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 16-35 are pending.
Claims 31-35 have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 16-35 in the reply filed on 5/4/2026 is acknowledged.
Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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) 16-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufman (US 20190313695) in view of Froncisz (US 4504788).
Regarding claim 16, Kaufman teaches an aerosol-generating device (100) configured to generate aerosol by heating at least one part of an aerosol-generating substrate (abstract), the aerosol-generating device comprising: a LC resonator (302 and 304) configured to heat the at least one part of the aerosol-generating substrate in order to generate aerosol ([0028],[0032] and [0034]).
Kaufman does not expressly teach that the LC resonator is a loop-gap resonator.
Froncisz teaches a lumped circuit resonator, specifically a loop-gap resonator, which is formed by a loop of electrically conductive material that extends along a central axis in a closed path about an axis of revolution and which includes a gap in its surface which extends around the axis of revolution along the entire length of the loop. As a result, many different physical configurations are possible and the magnetic field can be easily confined and directed (col. 2, lines 1-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied a loop-gap resonator, as suggested by Froncisz, for the LC resonator in Kaufman because it allows for many different physical configurations and the magnetic field can be easily confined and directed (Froncisz, col. 2, lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 17, modified Kaufman teaches that the loop- gap resonator is further configured to heat the at least one part of the aerosol-generating substrate based on one or both of inductive heating and microwave heating (Froncisz, col. 2, lines 1-14).
Regarding claim 18, modified Kaufman teaches that at least one portion of the loop-gap resonator forms a loop (1) of the loop-gap resonator (Froncisz, Fig. 1), the loop being configured to receive the at least one part of the aerosol-generating substrate (Kaufman, [0027]), wherein the loop-gap resonator generates an alternating magnetic field within the loop of the loop-gap resonator (Froncisz, col. 3, lines 36-41).
Modified Kaufman does not expressly teach that the loop-gap resonator is further configured to heat the at least one part of the aerosol-generating substrate based on generating an alternating magnetic field within the loop of the loop-gap resonator; however, this is a property that is a result of the loop-gap resonator generating an alternating magnetic field within the loop of the loop-gap resonator. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773.
Regarding claim 19, modified Kaufman teaches that at least two portions of the loop-gap resonator are arranged opposite to each other and are spaced apart from each other, such that the at least two portions form a gap of the loop-gap resonator (Froncisz, Fig. 7), the gap being configured to receive the at least one part of the aerosol-generating substrate (Froncisz, col. 2, lines 35-38), and wherein the loop-gap resonator generates an alternating electric field within the gap of the loop-gap resonator (Froncisz, col. 3, lines 36-41).
Modified Kaufman does not expressly teach that the loop-gap resonator is further configured to heat the at least one part of the aerosol-generating substrate based on generating an alternating electric field within the gap of the loop-gap resonator; however, this is a property that is a result of the loop-gap resonator generating an alternating electric field within the gap of the loop-gap resonator. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773.
Regarding claim 20, modified Kaufman teaches that the loop- gap resonator is a toroidal loop-gap resonator (Froncisz, col. 2, lines 21-22).
Regarding claim 21, modified Kaufman teaches that the loop-gap resonator is at least partly arranged in a cartridge that is at least partly fillable with or filled with the aerosol-generating substrate (Kaufman, [0027]), and wherein the cartridge is couplable to a power supply circuitry of the aerosol-generating device, the power supply circuitry being configured to drive the loop-gap resonator (Kaufman, [0018]).
Regarding claim 22, modified Kaufman teaches further comprising at least one electrically conductive feeding loop (Kaufman, Fig. 3) configured to excite electromagnetic oscillations in at least a portion of the loop-gap resonator (Froncisz, col. 2, lines 21-22).
Regarding claim 23, modified Kaufman teaches power supply circuitry (Kaufman, [0018]) configured to drive the loop-gap resonator to exciting electromagnetic oscillations in at least a portion of the loop-gap resonator (Froncisz, col. 3, lines 36-41).
Modified Kaufman does not expressly teach that the loop-gap resonator heats the at least one part of the aerosol-generating substrate based on exciting electromagnetic oscillations in at least a portion of the loop-gap resonator; however, this is a property that is a result of the loop-gap resonator exciting electromagnetic oscillations in at least a portion of the loop-gap resonator. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773.
Regarding claim 24, modified Kaufman teaches that the power supply circuitry (Kaufman, [0018]) is further configured to drive the loop-gap resonator, such that an alternating electric field is generated in a gap of the loop-gap resonator (Froncisz, col. 3, lines 36-41), the gap being configured to receive the at least one part of the aerosol-generating substrate (Froncisz, col. 2, lines 35-38).
Regarding claim 25, modified Kaufman teaches that the power supply circuitry (Kaufman, [0018]) is further configured to drive the loop-gap resonator based on inductive coupling (Froncisz, col. 3, lines 36-41).
Regarding claim 26, modified Kaufman teaches that the power supply circuitry (Kaufman, [0018]) includes at least one electrically conductive feeding loop, and wherein the power supply circuitry is further configured to drive the loop-gap resonator based on supplying an alternating current to the at least one feeding loop (Froncisz, col. 3, lines 36-41).
Regarding claim 27, modified Kaufman teaches that the at least one electrically conductive feeding loop is arranged coaxially with a loop of the loop-gap resonator (Froncisz, col. 3, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 28, modified Kaufman teaches the power supply circuitry is further configured to excite electromagnetic oscillations in the loop-gap resonator at or near a resonance frequency of the loop-gap resonator (Froncisz, col. 3, lines 42- col. 4, lines 24).
Regarding claim 29, modified Kaufman teaches that the loop-gap resonator includes a tubular body (Froncisz, Fig. 1), the tubular body defining a loop (1) of the loop-gap resonator (Froncisz, Fig. 1), the loop being configured to receive the at least one part of the aerosol-generating substrate (Kaufman, [0027]), wherein the loop-gap resonator generates an alternating magnetic field within the loop of the loop-gap resonator (Froncisz, col. 3, lines 36-41).
Modified Kaufman does not expressly teach that the loop-gap resonator is further configured to heat the at least one part of the aerosol-generating substrate based on generating an alternating magnetic field within the loop of the loop-gap resonator; however, this is a property that is a result of the loop-gap resonator generating an alternating magnetic field within the loop of the loop-gap resonator. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773.
Regarding claim 30, modified Kaufman teaches that the loop-gap resonator includes a tubular body with a slit, the slit defining a gap of the loop-gap resonator (Froncisz, Fig. 7), the gap being configured to receive the at least one part of the aerosol-generating substrate (Froncisz, col. 2, lines 35-38), and wherein the loop-gap resonator generates an alternating electric field within the gap of the loop-gap resonator (Froncisz, col. 3, lines 36-41).
Modified Kaufman does not expressly teach that the loop-gap resonator is further configured to heat the at least one part of the aerosol-generating substrate based on generating an alternating electric field within the gap of the loop-gap resonator; however, this is a property that is a result of the loop-gap resonator generating an alternating electric field within the gap of the loop-gap resonator. Recitation of a newly disclosed property does not distinguish over a reference disclosure of the article or composition claims. General Electric v. Jewe Incandescent Lamp Co., 67 USPQ 155. Titanium Metal Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANA B KRINKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
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.
YANA B. KRINKER
Examiner
Art Unit 1755
/YANA B KRINKER/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights