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 amendment filed on 05 November 2025:
Claims 16-35 are pending
Claims 29-35 are withdrawn
Claims 1-15 are cancelled
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pages 3-4 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that Reevell discloses an electrically resistive heating element made from graphite-based materials which is a resistive heating element and not an inductive one. Applicant states that there is no teaching or suggestion that that constructing the wick fibers out of these materials would make them inductively heatable.
Examiner notes that graphite is not the only material disclosed by Reevell and that metal is also disclosed as a material suitable for a heating element and also for the wick/capillary material [0059, 0072]. One ordinarily skilled in the art would be aware that metal can be considered to be an inductive material. Furthermore, Reevell notes that the heater does not have to be a resistive heater and can be other types of heaters such as an inductive heater.
Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art can reasonably conclude from Reevell’s disclosure and general knowledge within the art field that if the wick fibers are made of the same materials as the heater, wherein the materials can be inductive/construct an inductive heater, then said wick will also be inductively heatable.
On Pages 5-6 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that the mesh disclosed by Reevell is in regards to the heating filaments and not directed to the wicking fibers and heating fibers themselves forming a mesh with each other. In particular, Applicant points out that the heating mesh is in contact with the wick and is not an integrated wick/susceptor mesh; Cadieux has an integrated mesh and therefore, Reevell and Cadieux cannot be readily combined or modified.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that Reevell does not require the heating filaments to be in a mesh form (i.e., “may form a mesh”) and other configurations can be made for said heating filaments. For example, Reevell offers an alternative arrangement wherein the filaments are in an array parallel to each other and in contact with the wick filaments. This is illustrated in Figures 3 and 4 where it can be seen that the heating filaments (310/410) are in a parallel array which, when arranged in contact with the wick filaments (300/400), forms a mesh structure.
Regarding the lack of an integrated structure, it should be noted that the use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04.II.A). In this case, since Reevell discloses that the heating and wick filaments can be made of similar materials (i.e., metal) [0059, 0072], and have similar structure, one ordinarily skilled in the art would be capable of forming the heating and wick filaments into an integrated form to meet the requirement that the two components be in contact with each other as disclosed by Reevell.
Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art would not find it unreasonable to modify Reevell’s heating and wick elements to be integrated and apply additional modifications from Cadieux which also discloses a heating/wick mesh structure, to predictably yield a heating and wick filament mesh structure capable of drawing and vaporizing liquid.
On Pages 7-8 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant appears to be arguing that optimization for the non-grid portions would not be applicable due to the mesh structure being solely directed to the heating filaments and not the overall heating and wick filaments, and therefore would be based on hindsight reasoning.
As discussed above, Examiner notes that the heating mesh structure disclosed by Reevell is not a requirement and other structures such as an array of parallel filaments can be utilized which, when in contact with similar parallel wick filament array as shown in Figures 3 and 4, would in fact construct a mesh structure between said heating and wick filaments. Thus, the optimization for the non-grid portion discussed would be applicable.
On Page 7-8 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant reiterates arguments regarding the difference between Reevell’s heating/wick filament structure with Cadieux’s heating/wick filament mesh structure to conclude that modifying Reevell with Cadieux would be unreasonable and would be based on hindsight reasoning. As discussed above, Examiner notes that constructing Reevell’s heating and wick filaments into an integral form would be well within the ambit of one ordinarily skilled in the art and therefore, applying modifications from Cadieux which has a similar heating/wick filament structure would be a reasonable combination that would yield predictable results (i.e., a heating/wicking mesh structure that can guide and vaporize liquid).
It is noted that while Cadieux does not explicitly state purely heating/susceptor filaments running transverse to purely wicking filament elements, Cadieux’s figures illustrate filaments that are heating and/or wicking elements meshed together in a transverse manner. Reevell already discloses a heating filament array that runs across a purely wick filament element array which forms a mesh-like structure. Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art can take both heating/wicking mesh structures disclosed by Cadieux and Reevell to predictably result in a mesh structure with heating filaments transverse to wick filaments capable of guiding and vaporizing liquid.
The following rejections are maintained.
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 16-22 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (Publication No. US20170245551A1) in view of Cadieux et al (Publication No. US20150245669A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Reevell, directed to an aerosol-generating system, discloses a wick (300) for conveying liquid and a heating element (310) for inductively heating said liquid (Fig. 3; [0078, 0117]; disclosed that heating means can be inductive; the wick and heating element together are considered to be the liquid-conveying member).
The wick and heating element comprise a plurality of filaments/fibers that can be constructed from materials such as ceramic, graphite, and metal ([0059, 0072, 0078, 0117]; the wick is also considered to be inductive as they can be constructed from the same materials as the heating element).
The wick is shown to be a bundle (i.e., array) of longitudinal filaments with a first and second end (see annotated Fig. 3; the first and second ends are the ends of the filament wires);
PNG
media_image1.png
475
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the first end (non-grid portion) extends into a liquid storage portion to draw liquid the heating filaments are parallel filaments (i.e., array of filaments) constructed to support or encircle (i.e., cross) the second end of the wick to form a mesh (i.e., grid portion) that increases the contact area between the heater assembly and the liquid (see annotated Fig. 3 above; [0060, 0076]).
Reevell also discloses the heating filaments form a mesh with the wick fibers in either a woven or non-woven fashion wherein the heating filaments cross in a diagonal fashion (Fig. 3; [0076]). Reevell does not explicitly disclose the following details:
The heating element is a susceptor
The heating element filaments are transverse across the longitudinal filaments (i.e., wick fibers)
The non-grid portion length along the longitudinal direction are at least 20 percent of the length of the longitudinal filaments
Regarding (I), Cadieux, directed to an electronic vaping device, discloses a susceptor (14) (i.e., heating element) and wick component (28), wherein the susceptor and wick are inductively heatable filaments that can be coiled and intertwined (i.e., woven) together to form a mesh material (Fig. 8B; [0009-0010, 0150-0151, 0117]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the heating element disclosed by Reevell to be a susceptor as disclosed by Cadieux, as both are directed to a heating element/wick filament mesh material, where one ordinarily skilled in the art could apply Cadieux’s teaching of a susceptor/wick mesh material to a similar heating element/wick component disclosed by Reevell to predictably result in an aerosolizing/vaping device with a susceptor/wick mesh assembly (i.e., liquid-conveying susceptor assembly) that is capable of conveying liquid and inductively heating said liquid.
Regarding (II), Cadieux, directed to an electronic vaping device, illustrates the inductive susceptor filaments form a mesh with the wick filaments such that the interstices are square-shaped, indicating that the filaments are transverse to the wick filaments (see Fig. 8B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the heating element filaments disclosed by Reevell to cross the wick filaments in a transverse manner as disclosed by Cadieux, as both are directed to a heating element/wick filament mesh material, where one ordinarily skilled in the art could apply Cadieux’s teaching of a susceptor/wick mesh material with transverse-crossing filaments to a similar heating element/wick component disclosed by Reevell to predictably result in an aerosolizing/vaping device with an array of longitudinal and transverse filaments that are capable of conveying liquid and inductively heating said liquid.
Regarding (III), it should be noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP § 2144.05.II).
Reevell is shown to illustrate the heating element/wick mesh (i.e., grid portion) on the second end such that it appears the longitudinal length of the non-grid portion is more than 20% of the length of the longitudinal wick filaments are not crossed over by the heating element filaments (see Fig. 3).
Reevell further discloses that space between filaments of the mesh define interstices that also contribute to drawing liquid via capillary action and vaporizing said liquid by increasing the contact area between the heater assembly and liquid ([0076-0077, 0109]; discloses that interstices influence capillary action via increase in contact area; capillary action/wicking rate subsequently influences liquid quantity around heater, and heater temperature increase rate).
Since Reevell discloses that the mesh and its interstices can impact how much liquid is conveyed and vaporized, one ordinarily skilled in the art would be motivated to routinely optimize the length of the non-grid portion by increasing or decreasing the size of the mesh portion such that the length of the non-grid is more than 20% of the length of the longitudinal wick filaments to achieve a desired (i.e., optimal) capillary and/or vaporization rate such as how it is shown in Reevell’s Figure 3 embodiment.
Regarding Claim 17, Reevell further discloses the at least one grid portion is located at one of two longitudinal end portions of the array of inductively heatable longitudinal filaments (see annotated Fig. 3; [0117]; the grid portion is shown to be located on the longitudinal end opposite of the other end that is in contact with the liquid from the liquid storage 320).
PNG
media_image1.png
475
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, Reevell further discloses the at least one non-grid portion is located at a longitudinal end portion of the array of inductively heatable longitudinal filaments (see annotated Fig. 3; [0117]; the non-grid portion is shown to be located on the longitudinal end that is in contact with the liquid from the liquid storage 320).
PNG
media_image1.png
475
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, Reevell shows in Figure 3 that the non-grid portion along the length the length extension of the inductively heatable longitudinal filaments is clearly more than 50% of a length dimension of the inductively heatable longitudinal filaments, which meets the claim of at least 30 percent of a length dimension of the inductively heatable longitudinal filaments (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Regarding Claim 20, Reevell shows in Figure 3 that the non-grid portion along the length the length extension of the inductively heatable longitudinal filaments is clearly more than 50% of a length dimension of the inductively heatable longitudinal filaments, appearing to be 80 percent of a length dimension of the inductively heatable longitudinal filaments.
But Reevell does not distinctively show or state that a length dimension of the non-grid portion along the length extension of the inductively heatable longitudinal filaments is at least 80 percent of a length dimension of the inductively heatable longitudinal filaments.
However, it should be noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP § 2144.05.II).
Reevell is shown to illustrate the heating element/wick mesh (i.e., grid portion) on the second end such that it appears the longitudinal length of the non-grid portion is close to 80% of the length of the longitudinal wick filaments are not crossed over by the heating element filaments (see Fig. 3).
Reevell further discloses that space between filaments of the mesh define interstices that also contribute to drawing liquid via capillary action and vaporizing said liquid by increasing the contact area between the heater assembly and liquid ([0076-0077, 0109]; discloses that interstices influence capillary action via increase in contact area; capillary action/wicking rate subsequently influences liquid quantity around heater, and heater temperature increase rate).
Since Reevell discloses that the mesh and its interstices can impact how much liquid is conveyed and vaporized, one ordinarily skilled in the art would be motivated to routinely optimize the length of the non-grid portion by increasing or decreasing the size of the mesh portion such that the length of the non-grid is at least 80 percent of the length of the longitudinal wick filaments to achieve a desired (i.e., optimal) capillary and/or vaporization rate.
Regarding Claim 21, Reevell discloses in Figure 3 an embodiment of the filament array wherein the length dimension of the grid portion is distinctively less than 50 percent, which meets the claim of the grid portion along the length extension of the inductively heatable longitudinal filaments is at most 90 percent of a length dimension of the inductively heatable longitudinal filaments.
Regarding Claim 22, Reevell discloses in Figure 3 an embodiment of the filament array wherein the length dimension of the grid portion is distinctively less than 50 percent and appears to be around 20 percent of a length dimension of the inductively heatable longitudinal filaments. Reevell does not explicitly state that the length dimension of the grid portion along the length extension of the inductively heatable longitudinal filaments is at most 20 percent of a length dimension of the inductively heatable longitudinal filaments.
However, it should be noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP § 2144.05.II).
Reevell is shown to illustrate the heating element/wick mesh (i.e., grid portion) on the second end such that it appears the longitudinal length of the grid portion is approximately 20 percent of the length of the longitudinal wick filaments are not crossed over by the heating element filaments (see Fig. 3).
Reevell further discloses that space between filaments of the mesh define interstices that also contribute to drawing liquid via capillary action and vaporizing said liquid by increasing the contact area between the heater assembly and liquid ([0076-0077, 0109]; discloses that interstices influence capillary action via increase in contact area; capillary action/wicking rate subsequently influences liquid quantity around heater, and heater temperature increase rate).
Since Reevell discloses that the mesh and its interstices can impact how much liquid is conveyed and vaporized, one ordinarily skilled in the art would be motivated to routinely optimize the length of the grid portion by increasing or decreasing the size of the grid (i.e., mesh) portion such that the length of the grid is no more than 20 percent of the length of the longitudinal wick filaments to achieve a desired (i.e., optimal) capillary and/or vaporization rate.
Regarding Claim 24, Modified Reevell discloses that the coiled heating element 310 (i.e., transverse filaments) are wound around on end of the wick 300 (i.e., longitudinal filaments) (Reevell, Fig. 3; [0117]). Modified Reevell does not explicitly disclose that the array of transverse filaments has a substantially ring shape.
However, it should be noted the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design (see MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B). In this case, Reevell discloses that the capillary filaments of the wick (300) are tubular in shape [0117].
Since the capillary filament tubes are bundled together so the heating filament (i.e., transverse filaments) are wound around said bundle, one ordinarily skilled in the art would reasonably expect that that the wound filaments would have a substantially ring shape to match with the rounded curvature of the wick filament bundle. This is further supported by Reevell’s Figure 1 which shows another embodiment of the heating coil (119) and wick (117), wherein the heating coil/filament has a distinctively round and ring-like shape when wound around the wick.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to change the shape of the wound heating (i.e., transverse) filaments disclosed by modified Reevell, and reasonably expect that the resulting filament array that has a substantially ring shape while retaining its ability to inductively heat.
Regarding Claims 25-26, Reevell further discloses that the filaments define an interstice between said filaments, wherein the filaments have a diameter of around 16 um (i.e., 0.016 mm) and the interstices formed by the filaments have a width of between 10 um to 100 um (i.e., 0.01 mm to 0.1 mm) [0076-0077].
Therefore, since the claimed ranges (i.e., 0.1 mm to 2 mm and 0.025 mm to 0.5 mm) for center-to-center longitudinal filament distance overlap with the range disclosed by Reevell, they are considered prima facie obvious (see MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Claims 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (Publication No. US20170245551A1) in view of Cadieux et al (Publication No. US20150245669A1) as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Thorens (Publication No. US20170035112A1).
Regarding Claim 23, Reevell discloses that the longitudinal filaments (300) is a bundle of fibers (i.e., filaments) [0117]. Reevell does not explicitly disclose that the filaments have a substantially cylindrical shape or a substantially hollow cylindrical shape or a substantially conical shape or a substantially frusto-conical shape or a substantially hollow conical shape or a substantially hollow frusto-conical shape.
However, Thorens, directed to an aerosol-generating system, discloses a heater assembly comprising a capillary filament arrangement 30 (i.e., longitudinal filaments) which can be formed into a funnel (i.e., conical) shape which creates turbulences and vortexes that encourage mixing of volatized vapors with ambient air (Fig. 4B, [0092-0094, 0097]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shape of the longitudinal filaments disclosed by Reevell, to be a funnel (i.e., conical) shape as disclosed by Thorens, as both are directed to a liquid-conveying (i.e., capillary) assembly, where Thorens teaches the advantage of having a funnel/conical shape for encouraging mixing of vaporized aerosol with ambient air [0094]; this also applies a known teaching of a known capillary filament arrangement shape as disclosed by Thorens, to a similar liquid-conveying assembly, to predictably yield a conical filament arrangement capable of conducting and vaporizing liquid.
Regarding Claim 27, Modified Reevell discloses that the longitudinal filaments (300) and transverse filaments (310) can be constructed from materials such as ceramic and metal and are implied to be a susceptor material as they can be inductively heated (Fig. 3; [0059, 0072, 0078, 0117]; the longitudinal filaments are also considered to be inductive as they can be constructed from the same materials as the heating element).
Reevell does not disclose the longitudinal and transverse filaments further comprising one or more filaments of a second susceptor material that is a ferrimagnetic material or a ferromagnetic material.
However, it should be noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness (see MPEP § 2144.07). For example, Mironov, directed to an aerosol-generating system, discloses a susceptor that can be in the form of a filament and further comprise of inductive metal materials such as iron, stainless steel, or aluminum [0014, 0017].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the longitudinal and transverse filaments disclosed Reevell, to have some filaments be constructed from a ferromagnetic metal material such as iron as disclosed by Mironov, as both are directed to an inductive susceptor element, where one ordinarily skilled in the art would be capable of selecting a ferromagnetic material for a portion of the filaments with a reasonable expectation that the filaments will still be capable of being inductively heated.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (Publication No. US20170245551A1) in view of Cadieux et al (Publication No. US20150245669A1) as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Mironov et al (Publication No. US20180228217A1).
Regarding Claim 28, Reevell discloses that the longitudinal filaments (300) is a bundle of fibers (i.e., filaments) [0117]. Reevell does not explicitly disclose a fan-out portion at least one longitudinal end portion of the array of the inductively heatable longitudinal filaments, wherein the inductively heatable longitudinal filaments diverge from each other.
However, Thorens, directed to an aerosol-generating system, discloses a heater assembly comprising a capillary filament arrangement 30 (i.e., longitudinal filaments) which can be formed into a funnel (i.e., conical) shape which creates turbulences and vortexes that encourage mixing of volatized vapors with ambient air (Fig. 4B, [0092-0094, 0097]). As shown in Figure 4B, Thoren’s funnel-shaped (i.e., conical) filament arrangement has a portion where the filaments diverge and fan out to form the funnel opening (see Fig. 4B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the shape of the longitudinal filaments disclosed by Reevell, to fan out and form a funnel (i.e., conical) shape as disclosed by Thorens, as both are directed to a liquid-conveying (i.e., capillary) assembly, where Thorens teaches the advantage of having a funnel/conical shape for encouraging mixing of vaporized aerosol with ambient air [0094]; this also applies a known teaching of a known capillary filament arrangement shape as disclosed by Thorens, to a similar liquid-conveying assembly, to predictably yield a conical filament arrangement capable of conducting and vaporizing liquid.
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 Vu P Pham whose telephone number is (703)756-4515. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (7:30AM-4:00PM EST).
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.
/V.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755