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 in the reply filed on 2/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 24 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 2/10/2026.
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 4, 11, and 14 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.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the claim limitation “a strand at frequency f1” is indefinite because it is unclear whether “frequency f1” refers back to the claimed “a frequency f1” in claim 1 or refers to a “different frequency f1.” For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “a strand at the frequency f1.”
Regarding claim 11, the claim limitation “as claimed in claim,” is indefinite because it is unclear as to the dependency of claim 11. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “as claimed in claim 10,” which recites “one or more susceptors.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rogan et al. (WO 2019/057942; of record; US 2020/0275705 is referenced herein).
Regarding claim 1, Rogan discloses a vapor generating device (title; “aerosol provision system”), the vapor generating device (1; Fig .1-2) comprising:
an induction heating assembly (11; “aerosol generator”) comprising chamber (see Fig. 2) into which an induction heatable cartridge with a solid vaporizable substance is inserted ([0007]);
an induction heating circuit (12; “magnetic field generator”), which generates an electromagnetic field ([0027], [0054]; “generate a time varying magnetic field”); and
a power source ([0051]; “AC voltage supply”) configured to supply the device and circuitry a frequency of between 80 kHz and 500 kHz ([0033]; “frequency f1 < 500 kHz”).
Regarding claim 2, Rogan discloses the induction circuit may be in the form of an induction coil ([0029]; “one induction coil”).
Regarding claim 3, Rogan discloses the induction coil comprises a Litz wire or a Litz cable ([0029]; “one multi-strand wire”).
Regarding claim 5, Rogan discloses the vapor generating device comprises an induction heatable cartridge ([0027]) comprising susceptors ([0028]l; “one or more susceptors”)).
Regarding claim 6, Rogan discloses the susceptors provide for a desired heating profile ([0028]) by using the induction circuit ([0030]; “configured to induce heating”).
Regarding claim 7, Rogan discloses the susceptors may comprise one or more of nickel, stainless steel, or aluminum ([0011]).
Regarding claim 8, Rogan discloses a more preferably high frequency of 200 kHz ([0033]).
Regarding claim 9, Rogan discloses an inductive heating system ([0046]) comprising:
the vapor generating device (see claim 1 above); and
an induction heatable cartridge (53; Fig. 5A-D; “article”) comprising a frusto-conical body of vaporizable substance (55; “aerosol generating material”).
Regarding claim 10, Rogan discloses the cartridge further comprises susceptors (54a-c).
Regarding claim 11, Rogan discloses the susceptors may comprise one or more of nickel, stainless steel, or aluminum ([0011]).
Regarding claim 12, Rogan discloses the cartridge (53) includes the induction circuit (52) (see Fig. 5A; see also [0060]).
Regarding claim 13, Rogan discloses the induction coil comprises a Litz wire or a Litz cable ([0029]; “one multi-strand wire”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 4 and 14 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogan et al. as applied to claims 3 and 13 above, and in further view of Slama (“Litz wire-When is it an Advantage?”).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Rogan discloses the aerosol provision device as discussed above with respect to claims 3 and 13 comprising the induction coil made out of a Litz wire or cable ([0029]).
However, Rogan is silent as to the one or more multi-strand wires comprise a plurality of strands, wherein each of the plurality of strands has a thickness less than a skin depth of a strand at the frequency f1. Specifically, while Rogan discloses using a Litz wire to form the induction coil, Rogan does not disclose details of the Litz wire.
Slama teaches that high frequency eddy currents inductors exhibit the skin effect and proximity effect (slide 5), and that the use of a Litz wire having a plurality smaller diameter strands helps mitigate the skin and proximity effects (slide 6), wherein the individual strands must be smaller than the skin depth (slide 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rogan’s Litz wire to have individual strands with a thickness/diameter that is smaller than the skin depth in order to mitigate the skin and proximity effects present at the frequency that Rogan operates at (Slama; slide 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sluka (US 5847370) discloses a coil (514) similar to a Litz wire comprising 100 strands of 30 AWG wire forming a first bundle (Fig. 11) wherein the wire diameter of the individual strand will be small compared to its skin depth such that the wire itself will not be inductively heated any extent (col. 8, ll. 30-51).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONNY V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8294. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM 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 Y 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.
/SONNY V NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights