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 (claims 1-13, 15-16, 18, 20) in the reply filed on 2/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 21, 26, 28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/03/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 7/24/2025, 11/13/2025, 1/23/2026 has been considered by the Examiner.
Priority
The amended specification pg. 1 states that “The present application is a National Phase entry of PCT Application No. PCT/EP2022/050284, filed January 7, 2022, which claims priority from US Application No. 63/199,565, filed January 8, 2021, each of which is hereby fully incorporated herein by reference”. It appears that both of the applications that are being referenced herein are NOT the applications of which the instant application are claiming priority to, based upon the Application Data Sheet. The Application Data Sheet claims reference to PCT/EP2022/052909 and Foreign Priority GB2101853.6. The applications referenced in the amended specification appear to contain divergent subject matter and entirely different figures and claims. It therefore appears that the references to US 63/199565 and PCT/EP/2022/050284 were inadvertent drafting errors and should be removed from the specification, as the instant application is not claiming priority to these applications.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the Figure on the top left of the 4th page of drawings is missing a figure number. From the specification, it appears that this should be titled “Fig. 6”, as Fig. 6 is otherwise not labeled in the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 line 3 should recite “…the elongate heating element” to be consistent with how this was introduced in claim 1 and to be consistent with how it is used in the rest of claim 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Pg. 17 of the instant specification states that the “225” is an intermediate portion of the heating element “220”. Pgs. 19-20, 22-23 state that “225” is a collar as a part of the base portion. Therefore, the same numeral “225” has different definitions within the specification and is tied to different aspects. It is noted that there is an intermediate section “227” described in pg. 27. It may appear that the references to “225” on pg. 17 should instead be referring to the intermediate section “227”. Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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 1-4, 8, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aoun (WO2018002083A1, citing to English Equivalent US2020/0229497A1).
Regarding claim 1, Aoun teaches an apparatus configured to heat aerosolizable material to volatize at least one component of the material (see title, “apparatus for heating smokable material”, to volatize at least one component of the smokable material [abstract]), comprising:
a heating zone configured to receive at least a portion of an article that includes aerosolizable material (heating zone “111” for receiving at least a portion of an article comprising smokable material [0042, Fig. 1], wherein all or part of “111” may be considered this heating zone);
a magnetic field generator including a helical inductor coil configured to generate a varying magnetic field (magnetic field generator “112” comprises a coil “114” which generates a varying magnetic field [0036, 0047-0049, Fig. 1]. The coil is a helical inductor coil [0049]),
the helical inductor coil defining an inductor zone within the inductor coil (the portion of Fig. 1 of which the coil “114” is present is considered the inductor zone. This includes the first section of the heating element “115a” which is heated by the coil),
an elongate heating element which is heatable by penetration with the varying magnetic field and arranged to heat the heating zone (heating element “115” [0042], and this is clearly elongate as in Fig. 1), wherein the elongate heating element extends between the heating zone and the inductor zone (as in Fig. 1, the heating element “115” clearly extends between an induction zone where the coil is and a heating zone “111” of the apparatus).
Regarding claim 2, Aoun teaches an apparatus wherein the elongate heating element defines a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1, and [0056] wherein the heating element is along the longitudinal axis), and the helical inductor coil is spaced from the heating zone in an axial direction (as in Fig. 1, the inductor zone around “114” is clearly spaced from other regions of the heating zone “111”, such as from the heating zone “111b” which does not overlap with the coil).
Regarding claim 3, Aoun teaches an apparatus wherein the elongate heating element protrudes in the heating zone (as in Fig. 1, the heating element “115” clearly extends into the heating zone “111”).
Regarding claim 4, Aoun teaches an apparatus wherein a receptable defining the heating zone wherein the coil does not overlap the receptable (the heating zone may be considered to be “111b” of the heating zone, wherein the coil “114” clearly does not extend to “111b” and only is in the section “111a”. The receptacle therefore may be considered to be only the portion of the walls which are located around “111b” and which would clearly not include the portions of the coil “114”, such that there would be no overlap thereof).
Regarding claim 8, Aoun teaches an apparatus wherein the heating element comprises a first portion exposed to the heating zone and a second portion external to the heating zone (the first portion may be considered to be 111b and the first portion 111a), wherein the helical inductor coil encircles the second portion (as in Fig. 1, the coil “114” clearly encircles the portion 111a).
Regarding claim 20, Aoun teaches an apparatus, wherein the inductor zone has an axial length at least 25% of the heating zone (as in Fig. 1, the axial length of the coil “114” is clearly well above 25% of 111, and is at least 33% thereof. An enabling picture may be used to reject claims directed to an article to include: anticipating claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972)).
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courbat (US2021/0145062A1) in view of Mironov (US2020/0060348A1).
Regarding claim 1, Courbat teaches an apparatus to heat aerosolizable material to volatize at least one component of the material (see Fig. 2, wherein the aerosol-generating device is configured to generate aerosols from the article “14” which comprises aerosol forming substrate [abstract, 0001-0006, 0093]), the apparatus comprising:
a heating zone configured to receive at least a portion of an article that includes aerosolizable material (the heating zone may be considered to be the area of the device “12” in which the article “14” is inserted as in Fig. 2, where the heating zone is located around the substrate “34” in the figure),
a magnetic field generator including an inductor coil configured to generate a varying magnetic field (the device comprises an inductor coil “26” which is configured to generate an alternating magnetic field [0092, Fig. 2 and 3+]),
the inductor coil defining an inductor zone within the inductor coil (the portion of the device where the coil “26” is located, as in Fig. 2, 4, and 6, is considered to be the inductor zone),
the portion of Fig. 1 of which the coil “114” is present is considered the inductor zone. This includes the first section of the heating element “115a” which is heated by the coil),
an elongate heating element which is heatable by penetration with the varying magnetic field and arranged to heat the heating zone (susceptor element “24”, as in Figs. 2, 4, 6, is clearly elongate as it is longer than it is wide. The susceptor comprises an elongate portion “29” and a planar portion “27”. The susceptor’s planar portion is heated by the coil, and the elongate portion is heated by conduction [0092]), wherein the elongate heating element extends between the heating zone and the inductor zone (as in Fig. 2, the susceptor “24” clearly extends in the heating zone located around the article “34”, and extends in the inductor zone by its planar portion “27” which is in contact with the induction coil [see Fig. 4, 6].
Courbat does not explicitly state that the inductor coil is a helical inductor coil. However, it is extremely common within the art of aerosol generating devices to utilize helical inductor coils, and it is common practice for the person of ordinary skill in the art to choose between using a helical inductor coil and a spiral (flat) inductor coil, wherein these are common alternatives depending on the design criteria of the device in question. Mironov, for example, presents an aerosol-generating device, wherein the inductor coils may be either helical or flat spiral inductor coils [0037]. Helical coils are utilized when one wishes to generate homogenous fields which leads to a more homogeneous heating process [0038], while flat spiral inductor coils are utilized to facilitate a compact design of the device [0039]. The choice between these two conventional types of coils is therefore well understood in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the coil of Courbat so as to be a helical inductor coil, as suggested by Mironov. One would have been motivated so as to allow for more homogeneous fields to have a more homogenous heating process [Mironov, 0038]. This modification is considered to be a “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”, with the predictable results as stated above being the improved homogeneity of the heating process. See MPEP 2143 I. B.
Regarding claim 2, Courbat makes obvious an apparatus wherein the elongate heating element defines a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 2, wherein “24 is clearly elongate along the longitudinal axis of the device), and the helical inductor coil is spaced from the heating zone in an axial direction (as in Fig. 2, the helical inductor coil “26” would be spaced away from the elongate portion of the susceptor and away from the heating zone which is located around the elongate portion “29”).
Regarding claim 3, Courbat makes obvious an apparatus wherein the elongate heating element protrudes in the heating zone (as in Fig. 2, the heating element “24” clearly protrudes into the heating zone).
Regarding claim 4, Courbat makes obvious an apparatus wherein a receptable defining the heating zone wherein the coil does not overlap the receptable (the heating zone is considered to be the portion of the device “12” of which the material “34” is inserted. As such, the heating zone’s receptacle would be considered the longitudinally innermost portion, touching the outside of the planar portion “27”, and the peripheral walls around “34” and “24” which contain the article. The receptacle therefore would clearly not overlap with the coil “26”, as the coil “26” is clearly located away from the aerosol generating substrate “34” and does not enter that portion of the device).
Regarding claim 5, Courbat makes obvious an apparatus wherein the receptacle comprises an end wall defining a closed end of the heating zone and wherein the end wall is between the heating zone and the helical inductor coil (as in Figs. 2, 4, 6, the end wall may be considered to be the longitudinally innermost portion of the article that is inserted, wherein the article abuts against at least the wide planar/base portion “27” of the susceptor such that the article is locked into place such that the end wall must be present to form the receptacle that the article is inserted into. The end wall may also be considered to be this top portion of the planar portion “27” that prevents the article from being inserted further. In either case, the coil “26” is located longitudinally away from the article as in Fig. 2, such that the end wall would clearly be located between the heating zone as defined above and the inductor coil).
Regarding claim 6, Courbat makes obvious an apparatus wherein the receptacle comprises a peripheral wall defining the heating zone (as in Fig. 2, the top and bottom walls of the device in Fig. 2 located above/below the susceptor “24” may be considered the peripheral walls which define the heating zone), and wherein a spacing between the peripheral wall and the elongate heating element is greater than a spacing between the helical inductor coil and the elongate heating element (as in Fig. 2, the distance from the wall of the device to the heating element “24” is clearly larger than the spacing of the coil “26” to the susceptor. For when the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125.).
Regarding claim 7, Courbat makes obvious an apparatus wherein a maximum width of the helical inductor coil is less than a maximum width of the heating zone (as in Fig. 2, the maximum width of the coil “26” is clearly less than the maximum width of the heating zone formed around the elongate heating element. For when the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125.).
Regarding claim 8, Courbat makes obvious an apparatus wherein the heating element comprises a first portion exposed to the heating zone, and a second portion external to the heating zone, wherein the helical inductor coil encircles the second portion (as in Figs. 4 and 6, the susceptor element includes an elongate portion “29” and a base/planar portion “27”. As in Fig. 2 showing the device, the elongate portion extends into the aerosol forming substrate and into what is defined as the heating zone, whereas the base portion “27” is external to the aerosol forming substrate and is considered to be external to the heating zone. The inductor coil may be formed so as to not enter the heating zone of the device [see Figs. 2-4], wherein the coil “26” is designed to heat the base portion “27” via induction, and wherein the elongate portion is heated via conduction from the base portion 27 [0092]. When the inductor coil is a helical inductor coil as modified in the rejection of claim 1 above via Mironov, the helical coil would definitionally have at least some extension in a longitudinal direction such that clearly at least a portion of the base portion would be “encircled” with the coil within the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof).
Regarding claim 9, Courbat makes obvious an apparatus wherein a radial width of at least part of the second portion is greater than a radial width of the first portion (as in Figs. 2, 4, 6, the portion “27” clearly has a larger radial width than the elongate portion “29”).
Regarding claim 10, Courbat makes obvious an apparatus wherein the second portion comprises a collar (the collar may be considered to be the radially extending wider width portion of “27”).
Regarding claim 11, Courbat makes obvious an apparatus wherein the second portion comprises a core and wherein the collar at least partially encircles the core (as in Figs. 2, 4, 6, the core may be considered to extend from the elongate member “29” inwards to the center portion of the base portion “27”, and wherein the collar portion is considered to be the wide width portion of “27” that clearly encircles the narrow width portion thereof).
Regarding claim 12, Courbat makes obvious an apparatus wherein the core is formed as a one part component with the first portion (as in Figs. 2, 4, 6, the core is clearly formed as a singular component between “29” and “27”, forming the overall device of the susceptor “24”. Additionally, it is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists for making components integral, wherein “the use of a one piece construction… would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice”. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.).
Regarding claim 13, Courbat makes obvious an apparatus wherein the collar includes heater material that is heatable by penetration with the varying magnetic field (the base/planar portion “27” is heated by the inductor coil via alternating magnetic field [0091-0092], such that the collar would necessarily be made of material that is heatable by penetration by magnetic field. Specifically, the susceptor, which includes the portion “27”, may be made from any metal or other material fit for induction heating [0045]).
Regarding claim 15, Courbat makes obvious an apparatus wherein a thermal conductivity of at least a part of the first portion is greater than a thermal conductivity of at least part of the second portion (Courbat suggests that the susceptor element “24”, which comprises both the first elongate portion “29” and the second wide portion “27”, may be made from a variety of materials. Courbat suggests that the susceptor may have a non-metallic core with a metal layer on the non-metallic core [0046]. Courbat suggests that the susceptor may have a protective external layer such as a ceramic or glass layer so as to protect the inner material [0047]. Therefore, as Courbat suggests that the susceptor may include multiple components, the first and second portions would also comprise these same multiple components, wherein the different materials would necessarily have different thermal conductivity values because thermal conductivity is a physical property of matter. When a protective glass layer is used with a metal material for the susceptor for example, the metal portion of the first portion would clearly have a greater thermal conductivity than the glass portion of the second portion. In other words, the claim limitation would necessarily be satisfied when the susceptor is made from two materials with different thermal conductivities).
Regarding claim 16, Courbat makes obvious an apparatus wherein at least a part of the first portion has a lower susceptibility than at least a part of the second portion (Courbat suggests that the susceptor element “24”, which comprises both the first elongate portion “29” and the second wide portion “27”, may be made from a variety of materials. Courbat suggests that the susceptor may have a non-metallic core with a metal layer on the non-metallic core [0046]. Courbat suggests that the susceptor may have a protective external layer such as a ceramic or glass layer so as to protect the inner material [0047]. Therefore, as Courbat suggests that the susceptor may include multiple components, the first and second portions would also comprise these same multiple components, wherein the different materials would necessarily have different magnetic susceptibility values because susceptibility is a physical property of matter. When a protective glass layer is used with a metal material for the susceptor for example, the metal portion of the first portion would clearly have a greater susceptibility than the glass portion of the second portion. In other words, the claim limitation would necessarily be satisfied when the susceptor is made from two materials with different susceptibilities).
In the alternate, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courbat (US2021/0145062A1) in view of Mironov (US2020/0060348A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aoun (WO2018002083A1, citing to English Equivalent US2020/0229497A1).
In the alternate regarding claim 5, Aoun discloses a heating zone “111” for receiving at least a portion of an article comprising smokable material that is to be heated [Fig. 1, 0042]. The heating zone clearly has peripheral walls located at top/bottom portions of Fig. 1, and an end wall which is located at a longitudinally inner portion of the heating zone [Fig. 1]. The elongate heating element extends into the heating zone to heat the article [Fig. 1]. The device for passing varying electrical current through the coil is located outside the end wall of the device [0047, Fig. 1]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have an end wall as shown in Fig. 1 of Aoun, so as to define the inner longitudinal portion for receiving the article containing smokable material so as to properly fit the article [0042]. And as Courbat clearly has the coil located outside of the heating zone wherein the article and the elongate heating element are located, Courbat modified by Aoun would clearly have the end wall formed between the two.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courbat (US2021/0145062A1) in view of Mironov (US2020/0060348A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Breiwa (US2014/0186015A1).
Regarding claim 18, Courbat does not explicitly define the heating element comprising a heat pipe. However, heat pipes are known within the art of electronic-cigarettes. Breiwa teaches a tubular volatizing device which is used for heating tobacco [0059-0060]. The device may include a heat pipe “34”, as in Figs. 24-26 wherein the heat pipe functions as a thermal conduit between an external heat source and the chamber containing material (akin to Courbat’s heating element), so as to accelerate and improve heat flow [0038, 0043, 0045-0046, 0050]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Courbat to include a heat pipe as in Breiwa. One would have been motivated so as to accelerate and improve the heat flow [0038, 0043, 0045-0046, 0050].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courbat (US2021/0145062A1) in view of Mironov (US2020/0060348A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Induction Heating Technology (NPL: “How to design an optimal induction coil”).
Regarding claim 20, Courbat does not explicitly have the axial length of the inductor zone with an axial length of at least 25% of the heating zone. However, it is well known within the principles of inductor coil design and technology that the length of the coil (and thus the inductor zone) will affect the heating properties thereof, such that an axial length of at least 25% of the heating zone would have been an obvious optimization or design choice for the person of ordinary skill in the art. Induction Heating Technology NPL teaches these coil design fundamentals, wherein if “the total length of the induction coil is shorter, the output frequency of induction coil will be higher, and the heating speed will be faster” and that if the coil is too long or too short “the output power of the machine can’t be optimal” [pg. 1].
Therefore, Induction Heating Technology NPL clearly lays out that the length of the coil is an obvious parameter which can be adjusted and optimized, among others, which may lead to the desired output frequency and heating speed, depending on the exact criteria desired. The precise interval as claimed of an axial length at least 25% of the heating zone therefore would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. As such, without showing unexpected results, the interval cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the axial length of the inductor zone in modified Courbat to obtain the desired balance between output frequency and heating speed (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749