combined to realize a “cylindrical” shaped heating element as taught by Hajaligol et al (US 5,530,225). The heating element would still maintain a cylindrical shape but would constructed from planar heating elements.
PNG
media_image1.png
286
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights