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 the invention of Group I, claims 1-9, 11-14, 16-18, 21 and 24 in the reply filed on July 1, 2026 is acknowledged; hence, claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 24 is 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.
Claim 24 recites the phrase “aerosol generating material” (in line 2) whereas independent claim 1, from which claim 24 depends, recites “aerosolizable material” (in lines 3-4) which is confusing. The terminology should be harmonized to clarify whether these two phrases refer to the same or different material compositions.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-14, 16-18, 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courbat et al (WO 2019/030363) in view of Liu et al (CN 108495386) (see Mechanical English translation).
Regarding independent claim 1, Courbat et al discloses an aerosol generating device (12) (read: apparatus for heating aerosolizable material) comprising a chamber (18) (read: heating zone) for receiving a portion of the aerosol-generating article (14) (see abstract and page 13, lines 3-12) (corresponding to the claimed “[a]n apparatus for heating aerosolizable material to volatize at least one component of the aerosolizable material, the apparatus comprising: a heating zone for receiving at least a portion of an article comprising aerosolizable material”).
Courbat et al further discloses an induction assembly (23) (read: heating assembly) disposed at a closed end (22) of the chamber (18) that comprises a susceptor element (24) and an inductor coil (26). The device (12) also includes a controller (20) connected to the inductor coil (26), the controller (30) being configured to provide an alternating electric current from a power supply (32) to the inductor coil (26) to generate an alternating magnetic field which inductively heats an elongate portion (29) (read: protruding portion) of a planar portion (27) (read: base portion) of the susceptor element (24). The primary heating mechanism of the elongate portion (29) of the susceptor element (24) is conductive heat transfer from the planar portion (27). During use, a portion of the aerosol-generating article (14) is inserted into the chamber (18) and elongate portion (29) of the susceptor element (24) is inserted into the aerosol-forming substate (34) which heats the substrate to form an aerosol (see page 13, lines 13-29; see Figs.1-2 and 4) (corresponding to the claimed “a heating assembly comprising: a magnetic field generator including an inductor coil configured to generate a varying magnetic field, and a heating element comprising a base portion that is heatable by penetration with the varying magnetic field and a heating portion protruding from the base portion to heat the heating zone”).
Courbat et al discloses that its induction assembly (23) which includes the susceptor (24) may be comprised of separately formed/different materials; e.g., the planar portion (27) can be constructed of a different material that the elongate portion (29) (see page 9, lines 1-5). While it is clear that Courbat et al’s elongated portion (29) is heatable by the planar portion (24) via thermal conductivity, Courbat et al does not explicitly teach that a thermal conductivity of the elongate (heating) portion (29) is greater than a thermal conductivity of at least part of the planar (base) portion (27). However, Liu et al discloses a heater for electric cigarettes which comprises a heater base (4) and a heating body/iron magnet (read: element) (2/7) formed of different thermal conductivity materials, wherein the thermal conductivity of the base is less than the thermal conductivity of the heating element. Liu et al further teaches that configuring the heating portion with a higher thermal conductivity than the base prevents high-temperature heat from excessively conducting into the base and outer device casing while ensuring effective heat delivery (see “Abstract”, “Invention Content” and claim 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi-material susceptor assembly of Courbat et al by selecting materials such that the protruding heating portion (29) has a higher thermal conductivity than at least a part of the planar portion (27), as taught by Liu et al, in order to ensure that heat inductively generated at the base is efficiently conducted along the protruding heading portion and deep into the aerosolizable article and reduces thermal exposure to the outside of the device (corresponding to the claimed “wherein the heating portion is heatable by the base portion by thermal conduction, and wherein a thermal conductivity of the heating portion is greater than a thermal conductivity of at least part of the base portion”).
Regarding claim 2, Courbat et al discloses that its inductor coil (26) is a flat (read: planar) spiral inductor coil (see Fig. 3) (corresponding to the claimed “wherein the inductor coil is at least one of a planar coil or a spiral coil”).
Regarding claim 3, Courbat et al discloses an inductor coil (131) surrounding internal susceptor components (see Fig 5, Fig. 13). To the extent that Courbat et al does not explicitly show the planar portion (27) (read: base portion) extending through the inductor coil, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position an axially-extending susceptor base through or inside an inductor coil to maximize magnetic flux coupling and designing the base portion of Courbat et al to extend through the coil would have been a routine design choice.
Regarding claim 4, Courbat et al discloses that its planar portion (27) (read: base portion) is positioned between the flat spiral inductor coil (26) and the elongate (protruding) heating portion (29) (see Figs. 2, 4) (corresponding to the claimed “wherein the base portion is between the inductor coil and the heating portion”).
Regarding claim 5-6, as stated above, Courbat et al discloses that the planar portion (27) and the elongate portion (29) can be formed as separate components from different materials (see above). Also as stated above, Lui et al teaches making the heating element and base form different materials where the thermal conductivity of the heating element material is greater than that of the base material. Hence, applying Liu et al’s material relationship to Courbat et al renders these claims obvious (corresponding to the claimed “wherein the heating portion comprises a first material and the at least part of the base portion comprises a second material” recitation of claim 5; and the “wherein a thermal conductivity value of the first material is greater than a thermal conductivity value of the second material” recitation of claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, Courbat et al discloses that the planar (base) portion (27) is inductively heated by the inductor coil (26) whereas the primary mechanism for heating the elongate portion (29) (heating) portion is conductive heat transfer from the planar portion (27). Courbat et al thus teaches that the heating portion has a lower susceptibility to being heated by penetration with the varying magnetic field than the base portion”.
Regarding claim 8, Courbat et al discloses an embodiment where the susceptor base comprises a sleeve portion (941) extending from the planar portion (27) to form an encircling “collar” (see Fig. 13) (corresponding to the claimed “wherein the bae portion comprises a collar”).
Regarding claim 9, Courbat et al discloses that the sleeve (read: collar) at least partially encircles an internal central space or core portion of the heating chamber (see Fig. 13) (corresponding to the claimed “wherein the base portion comprises a core and the collar at least partially encircling the core”).
Regarding claims 11, 12 and 14, Courbat et al discloses that the planar portion (27) (read: base portion) (per claim 12) comprises a disc/plate forming a radially extending section (per claim 14), and a sleeve (941) forming an axially extending section (per claim 11) (see Fig. 13; page 5, lines 7-9) (corresponding to the “wherein the collar comprises an axially extending section and a radially extending section” recitation of claim 11; the “wherein the collar comprises a plate” recitation of claim 12; and the “wherein the base portion comprises a radially extending section” recitation of claim 14).
Regarding claim 13, Courbat et al discloses a susceptor (24) (read: elongate heating element) defining a longitudinal axis, wherein the planar base potion (27) has a diameter/width of 3mm to 12mm and the elongate portion (29) (read: heating portion) has a width of 1mm to 8mm (see page 8, lines 20-28). Thus, Courbat et al explicitly teaches that the radial width of the planar portion (27) (read: base portion) is greater than the radial width of the heating portion (corresponding to the claimed “wherein the heating element is elongate and defines a longitudinal axis, and a radial width of the base portion is greater than a radial width of the heating portion”).
Regarding claim 16-17, as discussed earlier, Courbat et al discloses an embodiment where the base comprises sleeve (941) (read: an axially extending section) disposed within an inductor coil (131), and a planar portion (27) (read: radially extending section) positioned between the elongate portion (29) (read: heating portion) and the axially extending section (see Fig. 13) (corresponding to the “wherein the base portion comprises an axially extending section extending through the inductor coil” recitation of claim 16; and the “wherein the radially extending section is between the heating portion and the axially extending section of the base portion” recitation of claim 17).
Regarding claim 18, Courbat et al discloses susceptor base structures. Lui et al explicitly discloses providing a heater base cavity (5)/heating body cavity (8) (read: chamber) within the heater base to reduce heat capacity, limit contact area, and minimize heat transfer outside of the device (see Embodiments 4-5, Figs. 4-3335). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Lui et al’s base chamber into the planar portion (27) (read: base portion) of Courbat et al to reduce the temperature of the device housing and improve thermal efficiency (corresponding to the claimed “wherein the base portion comprises a chamber”).
Regarding claim 21, Courbat et al discloses a susceptor (24) (read: an elongate heating element) for use in an aerosol getting device, comprising a planar portion (27) (read: base portion) and an elongate portion (29) (read: heating portion), wherein elongate portion (29) is heatable by the planar portion (27) thermal conduction (see above). Courbat et al in view of Lui et al (which teaches selecting a heating portion material with high thermal conductivity than the base portion) renders the instant claim obvious for the same reasons set forth in independent claim 1 (corresponding to the claimed “[a]n elongate heating element for use in tan apparatus for heating aerosolizable material to volatilize at least one component of the aerosolizable material, wherein the elongate heating element comprises: a base portion, a heating portion, wherein the heating portion is heatable by the base portion by thermal conduction, and wherein a thermal conductivity of the heating portion is greater than a thermal conductivity of at least part of the base portion”).
Regarding claim 24, Courbat et al explicitly discloses an aerosol-generating system (10) comprising the aerosol-generating device (12) (read: apparatus) and aerosol-generating article (14) (read: article) comprising a tobacco plug (34) (read: aerosol-generating material) (see abstract, and Fig. 2) (corresponding to the claimed “[a]n aerosol provision system comprising the apparatus of claim 1 and an article comprising aerosol generating material”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONNE WALLS MAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5836. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays and Thursdays, 8:00AM - 4:00PM (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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 571-270-3882. 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.
/DIONNE W. MAYES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights