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 .
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.
(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 1-4, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shi (US 2024/0023620).
Regarding claim 1, Shi discloses an aerosol generating device comprising:
a heating chamber for receiving at least part of an aerosol generating substrate ([0079-0084], see substrate "A");
a plurality of inductively heatable susceptors mounted in the heating chamber (see susceptor 30, Figs. 6-8; susceptor being the longitudinally extending portions separated by the gaps); and
an electromagnetic field generator for generating an alternating electromagnetic field to inductively heat the plurality of inductively heatable susceptors (see induction coil L);
wherein the plurality of inductively heatable susceptors are electrically connected to each other (the longitudinally extending portions are connected at their ends--see triangular portion in Fig. 6 or the circumferentially extending connections at ends of tube in Figs. 7, 8).
Regarding claim 2, the electrical connector extends between adjacent susceptors (Figs. 6-8).
Regarding claim 3, the heating chamber has a longitudinal axis and the susceptors are elongate in the longitudinal direction of the heating chamber (see Figs. 1, 6-8).
Regarding claim 4, there are plural connectors extending between adjacent susceptors and the connectors are spaced along a longitudinal axis of the heating chamber (see Fig. 7 wherein connectors are present at the top and bottom ends of the adjacent susceptors).
Regarding claim 14, 18, and 19, Shi discloses the heating chamber as made of PEEK ([0115]).
Regarding claim 15, Shi discloses an aerosol generating system comprising:
an aerosol generating substrate (see substrate A, [0079-0084]);
an aerosol generating device comprising:
a heating chamber for receiving at least part of an aerosol generating substrate ([0079-0084], see substrate "A");
a plurality of inductively heatable susceptors mounted in the heating chamber (see susceptor 30, Figs. 6-8; susceptor being the longitudinally extending portions separated by the gaps); and
an electromagnetic field generator for generating an alternating electromagnetic field to inductively heat the plurality of inductively heatable susceptors (see induction coil L);
wherein the plurality of inductively heatable susceptors are electrically connected to each other (the longitudinally extending portions are connected at their ends--see triangular portion in Fig. 6 or the circumferentially extending connections at ends of tube in Figs. 7, 8).
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.
Claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (US 2024/0023620).
Regarding claims 6, 11, and 17, Shi does not expressly disclose the embodiment of Fig. 6-8 as around the periphery of the heating chamber; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the susceptor tubes as around the periphery since Shi discloses the tubular susceptor can be coaxially arranged in the hollow of the tubular support ([0126], Fig. 16). The susceptors would be spaced circumferentially around the cylindrical heating chamber.
Regarding claim 7, in positioning the susceptor structure in Fig. 7 embodiment around the periphery as shown in the Fig. 16 embodiment, the susceptors would be spaced around the inner surface of the chamber wall.
Regarding claim 9, the chamber wall includes a coil support structure on the outer surface for supporting the induction heating coil (see outer surface of tubular support 50, [0115]).
Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the susceptor with length at least five times its width since Shi discloses the susceptor 30 in FIG. 1,2 as about 12 mm long and 4 mm wide ([0091]) and then discloses the Fig. 6 embodiment as dividing that body into two elongate portions connected with a triangular cap (elongate portions construed as susceptors with triangular connector)--thus, it would have been obvious to form the widths of the individual elongate portions with dimensions less than half of the 4 mm overall width, thus yielding a length/width ratio greater than 5 (i.e., 12/2 = 6).
Claim 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (US 2024/0023620) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Wu (US 20190230987).
Regarding claim 8, Shi does not disclose a plurality of susceptor mounts formed on the inner surface for mounting the susceptors; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the inner surface with susceptor mounts since Wu, similarly directed towards an inductively heated aerosol device, teaches configuring the inner surface of the heating chamber with slots 202 for engaging and supporting susceptor heating elements mounted therein ([0039]). One would have been motivated to secure the heating element within the device.
Regarding claim 10, Shi does not expressly disclose a coil support groove; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the heating chamber wall with a coil support groove since Wu, similarly directed towards an inductively heated aerosol device, teaches a supporter 20 with position stops 205 and 206 to secure the induction coil 50 to the device ([0045], Fig. 3, the two stops and support surface define a coil support groove). One would have been motivated to ensure the coil is secured within the device.
Claim 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (US 2024/0023620) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Lochtman (US 20230380503).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Shi does not expressly disclose a coil support groove; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the heating chamber wall with a coil support groove since Lochtman, similarly directed towards an inductively heated aerosol device, teaches providing a coil support groove 129 to fixedly mount an inductor coil that is wrapped therein ([0072]). One would have been motivated to fixedly mount the coil within the device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (US 2024/0023620) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Batista (US 2022/0295894).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Shi does not expressly disclose the susceptors as having at least one inwardly extending portion that reduces the cross-sectional area of the heating chamber; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the heating chamber wall with a coil support groove since Batista, similarly directed towards an inductively heated aerosol device, teaches providing a susceptors with a flared shape to optimize the insertion of the aerosol generating article into the cavity of the device ([0005]). Examiner notes that the flared susceptors are considered to extend inwards from the outer flared ends.
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, 2, 6, 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18274128.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of App 18274128 discloses an aerosol generating device comprising a heating chamber, for receiving an aerosol generating substrate, a plurality of inductively heatable susceptors spaced around the chamber wall and exposed to the interior volume of the heating chamber, and connecting portions that connect the plurality of susceptors in a continuous circuit (see claim 6 along with limitations of claims 1, 4, 5 from which 6 depends). While claim 6 of App '128 does not expressly disclose an electromagnetic field generator for generating an electromagnetic field to inductively heat the susceptor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to provide an electromagnetic field generator to inductively heat the susceptors since claim 1 recites "inductively heatable susceptors" and induction heating requires an electromagnetic field generator to generate eddy currents within the susceptor, thereby generating heat.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is represented by Shi (US 20240023620), Wu (US 20190230987), and Mironov (US 20160120221). The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the at least one electrical connector has an electrical resistance which is lower than an electrical resistance of the inductively heatable susceptors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C DYE whose telephone number is (571)270-7059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/ROBERT C DYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619