DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “The arrangement in Cadieux is significantly different from that of Akiyama. In Cadieux, with reference to Figs. 7a and 7b, the susceptor 14 is supported on an annular flange 41 (1 [0156]) and spaced apart from the filamentary wick 28. The person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the design considerations for Akiyama's rings 62 would be significantly different from Cadieux's susceptor 14. Such a person would not have considered features of either to be interchangeable. The person would not, for example, use Akiyama's rings 62 in Cadieux's device. Equally, without hindsight knowledge of Applicant's claimed invention, the person would not use Cadieux's susceptor 14 in Akiyama's device.” The Examiner disagrees. The design considerations for Akiyama's rings 62 would not be significantly different from Cadieux's susceptor 14. Just as Akiyama’s rings are supported in the susceptor assembly [Fig. 4], one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that foil could alternatively be supported in the susceptor assembly. In any case, Cadiuex does not require the susceptor foil 14 to be supported by an annular flange or spaced apart from the wick, as shown in Fig. 9A. One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the susceptor type to be interchangeable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 35 is 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. Claim 35 recites the limitation "the airflow passage". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as “an airflow passage”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 requires the first and the second susceptor elements each comprise a mesh, flat spiral coil, fibres, or fabric of electrically conductive filaments, which contradicts claim 18 which requires they comprises a plurality of tracks or a perforated foil. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 18, 24-28, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Akiyama in view of Cadieux (US 2015/0245669).
Regarding claim 18, Akiyama teaches an electrically heatable aerosol-generating system [0001-0002, 0058], comprising: at least one inductor coil 108 [0019]; a power supply connected to the at least one inductor coil and configured to provide an alternating current to the at least one inductor coil to generate an alternating magnetic field [0023, 0057]; a housing 12 containing a liquid storage portion 22 (reservoir of aerosol-forming substrate) [0050]; and a vapor generating unit 28 (susceptor assembly) configured to be heated by the alternating magnetic field and comprising a first susceptor element 54, a second susceptor element 54, and a liquid transfer (wicking) element 56 in fluid communication with the reservoir [0062], the first and the second susceptor elements being fixed to the wicking element and wherein a space is defined between the first and the second susceptor elements 54, the wicking element 56 occupying the space [Fig. 4] and the reservoir 22 being positioned outside the space [Fig. 2], and wherein the first and the second susceptor elements are fluid permeable [0058]. The susceptor assembly 28 of Akiyama as shown in Fig. 1-4 is interpreted as being substantially planar.
Akiyama does not teach a foil, Cadieux teaches an electronic vaping device wherein a susceptor includes a perforated foil [0156-0157]. As this is a conventional form of a susceptor known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a perforated foil as the susceptor elements of Akiyama to achieve predictable results. The foil susceptor of Cadieux is an art recognized equivalent known for the same purpose of heating and vaporizing of a liquid aerosol-forming substrate as the susceptor of Akiyama. It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose, see MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claim 24, Akiyama teaches an airflow passage extending between an air inlet and an air outlet, wherein airflow in the airflow passage passes over a surface of the first susceptor element and a surface of the second susceptor element [0030, 0059].
Regarding claim 25, the lower portion of the reservoir 22 in Akiyama [Fig. 2] is interpreted to read on the claimed fluid channel extending towards the susceptor assembly 28.
Regarding claims 26-28, Akiyama [Fig. 1-2] teaches the housing comprises an inner wall (tube surrounding outlet channel 26) and an outer wall 12 such that an outlet channel 26 (internal passage) is defined by the inner wall, the internal passage being surrounded by a space defined between the inner wall and the outer wall 12, the airflow passage is at least partially defined by the internal passage 26 [0059] and the reservoir 22 is at least partially defined by a space surrounding the internal passage, the reservoir 22 is at least partially defined by the internal passage 26 and the airflow passage is at least partially defined by an annular space surrounding the internal passage 26.
Regarding claims 31-32, Akiyama teaches a susceptor assembly holder onto which the susceptor assembly 28 is mounted [0053-0054], wherein the susceptor assembly holder is tubular and has at least one sidewall [Fig. 5].
Regarding claim 33, Akiyama teaches an aerosol-generating device 100 and a cartridge 10 configured to be used with the device [0059, Fig, 12], the aerosol-generating device comprising the at least one inductor coil 108, the power supply 102, and a device housing configured to engage at least a portion of the cartridge when the cartridge is used with the aerosol-generating device and the cartridge 10 comprising the susceptor assembly and a cartridge housing, wherein the at least one inductor coil 108 is positioned adjacent the susceptor assembly 28 when the cartridge is engaged with the aerosol-generating device [0021; Figs. 1 and 12].
Regarding claim 34, Akiyama as modified by Cadieux teaches the claimed cartridge as described with respect to claims 18 and 33 above.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama and Cadieux as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Warren (US 2022/0167677).
Akiyama does not teach the susceptor assembly holds between 2 and 10 ml of liquid aerosol-forming substrate. Warren teaches an aerosol provision device wherein higher absorption capacities of absorbent materials are preferred to ensure that the absorbent material can retain a sufficient volume of liquid that might be encountered in use without leaking [0059]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the absorption capacity, and correspondingly the volume of liquid that may be held, of the susceptor assembly of Akiyama including the absorbent material thereof [0056], as a matter of routine experimentation to achieve the desired effects as suggested by Warren.
Claims 23 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama and Cadieux as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Fraser (US 2018/0184712).
Regarding claim 23, Akiyama does not teach the substantially planar susceptor assembly extends parallel to a first plane, and wherein the electrically heatable aerosol-generating system is configured such that the at least one inductor coil provides a magnetic field at the susceptor assembly that is normal to the first plane. Fraser teaches the substantially planar susceptor assembly extends parallel to a first plane, and wherein the electrically heatable aerosol-generating system is configured such that the at least one inductor coil provides a magnetic field at the susceptor assembly that is perpendicular (normal) to the first plane [0046]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the apart to apply the configuration to the system of Akiyama to achieve good induction and heating.
Regarding claim 30, Akiyama is silent to a thickness of the susceptor assembly. Fraser teaches the susceptor assembly may have a thickness of 2 mm [0139, 0151]. As this is a conventional thickness known in the art, it would have been obvious to use for the susceptor assembly of Akiyama to achieve predictable results, e.g. providing an appropriately thick susceptor assembly for heating and vaporizing the liquid aerosol-forming substrate.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama and Cadiuex as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Rogan (US 2020/0275705).
Akiyama does not teach the susceptor assembly is surrounded by a permeable electrically insulating coating. Rogan teaches an induction heatable cartridge wherein the susceptor assembly is surrounded by a permeable electrically insulating membrane (coating) [0026]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the system of Akiyama such that the susceptor assembly is surrounded by a permeable electrically insulating coating for insulation purposes.
Claims 24 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama and Cadieux as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Rothwell (US 2023/0346027) or Rory (US 2019/0133186).
Modified Akiyama does not teach wherein the substantially planar susceptor assembly includes two opposing surfaces defined by a width and a length of the susceptor assembly and an airflow passage is arranged such that airflow passes along each of the opposing surfaces to directly contact regions adjacent respective ones of the first and the second susceptor elements. Rothwell teaches an aerosol delivery system comprising a planar aerosol generating component 103 arranged parallel to air flow such that air can flow over both sides of the heating element and gather vapor, thereby making aerosol generation very effective [0081; Fig. 7]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this parallel configuration to the aerosol generating component (susceptor assembly) of modified Akiyama such that the susceptor assembly includes two opposing surfaces defined by a width and a length of the susceptor assembly and an airflow passage is arranged such that airflow passes along each of the opposing surfaces to directly contact regions adjacent respective ones of the first and the second susceptor elements, and airflow in the airflow passage passes over a surface of the first susceptor element and a surface of the second susceptor element. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve the effectiveness of aerosol generation as suggested by Rothwell.
In the alternative, Rory teaches an aerosol provision system wherein a vaporizer is mounted such that its plane is parallel to the air flow direction, thereby presenting the thinnest profile to the direction of air flow through, allowing a larger vaporizer to be accommodated with less impediment to air flow (which would affect the “draw” as perceived by the inhaling user) [0064-0065; Fig. 7]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this parallel configuration to the vaporizer (susceptor assembly) of modified Akiyama such that the susceptor assembly includes two opposing surfaces defined by a width and a length of the susceptor assembly and an airflow passage is arranged such that airflow passes along each of the opposing surfaces to directly contact regions adjacent respective ones of the first and the second susceptor elements, and airflow in the airflow passage passes over a surface of the first susceptor element and a surface of the second susceptor element. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to allow a larger susceptor assembly to be accommodated with less impediment to air flow as suggested by Rory.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights