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 Amendment
The objection to the drawings has been vacated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 13-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0225667 to Blackmon, et al.
With respect to claim 1, Blackmon, et al. teach an aerosol generating device (1000) including a capsule (100) and a device body (1200). The capsule (100) an aerosol-forming substrate (160a, 160b) which can be a plant material, such as tobacco [0048], and a conductive component (140) having a first end section (142) an intermediate section (144) and a second end section (146). The first and second sections (142, 146) include at least one surface discontinuity (Fig. 8). The device body (1200) includes connector pins (1236a, 1236b) configured to engage with the surface discontinuities of the conductive component (Fig 12) and establish an electrical connection with the capsule [0060].
With respect to claim 2, these surface discontinuities include structurally vulnerable portions which serve as focused points of contact with the connector pins (Fig. 8, Fig. 12)
With respect to claim 3, these discontinuities appear to be structurally-vulnerable portions to yield from engagement with the connect pins.
With respect to claim 4, each of the surface discontinuities has an edge (Fig. 8).
With respect to claim 5, this edge can also be considered a rim. The discontinuity forms a semi-circular opening, defined by a rim (Fig. 8).
With respect to claim 6, [0055] indicates that the heater can be cut from a sheet to produce the heater, which indicates machining.
With respect to claim 7, the surface discontinuities are openings in the surfaces of the first end and second end (Fig. 8). The semi-circular discontinuities are considered openings.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, these surface discontinuities are also considered recesses in the first and second sections, which can also be called dimples, when you consider the heater (140) from the bottom.
With respect to claim 13, as the discontinuities are semi-circular with two extending ends, it would appear that those extending ends would be considered chamfers, when viewing the heater from below.
With respect to claims 14 and 15, as noted above, the aerosol-forming substrate (160a, 160b) can be tobacco.
With respect to claim 16, as shown in (Fig. 12) the connector pints are configured to be seated within the surface discontinuities.
With respect to claim 17, when seated, the connector pins appear to engage the discontinuity at several points along the arc of the discontinuity.
With respect to claim 19, The connector pins are power terminals (1236a, 1236b) to the power source (1234) of the device body [0060].
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackmon, et al.
Blackmon, et al. teach an aerosol generating device as discussed above, but do no teach that the connector pins have quadrilateral cross-section. However, a modification of Blackmon, et al. to change the shape of the connector pins to have a quadrilateral cross-section in order to better facilitate an electrical connection with the power source would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it has been held that changes in shape are not patentably distinct unless there are new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04 IV(B)).
Claims 10-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blackmon, et al. in view of Hazani, et al. (US 2022/017036).
Blackmon, et al. an aerosol generating device (1000) including a capsule (100) and a device body (1200). The capsule (100) an aerosol-forming substrate (160a, 160b) which can be a plant material, such as tobacco [0048], and a conductive component (140) having a first end section (142) an intermediate section (144) and a second end section (146). The first and second sections (142, 146) include at least one surface discontinuity (Fig. 8). The device body (1200) includes connector pins (1236a, 1236b) configured to engage with the surface discontinuities of the conductive component (Fig 12) and establish an electrical connection with the capsule [0060].
With respect to claims 10-12, Blackmon, et al. do not teach that the surface discontinuities are through holes or openings in a circular shape having a diameter between 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm. Blackmon, et al. do teach a semi-circular discontinuity which engages with connector pins attached to the power source. However, it is known to use contact points having a circular shape for engaging with the power source. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ such a circular contact point as the surface discontinuity as a closed discontinuity would more securely engage the contact pins. While it may seem that the modification would not properly engage the pins because the lower portion of the discontinuities would merely rest on top of the pins, it is noted that it is also within the skill of the artisan to modify the contact pins to provide movement, such as a retraction and snap fit connection, to provide for the necessary engagement between pin and connector.
With respect to the diameter of the surface discontinuity, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum diameter of the surface discontinuity to engage the contact pin and still provide a size of aerosol generating device which is of a desirable small size for the consumer.
With respect to claim 20, both Blackmon, et al. and Hazani, at al. teach using a metal for the heater. Gold is a well known conductor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the aerosol generating device of Blackmon, et al. to use gold-plating on the surface discontinuities to provide an excellent connection to the power source.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07 August 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims under 103 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 Blackmon, et al.
Applicants’ arguments are persuasive. The combination of Atkins and Hazani has been vacated. A new rejection over applicants’ own work has been made. MPEP 2155.01 states, in part:
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) provides that a grace period disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) if the disclosure was made by the inventor or a joint inventor. An applicant may show that a disclosure was made by the inventor or a joint inventor by way of an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) (an affidavit or declaration of attribution). See In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 455, 215 USPQ 14, 18 (CCPA 1982) and MPEP § 717.01(a)(1) . Where the authorship of the prior art disclosure includes the inventor or a joint inventor named in the application, an unequivocal statement from the inventor or a joint inventor that the inventor or joint inventor (or some combination of named inventors) invented the subject matter of the disclosure, accompanied by a reasonable explanation of the presence of additional authors, may be acceptable in the absence of evidence to the contrary. See In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982). When any claim of an application or a patent under reexamination is rejected, the applicant or patent owner may submit an appropriate affidavit or declaration to except a disclosure as prior art by establishing that the disclosure was made by the inventor or a joint inventor, or the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor. However, an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that is only a naked assertion of inventorship and that fails to provide any context, explanation or evidence to support that assertion is insufficient. See EmeraChem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 859 F.3d 1341, 123 USPQ2d 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2017). See also Ex parte Kroger, 219 USPQ 370 (Bd. App. 1982) (affirming rejection notwithstanding declarations by the alleged actual inventors as to their inventorship in view of a nonapplicant author submitting a letter declaring the nonapplicant author's inventorship).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JILL WARDEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm, Friday, 7:30 am-11:30 am.
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.
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.
/JILL A WARDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights