DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-15 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: "rod-shaped" should be "rod-shaped article". Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ademe et al. (US 2016/0120213 A1) in view of Bleloch et al. (US 2022/0225475 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ademe discloses a method of inspection of rod-shaped articles (see abstract), the method comprising:
providing a first drum (“rotatable drum 350”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0049) having a plurality of seats (“channel 450”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0049);
providing the at least one seat of the plurality of seats of the first drum with a rod-shaped article (“smoking article 10”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0049);
detecting a maximum value or a minimum value of a property (“compare the determined actual length to a predetermined length range, such that each smoking article 10 received by the inspection drum and having the determined actual length outside the predetermined length range is one of the defective smoking articles 550”, ¶ 0058); and
discarding the rod-shaped article on a basis of the maximum value or the minimum value of the property (“the inspection device 500 may be, for example, in communication with a rejection device (not shown, but e.g., a mechanical plunger engaged with a channel and configured to mechanically extend and urge the defective cigarette 550 out of the channel 450”, ¶ 0061; “the defective cigarettes may be directed to re-work or otherwise discarded”, ¶ 0048).
However, Ademe does not disclose providing at least one seat of the plurality of seats of the first drum with an inductive sensor comprising a coil; that the rod-shaped article includes a first susceptor comprising a conductive material, inserting the rod-shaped article in the coil of the inductive sensor, or that the property is a parameter function of an impedance of the coil during the insertion of the rod-shaped article.
Bleloch, in the same field of endeavor, discloses that a rod-shaped article (“cartridge 518”, which corresponds to “cartridge 418”, Fig. 5, ¶ 0333) may include a susceptor (“susceptor element 540”, which corresponds to “susceptor element 140”, Fig. 5, ¶ 0314, 0333), the susceptor comprising a conductive material (“susceptor element 140 includes a device constructed of a material that is electrically conductive”, ¶ 0201). Bleloch also teaches that an inductive sensor (“induction heating circuit 550”, which corresponds to “induction heating circuit 150”, Fig. 5, ¶ 0333) comprising a coil (“inductor 520”, which corresponds to “inductor 120”, Fig. 5, ¶ 0333, where “inductor 120 includes an induction coil”, ¶ 0199) may be used during testing (“local calibration process”, ¶ 0297) to detect a parameter function of an impedance of the coil (“when determining the response of the induction heating circuit to the magnetic property of the susceptor element, the at least one processor is programmed or configured to: determine a self-resonant frequency (SRF) value of the induction heating circuit”, ¶ 0020 of Bleloch, the self-resonant frequency of an inductor being the frequency at which the impedance of the inductor reaches a maximum value) by inserting the susceptor in the coil of the inductive sensor (¶ 0297, see Fig. 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit to using an inductive sensor comprising a coil to test a susceptor comprising a conductive material to detect a parameter function of an impedance of the coil in that it allows for a determination of whether the susceptor is satisfactory for the rod-shaped article using the susceptor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided at least one seat of the plurality of seats of the first drum of Ademe with an inductive sensor comprising a coil, as taught by Bleloch, in order to obtain this benefit when testing rod-shaped articles including conductive susceptors.
In the resulting method, a rod-shaped article including a first susceptor comprising a conductive material is inserted in the coil of the inductive sensor, the testing detects a maximum value or a minimum value of a parameter function of an impedance of the coil during the insertion of the rod-shaped article, and the rod-shaped article is discarded based on this maximum value or the minimum value of the parameter function of the impedance.
Regarding claim 2, Ademe in view of Bleloch discloses the method according to claim 1, as discussed above. Ademe further discloses comparing the maximum value or the minimum value of a property (“compare the determined actual length”, ¶ 0058, corresponding to the parameter function of the impedance in the method of the combination) with a threshold (“predetermined . . . range”, ¶ 0058); and discarding the rod-shaped article on the basis of the comparison (“each smoking article 10 received by the inspection drum and having the determined actual length outside the predetermined length range is one of the defective smoking articles 550”, ¶ 0057; “the inspection device 500 may be, for example, in communication with a rejection device (not shown, but e.g., a mechanical plunger engaged with a channel and configured to mechanically extend and urge the defective cigarette 550 out of the channel 450”, ¶ 0061; “the defective cigarettes may be directed to re-work or otherwise discarded”, ¶ 0048).
Regarding claim 4, Ademe in view of Bleloch discloses the method according to claim 1, as discussed above. Bleloch further discloses measuring the parameter function of the impedance of the coil as a function of time during the insertion of the rod-shaped article (“self-resonant frequency (SRF) value”, ¶ 0020, frequency being a function of time).
Regarding claim 6, Ademe in view of Bleloch discloses the method according to claim 1, as discussed above. Bleloch further discloses wherein the first susceptor has a nominal length of about 15 mm (“susceptor element 140 . . . has a length of about 15 mm”, ¶ 0201) and that the coil of the inductive sensor has a length in the range of 4 mm to 20 mm (“inductor element 120 has a length in the range between 4 mm to 20 mm”, ¶ 0199). Since the range of 4 mm to 20 mm overlaps the claimed range of a length longer than the nominal length of the first susceptor, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05(I)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the step of providing at least one seat of the plurality of seats of the first drum with an inductive sensor comprising a coil includes: providing at least one seat of the plurality of seats of the first drum with an inductive sensor comprising a coil having a length longer than the nominal length of the first susceptor.
Regarding claim 7, Ademe in view of Bleloch discloses the method according to claim 1, as discussed above. Ademe further discloses wherein the rod-shaped article has a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 3) and the first drum has a rotational axis (see arrow indicating rotation about axis 375 in Fig. 3), and in the method of the combination the step of providing the at least one seat of the plurality of seats of the first drum with a rod-shaped article including a first susceptor includes:
providing the at least one seat of the plurality of seats of the first drum with the rod-shaped article having the longitudinal axis substantially parallel to the rotational axis (see Fig. 3, “smoking article 10 . . . is arranged in parallel with . . . axis 375 of the at least one drum 350”, ¶ 0049).
Regarding claim 8, Ademe in view of Bleloch discloses the method according to claim 1, as discussed above. Ademe further discloses wherein the rod-shaped article has a first end (“tobacco rod 15”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0026, 0028) and a second end (“filter element 30”, Fig. 3, ¶ 0028). Bleloch further discloses that the susceptor is arranged to be inserted in the coil of the inductive sensor (see Fig. 5).
With regards to the placement of the first susceptor, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to place the susceptor in the first end of the rod-shaped article of Ademe, as the first end of the rod-shaped article of Ademe contains tobacco material (“rod 15 is conventionally referred to as a ‘tobacco rod’”, ¶ 0026), and the rod-shaped article of Bleloch includes the susceptor placed in tobacco material (“susceptor element 140 contacts the vaporizable substance”, ¶ 0314, where “vaporizable substance is a dry herbal material such as tobacco”, ¶ 0191). In the resulting combination, the step of inserting the rod-shaped article in the coil of the inductive sensor comprises inserting the rod-shaped article in the coil of the inductive sensor so that the first end of the rod-shaped article is located within the coil.
Regarding claim 9, Ademe in view of Bleloch discloses the method according to claim 1, as discussed above. Ademe further discloses wherein the step of discarding the rod-shaped article on the basis of a maximum and minimum value of a property comprises discarding the rod-shaped article if the maximum value or the minimum value of the property is outside a pre-set range (“each smoking article 10 received by the inspection drum and having the determined actual length outside the predetermined length range is one of the defective smoking articles 550”, ¶ 0057; “the inspection device 500 may be, for example, in communication with a rejection device (not shown, but e.g., a mechanical plunger engaged with a channel and configured to mechanically extend and urge the defective cigarette 550 out of the channel 450”, ¶ 0061; “the defective cigarettes may be directed to re-work or otherwise discarded”, ¶ 0048). As such, in the method of Ademe in view of Bleloch, the step of discarding the rod-shaped article on the basis of the maximum value or the minimum value of the parameter function of the impedance comprises: discarding the rod-shaped article if the maximum value or the minimum value of the parameter function of the impedance is outside a pre-set range.
Regarding claim 15, Ademe in view of Bleloch discloses the method according to claim 1, as discussed above. Ademe further discloses wherein the rod-shaped article includes a component of an aerosol generating article (“smoking article 10”, ¶ 0026, 0049).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ademe et al. (US 2016/0120213 A1) in view of Bleloch et al. (US 2022/0225475 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Flick et al. (US 2017/0196397 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ademe in view of Bleloch discloses the method according to claim 1, as discussed above. However, Bleloch does not explicitly disclose that it is the length of the first susceptor which is measured on the basis of the maximum value or the minimum value of the parameter function of the impedance of the coil during the insertion of the rod-shaped article.
Flick, in the field of inductive sensors, discloses that inductive sensors can be used to measure the length of a component (“inductive sensors are used [to determine] the length of a metallic body portion”, ¶ 0105). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit to measuring a length of the first susceptor in that it allows for a determination of whether the first susceptor has a suitable length. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have measured the length of the first susceptor, as taught by Flick, in order to obtain this benefit. As such, the method of the combination comprises measuring a length of the first susceptor on the basis of the maximum value or the minimum value of the parameter function of the impedance of the coil during the insertion of the rod-shaped article.
Although Flick is in the field of inductive sensors, it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which Bleloch (and the current application) was concerned (i.e., measuring components with inductive sensors). One of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to prior art concerning inductive sensors because Bleloch teaches using inductive sensors (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ademe et al. (US 2016/0120213 A1) in view of Bleloch et al. (US 2022/0225475 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Flick et al. (US 2017/0196397 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ademe in view of Bleloch discloses the method according to claim 4, as discussed above. Bleloch further discloses a profile defined by the parameter function of the impedance of the coil as a function of time during the insertion of the rod-shaped article in the coil (a profile, ¶ 0297, based on the “self-resonant frequency (SRF) value”, ¶ 0020, frequency being a function of time). However, Bleloch does not explicitly disclose that it is the length of the first susceptor which is measured.
Flick, in the field of inductive sensors, discloses that inductive sensors can be used to measure the length of a component (“inductive sensors are used [to determine] the length of a metallic body portion”, ¶ 0105). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit to measuring a length of the first susceptor in that it allows for a determination of whether the first susceptor has a suitable length. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have measured the length of the first susceptor, as taught by Flick, in order to obtain this benefit. As such, the method of the combination comprises measuring a length of the first susceptor on the basis of a profile defined by the parameter function of the impedance of the coil as a function of time during the insertion of the rod-shaped article in the coil.
Although Flick is in the field of inductive sensors, it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which Bleloch (and the current application) was concerned (i.e., measuring components with inductive sensors). One of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to prior art concerning inductive sensors because Bleloch teaches using inductive sensors (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ademe et al. (US 2016/0120213 A1) in view of Bleloch et al. (US 2022/0225475 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McLoughlin et al. (US 4,011,950).
Regarding claim 10, Ademe in view of Bleloch disclose the method according to claim 1, as discussed above. Ademe in view of Bleloch does not disclose wherein the rod-shaped article has a first end and a second end and a second susceptor, the first susceptor being located at the first end of the rod-shaped article and the second susceptor being located at the second end of the rod-shaped article.
McLoughlin, in the same field of endeavor, discloses that rod-shaped articles may be formed to have a double length (“a pair of cigarettes joined across an integral double length filter plug”; Col. 2, Lines 44-45). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there were benefits to forming rod-shaped articles to have a double length in that efficiency gains can be made by making two rod-shaped articles at a time, and the double-length article can be sturdier to run through a manufacturing process than a smaller, single article. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the rod-shaped articles to have a double length, in order to obtain these benefits.
In the resulting configuration, the rod-shaped article has a first end and a second end (each end corresponding to one having of the double-length rod-shaped article) and a second susceptor, the first susceptor being located at the first end of the rod-shaped article and the second susceptor being located at the second end of the rod-shaped article (so that a susceptor may be located in each half of the double-length rod-shaped article, such that when the double-length rod-shaped article is cut in the middle to form two finished products, each finished product will have a susceptor).
To inspect the double-length rod-shaped article, McLoughlin discloses using separate sensors to measure the two ends (“two laterally spaced optical devices for separately monitoring the sleeve overlap at a respective end of the double length filter plug”; Col. 2, Lines 46-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have monitored the two ends of the rod-shaped article for the benefit of independently measuring the two ends. In the method of the combination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed a second drum with a second inductive sensor to independently measure the two ends of the rod-shaped article, in order to obtain this benefit.
In the resulting configuration, the method will therefore include providing of a second drum having a plurality of seats (identical to the first drum as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above);
providing at least one seat of the plurality of seats of the second drum with an inductive sensor comprising a coil (corresponding to the inductive sensor comprising a coil of the first drum as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above)
inserting the rod-shaped article in the coil of the inductive sensor of the second drum so that the second end of the rod-shaped article is within said coil (corresponding to inserting the rod-shaped article in the coil of the inductive sensor for the first drum as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above);
detecting a maximum value or a minimum value of the parameter function of the impedance of said coil during the insertion of the rod-shaped article (corresponding to the detecting a maximum value or a minimum value of the parameter function of the impedance of the coil of the first inductive sensor during the insertion of the rod-shaped article as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above); and
discarding the rod-shaped article on the basis of the maximum value or the minimum value of the parameter function of the impedance (corresponding to the discard the rod-shaped article on the basis of the maximum value or the minimum value of the parameter function of the impedance as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above).
Ademe further discloses transferring rod-shaped articles between drums (“smoking articles 550 are conveyed from the at least one drum 350, to one or more of the intermediate drums, and then to the sampling drum 600”, Fig. 4, ¶ 0051). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit to transferring rod-shaped articles between the first and second drums in that it allows for both inductive sensors to measure the rod-shaped articles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have transferred the rod-shaped article in the method of the combination from the first drum to the second drum so that the rod-shaped article is housed in the at least one seat of the plurality of seats of the second drum, in order to obtain this benefit.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ademe et al. (US 2016/0120213 A1) in view of Bleloch et al. (US 2022/0225475 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boldrini et al. (US 2022/0132938 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Ademe in view of Bleloch discloses the method according to claim 1, as discussed above. However, Ademe in view of Bleloch does not disclose wherein the step of inserting the rod-shaped article in the coil of the inductive sensor comprises: sliding the rod-shaped article on a bottom surface of the seat so as to insert the rod-shaped article in the coil.
Boldrini, in the same field of endeavor, discloses inserting a rod-shaped article (“tube 12”, Fig. 7, ¶ 0058) into a seat by sliding it on a bottom surface of a seat (“each tube 12 is axially inserted into a corresponding seat 31”, Fig. 7, ¶ 0058). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit to inserting a rod-shaped article into a seat by sliding it on a bottom surface of a seat in that it ensures that the rod-shaped article is properly aligned in the seat. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have slid the rod-shaped article on a bottom surface of the seat, in order to obtain this benefit. In the method of the combination, the step of inserting the rod-shaped article in the coil of the inductive sensor comprises: sliding the rod-shaped article on a bottom surface of the seat so as to insert the rod-shaped article in the coil.
Regarding claim 12, Ademe in view of Bleloch and Boldrini discloses the method according to claim 11, as discussed above. Boldrini further discloses wherein the step of sliding the rod-shaped article on a bottom surface of the seat comprises:
pushing the rod-shaped article by means of an air flow (“a succession of tubes 12 is fed to the input station S5 by means of a conveyor (for example pneumatic)”, ¶ 0058). As such, in the method of the combination, the step of sliding the rod-shaped article on a bottom surface of the seat to as to insert the rod-shaped article in the coil comprises: pushing the rod-shaped article inside the coil by means of an air flow (pneumatic means).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ademe et al. (US 2016/0120213 A1) in view of Bleloch et al. (US 2022/0225475 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pionetti et al. (US 2019/0285219 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Ademe in view of Bleloch discloses the method according to claim 1, as discussed above. However, Bleloch does not disclose that the coil includes a first semi-coil and a second semi-coil.
Pionetti, in the field of inductors, discloses that an induction coil may be manufactured to include a first semi-coil and a second semi-coil (“electromagnetic induction coil comprising two independent semi-cylindrical coil portions”, ¶ 0032), the first semi-coil and the second semi-coil being movable from a first operative position where the first semi-coil and the second semi-coil are in contact to each other forming the coil where current can flow (“electromagnetic induction coil comprising two independent semi-cylindrical coil portions suitable for being secured to each other in order to form a coaxial coil”, ¶ 0032) to a second operative position where the first semi-coil and the second semi-coil are separated from each other and no current can flow (“the two independent semi-cylindrical coil portions are mounted so as to be suitable for being moved relative to each other in the transverse direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction”, ¶ 0044), and vice-versa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit to making the coil of the inductive sensor of the combination of Ademe and Bleloch separable into two semi-coils in that the rod-shaped articles can be inserted or removed from the inductive sensor without needing to extraneously move the rod-shaped articles longitudinally. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the coil of the inductive sensor to include a first semi-coil and a second semi-coil, as taught by Pionetti, such that inserting the rod-shaped article in the coil of the inductive sensor comprises moving the first semi-coil and the second semi-coil from the second operative position to the first operative position, in order to obtain this benefit.
Although Pionetti is in the field of inductors, it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which Bleloch (and the current application) was concerned (i.e., inductive heating). One of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to prior art concerning inductors because Bleloch teaches using inductors (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ademe et al. (US 2016/0120213 A1) in view of Bleloch et al. (US 2022/0225475 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wilson et al. (US 2006/0098214 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Ademe in view of Bleloch discloses the method according to claim 1, as discussed above. However, Ademe in view of Bleloch does not disclose calibrating the inductive sensor using a rod-shaped article including a first susceptor or a second susceptor or both having a length equal to a nominal length.
Wilson, in the same field of endeavor, discloses calibrating sensors using components sized to a nominal length (“Preferably three different reference rods are used to give three calibration points across a range of diameters corresponding to the nominal diameter of the rolled smoking article or filter rod to be tested: one rod at each end of the range and one towards the middle of the range”, ¶ 0146). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that there was a benefit to calibrating sensors using components of nominal lengths in that it increases the accuracy of the sensor in the desirable size range for the component. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a step of calibrating the inductive sensor using a rod-shaped article including a first susceptor or a second susceptor or both having a length equal to a nominal length, in order to obtain this benefit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY G CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0874. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at (571)270-3882. 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.G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1747 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights