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
Claims 1-20 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/10/2025.
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 16 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation less than 10 mm, and the claim also recites less than 9 mm, 8 mm, 7 mm, 6 mm, 5 mm, 4 mm, 3 mm, 2 mm, or 1 mm, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination the narrower ranges are considered to be not required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mironov (US2020/0060348, cited previously) in view of Aramendy (US2023/0404134).
Regarding claim 1, Mironov teaches an aerosol generating system comprising an aerosol generating device (100) having one or more inductor coils (115/125, [0119], figure 3) and one or more susceptors (215/225, which may be part of the device [0029]) and an article for use with a non-combustible aerosol provision device (article 200, [0104]).
Mironov does not appear to explicitly disclose the article for use with the non-combustible aerosol provision device comprising a non-magnetic metallic component, wherein, in use, is positioned in proximity to one or more of the one or more susceptors.
Aramendy, directed to a non-combustible aerosol provision system, teaches an article with a wrapper formed of an aluminum co-laminated sheet which prevents combustion of the aerosol-forming substrate in the event that the aerosol-forming substrate should be ignited, rather than heated in the intended manner [0045]. The Applicant’s specification teaches that aluminum is a non-magnetic metallic component (see page 27, first paragraph).
Therefore it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the article of Mironov to have an aluminum co-laminated sheet as taught by Aramendy, and thus the article comprising a non-magnetic component positioned in proximity to one or more of the one or more susceptors when in use, because both Mironov and Aramendy are directed to non-combustible aerosol-generating systems, Aramendy teaches this prevents combustion of the aerosol-forming substrate in the event that the aerosol-forming substrate should be ignited, and this merely involves incorporating a known type of wrapper to a similar aerosol-generating article to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Mironov further teaches wherein the one or more susceptors comprise one or more ferritic elements comprising a ceramic material (ferrite ceramic, [0081]).
Regarding claim 5, Mironov further teaches wherein the one or more ferritic elements are electrically non-conductive (electrically non-conductive and ferro- or ferrimagnetic material, such as a ferrite ceramic, [0081]).
Regarding claim 6, Mironov further teaches wherein the one or more ferritic elements are an electrical insulator (electrically non-conductive and ceramic [0081]).
Regarding claim 7, Mironov further teaches wherein the one or more ferritic elements are either: magnetizable; ferromagnetic; or ferrimagnetic [0081].
Regarding claim 8, Mironov further teaches wherein the one or more inductor coils are arranged to generate a varying magnetic field and wherein the one or more susceptors are arranged to become heated by the varying magnetic field [0027].
Regarding claim 9, Mironov further teaches wherein the one or more susceptors are arranged and adapted to heat not burn aerosolizable material provided in an article for use with a non-combustible aerosol provision device [0057].
Regarding claim 10, Mironov further teaches wherein the one or more susceptors are arranged and adapted to generate aerosol from aerosolizable material provided in an article for use with a non-combustible aerosol provision device [0057].
Regarding claim 11, Mironov further teaches wherein the aerosol generating device comprises a heat not burn aerosol generating device [0057].
Regarding claim 12, Mironov further teaches wherein the aerosol generating device comprises a non-combustible aerosol provision device [0057].
Regarding claim 13, Mironov further teaches in combination with an article for use with a non-combustible aerosol provision device [0057].
Regarding claim 14, modified Mironov further teaches wherein the article for use with a non-combustible aerosol provision device includes one or more aluminum elements (wrapper formed of an aluminum co-laminated sheet as taught by Aramendy).
Regarding claim 15, Mironov further teaches upon receiving the first and second aerosol-forming substrate, the first and second susceptor preferably are in close proximity or even in contact with the first and second aerosol-forming substrate [0029].
As modified Mironov has the aluminum element in the wrapper of the aerosol-forming substrate, the susceptor therefore would be in contact with the wrapper. Thus at least a portion of one of the aluminum elements is located in close proximity to at least a portion of one of the ferritic elements.
Regarding claim 16, as Mironov further teaches upon receiving the first and second aerosol-forming substrate, the first and second susceptor preferably are in close proximity or even in contact with the first and second aerosol-forming substrate [0029], the susceptor would be in contact with the wrapper of the substrate. As the wrapper comprises the aluminum elements, at least one of the aluminum elements is located 0 mm from at least a portion of one of the ferritic elements. The value taught by the prior art falls within the claimed range of less than 10 mm.
Regarding claim 17, Mironov further teaches wherein the article for use with a non-combustible aerosol provision device comprises aerosolizable material [0057].
Regarding claim 18, Mironov further teaches wherein the aerosolizable material is provided as a solid or as a liquid [0065].
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mironov (US2020/0060348, cited previously) in view of Aramendy (US2023/0404134) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kesselman (US2010/0270303).
Regarding claims 3-4, Mironov further teaches the susceptor may comprise a ferrimagnetic material, such as a ferrite ceramic [0081].
Mironov does not appear to disclose wherein the one or more ferritic elements are formed by mixing iron (III) oxide (Fe203) with one or more additional metallic elements to form a mixture and then heating the mixture to form a ceramic.
Kesselman, directed to a magnetic clasp and detachable tray for rolling papers used in smoking articles, teaches:
Ceramic or ferrite magnets such as a sintered composite of powdered iron oxide and barium [0040].
As such, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the ferrite ceramic of Mironov be a sintered composite of powdered iron oxide and barium as taught by Kesselman, as these are known types of magnetic ferrite ceramics, and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.07.
The ferrite ceramic being a sintered composite of powdered iron oxide and barium reads on wherein the one or more ferritic elements are formed by mixing iron (III) oxide (Fe203) with one or more additional metallic elements to form a mixture and then heating the mixture to form a ceramic as recited in claim 3 and wherein the one or more additional metallic elements is selected from the group comprising: barium; manganese; nickel; and zinc as recited in claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicole A Szumigalski whose telephone number is (703)756-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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.
/N.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755