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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Examiner impermissibly combines features of different embodiments of Thorens. Examiner first refers to the embodiment of Figure 3 of Thorens, which is described from paragraph [0307] onwards. However, paragraph [0308] is explicit that the heating element in figure 3 is resistive, not a susceptor as required by claim 1. There is no disclosure that the embodiment in figure 3, specifically, comprises a susceptor.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraphs [0307], [0308] and [0324] describe the use of an internal heating element, in one embedment. Paragraph [0323] describes the use of external heating elements in another embodiment. Paragraph [0097] describes the combination of an internal and external heating elements. Thus, the scope of Thorens explicitly includes both types of heating elements, together, in a single embodiment. Moreover, the external heating elements include an array of external heating elements (paragraph [0098]), which leads into the teachings of Kaufman.
Paragraphs [0100]-[0108] of Thorens describes the different types of heating elements. Paragraph [0100] discloses the use of electrically resistive heating elements, [0101]-[0108] describes heating elements that include susceptors and is a material that converts electromagnetic energy to heat inside a fluctuating magnetic field. The susceptors may be in the shape of a blade, pin or rod (Paragraph [0104]), which is shown as item 730 in figure 6, and described in paragraph [0324]. Paragraph [0316] further discloses that the blade, 334, (Figure 3) includes a susceptor.
The courts have generally held that prior art is part of the literature and are relevant for all they contain. See, n re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983). MPEP 2123, I. Thus, the entire disclosure, as well as the individual embodiments and their combinations are relevant art. In the instant case, Thorens describes individual embodiments wherein an internal heater is used and an external heater is used. Moreover, Thorens describes a combination of the internal and external heaters and the blade of the internal heater may also comprise a susceptor. The susceptor itself is heated via a varying magnetic field.
Applicant argues that in an attempt to turn the heater blade of Figure 3 into a susceptor, paragraphs [0100]-[0108] are cited. However, these paragraphs belong to the “general methodology” section and do not relate specifically to the embodiment of figure 3.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0316] explicitly discloses that the blade of figure 3 comprises a susceptor. Thus, the scope of the invention in Thorens as described in paragraphs [0100]-[0108] is applicable to the blade, as generally described.
Applicant argues that there is no disclosure in Thorens that describes an inner an outer susceptor that surround the heating region.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0323] describes heating elements, 630 that surround the cavity for receiving the aerosol-generating article. Paragraph [0101]-0108] describe the use of susceptors for the heating elements along with an inductor. Thus, the heating elements, at least in a broader disclosure to include any and every heating element disclosed by Thorens, includes a susceptor and an induction heating source. The external heater the including a surrounding susceptor and induction source, while the internal heater including a blade, pin or rod, and an induction source.
To further this idea, Kaufman shows an external heating arrangement that includes external susceptors, 202a and 202b, as well as an induction source, 204 and 206.
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.
_____________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 1-8 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THORENS (US 2018/0007972) in view of KAUFMAN et al. (US 2019/0313695)
With respect to claim 1, THORENS discloses an aerosol generating system (Abstract; Title) comprising a heating region (e.g., area within 320, that encompasses the aerosol-generating article, 200a (Paragraph [0308]; Figure 3). The system further comprises a first, internal, heater, 330, that may be in the form of a blade that may penetrate the aerosol-generating article (Paragraph [0308], [0324]) and a second, external, heater, 630 that surrounds the aerosol generating article (and thus the heating region as well) (Paragraph [0323], [0097], [0098]; Figures 3 and 5).
The heating elements themselves are susceptors (Paragraph [0100]-[0108]). Thus, the first heating element implicitly includes a first susceptor that extends within the heating region in the form of a blade, and the second heating element implicitly includes a second susceptor that surrounds the heating region.
THORENS discloses that the heaters are heated by using one or more induction coils (e.g., a first and second induction coil) that generate a fluctuating (e.g., varying) electromagnetic filed within the heating region (Paragraphs [0158]-[0159]) that generates eddy currents in the susceptors (Paragraph [0102]).
THORENS does not explicitly disclose that the varying magnetic field penetrates the susceptors, per se. KAUFMAN et al. disclose an inductive heating arrangement to volatize a smokable material (Abstract). Each of the inductor coils are configured to generate a varying magnetic field that penetrates the susceptor so that the susceptors are heated and also allows for heating sections of the smokable material (Abstract; [0004], [0023]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the varying magnetic fields to penetrate the susceptors of THORENS, as taught by KAUFMAN et al. so that the susceptors can be heated by the induction of eddy currents in a manner where sections of the smokable material can be heated as desired.
With respect to claim 2, THORENS shows that the heating region has a longitudinal axis and the first susceptor extends within the heating region in an axial direction (Figure 3, annotated below; Paragraph [0069], [0098], [0136])
[AltContent: textbox (Point of susceptor)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First susceptor extending along axial direction)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Heating region)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Longitudinal axis)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
598
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, THORENS discloses that the first susceptor is configured to extend into the article received by the heating region (Paragraph [0324]).
With respect to claim 4, THORENS discloses that the first susceptor comprises a point at a free end (Figure 3, annotated above).
With respect to claim 5, THORENS discloses that the second heater (susceptor) is configured to extend around the article received in the heating region (Paragraphs [0156], [0316], [0052]).
With respect to claim 6, KAUFMAN et al. discloses that the inductor coils extend around a respective susceptor (Paragraph [0023], [0025]; Figure 2).
With respect to claim 7, KAUFMAN et al. discloses that the inductor coils extend around the susceptor (Paragraph [0023], [0025]). Given that the susceptors are within the heating region, the coils also surround the heating region as well.
With respect to claim 8, KAUFMAN et al. discloses that the inductor coils extend around a respective susceptor (Paragraph [0023], [0025]; Figure 2).
With respect to claim 17, THORENS discloses that the heating region receives an article comprising a solid aerosol-forming substrate (Paragraph [0065]; Figure 3).
With respect to claim 18, THORENS discloses a device comprising the system (Abstract; Title; Figure 3; Paragraphs [0004]-[0020]).
With respect to claim 19, THORENS discloses that the device is a non-combustible device (Paragraph [0003], [0055]).
With respect to claim 20, THORENS discloses that the system comprises the device of claim 19 and an aerosol generating material (Paragraph [0283]).
________________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 9, 10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THORENS (US 2018/0007972) in view of KAUFMAN et al. (US 2019/0313695) as applied to claims 1-8 and 17-20 above, and further in view of THORENS (US 2020/0268053).
With respect to claims 9, 10 and 13, modified THORENS does not specifically discloses that the system is configured such that the first varying magnetic field causes a greater increase in temperature in the first susceptor than the second.
THORENS ‘053 discloses an apparatus for heating a smokable material (Abstract; Title). The heating section is provided with first and second inductor coils that are selectively independently controllable (Paragraphs [0012], [0013], [0106]) to release the aerosol according to user preference. The controlling is performed by a control circuit (Paragraphs [0106], [0103])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the device of THORENS with selectively independently controllable first and second induction coils, using a control circuit (as required by claim 13), as taught by THORENS ‘053, so that the desired aerosol profile can be generated.
By selectively heating only the first coil, the temperature increase is greater in the first susceptor when compared to the second (as required by claim 9). When the second coil is selectively heated, the second susceptor temperature increase is greater than the first (as required by claim 10).
With respect to claim 14, KAUFMAN et al. discloses that the system comprises first and second temperature sensing elements for measuring respective susceptor portion’s temperatures (Paragraph [0029]). THORENS ‘053 discloses that based on the temperature sensor readings, the controller causes the device to adjust a characteristic of the current passed through the inductor coils (Paragraph [0109]).
With respect to claim 15, THORENS ‘053 discloses an alternating current supply to the coils (Paragraph [0106]).
With respect to claim 16, KAUFMAN et al. discloses that the system comprises first and second temperature sensing elements for measuring respective susceptor portion’s temperatures (Paragraph [0029]). THORENS ‘053 discloses that based on the temperature sensor readings, the controller causes the device to adjust a characteristic of the current passed through the inductor coils (Paragraph [0109]). The characteristic being the frequency of the current (Paragraph [0109]).
________________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THORENS (US 2018/0007972) in view of KAUFMAN et al. (US 2019/0313695) as applied to claims 1-8 and 17-20 above, and further in view of MIRONOV et al. (US 2016/0295921).
With respect to claim 11, modified KAUFMAN et al. does not explicitly disclose a portion of the second susceptor surrounds a portion of the first. MIRONOV et al. discloses an aerosol-forming substrate for use with an inductive heating device (Abstract). First and second susceptors are provided. The second susceptor material are arranged around the periphery of the aerosol material, while the first susceptor is provided along the center of the aerosol forming material and is surrounded by the second susceptor (Figure 3; Paragraphs [0005], [0034], [0039]) so that overheating of the aerosol-forming substrate may be prevented. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second susceptor of modified THORENS to surround the first susceptor of THORENS, as taught by MIRONOV et al. so that the device can be configured to prevent overheating of the aerosol-forming substrate.
_____________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THORENS (US 2018/0007972) in view of KAUFMAN et al. (US 2019/0313695) as applied to claims 1-8 and 17-20 above, and further in view of MIRONOV et al. (US 2020/0060348).
With respect to claim 12, modified THORENS does not explicitly disclose that the first susceptor is offset from the second in the claimed manner. MIRONOV et al. discloses that the first susceptor, 215, is offset and is not surrounded by the second susceptor, 225, (Figure 2) in order to provide selective heatability (Paragraph [0116], [0117]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the susceptors of modified THORENS, in the manner claimed, as taught by MIRONOV et al. so as to provide selective heating of the aerosol-forming material.
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 ALEX B EFTA whose telephone number is (313)446-6548. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745