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 1-12 and 14-20 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claim 13 has been cancelled. Claims 19-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 14, and 16 have been amended.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 4/10/2026 containing
amendments and remarks to the claims.
The rejection of claim 16 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn due to the claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-9, filed 4/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-18 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 1 to have the non-magnetic metallic component disposed within the article, whereas previously this was not required. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously applied art and newly found art.
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments made to the claims.
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.
Claims 15-18 are 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the ferritic elements" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, claim 15 is considered to be dependent on claim 2 which recites “wherein the one or more susceptors comprise one or more ferritic elements”. Claim 16 is similarly rejected as being dependent on claim 15.
Claim 17 depends on canceled claim 13. For purposes of examination, claim 17 is considered to be dependent on claim 1. Claim 18 is similarly rejected for being dependent on claim 17.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8-12, 14, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sebastian (US2020/0154784).
Regarding claim 1, Sebastian discloses an aerosol generating system (aerosol delivery device 100, [0035], figures 1-2) comprising:
an aerosol generating device (control body 102) having one or more inductor coils ([0051]: an inductive heat source may comprise a resonant transmitter in the control body 102 which may comprise a coil) and one or more susceptors ([0051]: resonant receiver e.g. a susceptor)
and an article for use with a non-combustible aerosol provision device (substrate portion 110, [0045], figure 2), the article comprising a non-magnetic metallic component disposed within the article (thermally conductive threads integrated into a substrate sheet which is used to create the substrate portion [0050], and the thermally conductive threads may be of an aluminum material [0006]). The instant specification discloses aluminum is a non-magnetic metallic component (see page 27, first paragraph).
wherein, in use, the article is positioned in proximity to one or more of the one or more susceptors (the resonant receiver comprises prongs that extend into the substrate portion or are surrounded by the substrate portion, [0051]).
Regarding claim 8, Sebastian discloses 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 ([0051]).
Regarding claims 9-10, Sebastian discloses wherein the one or more susceptors are arranged and adapted to heat not burn aerosolizable material or generate aerosol from aerosolizable material provided in an article for use with a non-combustible aerosol provision device ([0030] may be employed in e-cigarettes or heat-not-burn cigarettes).
Regarding claim 11, Sebastian discloses wherein the aerosol generating device comprises a heat not burn aerosol generating device ([0030] may be employed in e-cigarettes or heat-not-burn cigarettes).
Regarding claim 12, Sebastian discloses wherein the aerosol generating device comprises a non-combustible aerosol provision device ([0030] may be employed in e-cigarettes or heat-not-burn cigarettes).
Regarding claim 14, Sebastian discloses wherein the article for use with a non-combustible aerosol provision device includes one or more aluminum elements (the thermally conductive threads may be of an aluminum material [0006]).
Regarding claim 17, Sebastian discloses wherein the article for use with a non-combustible aerosol provision device comprises aerosolizable material ([0061]).
Regarding claim 18, Sebastian discloses wherein the aerosolizable material is provided: (i) as a solid; (ii) as a liquid; (iii) in the form of a gel; (iv) in the form of a thin film substrate; (v) in the form of a thin film substrate having multiple regions; or (vi) in the form of a thin film substrate having multiple regions, wherein at least two of the regions comprise aerosolizable material having different compositions (substrate sheet 120 [0069], which is considered to be a solid).
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) 2, 5-7, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian (US2020/0154784) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mironov (US2020/0060348, cited previously).
Regarding claim 2, Sebastian does not appear to disclose wherein the one or more susceptors comprise one or more ferritic elements comprising a ceramic material.
Mironov, directed to an aerosol-generating article, teaches a susceptor that may be comprised of a ferrite ceramic ([0081]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the susceptor of Sebastian comprise ferrite ceramic as taught by Mironov as this merely involves the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Sebastian does not appear to disclose wherein the one or more ferritic elements are electrically non-conductive.
However, Mironov further teaches ferrite ceramic may be electrically non-conductive ([0081]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the susceptor of Sebastian be electrically non-conductive as taught by Mironov as this merely involves the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Sebastian does not appear to disclose wherein the one or more ferritic elements are an electrical insulator.
However, Mironov further teaches a susceptor that may be an electrical insulator (electrically non-conductive and ceramic [0081]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the susceptor of Sebastian be an electrical insulator as taught by Mironov as this merely involves the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Sebastian does not appear to disclose wherein the one or more ferritic elements are either: magnetisable; ferromagnetic; or ferrimagnetic.
However, Mironov further teaches a susceptor may be magnetizable; ferromagnetic; or ferrimagnetic [0081].
Therefore it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the susceptor of Sebastian be either: magnetisable; ferromagnetic; or ferrimagnetic as taught by Mironov as this merely involves the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 15, modified Sebastian further teaches wherein, in use, the article for use with a non-combustible aerosol provision device is inserted into the aerosol generating device so that 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 (as the susceptor may extend into or are surrounded by the substrate portion [0051]).
Regarding claim 16, Sebastian teaches the susceptor may extend into the substrate portion ([0051]). As the substrate portion comprises the aluminum elements (i.e. conductive threads that may be aluminum), it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the susceptor/ferritic elements would be touching at least some of the conductive threads and thus be located near 0 mm from at least a portion of one of the ferritic element, which falls within the claimed range of less than 10 mm.
Further, as the article has a diameter of approximately 7 mm ([0105]: as shown through the diameters of the filter 312 and intermediate component 310) even if the ferritic element would not directly touch a conductive thread, the ferritic element would still be located not more than 7 mm from the aluminum element.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian (US2020/0154784) in view of Mironov (US2020/0060348, cited previously as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kesselman (US2010/0270303).
Regarding claims 3-4, modified Sebastian 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 modified Sebastian 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights