DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on 03/24/2026. Claims 1-16 and 20-23 are pending. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 02/07/2022.
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 .
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 1-15 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/129552 to Horrod et al. (“Horrod”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0186015 to Breiwa III (“Breiwa”).
With regard to claim 1, 6, 20, 21, 22, 23, Horrod discloses the claimed apparatus for heating aerosolizable material to volatize at least one component of the aerosolizable material, the apparatus comprising:
a heating assembly (see e.g. abstract; page 1, ln 5-10) comprising:
a heating cavity arranged to receive at least a portion of an article comprising aerosolizable material (see e.g. heating zone at page 4, page 5 ln. 10-15, Fig. 4-5),
a heating element arranged to provide heat to the heating cavity (see e.g. abstract, page 1 ln 20-30, page 2 ln. 10-32, page 3 ln 30, and throughout as heating element), and
a heating arrangement configured to generate heat to heat the heating element (see e.g. page 4 ln 5-10, penetration with a varying magnetic field to heat the heating zone, wherein the heating element is encircled by the heating zone; and a magnetic field generator for generating varying magnetic fields that penetrate respective longitudinal portions of the heating element in use, wherein the magnetic field generator comprises a plurality of flat spiral coils of electrically-conductive material arranged sequentially and in respective planes along a longitudinal axis of the heating zone.);
wherein the heating element comprises a heat pipe to aid heat distribution along the heating element (This is missing in Harrod. Harrod discloses tubular heating element is a solid or coated susceptor heatable by penetration with a varying magnetic field).
Breiwa teaches at e.g. [0038] [0043] [0045-46] [0050] etc. that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the heating element as heat pipe. Breiwa expressly teaches integrating heat pipes input a tubular volatizing device to function as thermal conduits between an external heat source and the chamber container material, thereby accelerating and improving heat flow. For the added “to aid heat distribution along the heating element,” the examiner refers to secondary reference Breiwa, at e.g. [0045] “Heat pipe(s) 34 can be incorporated in a variety of methods and manners to the device 10 including the cap 15 and the body 11 to facilitate rapid transference of heat from the heat source into the chamber 14 and the material 24. The heat pipe 34 promotes the transfer of heat from the heat source to the chamber via an evacuated tube containing an appropriate phase change fluid suitable for the temperature range necessary for the effective extraction of the target compounds 19 from the material 24. Highly conductive coatings, materials or elements such as synthetic graphite or the heat pipe 34 incorporated in the cap 15 or the tube 11 or both may also be used to facilitate the conduction and distribution of heat more uniformly from the heat source to the entire chamber 14 and the material 24 within the chamber 14. Another embodiment of FIG. 16 may place the chamber 14, the diffuser disc 26, the indicator 28 and any other component(s) of the device 10 in a different position to achieve the extraction such as placing the chamber 14 and the material 24 at the suction end 12, and reversing the flow through the diffuser disc 26.” Further, the examiner notes that the “to aid heat distribution along the heating element” is not only broad, but intended use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the volatizing device art to modify Harrod to include the heat pipe(s) functionality, as shown in Breiwa, where the motivation is to accelerate and improve heat flow, as described in Breiwa.
For claim 6, 20, choosing a design whose effective thermal conductivity exceeds 3000 W/mk is thus a routine design choice, well inside the known performance envelope of standard heat pipes. Accordingly, the specific numerical threshold > 3000 W/mk would reasonably be viewed as an obvious optimization or a non-critical design parameter selected from a range suggested by the prior art and heat-pipe design practice, rather than a non-obvious distinction. This ensures fast response and uniform temperature along the heating element.
With regard to claim 2, Harrod further discloses where the heating element protrudes in the heating cavity (see e.g. Fig. 4).
With regard to claim 3, Harrod further discloses tuular heating element heatable by magnetic field. In the combined mapping with Breiwa, as above, the heat pipe corresponds to this elongate heating element. Breiwa further teaches heat pipes that extend from outside to inside chamber 14. See Breiwa at [0060] The cap 15 also includes the heat tube 34 which is partially positioned along the exterior of the cap 15 and extends into the interior of the cap 15. In this position, the heat pipe 34 can contact the material 24 positioned within the chamber 14 such that a heat source 200 applied to the heat pipe 34 effectively heats the material 24 in the chamber 14. See combination and motivation above.
With regard to claim 4, Harrod further discloses where the heat pipe is configured to be at least partially received in the article comprising the aerosolizable material (e.g. page 18 ln 25-35).
With regard to claim 5, Harrod further discloses where the heat pipe is arranged to transfer heat external to the heating cavity into the heating cavity (Harrod discloses heating element located in the heating zone and being inductively heated by coils outside the article). Harrod does not disclose the external to internal conduction concept is not emphasized. Breiwa teaches using a heat pipe that spans the exterior and interior of the volatizing chamber, carrying heat from an external heat source into the chamber. See e.g. Breiwa at [0045] [0060]. See combination above.
With regard to claim 7, Harrod further discloses the heating arrangement is configured to apply heat at one end of the heat pipe (see page 4, 1-10, respective planes).
With regard to claim 8, Harrod further discloses the heating arrangement encircles part of the heat pipe (see e.g. page 22, ln. 19-33).
With regard to claim 9, Harrod further discloses where a portion of the heat pipe extends away from the heating arrangement (the figures suggests the coils occupy a finite axial region while the heating element and heating zone extend past that region at each end).
With regard to claim 10, Harrod does not disclose the limitations of claim 10. Breiwa further teaches at [0060] a portion of the heat pipe extending external to the heating cavity. See combination above.
With regard to claim 11, Harrod teaches flat spiral coils that generate magnetic fields as shown above. Breiwa teaches at [0060] the heating arrangement is arranged to heat the portion of the heat pipe extending external to the heating cavity. See combination above.
With regard to claim 12-13, Harrod teaches flat spiral coils that generate magnetic fields as shown above. Breiwa teaches at [0060] [0050] teaches a collar configured to heat the heat pipe. See combination above.
With regard to claim 14-15, Harrod discloses the heat pipe comprises heating material that is heatable by penetration with a varying magnetic field (see page 1, ln 20-30, abstract, throughout).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrod, Breiwa, in further view of U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0060348 to Mironov et al. (“Mironov”).
With regard to claim 16, Harrod/Breiwa does not teach claim 16. However, Mironov at e.g. [0037-38] [0119] The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the inductor coil is a helical inductor coil. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the induction heating art to include the helical inductor coil, as show in Mironov, where the advantage is shown in Mironov,
[0038] The use of helical coils allows for generating homogenous fields which may prove advantageous with regard to a homogenous heating process. As used herein, the term ‘helical inductor coil’ does not only include helical inductor coils having a circular cross-section but also other closed-line cross-sections, in particular an oval or elliptical or square or rectangular or triangular or polygonal cross-section. Advantageously, the cross-section of the helical inductor coil corresponds to the cross-section of the receiving sleeve. According to a preferred aspect of the invention, the first inductor coil and the second inductor coil are both helical inductor coils arranged coaxially between an inner and an outer circumferential surface of the receiving sleeve at different axial positions with regard to the longitudinal axis of the receiving sleeve. In this configuration, each one of the first and the second inductor coil may generate an alternating electromagnetic field inside and outside the receiving sleeve having magnetic field lines which are substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the receiving sleeve.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the heat pipe of Breiwa would render the primary reference inoperable. The examiner respectfully disagrees. See primary reference Harrod, page 17, line 24-34,
PNG
media_image1.png
274
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
During use the cover acts like a pipe and further directs the flow of air into the aerosolizable material, and may help direct the flow of air out of the material. See also Harrod page 15, line 8-16, where the goal is to heat the heating material such as ferromagnetic material, which then heats the aerosolizable material. There is no limitation in Harrod that only a certain portion of the aerosolizable material is heated or even if that’s a goal of Harrod. See also Harrod page 19, ln. 14-24. Accordingly, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the fundamental purpose of Harrod would have to be changed in order to include such a heat pipe as shown in Breiwa.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Ludwig whose telephone number is (571)270-5599. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Fahd Obeid can be reached at 571-270-3324. 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.
/PETER LUDWIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627