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
The restriction requirement of Groups I-III is withdrawn, however, the secondary species restriction is maintained.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5, 8-15 in the reply filed on 4/3/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6, 7, 16 are withdrawn from consideration.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blandino et al (US 2017/0119050).
Regarding claim 1, Blandino discloses, an aerosol provision device comprising: an aerosol generator comprising (apparatus 200) one or more inductor coils (coils 122a and 122b); wherein, in use, an article (article 1, 2, 3, 10) for use with the aerosol provision device is interlaced between windings of the one or more inductor coils. (Figs 7 and 8 show the article being interlaced between the windings of the coils 122a and 122b, See Paragraphs [0116], [0117], [0124]) Regarding claims 2, Figs 7 and 8 show the first and second inductor coils 122a and 122b with the article positioned between the coils with a central inductor and a coil positioned radially outwards. Regarding claim 3, Figs 7 and 8 show the article resting between the coils and not penetrating the coils. Regarding claim 4, Fig 7 shows a planar coil in a non-spiral configuration. Regarding claim 8, the coils are arranged to generate a varying magnetic field. (See Paragraph [0116]) The device comprises a susceptor. (See Paragraph [0152]) Regarding claim 9, the article 1,2,3, 10 is an aerosol generating material. (See Paragraph [0148])
Regarding claims 10, Figs 7 and 8 show the first and second inductor coils 122a and 122b with the article positioned between the coils with a central inductor and a coil positioned radially outwards. Regarding claim 11, the article, 1, 2, 3, 10 are substantially planar. Regarding claim 12, the coils are arranged to generate a varying magnetic field. (See Paragraph [0116]) The device comprises a susceptor. (See Paragraph [0152]) Regarding claim 13, the article 1,2,3, 10 is an aerosol generating material. (See Paragraph [0148]) Regarding claim 14, Fig 1 shows the article having multiple regions with differing combinations. (See Paragraph [0098]) Regarding claim 15, the aerosol provisioning device is shown as being provided in Figs 7 and 8. The article 1, 2, 3, 10 is interlaced between the first and second inductor coils. An electrical current is passed through the coils. (See Paragraph [0116], [0117])
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blandino et al (US 2017/0119050) in view of Courbat et al (US 2021/0145062).
The teachings of Blandino have been discussed above. Blandino fails to disclose, at least one of the one or more inductor coils comprises an electrically-conductive element, wherein the electrically-conductive element comprises an electrically-conductive first portion coincident with a first plane, an electrically-conductive second portion coincident with a second plane that is spaced from the first plane, and an electrically-conductive connector that electrically connects the electrically-conductive first portion to the electrically-conductive second portion.
Courbat discloses, Fig 6 shows the inductor coil 233 having a first portion coincident with a first plane, above element 27, and a second portion coincident with a second plane, below element 27 which is connected to the first portion. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to adapt Blandino in view of Courbat to provide at least one of the one or more inductor coils comprises an electrically-conductive element, wherein the electrically-conductive element comprises an electrically-conductive first portion coincident with a first plane, an electrically-conductive second portion coincident with a second plane that is spaced from the first plane, and an electrically-conductive connector that electrically connects the electrically-conductive first portion to the electrically-conductive second portion for increasing the inductive heating of the article.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 6/9/2026
Prosecution Insights