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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2, and 4 of copending Application No. 18/274114 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 is taught by copending claims 1, 2, and 4.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 7, and 8 of copending Application No. 18/274128 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 is taught by copending claims 1, 7, and 8.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TAURINO et al. (WO 2019/234245).
Taurino teaches an aerosol generating device comprising a heating chamber (see figure 6) for receiving an aerosol generating substrate, the heating chamber comprising a chamber wall (2) that defines an interior volume of the heating chamber; and a susceptor structure (20, 20a, 20b, 20c) comprising a plurality of inductively heatable susceptors (20, 20a, 20b, 20c) spaced around the chamber wall (2) and exposed to the interior volume of the heating chamber; wherein the susceptor structure further comprises mounting portions embedded in the chamber wall (page 6 line 18).
Regarding claim 2, figures 4a-4e show plurality of inductively heatable susceptors structure further comprises respective inwardly extending portions that extend from the chamber wall into the interior volume.
Regarding claim 4, figure 4c shows the susceptor structure further comprises connecting portions that connect two or more of the plurality of inductively heatable susceptors.
Regarding claim 5, figure 4c shows the connecting portions of the susceptor structure connect all of the plurality of inductively heatable susceptors.
Regarding claim 6, figure 4c shows the connecting portions of the susceptor structure connect the plurality of inductively heatable susceptors in a continuous circuit around the heating chamber.
Regarding claim 8, Taurino teaches each of the plurality of inductively heatable susceptors comprises one of the mounting portions embedded in the chamber wall (page 7 lines 15-16).
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.
Claim(s) 9-10, 12-14, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIRONOV et al. (WO 2017/029268) in view of TAURINO et al. (WO 2019/234245).
Mironov teaches a method of making an aerosol generating device comprising forming a susceptor structure comprising a plurality of inductively heatable susceptors (page 2 lines 8-14); and moulding a chamber wall around the susceptor structure (page 20 lines 13-17). Mironov teaches that the plurality of inductively heatable susceptors may comprise various different shapes and arrangements (page 3 lines 24-30). Mironov teaches an aerosol generating device comprising a heating chamber (63) for receiving an aerosol generating substrate, the heating chamber comprising a chamber wall (61) that defines an interior volume of the heating chamber
Taurino teaches an aerosol generating device comprising a heating chamber (see figure 6) for receiving an aerosol generating substrate, the heating chamber comprising a chamber wall (2) that defines an interior volume of the heating chamber; and a susceptor structure (20, 20a, 20b, 20c) comprising a plurality of inductively heatable susceptors (20, 20a, 20b, 20c) spaced around the chamber wall (2) and exposed to the interior volume of the heating chamber; wherein the susceptor structure further comprises mounting portions embedded in the chamber wall (page 6 line 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the susceptor arrangement of Taurino for the susceptors of Mironov because Mironov teaches that the susceptors can be modified to have a variety of shapes and arrangements (pages 3-5)
Regarding claim 10, figures 4a-4e of Taurino show plurality of inductively heatable susceptors structure further comprises respective inwardly extending portions that extend from the chamber wall into the interior volume.
Regarding claim 12, Mironov teaches the step of moulding the chamber wall comprises injection moulding (page 20 lines 13-17).
Regarding claim 13, Mironov teaches the chamber wall comprises a material that is substantially not electrically conductive or magnetically permeable (page 18 lines 20-22).
Regarding claim 14, Mironov teaches the chamber wall comprises a heat-resistant plastics material (page 18 lines 12-15).
Regarding claim 17, Mironov teaches the susceptor structure comprises a material that is electrically conductive and magnetically permeable (page 5 lines 5-12).
Regarding claim 18, Mironov teaches the heat-resistant plastics material is polyether ether ketone (PEEK) (page 18 lines 12-15).
Regarding claim 19, Mironov teaches the material is a metallic material (page 5 lines 5-12).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIRONOV et al. (WO 2017/029268) in view of TAURINO et al. (WO 2019/234245) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of BLELOCH et al. (US 2015/0320116).
Mironov as modified by Taurino teaches a method of making an aerosol generating device. Mironov teaches that the chamber wall may be a thermally insulating material (page 17 lines 27-28).
Bleloch teaches an aerosol generating device. Bleloch teaches that the device may be made of thermally insulating material such as ceramic (para. 0050). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try a ceramic material for the chamber walls of Mironov because Mironov teaches that the chamber wall may be a thermally insulating material (page 17 lines 27-28) and Bleloch teaches that ceramic is a thermally insulating material used in aerosol generating devices (para. 0050).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, 11, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the prior art does not teach or suggest inwardly extending portions of the plurality of inductively heatable susceptors stand clear of the chamber wall, thereby leaving a radial gap between each of the plurality of inductively heatable susceptors and the chamber wall.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not teach or suggest that the connecting portions provide the mounting portions of the susceptor structure embedded in the chamber wall.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not teach or suggest the step of forming the susceptor structure comprises stamping a precursor structure, then folding the precursor structure to form the susceptor structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA SZEWCZYK whose telephone number is (571)270-5130. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10 am - 6 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/CYNTHIA SZEWCZYK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights