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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB2020424.4, filed on 12/22/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/11/2025, 4/16/2025 and 6/15/2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the secondary coil and electromagnetic shielding must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because for using phraseology that can be implied, i.e. “is disclosed”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: For the purposes of maintaining consistent terminology throughout it is suggested “the element” in line 4 be amended to “the electrically-conductive element” similar to line 8. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,3,5,8-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kluge et al (WO2001046971).
Note: A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
With regards to claim 1, Kluge et al discloses an inductor for use in an aerosol provision device (inductor 200a, Fig. 3A), the inductor comprising an electrically-conductive element (the inductor 200 is comprised of a plurality of turns formed from conductive layers that are coil shaped and these coil shaped conductive layers, illustrated in Figure 3 as coil turns 202a, 202b and 202c, Fig. 3A); and a secondary coil (magnetic core 216, Fig. 3A); wherein the element comprises an electrically-conductive non-spiral first portion coincident with a first plane (coil turn 202a in a first plane, Fig. 3A), an electrically-conductive non-spiral second portion coincident with a second plane that is spaced from the first plane (coil turn 202b coincident with a second plane spaced apart from coil turn 202a, Fig. 3A), and an electrically-conductive connector that electrically connects the first portion to the second portion as seen below:
PNG
media_image1.png
627
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and wherein the electrically-conductive element is configured such that when a varying electrical current is applied to the electrically-conductive element, a corresponding varying electrical current is induced in the secondary coil (the magnetic core 216 is comprised of a material of high magnetic permeability and is located, preferably, within the coil 200a so as to further increase the effective inductance for a give size of coil structure, page 4, lines 28-32).
With regards to claim 3, Kluge et al discloses an inductor for use in an aerosol provision device (inductor 200a, Fig. 3A), the inductor comprising an electrically-conductive element (the inductor 200 is comprised of a plurality of turns formed from conductive layers that are coil shaped and these coil shaped conductive layers, illustrated in Figure 3 as coil turns 202a, 202b and 202c, Fig. 3A); and electromagnetic shielding (magnetic core 216, Fig. 3A); wherein the electrically-conductive element comprises an electrically-conductive non- spiral first portion coincident with a first plane (coil turn 202a in a first plane, Fig. 3A), an electrically-conductive non-spiral second portion coincident with a second plane that is spaced from the first plane (coil turn 202b coincident with a second plane spaced apart from coil turn 202a, Fig. 3A), and an electrically- conductive connector that electrically connects the first portion to the second portion as seen below:
PNG
media_image1.png
627
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and wherein the electromagnetic shielding is arranged to at least partially surround at least one of the electrically-conductive non-spiral first portion coincident with the first plane (magnetic core 216 is arranged to partially surround an inner part of turns 202a-c, Fig. 3A).
With regards to claim 5, Kluge et al discloses an inductor for use in an aerosol provision device (inductor 200a, Fig. 3A), the inductor comprising an electrically-conductive element (the inductor 200 is comprised of a plurality of turns formed from conductive layers that are coil shaped and these coil shaped conductive layers, illustrated in Figure 3 as coil turns 202a, 202b and 202c, Fig. 3A); wherein the element comprises an electrically-conductive non-spiral first portion coincident with a first plane (oil turn 202a in a first plane, Fig. 3A), an electrically-conductive non-spiral second portion coincident with a second plane that is spaced from the first plane (coil turn 202b coincident with a second plane spaced apart from coil turn 202a, Fig. 3A), and an electrically-conductive connector that electrically connects the first portion to the second portion as seen below:
PNG
media_image1.png
627
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claims 6,36 and 37, Kluge et al discloses wherein the first portion is a first partial annulus and the second portion is a second partial annulus (inductor 200 has coil turns 202a and 202b which constitute each an annulus, Fig. 3A).
With regards to claim 8, Kluge et al discloses wherein the first portion is a first circular arc, and the second portion is a second circular arc (inductor 200 has coil turns 202a and 202b which constitute each a circular arc, Fig. 3A).
With regards to claim 9, Kluge et al discloses wherein, when viewed in a direction orthogonal to the first plane, the first and second portions extend in opposite senses of rotation from the electrically-conductive connector (turns 202a and 202b extend in opposite senses of rotation from vias connecting each turn 202a and 202b, Fig. 3A).
With regards to claim 10, Kluge et al discloses when viewed in a direction orthogonal to the first plane, the first portion overlaps, only partially, the second portion (turns 202a and 202b overlap where vias connecting each turn 202a and 202b, Fig. 3A).
With regards to claim 11, Kluge et al discloses wherein, when viewed in a direction orthogonal to the first plane, the first portion at least partially overlaps the electrically-conductive connector (turns 202a and 202b overlap where vias connecting each turn 202a and 202b, Fig. 3A).
With regards to claim 12, Kluge et al discloses wherein the first and second planes are flat planes (turns 202a and 202b are flat, Fig. 3A).
With regards to claim 14, Kluge et al discloses herein the first and second portions together define at least 0.9 turns about an axis that is orthogonal to the first and second planes (inductor 200a having turns 202a and 202b together define a 1 turn of a circle, Fig. 3A).
With regards to claim 15, Kluge et al discloses wherein the element comprises further electrically-conductive non-spiral portions that are coincident with respective spaced-apart planes (inductor 200a having turns 202a and 202b are coincident and spaced apart by vias, Fig. 3A).
With regards to claim 16, Kluge et al discloses wherein a total number of turns, about an axis, defined by all of the electrically-conductive non-spiral portions of the element together is between one and ten (inductor 200 has 3 turns 202a-c, Fig. 3A).
With regards to claim 17, Kluge et al discloses wherein a distance between each adjacent pair of the portions of the element is equal to, or differs by less than 10% from, a distance between each other adjacent pair of the portions of the element (inductor 200 has 3 turns 202a-c that are equally separated, Fig. 3A).
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.
Claim(s) 13,18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kluge et al as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Kluge et al.
With regards to claim 13, Kluge et al discloses wherein a distance between the first and second planes measured in a direction orthogonal to the first and second planes (the adjacent closely spaced and vertically stacked coil turns have substantially the same voltage potential thereon so that capacitive coupling therebetween is minimized. Only one coil turn is adjacent to the integrated circuit substrate and has a relatively small footprint. This greatly reduces parasitic capacitance from the substrate, page 2, lines 6-9).
Kluge et al does not disclose wherein a distance between the first and second planes measured in a direction orthogonal to the first and second planes is less than 2 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the distance of Kluge et al, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
With regards to claim 18, Kluge et al discloses wherein each of the first and second portions has a thickness, measured in a direction orthogonal to the first plane (the adjacent closely spaced and vertically stacked coil turns have substantially the same voltage potential thereon so that capacitive coupling therebetween is minimized. Only one coil turn is adjacent to the integrated circuit substrate and has a relatively small footprint. This greatly reduces parasitic capacitance from the substrate, page 2, lines 6-9).
Kluge et al does not disclose wherein each of the first and second portions has a thickness, measured in a direction orthogonal to the first plane, of between 10 micrometers and 200 micrometers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the distance of Kluge et al, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
With regards to claim 19, Kluge et al discloses an inductor for use in an aerosol provision device (inductor 200a, Fig. 3A), the inductor comprising a coil (inductor 200a having turns 202a and 202b, Fig. 3A).
Kluge et al does not disclose a coil having a pitch of less than 2 millimeters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the pitch of Kluge et al, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761