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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 3, 13-17 and 19-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 18 and 21 are cancelled. Claims 1-2, and 4-12 are presently examined.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 2/23/2026 are overcome.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 2/23/2026 are overcome.
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)(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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaufman (US 2018/0317552).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Kaufman discloses an apparatus for heating smokable material in which an article is received within a heating zone (abstract, figure 3, reference numeral 2) having a coil through which a varying electric current passes ([0050], figure 3, reference numeral 140) that produces magnetic flux [0053], indicating that the coil is an inductor coil that receives an oscillating current. The coil is wrapped around a magnetically permeable core [0052], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a stator, and directs heat to a heating material that is heatable by penetration with a varying magnetic field [0053]. The heating material defines a tubular heating that defines the heating zone [0112] and forms a susceptor that transfers heat to smoking article to heat smokeable material of the article [0113]. The coil surrounds the core rather than the susceptor (figure 3). The alternating current is supplied from an electrical power source ([0050], figure 1, reference numeral 130).
Regarding claim 2, the coil of Kaufman is considered to be a mandrel coil since it is wrapped around a core.
Regarding claim 4, Kaufman discloses that the coil comprises multiple turns (figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, Kaufman discloses that the core is made from dozens of layers that are combined [0055], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of laminated.
Regarding claim 6, Kaufman discloses that the magnetically permeable core concentrates the magnetic flux produced by the coil [0053], and is therefore considered to also meet the claim limitation of a flux concentrator.
Regarding claim 7, Kaufman discloses that the core is made from ferrite [0055].
Regarding claim 8, Kaufman discloses that the coils form magnetic field generators [0081] that generate a varying magnetic filed [0113].
Regarding claim 10, Kaufman discloses that the core creates a more powerful magnetic filed and directs it to its intended target [0053], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of enhancing.
Regarding claim 12, Kaufman discloses that the device operates by volatilizing smokeable material without combusting the smokeable material [0060], indicating that it is a non-combustible aerosol provision device.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufman (US 2018/0317552) in view of Fursa (US 11,375,753).
Regarding claim 9, Kaufman discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Kaufman 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 Kaufman 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.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection relying on Kaufman are entered as set forth above.
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 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
Prosecution Insights