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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 12/22/2025.
Claims 18-29 and 32-38 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claims 18-23 and 29 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-17 and 30-31 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-4, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 3-4 the Applicant argues that the rejection requires improper hindsight reasoning, as the materials of Veitch are not combinable with Chen due to different operations.
The Examiner disagrees.
The Examiner notes that prior art reference Veitch is merely used to teach the idea of using different materials to change magnetic resonance. While the precise structural arrangement may be different to that of Chen, the underlying principle that different materials may be used to vary the magnetic resonance of an information marker, remains the same. Furthermore, Chen does not require that the two magnetic metal layers comprise the same material or same coercivity. Thus, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use materials of different magnetic coercivities in the layers of Chen.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 4 the Applicant argues that the materials of Chen are not applicable to the rejection, as they were modified with the materials of Veitch in the rejection of claim 24, upon which claim 26 depends.
The Examiner notes that in the rejection of claim 4, Veitch was used to teach that magnetic metal layers may comprise different materials with different magnetic coercivities. Thus, Chen was modified to merely apply this concept, not apply the precise materials of Veitch. The Examiner notes that Chen teaches magnetic metal layers comprised of various alloys, and that the coercivity of each alloy would thus be readily adjusted. Furthermore, Chen does not require that the two magnetic metal layers comprise the same material. Thu, Chen is appropriately cited to reject claim 26.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 28 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 4-5 the Applicant argues that the use of different materials for sub-markers would require impermissible hindsight reasoning, as using the same material would be easier to manufacture and allows for using identical sub-magnetic heads 260'.
The Examiner disagrees.
Chen teaches that the sub-markers may be made from a variety of materials (page 5, ¶ 7 describes different alloys). Chen is further considered to teach that more than one form of material and more than one type of magnetic material may be used can be used (page 5, ¶ 6).
As Chen indicates that different materials are suitable for use, it would be obvious to use different materials for different sub-markers at the same time because this merely involves applying known and disclosed materials. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the use of different materials with different magnetic resonance frequencies may produce a more complex, and thus more unique or secure identification tag.
The Examiner notes that while the Applicant notes that using the same material would be easier to manufacture, this does not preclude the modification to different materials, which may be beneficial in another scenario. Furthermore, Chen does not explicitly require that the markers comprise the same material.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 12/22/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 36 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 3-4 the Applicant argues that Chen does not appropriately teach that “the first structure is provided on the first sheet and the second structure is provided on the second sheet” as required by claim 36, but rather teaches that the "magnetic storage material layer 161 may be stacked on the surface of the base body 162" to form one combined sheet 160. The Applicant further argues that the layers of 160 are not provided on tube 114, and references discrepancies between cited Fig. 3 and its description in the specification.
The Examiner maintains that Chen teaches the claimed invention.
When read in combination with the rejection of claim 24, upon which claim 36 depends, it is emphasized that the electromagnetic information marker of Chen comprises a first structure (first layer of material layer 161) and a second layer (second layer of material layer 161). Chen teaches that these layers are separated by a non-magnetic metal layer (page 5, ¶ 7). Chen teaches that the bottom (second layer) of material layer 161 is disposed on a first sheet (which may comprise substrate 162 and carrying tube 114, as shown in Fig. 3). The top (first layer) of material 161 is considered to be disposed on top of the non-magnetic metal layer. This non-magnetic layer may be considered to be a duplication of base 162, as both are non-magnetic. Thus, base 162 and tube 114 may be considered to be the “first sheet” and the non-magnetic layer (unillustrated, equivalent to base 162) is considered to be the “second sheet”.
The following is the maintained rejection.
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 24-28 and 32-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (WO 2020001446 A1; hereinafter referring to the English translation provided) in view of Veitch et al. (US 20020012815 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Chen teaches a rod-shaped aerosol-generating article (aerosol generating article or product 100), comprising: an electromagnetic information marker (magnetic recording medium 160), wherein the electromagnetic information marker stores information having an information content exceeding one bit, and wherein the electromagnetic information marker comprises a first structure (first layer of material layer 161) and a second structure (second layer of material layer 161) at least partially overlapping the first structure (page 5, ¶ 7).
Chen does not explicitly teach that the first structure or the second structure comprises a first metallic material and the other one of the first structure and the second structure comprises a second metallic material, the first metallic material having a higher magnetic coercivity than the second metallic material.
Veitch, directed to an electromagnetic information marker (magnetic recording medium; [0003]) comprising a metallic first structure (upper layer; [0016]) and a metallic second structure (lower layer; [0016]), teaches that the first structure or the second structure comprises a first metallic material and the other one of the first structure and the second structure comprises a second metallic material, the first metallic material having a higher magnetic coercivity than the second metallic material ([0016]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen by making the first structure and the second structure of different materials such that they have different coercivities as taught by Veitch because Chen is directed to an aerosol-generating article comprising an electronic information marker and Veitch is directed to an electromagnetic information marker, Chen is silent as to the specific compositions of the two structures and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable electromagnetic information marker composition, Veitch teaches that it is known in the art to use two materials having different coercivities in an electromagnetic information marker, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 25, Chen teaches that the electromagnetic information marker stores information on one or more of a manufacturing location of the aerosol-generating article, a manufacturing date of the aerosol- generating article, a manufacturing time of the aerosol-generating article, a type of the aerosol-generating article, and verification information (page 4, ¶ 3).
Regarding claim 26, Chen teaches that the first structure or the second structure exhibits magnetostriction (page 5, ¶ 7 teaches that the first structure or the second structure may comprise Fe, Co or Ni. Each of these metals is inherently ferromagnetic and will exhibit magnetostriction when exposed to a magnetic field).
Regarding claim 27, Chen teaches that the first structure further comprises first sub-structures and the second structure further comprises second sub-structures (sub-recording media 160' which is expected to comprise first sub-structures and second sub-structures; page 11, ¶ 4), and wherein each first sub-structure forms together with a corresponding second sub-structure a sub-marker configured to be read out by magnetic interaction with the sub-marker (page 11, ¶ 4).
Regarding claim 28, Chen teaches that the sub-markers may be made from a variety of materials (page 5, ¶ 7).
Chen does not explicitly teach that each of the sub-markers has a magnetic resonance frequency different from magnetic resonance frequencies of the remaining sub-markers.
However, as Chen indicates that different materials are suitable for use, it would be obvious to use different materials for different sub-markers at the same time because this merely involves applying known and disclosed materials. Furthermore, Chen is considered to teach that more than one form of material and more than one type of magnetic material may be used can be used (page 5, ¶ 6). One having ordinary skill in the art would expect that different materials would have different magnetic resonance frequencies, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 32, Chen does not teach that a magnetic coercivity of the second metallic material lies in a range from 10 Oersted to 90 Oersted.
Veitch, directed to an electromagnetic information marker (magnetic recording medium; [0003]) comprising a metallic first structure (upper layer; [0016]) and a metallic second structure (lower layer; [0016]) wherein the first metallic material having a higher magnetic coercivity than the second metallic material ([0016]), teaches that the coercivity of the second metallic material lies in a range from 10 Oersted to 90 Oersted ([0016] teaches a coercivity of less than 4 kA/m. The claimed range overlaps the range taught by the prior art and is therefore prima facie obvious).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen by making the magnetic coercivity of the second metallic material lie in a range from 10 to 90 Oersted as taught by Veitch because Chen is directed to an aerosol-generating article comprising an electronic information marker and Veitch is directed to an electromagnetic information marker, Chen is silent as to the specific coercivities and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable electromagnetic information marker composition coercivity, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 33, Chen teaches that the electromagnetic information marker is configured to be read out by exposing the electromagnetic information marker to an alternating magnetic field (see page 7, ¶ 3).
The Examiner notes that the claim is directed to a functional limitation. Thus, the prior art must only be capable of use in this manner. The electromagnetic information marker of Chen is structurally and compositionally equivalent to the claimed electromagnetic information marker and would therefore be capable of use in the same way, such that it would produce a signal to be read out when exposed to an alternating magnetic field.
Regarding claim 34, Chen teaches that information stored on the electromagnetic information marker is writable (page 6, ¶ 1).
The Examiner notes that while Chen does not explicitly teach that the information stored on the electromagnetic information marker is rewritable, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art that if information stored on the electromagnetic information marker is writable, it would inherently also be rewritable. Furthermore, the information marker taught by Chen is structurally equivalent to the claimed structure and must inherently exhibit the same properties such that it is rewritable.
Regarding claim 35, Chen teaches that the first structure and the second structure are spaced from each other (page 5, ¶ 7).
Regarding claim 36, Chen teaches segments arranged along a longitudinal direction of the rod-shaped aerosol generating article (Fig. 10; page 12); a first sheet wrapped around at least one of the segments (carrying pipe 114 and substrate 162; page 4, ¶ 7; page 6); and a second sheet wrapped around at least one of the segments and at least partially overlapping the first sheet (non-magnetic layer, equivalent to substrate 162; page 5, ¶ 5, 7), wherein the first structure is provided on the first sheet and the second structure is provided on the second sheet (see Fig. 3; Chen comprises a first structure (first layer of material layer 161) and a second layer (second layer of material layer 161). Chen teaches that these layers are separated by a non-magnetic metal layer (page 5, ¶ 7). Chen teaches that the bottom (second layer) of material layer 161 is disposed on a first sheet (which may comprise substrate 162 and carrying tube 114, as shown in Fig. 3). The top (first layer) of material 161 is considered to be disposed on top of the non-magnetic metal layer. This non-magnetic layer may be considered to be a duplication of base 162, as both are non-magnetic. Thus, base 162 and tube 114 may be considered to be the “first sheet” and the non-magnetic layer (unillustrated, equivalent to base 162) is considered to be the “second sheet”).
Regarding claim 37, Chen teaches that the one of the first structure and the second structure is a switched structure, and the switched structure exhibits magnetostriction (page 5, ¶ 7 teaches that the second structure may comprise Fe, Co or Ni. Each of these metals is inherently ferromagnetic and will exhibit magnetostriction. Furthermore, the information marker taught by Chen is structurally equivalent to the claimed structure and must inherently exhibit the same properties such that one of the first structure and the second structure is a switched structure).
Regarding claim 38, Chen teaches that the one of the first structure and the second structure is a switched structure, and each sub-structure of the switched structure is configured to be switched between an activated state and a deactivated state (page 5, ¶ 7 teaches that the second structure may comprise Fe, Co or Ni. Each of these metals is inherently ferromagnetic and will exhibit magnetostriction such that one of the first structure and the second structure is a switched structure. Thus, each sub-structure of the switched structure must also be a switched structure configured to be switched between an activated state and a deactivated state).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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