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 in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12/16/2025.
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)(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 1-5 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park (US 11,992,056).
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.
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 18, Park discloses that the accommodating space has a closed end and an open end, and that the second end of the susceptor is closer to the open end than the first end of the susceptor (figure 3).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Park discloses that the susceptor is in contact with the temperature sensor through a hole in a base wall of the accommodation space (column 11, lines 35-40, figure 8, reference numeral 140), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a cut out portion that corresponds to a location of the second part of the susceptor.
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 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 Batista (US 2022/0295894 hereafter referred to as Batista ‘894).
Regarding claim 6, Park discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Park does not explicitly disclose 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 Park and to instead provide multiple elongate susceptors on the side of the accommodating space of 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) 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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 11,992,056) in view of Bajpai (US 11,000,067).
Regarding claim 13, Park discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Park does not explicitly disclose the temperature sensor being a thermocouple.
Bajpai teaches a system comprising a portable electronic vaporizing device (abstract) that has a thermocouple that measures temperature by being placed in contact with a component to sense the temperature of that component (column 27, lines 1-32).
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 thermocouple of Bajpai as the temperature sensor of Park. One would have been motivated to do so since Bajpai teaches a temperature sensor that is suitable for measuring temperature in an electronic vaporizing device.
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 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.
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