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
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17, and 20-26 are currently pending and are subject to this office action. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 9-11, 13, 15-17, and 20-26 are withdrawn. Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 18, 19, and 27-31 are canceled. This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 06/29/2026.
Response to Amendments
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 06/29/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 7-10, filed 06/29/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 1 to include a limitation that was not previously presented, specifically, “wherein the conductive wire is arranged to generate heat in response to an applied electric current by resistive heating to heat aerosolizable material to volatize at least one component of the aerosolizable material”. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mironov (US 20170095003 A1).
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 7-10, filed 06/29/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that there is no motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to deviate from the arrangement of Fursa to combine with Naito.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Naito is relied upon for the known dimensions of a conductive wire, not to alter Fursa’s heating principle. Naito teaches a conductive lead wire having a circular cross-section with a diameter of 0.1-0.5 mm [0080], substantially overlapping with the claimed range of 0.2-0.65 mm. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a diameter within the overlapping known range for Fursa’s conductive wires as a routine choice yielding predictable results. Both references concern electrically conductive wires incorporated into electrical assemblies and Naito provides a known teaching concerning suitable dimensions for such a conductive wire. The modification merely changes the size of Fursa’s conductive wire and does not require deviation from Fursa’s heating arrangement or reliance on hindsight.
The following are modified rejections based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fursa (WO 2019030361 A1, hereinafter citations referring to English language equivalent US 20210145061 A1), and further in view of Mironov (US 20170095003 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
249
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
285
451
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 1, Fursa, directed to an aerosol-generation device teaches (i) a device (Fig. 4: #12) used for heating an aerosol forming substrate (Fig. 4: #34) of an aerosol generating article (Fig. 2: #14) to generate aerosol [0097]. (ii) The device comprises an inductor coil (Fig. 4: #26) formed from a wire comprising an electrically conductive core [0031] and is configured to receive at least a portion of an aerosol-generating article (Fig. 4: #14) within the inductor coil (Fig. 4: #26, [0018]).
(iii) An outer surface of the inductor coil (Fig. 6: #26) may be overmoulded with a portion of the housing [0027]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that overmoulding would involve forming a material around the inductor coil such that it surrounds the exterior surface of the coil. Figure 6 illustrates where an inner portion of the housing (Fig. 6: #217) is overmoulded with respect to an outer surface of the inductor coil (Fig. 6: #26, [0101]). Thus, the overmoulded configuration encapsulates at least an outer edge of the inductive coil. (iv) An inner surface of the inductor coil (Fig. 4: #26) may contact the aerosol-generating article (Fig. 4: #14) received within the inductor coil [0034].
(v) A controller is configured to provide an alternating electric current to the inductor coil such that the inductor coil generates an alternating magnetic field to heat a susceptor element and thereby heat the aerosol-generating article [0004]. Further, an inductor coil may exhibit small amounts of resistive heating, increasing heating of the aerosol generating article [0019]. Fursa teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however Fursa is silent to:
Wherein the conductive wire is arranged to generate heat by resistive heating to volatize at least one component of the aerosolizable material
Mironov, directed to an aerosol-forming article, teaches a conductive coil that functions both as a resistive heating element and an inductor [0036], to heat an aerosol forming substrate [0051]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the inductive coil of Fursa with the resistive properties of the coil of Mironov to improve controlled and direct heating of the aerosol forming articles [0037, 0042-0043]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the conductive wire of Fursa to wherein the conductive wire is arranged to generate heat by resistive heating to volatize at least one component of the aerosolizable material because both Fursa and Mironov are directed to improved heating in aerosol generating devices. Mironov teaches a conductive coil that functions as a resistive heating element and inductor to improve controlled and direct heating of the aerosol forming articles [0037, 0042-0043] and this merely involves combining prior art elements according to known heating techniques to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 7, Fursa teaches wherein the housing may comprise materials made from plastics or polyether ether ketone (PEEK) [0048].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fursa (WO 2019030361 A1, hereinafter citations referring to English language equivalent US 20210145061 A1) and Mironov (US 20170095003 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Naito (US 20130305504 A1).
With regard to Claim 5, Fursa teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however Fursa is silent to:
Wherein the conductive wire has a substantially rectangular cross-section having a width in a range of 2.75 mm +- 30% to 5.95 mm +- 30% and a thickness in the range 0.05 mm +- 30% to 0.1 mm +- 30%; or the conductive wire has a substantially circular cross-section having a diameter of 0.2 to 0.65 mm
Naito, directed to a gang socket and jig for manufacturing a capacitor element, teaches wherein a conductive lead wire has a transverse cross-sectional shape of a circle with an outer diameter of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm [0080]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the conductive wire of Fursa to fit the claimed measurements because the diameter range of Naito is a known design consideration to help ensure a secure fit and prevent corrosion [0082]. There is a significant amount of overlap in the diameter range of 0.2 to 0.65 mm of the claimed invention and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to modify the conductive wire of Fursa to have a substantially circular cross- section having a diameter of 0.2 to 0.65 mm because both Fursa and Naito are directed to electrically conductive wires incorporated into electrical assemblies. Naito teaches a lead wire with a diameter of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm to help ensure a secure fit and prevent corrosion [0080-0082] and this merely involves applying a known wire size to a known aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
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 OLUWATOSIN O DIYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 am - 6 pm.
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.
/O.O.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights