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
Claims 1, 3, 6, 17 and 19 are amended. Claim 14 is withdrawn. Claim 18 is cancelled. Claims 1-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are presently examined.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 2/5/2026 are overcome.
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 1-5, 13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Park (US 11,992,056) in view of Beidelman (US 12,310,417) and Li (US 12,446,625).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Park discloses an apparatus for generating an aerosol (figure 8, reference numeral 100) having an induction coil (column 11, lines 35-40, figure 8, reference numeral 130) that surrounds a heating portion that generates heat when the coil generates an alternating magnetic field (column 8, lines 63-67, column 9, lines 1-6), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a susceptor. The susceptor directly contacts a temperature sensor (figure 8, reference numeral 140) by extending through an ejector located below the coil (column 11, lines 41-46, figure 8, reference numeral 120). Only a portion of the susceptor is surrounded by the coil (figure 1). The portion of the susceptor that is surrounded by the coil is considered to be first part, and the portion of the susceptor that is not surrounded by the coil is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second part. The susceptor is made from a ferromagnetic alloy (column 6, lines 31-38), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of the parts comprising the same susceptor material. Park does not explicitly disclose (a) measuring the temperatures of both the heated and unheated portions of the susceptor (b) the temperature sensor in contact with an unheated part of the susceptor.
Regarding (a), Beidelman teaches an apparatus for heating an aerosol generating material (abstract) having first and second temperature sensors that attach to first and second zones of a susceptor arrangement (column 2, lines 56-60) to control selective heating of at least one zone (column 2, lines 34-40).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a separate temperature sensor in the device of Park to measure the temperature of the unheated portion of the susceptor. One would have been motivated to do so since Beidelman teaches controlling an aerosol generating device using multiple temperature sensors that measure the heat in portions of susceptor that generate different amounts of heat.
Regarding (b), Li teaches a vapor generation device having a susceptor blade that extends in an axial direction of a cavity having a cavity that encapsulates a susceptor so that the sensor is integrated to increase accuracy of temperature detecting (abstract). A sensing part of the temperature sensor abuts against sheet like objects (column 6, lines 37-54) that form the susceptor itself (column 6, lines 12-36).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the temperature sensor of Li as the second temperature sensor of modified park. One would have been motivated to do so since Li teaches a temperature sensor that increases accuracy by abutting and extends to a further end of the susceptor since located within the susceptor itself.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Park discloses that the device comprises an accommodating space which accommodates a cigarette (column 6, lines 39-45, figure 3, reference numeral 121). The portion of the accommodating space surrounded by the coil is considered to be a heating chamber.
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses that the susceptor extends longitudinally along the axis of the accommodating space, and that the tip of the susceptor extends beyond the coil (figure 3).
Regarding claim 13, Beidelman teaches that the second temperature sensor is a thermocouple (column 2, lines 56-60).
Regarding claim 19, Park discloses that the device has a controller that receives temperature information from the temperature sensor to control heating (column 13, lines 4-18, figure 9, reference numeral 160), and Li teaches that the temperature sensor includes an electrical connection part (figure 8, reference numeral 342c) that extends outside of the susceptor to be accommodated in a circuit (column 6, lines 37-54, figure 2, reference numeral 20). An opening is formed in the base of the recess to allow the electrical connection part to pass through (figure 2), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of the chamber wall comprising a cut-out portion which corresponds to the location of the second part of the susceptor since it is below the entire susceptor. It is evident that this structure would be present in the combination of modified Park since the internal temperature sensor of modified Park must communicate with the controller of modified Park.
Regarding claim 20, Li teaches that the opening extends fully through the wall of the cavity so the inside of the susceptor is exposed (figure 2), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of exposed. The internal temperature sensor is both in contact with the susceptor and positioned within the opening since it extends to both (figure 2).
Claims 6-7, 10-12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 11,992,056) in view of Beidelman (US 12,310,417) and Li (US 12,446,625) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Batista (US 2022/0295894 hereafter referred to as Batista ‘894).
Regarding claim 6, modified Park teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Park does not explicitly teach a plurality of spaced apart susceptors.
Batista ‘894 teaches an aerosol generating device having a susceptor arrangement with at least two elongate susceptors arranged in an elongate cavity (abstract). Batista additionally teaches that this format improves heating efficiency [0003].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the central susceptor of modified Park and to instead provide multiple elongate susceptors on the side of the accommodating space of modified Park, each susceptor having the two temperature sensors of modified Park. One would have been motivated to do so since Batista ‘894 teaches that providing elongate susceptors on the sides of a cavity improves heating efficiency in an aerosol generating device.
Regarding claim 7, Batista ‘894 teaches that the susceptors are mounted on a plurality of suspension springs ([0111], figure 5B, reference numeral 46), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of susceptor mounts.
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Park discloses that the accommodating space forms a tubular chamber (figure 4), and Batista ‘894 teaches that the susceptors are arranged around the side of a tubular housing ([0007], figure 2).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 17, Park discloses that the accommodating space is defined by an ejector (column 6, lines 46-54, figure 3, reference numeral 120) made from PEEK (column 7, lines 47-53).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 11,992,056) in view of Batista (US 2022/0295894, hereafter referred to as Batista ‘894) and Beidelman (US 12,310,417) and Li (US 12,446,625) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Batista (US 12,439,969, hereafter referred to as Batista ‘969).
Regarding claim 8, modified Park teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Park additionally discloses that the coil is located outside of the accommodating space (figure 3). Modified Park does not explicitly teach a coil support groove.
Batista ‘969 teaches an inductive heating element (abstract) having an inductive heating arrangement that is held in an inductive heating arrangement housing that secures the relative arrangement of the components (column 13, lines 60-67).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the coil of modified Park with the housing of Batista ‘969. One would have been motivated to do so since Batista ‘969 teaches a housing that secures the relative arrangement of the components.
Regarding claim 9, Batista ‘969 teaches that the housing is in the form of a groove (column 23, lines 16-21, figure 5, reference numeral 154).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 11,992,056) in view of Batista (US 2022/0295894, hereafter referred to as Batista ‘894) and Beidelman (US 12,310,417) and Li (US 12,446,625) and Batista (US 12,439,969, hereafter referred to as Batista ‘969) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Sayed (US 12,520,875).
Regarding claim 15, modified Park teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Park does not explicitly teach the coil being helical.
Sayed teaches an aerosol provision device (abstract) having a helical inductive heating coil that surrounds a heating zone (column 12, lines 20-26).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the coil of modified Park be helical. One would have been motivated to do so since Sayed teaches that a helical coil is a suitable shape for an inductive coil for an aerosol provision device.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 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, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights