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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I and species B in the reply filed on 1/12/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 3, 13-17 and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/12/2026.
Specification
The use of the term Bluetooth (page 15, line 6), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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)(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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Courbat (US 11,889,867).
Regarding claim 1, Courbat discloses an aerosol generating device (abstract) having a helically wound cylindrical induction coil (figure 1, reference numeral 31) that surrounds a tubular inner support sleeve (column 12, lines 55-67, figure 1, reference numeral 32), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a stator. A susceptor element is located within the coil and inner support sleeve (column 13, lines 1-24, figure 1, reference numeral 60). The induction coil is supplied with alternating current that generates a high frequency oscillating current from an AC generator that is supplied with power from a power supply (column 8, lines 11-22).
Regarding claim 2, the tubular inner support sleeve surrounded by the cylindrical induction coil is configured to meet the claim limitation of a mandrel coil.
Regarding claim 4, Courbat discloses that the induction coil comprises a plurality of turns (column 12, lines 4-16).
Regarding claim 6, Courbat discloses that the induction coil is surrounded by a flux concentrator (abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Courbat discloses that the flux concentrator is made from a ferrite material (column 4, lines 16-21).
Regarding claim 8, Courbat discloses that the induction coil produces an alternating magnetic field (abstract), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a varying magnetic field.
Regarding claim 10, Courbat discloses that the inner support sleeve has a protrusion that prevents relative movement of various device components (column 6, lines 35-55), which is considered to enhance the magnetic field since it maintains the components in their desired locations.
Regarding claim 11, Courbat discloses that the induction coil produces an alternating magnetic field (abstract), and that the magnetic field generates heat in the susceptor (column 2, lines 10-17).
Regarding claim 12, Courbat discloses that the device operates by heating but not combusting an aerosol forming substrate (column 8, lines 34-45).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courbat (US 11,889,867) in view of Corda (US 10,728,961).
Regarding claim 5, Courbat discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Courbat does not explicitly disclose the tubular inner support sleeve being made of multiple layers.
Corda teaches a thermal composite material used in an induction heating device having a structural support layer (abstract) made from multiple sub-layers of a strong material such as mica that form a single layer (column 3, lines 30-44, figure 1, reference numeral 40), indicating that the sub-layers are laminated together.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the mica of Corda to fabricate the tubular inner support sleeve of Courbat. One would have been motivated to do so since Corda teaches that mica is a strong material for use as a support in an induction heating device. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courbat (US 11,889,867) in view of Fursa (US 11,375,753).
Regarding claim 9, Courbat discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Courbat does not explicitly disclose an isolator.
Fursa teaches an aerosol generating device having an inductor coil that generates an alternative magnetic field to inductively heat a susceptor element (abstract). The inductor coil is surrounded by an outer layer that electrically isolates the coil from other components of the device and different turns of the coil from each other (column 6, lines 45-54).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to surround the coil of Courbat with the outer layer of Fursa. One would have been motivated to do so since Fursa teaches an outer later outer layer that electrically isolates the coil from other components of the device and different turns of the coil from each other.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 8 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/245,647 (hereafter referred to as Thomas) in view of Courbat (US 11,889,867).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 11, Thomas claims an aerosol provision device comprising an inductor coil extending at least partially around a coil support, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a stator, and a susceptor that is heatable by a varying magnetic field, wherein the inductor coil is configured to generate a varying magnetic field (claim 1). The coil is located in a helical path on the coil support (claim 6), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of wound. Thomas does not explicitly claim the inductor coil connected to a power supply device.
Courbat discloses an aerosol generating device (abstract) having a helically wound cylindrical induction coil (figure 1, reference numeral 31). A susceptor element is located within the coil and inner support sleeve (column 13, lines 1-24, figure 1, reference numeral 60). The induction coil is supplied with alternating current that generates a high frequency oscillating current from an AC generator that is supplied with power from a power supply (column 8, lines 11-22).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Thomas with the power supply of Courbat. One would have been motivated to do so since Courbat teaches a power supply suitable for an induction based aerosol generating device.
Regarding claim 2, the wound coil is considered to meet the claim limitation of a mandrel coil.
Claims 1-2, 8 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/245,578 (hereafter referred to as Taank) in view of Courbat (US 11,889,867).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 11, Taank claims an aerosol provision device comprising a second chassis, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a stator, an inductor coil extending around the second chassis and configured to generate a varying magnetic field, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of wound, and a susceptor that is heatable by penetration with a varying magnetic field (claim 1). Taank does not explicitly claim the inductor coil connected to a power supply device.
Courbat discloses an aerosol generating device (abstract) having a helically wound cylindrical induction coil (figure 1, reference numeral 31). A susceptor element is located within the coil and inner support sleeve (column 13, lines 1-24, figure 1, reference numeral 60). The induction coil is supplied with alternating current that generates a high frequency oscillating current from an AC generator that is supplied with power from a power supply (column 8, lines 11-22).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Taank with the power supply of Courbat. One would have been motivated to do so since Courbat teaches a power supply suitable for an induction based aerosol generating device.
Regarding claim 2, the wound coil is considered to meet the claim limitation of a mandrel coil.
These are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 pm.
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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755