DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/26/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 34 over Buchberger have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection over Akiyama or Akiyama in view of Fraser have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Akiyama does not teach a susceptor assembly having a length (L) and width (W) that is substantially greater than their thickness (T). The Examiner disagrees. See annotated Fig. 4 below. The length (L) and width (W) are both interpreted as being substantially greater than the thickness (T).
PNG
media_image1.png
677
1164
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues “The person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to have considered reducing the thickness of the liquid transfer element 56, as doing so would reduce the thickness and overall volume of the vaporization chamber 64, so making this change would be detrimental to the effectiveness of the Akiyama device for generating an aerosol. Such a person would also not be inclined to increase the width of the liquid transfer element or heaters 54, because doing so would make these components incompatible with surrounding components of the Akiyama device and because the person would not see any apparent benefit in making this change.” The Examiner disagrees. As long as the vaporization chamber remains aligned and fluidly connected with vapor outlet channel 26, it provides a route for vapor to escape as desired by Akiyama. This effect remains even if the volume of the vaporization chamber were to increased or reduced. An express suggestion or benefit is not necessary to render the substitution obvious, see MPEP 2144.06.
Applicant argues “The mechanism of vaporization, airflow, and vapor transport through Fraser is significantly different from the operation mechanism of Akiyama.” The person of ordinary skill in the art, for at least these reasons, would not see the planar shape in Fraser as an optional feature to replace features 54, 56 in Akiyama. This is too much to ask of the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art.” The Examiner disagrees. Akiyama teaches a susceptor assembly comprising a susceptor element and a wicking element, wherein liquid wicked by the wicking element is heated by the susceptor element to generate an aerosol. Fraser teaches a susceptor assembly comprising a susceptor element and a wicking element, wherein liquid wicked by the wicking element is heated by the susceptor element to generate an aerosol. The person of ordinary skill in the art would see the configurations of Fraser and Akiyama as very similar and would have found it obvious to apply the planar shape of the susceptor assembly of Fraser to the susceptor assembly of Akiyama for the reasons states.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 21-22, 24-28, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Akiyama (US 2023/0064474), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Akiyama in view of Fraser (US 2018/0184712)
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. In the alternative, Fraser teaches an aerosol provision system comprising a planar vaporizer (susceptor assembly) which comprises both a susceptor and a wicking element [0165]. Thus, a susceptor assembly having a planar shape is known in the art as an equivalent shape for the purpose of wicking and vaporizing liquid as also desired by Akiyama [0056]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the planar susceptor assembly shape taught by Fraser for the susceptor assembly shape of Akiyama to achieve the same, predictable result of wicking and vaporizing liquid. It is prima facie obvious to substitute art recognized equivalents known for the same purpose, see MPEP 2144.06.
Regarding claims 21-22, Akiyama teaches the susceptors elements 54 are thin layers [Fig. 4] of metal [0021], i.e a foil, and perforated [0058]. These elements are also interpreted to read on an electrically conductive material deposited on the wicking element as a film.
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 or Akiyama as modified by Fraser 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 optionally Fraser 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 20, 23, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama in view of Fraser.
Regarding claim 20, Akiyama does not teach the claimed form of the susceptor elements. Fraser teaches the susceptor element may be in the form of a mesh [0159]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a mesh for the susceptor elements of Akiyama to achieve the same, predictable result of heating the liquid for vaporization.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama and optionally Fraser as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2021/0084980).
As an alternative to the rejection of claim 21 above, if it is interpreted that Akiyama does not teach a film, Lee teaches an aerosol generation device wherein a susceptor includes a metal film [0030]. 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 deposit a metal (electrically conductive) film on to the wicking element of Akiyama to achieve the predictable result of heating and vaporization.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama and optionally Fraser as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Cadieux (US 2015/0245669).
As an alternative to the rejection of claim 22 above, if it is interpreted that Akiyama does not teach a foil, Cadieux teaches an electronic vaping device wherein a susceptor includes a perforated foil [0156]. 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 the predictable result of heating and vaporization.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama and optionally Fraser 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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