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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1-2, 4-5, and 9-11, amendment to the specification, and supporting remarks filed 01/16/2026 (“Amendment”) have been entered. Accordingly, the objection to the specification, the objection to claim 10, and the claim rejections under 35 USC 102 are withdrawn. However, a new objection to claim 7 is set forth below, the claim rejections under 35 USC 103 are maintained (i.e., the previous rejection of claim 5 is now applied to claim 1 due to the amendment) and a new rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC 103 is necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 102-103 (Amendment p. 7-10) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments appear to be premised on a modification wherein Rogan’s susceptor 22 is replaced with Mironov’s susceptor 230 (see Amendment p. 7-9). However, the Examiner’s proposed modification, as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/20/2025 and in the rejection of claim 1 below, is to provide Rogan with additional concentric susceptors 22, not to replace Rogan’s susceptor 22 with Mironov’s susceptor 230.
Regarding the rejection of claim 5, Applicant argues that Mironov fails to disclose the claimed first and second susceptor each having a cylindrical shape because Mironov merely discloses a circular susceptor and opening which is not similar to Rogan’s tubular susceptor (Amendment p. 7-9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees because duplicating Rogan’s concentric susceptor 22 would result in an aerosol generating article 4 with a cross-section which is similar to Mironov’s susceptor 230, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize when viewing Rogan’s Fig. 4B and Mironov’s Fig. 5, and would further recognize as advantageous at least due to Rogan’s teaching regarding maximize aerosol generation at [0104], as set forth in the rejection.
Applicant further argues that the proposed modification would render Rogan inoperable for its intended purpose because Mironov’s susceptor would be disposed at the end 18 of Rogan’s second region 14 (Amendment p. 9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Rogan discloses the susceptor 22 in the first region 12 as shown in Fig. 4A; thus, one of ordinary skill in the art, when duplicating such a susceptor 22 concentrically in order to form the cross-section of Mironov, would position the additional susceptors 22 in the first region 12 as well, not in the second region 14.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because “the susceptor” at l. 2 lacks antecedent basis in view of the amendment to claim 1. The Examiner recommends amending claim 7 to recite “wherein the first segment
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogan (US 2021/0084981 A1, previously cited) in view of Mironov (US 2017/0079330 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Rogan discloses an aerosol generating article 4 with a first region 12 and a second region 14 (which read on a “first segment” and a “second segment” as claimed) located along a lengthwise direction of the article 4 ([0091, 0103-0104], Figs. 4A-B, reproduced below). The first region includes an aerosol generating material 10 (“filling material”) [0104], which may be a cut filler [0095]. The first region 12 includes a tubular susceptor 22 (“first susceptor”) positioned both inside and outside the aerosol generating material 10 to maximize aerosol generation and energy efficiency [0104]. The susceptor 22 is concentric with the outer wrapper 26 ([0105], Fig. 4B). However, Rogan fails to disclose a “second susceptor” as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
318
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mironov is directed to an aerosol-generating system comprising a fluid permeable susceptor element (Title). Mironov discloses numerous susceptor configurations, one being a susceptor with three concentric circles ([0066], Fig. 5, reproduced below). Mironov’s susceptor with three concentric circles would be achieved by mere duplications of Rogan’s susceptor 22, which is therefore obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B); see also In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); compare Rogan’s Fig. 4B with Mironov’s Fig. 5. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing additional concentric susceptors 22 in Rogan would further maximize aerosol generation and energy efficiency (see Rogan [0104]; compare Fig. 5 of Mironov with Fig. 4B of Rogan).
PNG
media_image2.png
242
260
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 a second and third concentric susceptor 22, because Rogan and Mironov are both directed to aerosol generating systems with susceptors, this would involve mere duplications of parts, this would further maximize Rogan’s heating performance, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. 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).
Regarding claim 2, as shown in Figs. 4A-B, the susceptor 22 has an inner surface facing a center of the first region 12, and an outer surface opposite thereto.
Regarding claim 3, as shown in Figs. 4A-B, the susceptor 22 has a cylindrical shape (compare Figs. 4A-B with Applicant’s Figs. 3A-B).
Regarding claim 4, Rogan discloses the cylindrical susceptor 22 as set forth above and shown in Figs. 4A-B. The susceptor 22 and outer wrapper 26 are concentric (i.e., have the same center point) ([0105], Fig. 4B), but Rogan does not specify the radial positioning of the susceptor 22 and thus fails to specifically disclose “wherein a radius of the cylindrical shape of the susceptor is greater than a half of a radius of the first segment and less than the radius of the first segment”. However, positioning the concentric susceptor 22 specifically in the outer half of the article 4 would be a mere rearrangement of parts which is obvious in view of Rogan. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C); see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 5, modified Rogan discloses the first and second concentric susceptors 22, as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, which reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 6, modified Rogan discloses the first and second concentric susceptors 22, as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, which reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 7, modified Rogan discloses the first, second, and third concentric susceptors 22, as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, which reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the 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 claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Rogan discloses a system 40 comprising an article 1 (“aerosol generating article”) with adjacent first and second regions 12, 14, the first region 12 comprising a tubular susceptor 22 (“first susceptor”) both surrounding and surrounded by an aerosol generating material 10 ([0091-93, 0109], Figs. 1A-B, 8). The system 40 further comprises an aerosol generating device 42 (“aerosol generating device”) with a cylindrical cavity 54 (“article insertion portion”) for receiving the article 1 ([0110-0111], Fig. 8). The device 42 further comprises a power source 46 with one or more batteries (“battery”) and an induction coil 56 (“coil”) [0109, 0113]. However, Rogan fails to disclose a “second susceptor” as claimed.
Mironov is directed to an aerosol-generating system comprising a fluid permeable susceptor element (Title). Mironov discloses numerous susceptor configurations, one being a susceptor with three concentric circles ([0066], Fig. 5, reproduced below). Mironov’s susceptor with three concentric circles would be achieved by mere duplications of Rogan’s susceptor 22, which is therefore obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B); see also In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); compare Rogan’s Fig. 4B with Mironov’s Fig. 5. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing additional concentric susceptors 22 in Rogan would further maximize aerosol generation and energy efficiency (see Rogan [0104]; compare Fig. 5 of Mironov with Fig. 4B of Rogan).
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 a second concentric susceptor 22, because Rogan and Mironov are both directed to aerosol generating systems with susceptors, this would involve mere duplications of parts, this would further maximize Rogan’s heating performance, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. 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).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogan (US 2021/0084981 A1) in view of Mironov (US 2017/0079330 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Crump (WO 2021/144760 A1, 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, Mironov, and Crump are all directed to aerosol systems with susceptors, 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
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 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
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755