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 .
Claims 1-16 are currently pending. Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 14-16 are objected to. Claims 7 and 12-13 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 24, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 16, Claim 1, Line 6, Claim 11, Line 2, Claim 16, Line 2 recite “the induction coil”. Applicant is suggested to amend to recite “the induction heating coil”, so that this limitation is similarly recited in all instances as done in other areas of the claims.
Regarding Claim 3, Line 2 recites “memory shape alloy”. Applicant is suggested to amend to recite “shape memory alloy”. The term “shape memory alloy” is what is typically used in the art, and is consistent with the Specification.
Claims 2, 4-10, and 12-15 are objected to for their dependencies upon a previously objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 13, Lines 2-3, “control unit” modified by the function of being configured to “control the current flowing through the induction heating coil”. No structure capable of performing said function is found in the Specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 13, Line 2 recites “control unit”. As noted above, the recitation of the control unit in Lines 2-3 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, no linking structure may be found in the Specification. Therefore, there is insufficient written description in the disclosure for this limitation. See also the related 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claim 13 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 7, Lines 3-4 and 5 recite “the second coil retaining wall” and “the first coil retaining wall”, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, since these limitations have not been previously introduced. It is also unclear what walls these recitations refer to. Please note that Claim 7 is dependent upon Claim 1, while similar limitations are described in Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 12, Line 2 recites “a shape of a blade or a needle”. It is noted blades and needles are objects rather than specifically defined geometric shapes. It is unclear what shapes would be encompassed by this claim.
Regarding Claim 13, Line 3 recites “the induction hating coil”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since it has not been previously recited. It is unclear if this refers to the coil that has been previously recited. For purposes of examination, it is believed there is a typographical error of the term “heating”.
Regarding Claim 13, Lines 2-3, claim limitation “control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. The Specification filed March 24, 2023 refers to a “control unit 40”. However, this control unit is only described with functional language rather than the structure which performs the functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 14-16 are objected to.
Claims 7 and 12, as far as they are definite and understood, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding Claim 1, Figures 2 and 13 of Courbat et al. (US 2021/0145062 A1), hereinafter Courbat, teach an induction heating assembly for a vapour generating device, the induction heating assembly comprising: an outer wall (16, not shown in Figure 13); an induction heating coil (131, not shown in Figure 2) arranged inward of the outer wall (16) and extending along the outer wall (16); a heating compartment (18) defined inward of the outer wall (16) and comprising a base portion (22) at a first end of the induction coil (131) and having an opening (20) opposite of the base portion (22) and arranged to receive, in use, via the opening (20), an elongated member (34) to be heated by induction heating [0090-0093, 0103]. Note that Figure 13 is an alternative embodiment of Figure 2 that contains similar features besides the coil (131). The illustration of Figure 13 only shows the susceptor portion (924) and induction portions (131, 26), leaving out the remaining structure of Figure 2.
Courbat does not expressly teach at least one movable member arranged such as to move in a longitudinal direction of the induction heating coil when a current is flowing through the induction heating coil, wherein the at least one movable member is a movable coil arranged such that at least one winding of the movable coil is arranged between two adjacent windings of the induction heating coil as claimed. This limitation is not contemplated by Courbat at all. Pg. 12, last ¶ - Pg. 15 of the Specification filed March 24, 2023 discusses the purpose of the movable member. Movable coil (21) is arranged to expand and contract, thereby increasing and decreasing the pitch winding of the induction heating coil (11) depending on the current. This is due to the material of the movable coil (21) allowing the coil to change in shape depending on the temperature. The movement expands the surface area of the induction heating coil (11) as the temperature increases, thereby increasing the cooling efficiency of the heating coil. The movement also modifies the generated magnetic field. A contracted shape allows for concentrated heating during the initial usage. As usage continues, due to the extension of the coil, the field will spread out further to provide a more spread out heating. Thus, the claimed feature provides a function not present in the art of record.
Reevell (US 2020/0245682 A1), hereinafter Reevell, also teaches an induction heating assembly. Figures 10a-10c illustrate a coil (20) that is movable. However, coil (20) is an induction coil and moves by sliding action [0058]. Thus, this differs in structure from the combined induction heating coil and movable coil required by the claim.
Figures 24A-24B of Sadahira et al. (US 2001/0019052 A1), hereinafter Sadahara also teach an induction heating assembly. The induction heating assembly comprises an induction heating coil (2902) and a movable coil (2906) [0201-0204]. However, the movable coil (2906) is not arranged such that at least one winding of the movable coil is arranged between two adjacent windings of the induction heating coil as claimed. This is because in this instance, the coil (2902) is a shape memory alloy which changes shape during operation, and coil (2906) is a spring which balances the forces of the coil (2902). As such, Sadahira operates differently than the claimed induction heating assembly.
Claims 2-12 and 14-16 subsequently depend upon Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Batista et al. (US 2022/0287376 A1), Willermoz et al. (US 2016/0113071 A1) disclose heating assemblies with multiple coils.
Van Lancker et al. (US 2021/0244096 A1) discloses movable susceptors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745