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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 11/21/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claim 11 is previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 11/21/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-8 the Applicant argues that prior art Reevell does not appropriately teach that "the susceptor is uniformly made from a preset material” or “the avoidance portion and the heating portion are made from the same preset material, an extension length of the avoidance portion along the axial direction is fixed" as required by claim 1.
Firstly, regarding the argument that Reevell does not disclose the material of the avoidance portion, and therefore does not disclose if the avoidance portion and the heating element are of the same material, the Examiner disagrees.
Reevell teaches that the susceptor is made of a conductive material (page 1, lines 15-16; page 3, lines 25-26).
The Examiner agrees that Reevell does not explicitly disclose a material of the support member.
However, as stated in the rejection of claim 1, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Reevell by making the entire susceptor, including the avoidance portion and the heating portion, from a uniform preset conductive material because Reevell is silent to the material of the avoidance portion and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look for a known and suitable susceptor material, and this involves applying a known teaching to another component of the same susceptor structure to yield predictable results.
Thus, by modification, the avoidance portion and the heating portion are made from the same preset material
Secondly, regarding the argument that the referenced avoidance portion of Reevell (specifically Fig. 8) does not teach a diameter less that the heating portion and that making Reevell fixed would cause malfunctions, the Examiner disagrees.
The Examiner agrees that the particular embodiment referenced in the rejection (specifically Fig. 5) does not explicitly disclose that the avoidance portion has a fixed extension length in the axial direction.
However, other embodiments of Reevell do teach that the extension length of the susceptor may be fixed (Fig. 8; page 12, lines 3-4).
Thus, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the avoidance portion by making it have a fixed length as taught in the other embodiment, because this involves combining prior art embodiments according to known methods to yield predictable results.
The fact that the embodiment of Fig. 8 does not have an avoidance portion with diameter less that the heating element would not preclude this modification.
With regards to the statement that any position may be considered "fixed", the Examiner maintains that this is true. Reevell does not explicitly teach or suggest that fixing these components would render the device unusable. It would be expected that, even by fixing the extension length of the avoidance portion, the device would be expected to function in such a position.
Lastly, the Applicant notes that the other prior art of record does not teach the deficiencies of Reevell. The Examiner notes that, as the rejection over Reevell is maintained, no other prior art of record is relied upon for the rejection of claim 1.
Thus, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
The following is the maintained rejection of the claims.
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 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 1-6, 8, 10, 12-14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (WO 2019030172 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Reevell teaches an aerosol generation apparatus (aerosol-generating device 10; Fig. 1; page 9, line 19), for heating a smokable material (consumable 34; page 10, lines 22-23) to generate an aerosol, comprising:
a cavity (chamber 16; page 9, lines 21-22), configured to receive the smokable material, and having a proximal end (proximal end 24; page 9, lines 38-39) and a distal end (end opposite to the proximal end 24) opposite to each other along an axial direction of the cavity (Fig. 1);
a magnetic field generator (induction coil 20; page 9, lines 23-24), configured to generate a varying magnetic field (page 1, lines 15-21);
and a susceptor (heating element 18; page 1, lines 15-16; page 9, lines 23-24) configured to be penetrated by the varying magnetic field to generate heat (page 1, lines 19-20), and configured to at least partially extend from the distal end to the proximal end along the axial direction of the cavity (Fig. 1), and then inserted into the smokable material 34 for heating when the smokable material is received within the cavity from the proximal end in use (Fig. 3),
wherein the susceptor comprises an avoidance portion (support member 40) and a heating portion (heating element 18) sequentially provided along the axial direction toward the proximal end (Fig. 5; page 11, lines 3-8),
and a size of at least a part of the avoidance portion 40 along a cross-sectional direction of the cavity is less than a size of the heating portion 18 along the cross-sectional direction of the cavity (Fig. 5), such that a gap is kept between the avoidance portion and the smokable material when the susceptor is inserted into the smokable material.
Reevell does not explicitly teach (I) that the susceptor is uniformly made from a preset material where the avoidance portion and the heating portion are made from the same preset material or (II) that an extension length of the avoidance portion along the axial direction is fixed.
Regarding (I), Reevell does teach that the susceptor is made of a conductive material (page 1, lines 15-16) and that the heating element portion of the susceptor is a conductive material (page 1, lines 25-26). Reevell does not explicitly teach that the avoidance portion is made of the same preset conductive material.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Reevell by making the entire susceptor from a uniform preset conductive material because Reevell is silent to the material of the avoidance portion and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look for a known and suitable susceptor material, and this involves applying a known teaching to another component of the same structure to yield predictable results.
Regarding (II), in another embodiment, Reevell teaches that the susceptor may be fixed (Fig. 8; page 12, lines 3-4).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the avoidance portion by making it have a fixed length as taught in the other embodiment because this involves combining prior art embodiments according to known methods to yield predictable results.
The Examiner further notes that, in embodiments in which the extension length of the avoidance portion may be adjusted during use, any of the adjusted positions may be considered “fixed”.
Regarding claim 2, Reevell teaches that the extension length of the avoidance portion 40 along the axial direction is adjustable to move the smokable material relative to the magnetic field generator (page 4, lines 9-15; page 11, lines 3-8; Fig. 5).
Reevell does not explicitly teach that the extension length of the avoidance portion along the axial direction is 1-5 mm.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the extension length of the avoidance portion depending on the size and relative location of the smoking material and the magnetic field generator to optimize heating. Furthermore, one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the device and its components may be resized or rescaled such that the device would not perform differently, and changes in size/proportion are prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV)(A).
Regarding claim 3, Reevell teaches that the size of at least a part of the avoidance portion along the cross-sectional direction of the cavity is less than the size of the heating portion along the cross-sectional direction of the cavity (Fig. 5).
Reevell does not explicitly teach that the size of at least a part of the avoidance portion along the cross-sectional direction of the cavity is 1-3 mm less than the size of the heating portion along the cross-sectional direction of the cavity.
However, any adjustment to the size of at least a part of the avoidance portion along the cross-sectional direction of the cavity would merely be a change in size/proportion which would not perform differently than the prior art device. Thus, the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from the prior art device taught by Reevell. See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV).
Regarding claim 4, Reevell depicts that the size of the heating portion 18 along the cross-sectional direction of the cavity is constant (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Reevell depicts that the size of the avoidance portion 40 along the cross-sectional direction of the cavity is constant (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Reevell does not explicitly teach that the size of the avoidance portion 40 along the cross-sectional direction of the cavity gradually increases along the axial direction toward the heating portion.
However, any adjustment to the size of the avoidance portion along the cross-sectional direction of the cavity (such as a gradual increase along the direction close to the heating portion) would merely be a change in size/proportion, shape, or design aesthetic which would not perform differently than the prior art device. Thus, the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from the prior art device taught by Reevell. See MPEP § 2144.04 (I) & (IV).
Regarding claim 8, Reevell teaches that the susceptor comprises a base portion (first housing portion 12; page 11, line 8), and the heating portion and the avoidance portion are retained within the cavity by means of the base portion (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Reevell teaches that the avoidance portion 40 at the distal end of the cavity is flush with a surface of the distal end of the cavity (see Fig. 6, Fig. 9, in which avoidance portion 40 is flush with the top surface of first housing portion 12).
Regarding claim 12, Reevell teaches that the size of the heating portion 18 along the cross-sectional direction of the cavity is constant (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Reevell teaches that the size of the avoidance portion 40 along the cross-sectional direction of the cavity is constant (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, Reevell does not explicitly teach that the size of the avoidance portion 40 along the cross-sectional direction of the cavity gradually increases along the axial direction toward the heating portion.
However, any adjustment to the size of the avoidance portion along the cross-sectional direction of the cavity (such as a gradual increase along the direction close to the heating portion) would merely be a change in size/proportion, shape, or design aesthetic which would not perform differently than the prior art device. Thus, the claimed invention is not patentably distinct from the prior art device taught by Reevell. See MPEP § 2144.04 (I) & (IV).
Regarding claim 16, Reevell teaches that the susceptor comprises a base portion (first housing portion 12; page 11, line 8), and the heating portion and the avoidance portion are retained within the cavity by means of the base portion (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 18, Reevell teaches that the avoidance portion 40 at the distal end of the cavity is flush with a surface of the distal end of the cavity (see Fig. 6, Fig. 9, in which avoidance portion 40 is flush with the top surface of first housing portion 12).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (WO 2019030172 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20210084980 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Reevell does not explicitly teach that an accommodating cavity extending along the axial direction is provided within the susceptor, and a temperature sensor for sensing a temperature of the susceptor is accommodated or packaged within the accommodating cavity.
Lee, directed to an aerosol generation apparatus (aerosol generating device 100; [0026]) comprising a cavity (accommodation space 120; [0026]), a magnetic field generator (coil 130; [0033]), and a susceptor (heater assembly 110; Fig. 4; [0029], [0037]), wherein the susceptor comprises a heating portion (middle portion 113; [0062]), teaches that the susceptor may have a temperature sensor (temperature sensor 115; [0066]) provided within an accommodating cavity extending along the axial direction within the susceptor to measure and control the heating temperature ([0067-0068]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Reevell by providing an accommodating cavity within the susceptor and providing a temperature sensor therein as taught by Lee because both Reevell and Lee are directed to aerosol generation apparatuses comprising susceptors, Lee teaches the addition of an internal temperature sensor for temperature monitoring and control, and this involves applying a known technique to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, Reevell does not explicitly teach that an accommodating cavity extending along the axial direction is provided within the susceptor, and a temperature sensor for sensing a temperature of the susceptor is accommodated or packaged within the accommodating cavity.
Lee, directed to an aerosol generation apparatus (aerosol generating device 100; [0026]) comprising a cavity (accommodation space 120; [0026]), a magnetic field generator (coil 130; [0033]), and a susceptor (heater assembly 110; Fig. 4; [0029], [0037]), wherein the susceptor comprises a heating portion (middle portion 113; [0062]), teaches that the susceptor may have a temperature sensor (temperature sensor 115; [0066]) provided within an accommodating cavity extending along the axial direction within the susceptor to measure and control the heating temperature ([0067-0068]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Reevell by providing an accommodating cavity within the susceptor and providing a temperature sensor therein as taught by Lee because both Reevell and Lee are directed to aerosol generation apparatuses comprising susceptors, Lee teaches the addition of an internal temperature sensor for temperature monitoring and control, and this involves applying a known technique to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (WO 2019030172 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Courbat et al. (WO 2019030360 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Reevell teaches that a size of the avoidance portion 40 along a width direction of the susceptor is less than a size of the heating portion 18 along a width direction (Fig. 5), such that the gap is formed between the avoidance portion and the smokable material along the width direction of the susceptor when at least a part of the susceptor is inserted into the smokable material.
Reevell does not explicitly teach that the avoidance portion and the heating portion are configured to be in a sheet shape extending along the axial direction of the cavity.
Courbat, directed to an aerosol generation apparatus (aerosol generating apparatus 10; page 13, line 26) comprising a cavity (chamber 14; page 13, line 27), a magnetic field generator (inductor coil 20; page 13, line 34-page 14, line 6), and a susceptor (elongate susceptor element 22, 122; page 14, line 1-6) comprising a heating portion (elongate heating portion 42, 142; page 14, lines 19-20), teaches that the susceptor may be configured to be in a sheet shape extending along the axial direction of the cavity (page 9, lines 5-7; Fig. 8, Fig. 18).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Reevell by shaping the susceptor in a sheet shape as taught by Courbat, while still maintaining the width proportions as taught by Reevell, because both Reevell and Courbat are directed to aerosol generation apparatuses comprising susceptors, Courbat teaches an alternative configuration for the susceptor shape, and this involves substituting one alternative configuration for a susceptor shape for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Reevell teaches that the size of the avoidance portion 40 along the width direction is less than the size of the heating portion 18 along the width direction (Fig. 5), such that the gap is formed between the avoidance portion and the smokable material along the width direction of the susceptor when at least a part of the susceptor is inserted into the smokable material.
Reevell does not explicitly teach that the avoidance portion and the heating portion are configured to be in a sheet shape extending along the axial direction of the cavity.
Courbat, directed to an aerosol generation apparatus (aerosol generating apparatus 10; page 13, line 26) comprising a cavity (chamber 14; page 13, line 27), a magnetic field generator (inductor coil 20; page 13, line 34-page 14, line 6), and a susceptor (elongate susceptor element 22, 122; page 14, line 1-6) comprising a heating portion (elongate heating portion 42, 142; page 14, lines 19-20), teaches that the susceptor may be configured to be in a sheet shape extending along the axial direction of the cavity (page 9, lines 5-7; Fig. 8, Fig. 18).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Reevell by shaping the susceptor in a sheet shape as taught by Courbat, while still maintaining the width proportions as taught by Reevell, because both Reevell and Courbat are directed to aerosol generation apparatuses comprising susceptors, Courbat teaches an alternative configuration for the susceptor shape, and this involves substituting one alternative configuration for a susceptor shape for another to yield predictable results.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (WO 2019030172 A1) as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Reevell '391 (US 20190380391 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Reevell teaches that the susceptor comprises a second base portion (first hosusing portion 12; page 11, line 8) having an outer diameter greater than an outer diameter of the heating portion (Fig. 9).
Reecell does not explicitly teach a first base portion having an outer diameter smaller than an outer diameter of the second base portion and configured to fix the susceptor within the cavity.
Reevell ‘391, directed to an aerosol generating apparatus (aerosol generating device 1; Figs. 12-15; [0065]) comprising a cavity (heating chamber 16) configured to receive a smokable material (aerosol generating article 30), a magnetic field generator (inductor coil 17; [0055]), and a susceptor (susceptor 20) with an avoidance portion (support section 22) and a heating portion (heating section 21), teaches a first base portion (Fig. 16; [0065]) to fix the susceptor within the cavity.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Reevell by adding the first base to the susceptor as taught by Reevell ‘391 such that the first base is secured within the second base because both Reevell and Reevell ‘391 are directed to aerosol generating apparatus comprising susceptors in cavities, Reevell ‘391 teaches that a first base portion is known to help fix a susceptor within the cavity, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the the first base portion would secure the susceptor within the second base and within the cavity, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results. As applied, the second base portion would be expected to have an outer diameter greater than an outer diameter of the first base portion.
Regarding claim 19, Reevell teaches that at least a part of the avoidance portion having a length less than a whole length of the avoidance portion is inserted within the first base portion so that the first and second base portions, the avoidance portion and the heating portion are assembled together as the susceptor (Fig. 9a-9c).
Reevell does not explicitly teach that the first and second base portions are integrally formed and configured to be an integrally separated part from the heating portion and the avoidance portion.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Reevell by the first and second base portions are integrally formed and configured to be an integrally separated part from the heating portion and the avoidance portion as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would make assembly and cleaning easier and this involves applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results. Furthermore, making integral or making separable parts is prima facie obvious where results are not contrary to understandings and expectations in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B-C).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Charlotte Davison whose telephone number is (703)756-5484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Philip 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.
/C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755