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 and 35-40) in the reply filed on 12/31/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14 and 41 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/31/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 8/07/2023, 1/9/2026, and 1/9/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
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 1-11 and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blandino (US2017/0055584A1).
Regarding claim 1, Blandino teaches an article for use with a non-combustible aerosol provision device (article “1”, as in Figs. 1-2, is for use with an apparatus for heating smoking material [title, Fig. 5], wherein this may be an aerosol [0047,0107]), the article comprising
A continuous rod of aerosol-generating material (smokeable material “30” is located in the cavity “18” of the article “1” [see Figs. 1-2]. The smokeable material may have aerosol forming agent [0107]),
A coil disposed around the rod of aerosol-generating material (coil “22” is included in the article, wherein this coil may clearly be disposed around at least a centermost portion of the aerosol-generating material “30” [Figs. 1-2, 0055], thus clearly satisfying the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation), wherein the coil comprises heating material that is heatable by penetration with a varying magnetic field (the coil is made of “heating material that is heatable by penetrating the heating material with a varying magnetic field” [0055]).
Regarding claim 2, Blandino teaches an article, further comprising an elongate member disposed within the rod of aerosol-generating material, wherein the elongate member comprises thermally conductive material (as in Fig. 1, the article may include member “24” which extends along the length of the article. This member “24” would therefore clearly be “elongate”. As the member “24” is located within the cavity and around the smokeable material “30” [see Fig. 1], the member “24” would clearly be disposed within said rod of aerosol-generating material within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation. The member 24 is integral to the coil “22” and is connected so as to provide magnetic coupling and improve heating effects [0057], and contains heating material which is heatable by penetration with a varying magnetic field [0057]. The heating material may also be electrically conductive [0053-0054, 0063]).
Regarding claim 3, Blandino teaches an article, wherein the article has a longitudinal axis, and the elongate member extends along or substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the article (as in Fig. 1, the member “24” clearly extends along/parallel to the longitudinal axis of the article “1”, along the longitudinal axis A-A [0061, Fig. 1]).
Regarding claim 4, Blandino teaches an article, wherein the elongate member is substantially cylindrical or substantially planar (as in Fig. 1, the member “24” would clearly be substantially cylindrical, as it is in the form/shape of a wire).
Regarding claim 5, Blandino teaches an article, wherein a catalytic material is on at least a portion of the elongate member (the article may comprise a catalytic material that is on a portion of the coil [0071]. The catalytic material may be a coating, and it may be provided such that it converts a potential irritant to something that is less of an irritant [0071]. As this material is located on a portion of the coil, and as the member “24” is made of the same heating material as the coil and is attached thereto, the catalytic material would clearly also be located on the member “24” [0071]).
Regarding claim 6, Blandino teaches an article, wherein the elongate member comprises heating material that is heatable by penetration with a varying magnetic field (the member contains heating material which is heatable by penetration with a varying magnetic field [0057]).
Regarding claim 7, Blandino teaches an article, further comprising a connecting member connecting a first end of the coil with a first end of the elongate member (the connecting member may be considered to be the portion of “20” which connects the member “24” with the coil main body “22”. As in Fig. 1, the first end of the member would be considered the portion of the member “24” that is furthest to the right at the end of its straight section, the first end of the coil “22” would be considered the right most section thereof, and thus the connecting member would be the angled portion that joints “24” and “22” together as in Fig. 1), wherein the connecting member comprises heating material that is heatable by penetration with a varying magnetic field (the entirety of “20” comprises heating material that is heatable by penetration with a varying magnetic field [0057], such that the connecting member would also be as such).
Regarding claim 8, Blandino teaches an article, wherein the coil, the elongate member, and the connecting member are integrally formed (as defined in the rejection of claim 7 above and as illustrated in Fig. 1 of Blandino, each of these components would clearly be formed so as to be integrally formed as they are each a part of “20”).
Regarding claim 9, Blandino teaches an article wherein the coil is helical in shape (the coil may be helical [0093, Fig. 1]).
Regarding claim 10, Blandino teaches an article wherein the coil extends only partially along the rod of aerosol-generating material (see Figs. 1-2, wherein the coil clearly does not extend to either the near end nor the far end of the article and of the smoke generating material “30”).
Regarding claim 11, Blandino teaches an article wherein the coil consists or substantially consists of heating material (the coil comprises the heating material [0055-0057], wherein the heating material may comprise of a single one of the materials listed [0062-0063], such that the coil may clearly substantially consist entirely of said heating material).
Regarding claim 35, Blandino teaches an article wherein the heating material comprises at least one of an electrically-conductive material or magnetic material (“the heating material comprises one or more materials selected from the group consisting of: an electrically-conductive material, a magnetic material [0009, 0062]).
Regarding claim 36, Blandino teaches an article wherein the heating material comprises a metal or metal alloy (“The heating material may comprise a metal or a metal alloy” [0062]).
Regarding claim 37, Blandino teaches an article wherein the heating material comprises stainless steel or aluminum (the heating material may be selected from the group consisting of aluminum and stainless steel [0063]).
Regarding claim 38, Blandino teaches an article wherein the aerosol-generating material is reconstituted, cellulosic, or in gel form (the smokeable material may be gel, ground tobacco, extruded tobacco, gelled sheet, etc. [0047]).
Regarding claim 39, Blandino teaches an article wherein the aerosol-generating material comprises tobacco material (the smokable material may be tobacco material [0047]).
Regarding claim 40, Blandino teaches an article wherein the article is substantially cylindrical (as in Fig. 1, the article “1” is clearly in a substantially cylindrical shape).
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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blandino (US2017/0055584A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blandino (US2017/0055584A1).
Regarding claims 12-13, Blandino additionally teaches that the article may comprise a mass of thermal insulation around the cavity “18” [0073], and this may be located inside the container “10” [0073]. This may be made from paper [0030, 0073]. As this material would be disposed around the cavity thereof (wrapped around it) and is made of paper, this would reasonably be considered to be a “wrapper” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Blandino additionally suggests that the coil “22” may be disposed in other locations than what is shown in Fig. 1, such as disposing the coil in the material “10” [0060]. When the coil is disposed in “10” (thus disposed around the entirety of the aerosol generating material), and the paper material is disposed to the outside of the cavity and inside the container [0073], the claimed arrangement would clearly be satisfied. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the arrangement of the coil as shown in Fig. 1 to instead be located in “10” and to modify the article to have the paper located between the cavity and “10”. One would have been motivated as Blandino explicitly suggests these alternative arrangements [0073, 0060], as well as for improving thermal insulation and improving heating of the cavity [0073], as well as to reasonably lead to improved heating of the heating material [0060].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2017/0055581A1
US2018/0235279A1
US2019/0239555A1
US2018/0168226A1
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