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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on 05/20/2026 has been entered, which includes amendments to claims 1-2, 6-7, and 11, cancellation of claims 4-5, and supporting remarks. Accordingly, the claim objections and rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn. New rejections under 35 USC 103 are set forth below. Claims 1-2 and 6-13 remain pending, claims 12-13 remain withdrawn, and claims 1-2 and 6-11 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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 1-2, 6-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogan (US 2021/0084981 A1, of record, previously cited) in view of Shenton (US 2021/0015148 A1, of record, provided in IDS dated 12/04/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Rogan is directed to an aerosol generating article (Title), which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention:
The article 4 includes a first region 12 (“first segment”) ([0091, 0103-0104], Figs. 4A-B);
The first region 12 includes an aerosol generating material 10 (“filling material”) which may be a cut filler [0095, 0104];
The first region 12 includes a tubular susceptor 22 (“first susceptor”) positioned both inside and outside the aerosol generating material 10 to maximize heat transfer thereto [0104] (which reads on the first susceptor “having a cylindrical shape” and being “disposed to enclose a portion of the filling material and be enclosed by another portion of the filling material”). The susceptor 22 is concentric with the outer wrapper 26 ensuring uniform heating of the material 10 ([0105], Fig. 4B). However, Rogan fails to disclose a “second susceptor” and thus fails to disclose “an outer surface of the first susceptor and an inner surface of the second susceptor are disposed to face each other, and a portion of the filling material is disposed between the outer surface of the first susceptor and the inner surface of the second susceptor”;
The article 4 includes a second region 14 (“second segment”) located along a lengthwise direction of the article 4 ([0091, 0103-0104], Figs. 4A-B);
While Rogan does not state whether the figure is drawn to scale, one of ordinary skill in the art would have nonetheless found it obvious that the radius of the susceptor 22 is about half the radius of the first region 12, as shown in Fig. 4B (which reads on “wherein a first inner radius of the first susceptor is less than or equal to a half of a radius of the first segment”). Rogan fails to disclose the “second susceptor” and thus fails to disclose “a second inner radius of the second susceptor is greater than or equal to the half of the radius of the first segment”.
PNG
media_image1.png
318
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shenton is directed to a substitute smoking consumable (Title), which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. The consumable includes a plant product interspersed with a thermally conductive material in radially alternating layers (Abstract). The consumable preferably includes at least three spiral layers of thermally conductive material with equal spacing between them, which ensures even and controlled heat transfer to the plant product [0033]. For instance, Fig. 3 illustrates rolled sheets of aluminum foil 4A, 4B, 4C arranged as a series of equally spaced concentric rings with tubular elements of tobacco 5 therebetween [0153-4]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Rogan’s susceptor 22 could be duplicated and similarly arranged like Shenton’s aluminum foil 4A, 4B, 4C to further improve the heat transfer, because both Rogan and Shenton teach that concentric heating elements embedded within an aerosol generating material improve heat transfer. If one were to duplicate and rearrange Rogan’s susceptor 22 in the same shape as Shenton’s aluminum foil 4A, 4B, 4C illustrated in Fig. 3, the resulting structure would include an outermost susceptor 22 which reads on “the second susceptor” and particularly “an outer surface of the first susceptor and an inner surface of the second susceptor are disposed to face each other, and a portion of the filling material is disposed between the outer surface of the first susceptor and the inner surface of the second susceptor” and “a second inner radius of the second susceptor is greater than or equal to the half of the radius of the first segment”.
PNG
media_image2.png
470
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Rogan by providing three tubular susceptors 22 arranged in concentric evenly spaced rings as illustrated by Shenton’s aluminum foil 4A, 4B, 4C in Fig. 3, because both Rogan and Shenton are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, both Rogan and Shenton teach that concentric heating elements embedded within an aerosol generating material improve heat transfer, such a modification would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and such a modification of Rogan’s susceptor 22 would be a mere duplication of parts and a mere rearrangement of parts which are obvious design choices to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); see also MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B); see also In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); see also MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C); see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); see also In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 2, as shown in Figs. 4A-B, Rogan’s susceptor 22 has an inner surface facing a center of the first region 12, and an outer surface opposite thereto, which reads on the claim language.
Regarding claim 6, as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, modified Rogan discloses the first and second concentric susceptors 22, which reads on the claim language.
Regarding claim 7, as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, modified Rogan discloses the first, second, and third concentric susceptors 22, which reads on the claim language (see Shenton’s Fig. 3; the innermost susceptor 22 would read on the “first susceptor”, the middle susceptor 22 which is approximately half the total radius would read on the “second susceptor”, and the outermost susceptor 22 would read on the “third susceptor”).
Regarding claim 10, Rogan’s susceptor 22 may comprise one or more of aluminum, iron, nickel, stainless steel and alloys thereof, e.g. nickel chromium or nickel copper [0060], all of which read on the claim language.
Regarding claim 11, Rogan discloses an aerosol generating system 40 (“aerosol generating system”) including a device 42 which is configured to receive an article [0109-0111]. The article may be the same article 4 which was discussed above with regard to claim 1 [0110]. Therefore, Rogan as modified by Shenton renders obvious the claimed “aerosol generating article” and limitations thereof, for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1.
Furthermore, Rogan discloses the device 42 (“aerosol generating device”) with a cylindrical cavity 54 (“article insertion portion”) for receiving the article 4 ([0110-0111], Fig. 8). The device 42 comprises a power source 46 with one or more batteries (“battery”) and an induction coil 56 (“coil”) [0109, 0113]. The coil 56 generates a variable magnetic field by receiving power from the power source 46 and inductively heats the susceptor 22 [0114] (which reads on “wherein the coil is configured to generate a variable magnetic field by receiving power from the battery, and the first susceptor is configured to generate heat by the variable magnetic field”).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogan (US 2021/0084981 A1, of record) in view of Shenton (US 2021/0015148 A1, of record) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Crump (WO 2021/144760 A1, of record, previously cited).
Rogan discloses the cut filler aerosol generating material 10 as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, which reads on “a medium” as recited in claim 8. However, Rogan fails to disclose “a thermally conductive powdered material mixed with the medium” per claim 8 and “wherein the powdered material comprises at least one of aluminum, gold, iron, nickel, cobalt, conductive carbon, graphite, mild steel, stainless steel, copper, and bronze” per claim 9.
Crump is directed to a susceptor arrangement for an inductively-heated aerosol delivery device (Title). The susceptor may comprise a plurality of conductive particles (“thermally conductive powdered material” of claim 8) uniformly distributed through a substrate, which serve as supplementary susceptors for heating the substrate (p. 37 l. 27-p. 38 l. 15). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that supplementary susceptors would be useful in Rogan for further maximizing heating performance. The conductive particles may comprise cobalt, iron, nickel, stainless steel, ceramic, and/or carbon (p. 5 l. 11-16), all of which read on claim 9.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Rogan by including Crump’s plurality of conductive particles in Rogan’s aerosol generating material 10, because Rogan, Shenton, and Crump are all directed to aerosol generating systems, Crump teaches using the conductive particles to supplement other susceptors which is similarly applicable to Rogan, and this would involve the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 ET.
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.
/MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights