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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments entered on 6/8/2026 have been accepted. Claims 1, 3-6, 10, 12 are amended. Claims 2 and 15-34 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-14, 35-41 are pending, and claims 14 and 41 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blandino (US2017/0055584A1, of record).
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]), and
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 within 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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blandino (US2017/0055584A1, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Blandino (US2017/0055584A1, of record).
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].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pgs. 6-7 of their filed Remarks that Blandino does not teach the coil disposed around the rod of aerosol-generating material. Applicant argues that, as in the pending Fig. 2, that the coil is “entirely disposed around the rod, and no aerosol-generating material extends outside the coil”, such that this would be the BRI of the claim.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the coil is disposed entirely around the rod and that no aerosol-generating material extends outside the coil) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, the claims merely recite that the coil is disposed around the continuous rod of aerosol-generating material, and there is no further dimensionality or structural limitations that are required in the coil and rod relationship. The broadest reasonable interpretation therefore would be that the coil must be disposed around a rod of aerosol-generating material, such that the claim would clearly be satisfied when the sections of material inside of the coil are properly considered to be the rod. This interpretation of the claims is further established by Applicant’s own arguments, which utilize significant additional terms, phrases, and limitations to detail what is shown in their instant Fig. 2 vs what is being explicitly claimed in the claims. The limitations that Applicant details about the “coil is entirely disposed around the rod, and no aerosol-generating material extends outside the coil” are not in the claims nor are they reasonably conveyed to be within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, and if Applicant wishes to claim these limitations, they must be positively recited in the claim language.
Applicant argues on pgs. 7-8 of their filed Remarks that the rod 24 of Blandino does not meet the limitations of the claim, and they argue that the elongate member must be disposed within the continuous rod which is disposed around the rod of aerosol-generating material.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Specifically, it is noted that as the coil/rod relationship (as detailed above) is not required to have all of the additional limitations that Applicant argues, the elongate member and rod relationship similarly does not require all of the limitations that Applicant argues should be present. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation would be that there is an elongate member disposed within the rod of aerosol-generating material. Because the continuous rod of aerosol-generating material may be considered “30” as in Figs. 1-2 of Blandino, wherein the coil “22” would necessarily be disposed around an inner portion of the rod of aerosol-generating material [Figs. 1-2], and that the member “24” may clearly also be disposed within the rod of continuous material [Fig. 1], the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims when read in light of the specification would clearly be satisfied. If Applicant wishes for their argued features from the specification to be present in the claims (that of the coil being disposed entirely around the rod, with no aerosol-generating material extending outside the coil, and that the elongate member is disposed inside of the coil), they must be positively recited in the claim language.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights