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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 02/05/2026.
Claims 16-33 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claims 16 and 25 are amended.
Claims 31-33 are previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-14, filed 02/05/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 1 has been amended to newly require that the susceptor multiple elongate elements be in a cylindrical arrangement. Prior art of record Sutton teaches a hollow tubular rectangular configuration but does not teach that this may be cylindrical. However, upon further consideration, a new obviousness ground(s) of rejection is made over Blandino in view of Sutton.
On pages 6-7, the Applicant argues that Sutton does not appropriately teach the claimed hollow tubular cylindrical arrangement, as the susceptor is a rectangular shape.
The Examiner agrees that Sutton does not explicitly teach a cylindrical arrangement. However, this limitation is taught by Blandino, which teaches that the susceptor may have a circular cross section ([0095]). When combined with the teachings of Sutton, the claimed arrangement is made obvious.
On pages 7-8, the Applicant argues that Sutton does not appropriately teach that the thermally deformable element of Sutton is not configured to contact and hold the aerosol generating article, and would further not be capable of performing as such in a cylindrical arrangement. The Applicant specifically references page 13 of Sutton to emphasize that it is not the heating element 26 that contacts the substrate but rather the heating surfaces 20a, 20b that contact the substrate.
The Examiner disagrees. The claim recites that “the thermally deformable element is configured to thermally deform … to contact and hold the aerosol-generating article”. Sutton teaches heating element (heating device 20 comprising heaters 22, 24 and temperature-sensitive element 26; page 9, lines 16-19), of which the thermally deformable element 26 is configured to deform. This deformity causes heating device to contact and hold the article (page 13, lines 6-9). Therefore, it is understood that the heating element does deform to facilitate contacting and holding of the article.
The Examiner further notes that the heating arrangement would be easily modified by one having ordinary skill to better accommodate an aerosol generating article with a cylindrical opening, as change in shape is prima facie obvious. For example, one having ordinary skill in the art that multiple elongate elements may be arranged in a cylinder rather than in a hollow rectangular position.
Lastly, on pages 8-10, the Applicant argues that it is improper to modify Sutton with Blandino, as one having ordinary skill could not modify the device to use a susceptor without rendering the device unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or changing the principle of operation of the device.
Without conceding to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner notes that the rejection now uses Blandino as a primary reference, rendering the argument moot.
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments made to the claims.
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 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 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blandino et al. (US 20170055580 A1) in view of Sutton et al. (WO 2016156497 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Blandino teaches an aerosol-generating device (apparatus 100; [0081]), comprising:
a cavity (heating zone 113; [0081]) configured to receive an aerosol-generating article (article 500; [0128], [0081]) comprising an aerosol-forming substrate ([0073]);
and an induction heating element (coil 122 and heating element 130; [0081], [0105]) comprising a susceptor configured to heat (heating element 130; [0076], [0095]),
wherein the heating element is arranged as multiple elongate elements ([0103] describes two elongate portions),
wherein the heating element comprises a thermally deformable element arranged in the cavity ([0103]),
and wherein the thermally deformable element is configured to thermally deform during a heating operation to contact and hold the aerosol-generating article received in the cavity during a heating operation ([0103]).
Blandino further teaches that the susceptor may have a circular cross section ([0095]) and may be a bimetallic strip comprising steel, copper, manganese, or brass ([0104]; [0023-0025]; [0095]).
Blandino does not explicitly teach that the susceptor is (I) arranged as the multiple elongate elements forming a hollow tubular arrangement with gaps between individual elongate elements and (II) the hollow tubular arrangement is cylindrical.
Regarding (I), Sutton, directed to an aerosol-generating device (apparatus 1; page 6, line 18), comprising a cavity (heating chamber 13) configured to receive an aerosol-generating article (cartridge 60; page 6, line 16) comprising an aerosol-forming substrate (smokable material 62; page 6, line 23) and a heating element (heating device 20 comprising heaters 22, 24 and temperature-sensitive element 26; page 9, lines 16-19) configured to heat, wherein the heating element comprises a thermally deformable element arranged in the cavity (temperature-sensitive element 26; page 13, lines 6-7), and wherein the thermally deformable element is configured to thermally deform during a heating operation to contact and hold the aerosol-generating article received in the cavity during a heating operation (page 13, lines 6-7), teaches that the heating element is arranged as multiple elongate elements (heaters 22, 24; Fig. 3) forming a hollow tubular arrangement with gaps between individual elongate elements (annular gap formed by temperature-sensitive element 26; Fig. 3).
Sutton further teaches that the heating element may be a bimetallic strip comprising steel, copper, manganese or brass (page 16, lines 17-24).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the heating element of Blandino by modifying the heating element to be the heating element comprising multiple elongate elements forming a hollow tubular arrangement with gaps between individual elongate elements as taught by Sutton because both Sutton and Blandino are directed to aerosol-generating devices comprising heating elements comprising thermally deformable elements of the same materials, Sutton teaches a known susceptor configuration, and this involves substituting one alternative susceptor configuration for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding (II), Blandino teaches that the susceptor may have a cross section of any shape, including circular ([0095]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify modified Blandino by arranging the susceptor cross section to be circular arrangement as taught by Blandino, such that the heater is cylindrical, because one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this shape may better suit a given aerosol-generating article, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results. Furthermore, changes in shape, such as from a hollow tubular shape to a cylindrical shape, are prima facie obvious absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant.
Regarding claim 17, Sutton teaches that the thermally deformable element is made from bimetal (page 15, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 18, Sutton teaches that the thermally deformable element comprises a bimetal strip (page 15, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 19, Sutton teaches that the susceptor is made from bimetal (page 16, lines 4-6 teaches that the bimetal strip may be the heating element).
Regarding claim 20, Sutton teaches that the susceptor further comprises a first material and a second material, and wherein the first material has a lower coefficient of thermal expansion than the second material (page 15, lines 2-6).
Regarding claim 21, Sutton teaches that the first and the second materials are provided as layers adjacent each other (page 15, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 22, Sutton teaches that the susceptor is elongate (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 23, Sutton teaches that the thermally deformable element of the susceptor is elongate (page 15, lines 17-18; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 24, Sutton teaches that the thermally deformable element of the susceptor is arranged as the multiple elongate elements (page 16, lines 4-6 teaches that the bimetal strip may be the heating element).
Regarding claim 25, Sutton teaches that the thermally deformable element of the susceptor is arranged as the multiple elongate elements forming a hollow tubular arrangement with gaps between the individual elongate elements (page 16, lines 4-6 teaches that the bimetal strip may be the heating element).
Regarding claim 26, Sutton teaches that each of the multiple elongate elements comprises a first end and an opposite second end (distal end 21e and second end of the heating chamber; page 10, line 29-page 11, line 1), and wherein one or both of each of the first ends and each of the second ends of the multiple elongate elements are connected with each other (Fig. 3; page 15, lines 17-31).
Regarding claim 27, Sutton teaches that each of the multiple elongate elements comprises a first end and an opposite second end (Fig. 2), and wherein one or both of each of the first ends and each of the second ends of the multiple elongate elements are connected with each other via a supporting ring (annular third body 26c; page 15, lines 19-25).
Regarding claim 28, Sutton teaches that the first ends of the multiple elongate elements are connected with each other via a supporting ring (annular third body 26c; page 15, lines 19-25), and wherein the second ends of the multiple elongate elements are fixed to a base of the cavity (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 29, Sutton teaches that the base of the cavity is arranged at a distal end of the cavity, and the supporting ring is arranged at a proximal end of the cavity (page 15, lines 19-25; Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 30, modified Blandino does not specify that the first material with the lower thermal coefficient of thermal expansion is arranged facing the cavity, and the second material is arranged facing away from the cavity.
However, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a material with a larger coefficient of thermal expansion would expand more than a material with a lower coefficient of thermal expansion when heated. One having ordinary skill would further recognize that in a heated bimetal strip, the material with the larger coefficient of thermal expansion would be the outer layer of the curve. Thus, if the strip is configured to curve towards the smokable material when heated, the material with the lower coefficient would be arranged to face the cavity and the material with the higher coefficient would be arranged to face away from the cavity
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Blandino by arranging the material with the lower coefficient to face the cavity and the material with the higher coefficient to face away from the cavity so as to curve toward the smokable material when heated because modified Blandino is silent to the order of materials of the bimetal strip, one with ordinary skill would recognize that the thermally deformable materials may be layered depending on the desired curvature upon heating, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
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 Charlotte Davison whose telephone number is (703)756-5484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755