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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-11, 13 and 15 in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 16-18, 20, 22-23 and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/22/2025.
Specification
The use of the term AeroZero (page 28, line 7), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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, 7-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2020/130752, machine translation relied upon) in view of Bleloch (CA 3060584).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Kim discloses an induction type microparticle generator having a heat pipe ([0101], figure 12, reference numeral 400) into which a smoking item enters [0102], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a heater assembly configured to receive an aerosol generating material. The heat pipe is a susceptor [0106] that generates heat due to an alternating magnetic field [0005]. A temperature sensor is located on the outer surface of the heat pipe ([0087], figure 12, reference numeral 420). An excitation coil is located around the temperature sensor and heat pipe ([0096], figure 12, reference numeral 300) and causes the heat to be generated in the magnetizing heating element [0016], indicating that it is a magnetic induction coil. Kim does not explicitly disclose the temperature sensor located in a fluidly sealed enclosure.
Bleloch teaches a smoking device (abstract) having a temperature sensor (figure 5, reference numeral 502) that is sealed on all sides by a structure so that the temperature sensor does not interact with the surrounding environment ([0130], figure 5, reference numeral 524).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the structure of Bleloch around the sensor of Kim. One would have been motivated to do so since Bleloch teaches a structure that prevents a temperature sensor from interacting with its surrounding environment through a seal.
Regarding claim 7, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a fluid seal would be formed at the junction between the structure and the heat pipe since a seal cannot be formed without such a seal at the juncture.
Regarding claim 8, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the junction of modified Kim would extend circumferentially since Kim discloses that the temperature sensor extends along a portion of the circumference of the heat pipe (figure 12).
Regarding claim 15, Bleloch teaches that the structure defines an open space within it (figure 5), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an air gap.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2020/130752, machine translation relied upon) in view of Bleloch (CA 3060584) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Gill (US 10,219,543).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Kim does not explicitly teach the temperature sensor being a thermocouple.
Gill teaches an electronic vapor capsule (abstract) having a temperature sensor in the form of a thermocouple (column 3, lines 42-47).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the thermocouple of Gill as the temperature sensor of modified Kim. One would have been motivated to do so since Gill teaches that thermocouples are suitable temperature sensors for use in electronic vapor devices. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See MPEP § 2143, C.
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses that the temperature sensor is provided on the outer surface of the heat pipe [0087].
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2020/130752, machine translation relied upon) in view of Bleloch (CA 3060584) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kuwa (US 2018/0360119).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Bleloch additionally teaches that the temperature sensor is connected using a wired connection to a control device to establish communication [0082], indicating that the wire is a communication cable. The structure includes an electrically conductive via [0130], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a communication cable passage. The portion of the structure in which the via is located is considered to meet the claim limitation of an end support. Modified Kim does not explicitly teach a sealing element sealing the via.
Kuwa teaches a portable aerosol device (abstract) having a sealed battery unit with a wire hole that is sealed with silicone sealer to keep a chip space sealed [0131].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to seal the via of modified Kim with the silicone sealer of Kuwa. One would have been motivated to do so since Kuwa teaches that silicone sealer keeps a sealed space sealed after wires have been run through a hole in its surface.
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. The portion of the structure of modified Kim having the via is considered to meet the claim limitation of an end support. Modified Kim does not explicitly teach the via being located at an end of the susceptor.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the via at an end of the susceptor. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Claims 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2020/130752, machine translation relied upon) in view of Bleloch (CA 3060584) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Chen (EP 3205220).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim additionally discloses that, in a different embodiment, an insulating air layer is placed between the excitation coil and the susceptor to improve heat generation [0090]. The insulating layer extends the entire length of the coil ([0089], figure 13, reference numeral 530). Modified Kim does not explicitly teach a sealed vacuum insulating layer that also contains the temperature sensor.
Chen teaches a smoking set [0001] having a heating pipe (figure 2, reference numeral 1) that is surrounded by a cylindrical isolation pipe to define a vacuum insulating layer between them ([0025], figure 2, reference numeral 6), which is considered to define a tubular member that defines a fluidly sealed enclosure. A temperature sensor is provided on an outer wall of the heating pipe ([0021], figure 3, reference numeral 7).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of modified Kim with the evacuated insulting layer of Chen. One would have been motivated to do so since Kim discloses an insulating layer and Chen teaches an insulating layer. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP § 2143, B.
Regarding claim 10, Chen teaches that the bottom of the vacuum layer is formed by a base that extends between the heating pipe and isolation pipe ([0026], figure 2, reference numeral 5), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a fluid seal.
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches that the bottom of the vacuum layer is formed by a base that extends between the heating pipe and isolation pipe ([0026], figure 2, reference numeral 5), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an end support and a fluid seal.
Regarding claim 13, Chen teaches that the bottom of the vacuum layer is formed by a base that extends between the heating pipe and isolation pipe ([0026], figure 2, reference numeral 5), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first end support and a first fluid seal. Chen additionally teaches that an additional element is present at the upper end of the vacuum layer extending between the heating pipe and the isolation pipe (figure 2), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second fluid seal and a second end support.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights