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
Claims 16-33 are pending and are subject to this office action. This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 10/27/25.
No claims are amended.
Claims 27-29 remain withdrawn
Claims 30-33 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 10/27/25, pages 6-16) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues: (1) the indent of Zuber is not formed by an end portion and the lip 212 can neither be considered a positive locking means nor as an inwardly bent portion, (2) Batista does not teach or suggest a positive locking means, (3) the Examiner employs hindsight reasoning. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
(1) The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, “positive locking means” is interpreted to refer to any structural component which prevents movement of another component through friction or direct force. As stated in the prior office action, Zuber teaches an indent formed below lip 212 of the cartridge, wherein the indent extends radially inward longitudinally downstream of the gel substrate and cartridge base. ([0010], Fig 2). While this indent is not formed at the extreme end of the cartridge, it is generally located “arranged adjacent to an end section of the rod-shaped susceptor casing,” similarly as claimed. Moreover, the indent is shaped such that the inwardly bent portion narrows the opening of the cartridge and such a narrowing would act to frictionally resist or directly block gel 10 ([0110], Fig 2). Thus, the indent of Zuber is formed adjacent to an end section and is an inwardly bent portion which provides a positive locking means, similarly as claimed.
(2) As discussed above, the claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and “positive locking means” is interpreted to refer to any structural component which prevents movement of another component through friction or direct force. Batista teaches a structure surface which comprises a corrugated texture, where each corrugation comprises a longitudinal indent extending radially inward toward the center of the article. ([0025]-[0029], [0110]-[0111], Fig 6). While the waves/corrugated texture increase the heatable surface area of the article, the increased surface area of the article sidewalls further increases the friction between the sidewalls and substrate and thereby resists movement of the substrate. Thus, where Batista teaches and/or suggests corrugated structural components, Batista explicitly teaches a component which comprises positive locking means.
(3) In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). However, the Applicant states that the Examiner utilizes hindsight reasoning but does not provide any argument with details or examples of the Examiner’s argued improper hindsight which pertain to the present application. Without providing examples or references to the Examiner’s previous obviousness rejections, the Examiner is unable to evaluate the Applicant’s hindsight argument. As such, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with: 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references; and/or 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made.
The following rejections are maintained and modified where necessary based on Applicant’s amendments.
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 (or as subject to pre-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.
Claims 16-26 and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zuber (US 20180027884 A1) in view of Batista (US 20180310623 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Zuber discloses an aerosol-generating rod segment (Cartridge 200, [0110], Fig 1b & 2), comprising:
a rod-shaped susceptor casing (Cartridge 200 and housing 210, [0069], [0109]- [0110], Fig 2. "The susceptor layer may for example form a wall of the housing or may be a coating applied to the interior or exterior of the housing." [0069]); and
an aerosol-forming gel contained in the rod-shaped susceptor casing ("The provision of the aerosol-forming substrate in the form of a gel may be beneficial for storage and transport. By providing the aerosol-forming substrate in a gel, the risk of leakage from the device may be reduced. " [0043]. Gel 10, [0110], Fig 2),
wherein the rod-shaped susceptor casing comprises a bottom, a side wall, and an opening arranged opposite the bottom (The aluminum housing 210 forms a base and walls, leaving one side/top open which is further sealed by frangible sealing foil 214. [0110]-[0111], Fig 2),
wherein the aerosol-forming gel is retained inside the rod-shaped susceptor casing in axial direction of the aerosol-generating rod segment by at least one positive locking means (Lip 212 is formed by an indent in the housing 210 which thus forms at least one positive means of locking. [0110], Fig 2. The lip 212 indent creates a bottle-neck shape at the open end of the casing, providing a further structural, gel retaining means, extending radially inward, and creating an axial locking means similarly as claimed. Fig 2),
wherein at least one of the at least one positive locking means is an inwardly directed seam of the rod-shaped susceptor casing arranged adjacent to an end section of the rod-shaped susceptor casing, the end section being arranged opposite the bottom of the rod- shaped susceptor casing (The indent formed below lip 212 extends radially inward in a position longitudinally downstream of the gel substrate and cartridge base. [0010], Fig 2), and
wherein the inwardly directed seam is formed by an inwardly bent end portion of the side wall of the rod-shaped susceptor casing (The lip 212 is formed via a lower indent which is formed as a dent in the side wall of the housing casing. [0110], Fig 2).
Zuber does not explicitly disclose wherein the side wall of the rod-shaped susceptor casing is corrugated. However, Batista teaches an aerosol-generating rod segment ([0078], [0105]-[0111], Fig 6), comprising:
a generally rod-shaped casing which may be covered by a susceptor material ("In case of inductive heating, the truncated cone 20 may be made or covered by susceptor material" [0107], Figs 3-4); and
an aerosol-forming substrate contained in the rod-shaped casing ("The aerosol-forming substrate comprised in the aerosol-generating article is a substrate capable of releasing volatile compounds that can form an aerosol" [0030]),
wherein the rod-shaped casing comprises a bottom, a side wall, and an opening arranged opposite the bottom ("The shape of the aerosol-generating article may very generally be described as comprising or being a tubular body having conical side walls" [0009]),
wherein the aerosol-forming substrate is retained inside the rod-shaped casing in axial direction of the aerosol-generating rod segment by at least one positive locking means ("A flat lateral surface area represents the minimal lateral surface area of a respective frustum. With a structured lateral surface area the total lateral surface area may be increased." [0025]. Wherein the structure surface comprises a corrugated texture, each corrugation comprises a longitudinal indent extending radially inward toward the center of the article. [0025]-[0029], [0110]-[0111], Fig 6),
wherein the side wall of the rod-shaped casing is corrugated (The surface of the heating element wrapping the article comprises a wavy/corrugated structured surface. [0025]-[0029], [0105]-[0111], Fig 6),
wherein at least one of the at least one positive locking means is an inwardly directed seam of the rod-shaped casing arranged adjacent to an end section of the rod-shaped casing, the end section being arranged opposite the bottom of the rod-shaped casing (The structured surface of the article comprising a wavy surface area runs from the base of the article to the top, open end. [0025]-[0029], [0110]-[0111], Fig 6), and
wherein the inwardly directed seam is formed by an inwardly bent end portion of the side wall of the rod-shaped casing (Wherein the structure surface comprises a corrugated texture, each corrugation is formed from an inwardly bent portion of the side wall. [0025]-[0029], [0110]-[0111], Fig 6).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the article of Zuber with corrugated sidewalls as taught by Batista because Zuber and Batista are both directed to inductively heated cartridges comprising inwardly bent portions of the cartridge which provide means of positively locking the cartridge with the substrate, Batista teaches the use of corrugations to beneficially increase the lateral surface of the cartridge and aid in the heating of the substrate (“With a structured lateral surface area the total lateral surface area may be increased. By this, a surface area for aerosol formation and evaporation may be increased." [0025]), and this merely involves applying a known inductively heated cartridge structure to a similar inductively heated cartridge to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, Zuber further teaches an aerosol-generating rod segment wherein the inwardly directed seam of the rod-shaped susceptor casing is an inwardly arranged flange and/or wherein at least one of the at least one positive locking means is a radially inwardly directing protrusion (The indent formed below lip 212 circumscribes the interior of the article, extending radially inward, forming a collar/rib which reduces the inner radius of the casing. [0010], Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Zuber further teaches an aerosol-generating rod segment wherein the radially inwardly directing protrusion is a radially inwardly directing deformation of the side wall of the rod-shaped susceptor casing (The indent formed below lip 212 is formed from a protrusion in the sidewall of the casing. [0010], Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 20, Zuber further teaches an aerosol-generating rod segment wherein the aerosol-forming gel is retained in the rod-shaped susceptor casing by the at least one positive locking means with clearance in a longitudinal direction of the rod-shaped susceptor casing (The indent formed below lip 212 extends radially inward in a position longitudinally downstream of the gel substrate. [0010], Fig 2).
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, Zuber further teaches an aerosol-generating rod segment wherein at least one of the at least one positive locking means is arranged along an entire circumference of the rod-shaped susceptor casing and/or along an entire circumference of the side wall of the rod-shaped susceptor casing (The indent formed below lip 212 circumscribes the interior of the article, extending radially inward, forming a collar/rib which reduces the inner radius of the casing around the entire circumference of the article. [0010], Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 23, Zuber further teaches an aerosol-generating rod segment wherein at least part of the side wall of the rod-shaped susceptor casing is made of a susceptor material (Cartridge 200 and housing 210, [0069], [0109]- [0110], Fig 2. "The susceptor layer may for example form a wall of the housing or may be a coating applied to the interior or exterior of the housing." [0069]).
Regarding Claim 24, Batista further teaches an aerosol-generating rod segment wherein corrugations of the corrugated side wall of the rod-shaped susceptor casing converge radially inwardly forming the at least one positive locking means (Wherein the structure surface comprises a corrugated texture, each corrugation comprises a longitudinal indent extending radially inward toward the center of the article such that each interior longitudinal corrugation converges radially inwardly, engaging with the substrate and thus providing a locking means. [0025]-[0029], [0110]-[0111], Fig 6).
Regarding Claim 25, Batista further teaches an aerosol-generating rod segment wherein corrugations of the corrugated side wall of the rod-shaped susceptor casing are aligned in a longitudinal direction of the rod-shaped susceptor casing (Wherein the structure surface comprises a corrugated texture, the structure comprises multiple longitudinal indents extending radially inward and aligned in a longitudinal direction of the casing. [0025]-[0029], [0110]-[0111], Fig 6).
Regarding Claim 26, Zuber further teaches an aerosol-generating rod segment wherein the bottom of the rod-shaped susceptor casing and the side wall of the rod-shaped susceptor casing are made as a single piece (The cartridge may be formed by several different methods including deep drawing, such that the cartridge may be formed from a single piece as depicted. [0070], Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 30, Zuber further teaches an aerosol-generating rod segment:
wherein the side wall of the rod-shaped susceptor casing has an outer surface (The aluminum housing 210 forms a casing which has an outer surface. [0110], Fig 2) and
a normal direction of the outer surface at the bent end portion of the side wall of the rod-shaped susceptor casing points away from a normal direction of the outer surface of the bottom of the rod-shaped susceptor casing (A normal direction of gel 10 (arrow A) points away from a normal direction of the outer surface at the bent end (arrow B). See first annotated Zuber Fig 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
312
303
media_image1.png
Greyscale
First annotated Zuber Fig 2
Regarding Claim 31, Zuber further teaches an aerosol-generating rod segment wherein a section of a rim of the bent end portion of the side wall of the rod-shaped susceptor casing faces another section the rim of the bent end portion of the side wall of the rod-shaped susceptor casing (a section of a rim of the bent end portion faces (arrow C) another section the rim of the bent end portion of the side wall. See second annotated Zuber Fig 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
312
303
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Second annotated Zuber Fig 2
Regarding Claim 32, Zuber further teaches an aerosol-generating rod segment wherein a normal direction of a section of a rim of the bent end portion of the side wall of the rod-shaped susceptor casing points towards the normal direction of another section of the rim of the bent end portion of the side wall of the rod-shaped susceptor casing.
PNG
media_image3.png
184
177
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Third annotated Zuber Fig 2
Regarding Claim 33, Batista further teaches an aerosol-generating rod segment wherein ends of the side wall of the rod-shaped susceptor casing opposite the bottom of the rod-shaped casing direct inwardly (The aerosol-generating article 1 forms a truncated cone having an open top 11 and an open base 10; the base 10 of the cone has an outer diameter 100 larger than the outer diameter 101 of the top 11 of the cone such that the ends of the side wall are directed inwardly. [0104], Figs 1-5)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Jeffrey Buckman whose telephone number is (571)270-0888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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.
/JEFFREY A. BUCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755