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
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Batista et al. (US 2022/0295894).
Regarding claims 1 and 9: Batista teaches an aerosol-generating device (¶¶[0001]–[0004]) comprising a heater including an accommodating space for accommodating an aerosol-generating article (cavity 10 receiving aerosol-generating article 12) (¶¶[0004], [0038]–[0040]; Figs. 1–3).
Batista further teaches a coil configured to heat the heater by generating a magnetic field (induction coil 16) (¶¶[0004], [0025]–[0034]; Figs. 1–5).
Batista teaches that the heater comprises:
a first region arranged to contact the aerosol-generating article (susceptor arrangement 14) (¶¶[0005]–[0012]; Figs. 4–5); and
a second region arranged at an end of the first region and extending away from a center of the accommodating space, wherein the second region comprises a base 28 positioned at an end of the susceptor arrangement 14 and extending axially beyond the cavity that defines the accommodating space, i.e., away from the center of the accommodating space (¶¶[0004], [0010], [0102]; Figs. 1, 3–5).
Accordingly, Batista teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Claim 9 is directed to the heater itself and recites the same structural elements of the heater as recited in claim 1. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, Batista likewise teaches all limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claims 2 and 10:
Claims 2 and 10 recite that the first region comprises a protrusion portion protruding in a direction away from a center of the accommodating space, with claim 2 directed to the aerosol-generating device and claim 10 directed to the heater.
Batista teaches an aerosol-generating device comprising a heater having an accommodating space for accommodating an aerosol-generating article (cavity 10) (¶¶[0004], [0038]–[0040]; Figs. 1–3). Batista further teaches a first region arranged to contact the aerosol-generating article, comprising a susceptor arrangement 14 (¶¶[0005]–[0012]; Figs. 4–5).
Batista teaches that the susceptor arrangement 14 comprises protrusions 44 extending outward from the susceptor arrangement (¶¶[0017], [0094], [0111]; Fig. 4). As shown in Fig. 4, the accommodating space (cavity 10) is centrally located within the heater, and the protrusions 44 extend radially outward from the susceptor arrangement relative to the cavity centerline. Accordingly, the protrusions protrude in a direction away from a center of the accommodating space, as recited.
Therefore, Batista teaches all limitations of claim 2.
Claim 10 is directed to the heater itself and recites the same structural limitations of the heater as set forth in claim 2. For the reasons discussed above, Batista likewise teaches all limitations of claim 10.
Accordingly, claims 2 and 10 are anticipated by Batista under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
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.
Claim(s) 4-6, 7, 11- 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista et al. (US 2022/0295894).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 6, and 11:
Claims 4 and 5 depend from claim 1, and claims 6 and 11 depend from claim 9.
These claims further recite an insulator coupled to the second region and configured to limit or prevent heat transfer.
Batista teaches:
a thermally insulating element (22) coupled to the base (28), which corresponds to the second region of the heater (¶¶[0023]–[0025], [0102]–[0105]; Figs. 1–3, 5B–5C) and
that the thermally insulating element surrounds or interfaces with the cavity and heater region to thermally isolate the cavity from surrounding structures and limit airflow into the cavity (¶¶[0099], [0102]–[0104]).
Although Batista does not expressly state that the thermally insulating element is configured to “prevent heat of the second region from being transferred to the outside” or to “prevent dissipation of heat of the heater,” the use of a thermally insulating element in direct association with a heated region would have predictably limited heat transfer and heat dissipation, as insulating materials are conventionally selected and positioned for that purpose.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Batista’s thermally insulating element to limit heat transfer from the second region and reduce heat dissipation of the heater, as such a configuration represents a routine and predictable application of known insulating materials to improve thermal efficiency. (See MPEP §2143 and MPEP §2144.01).
Regarding claims 7 and 12:
Claims 7 and 12 recite that the second region is separably coupled to the first region and comprises a material different from a material of the first region, with claim 7 directed to the aerosol-generating device and claim 12 directed to the heater.
Batista teaches:
a first region comprising a susceptor arrangement 14 formed from an inductively heatable material (¶¶[0005]–[0012]); and
a second region comprising a base 28 that supports the susceptor arrangement (¶¶[0004], [0010], [0102]; Figs. 4–5),
Batista further teaches that the susceptor arrangement and the base are distinct structural components assembled together and formed from different materials to perform different functions (inductive heating versus structural support and thermal isolation) (¶¶[0014]–[0017], [0102]–[0112]).
Although Batista does not expressly describe the second region as being separably coupled to the first region or explicitly state that the second region is formed from a material different from the first region, Batista discloses the first region and the second region as distinct components assembled together to perform different functions, which provides a clear structural context in which such separable coupling and material differentiation would have been an obvious design choice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second region separably coupled to the first region and from a material different from the first region, as such a configuration represents a routine and predictable manufacturing choice motivated by modular assembly, ease of manufacture or replacement, and material suitability for different functional requirements.
Providing separable components formed from different materials for different functions is a well-known design approach in mechanical and thermal systems and would have yielded predictable results. See MPEP § 2143 (obviousness based on combining prior-art elements according to known methods) and MPEP § 2144.01 (use of known materials based on their suitability for the intended purpose is prima facie obvious).
Claim(s) 3, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista et al. (US 2022/0295894) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reevell (US 2021/0352966).
Regarding claim 3:
Batista teaches an aerosol generating device comprising a heater having an accommodating space for accommodating an aerosol generating article and a first region arranged to contact the aerosol generating article (susceptor arrangement 14) (¶¶[0097], [0101]; Figs. 4–5). Batista further teaches that the first region comprises protrusions (40) extending in a direction away from the center of the accommodating space toward the aerosol generating article (¶¶[0077]–[0082]; Figs. 4–6) as discussed in the rejection of claim 2.
Batista does not expressly teach a temperature sensor arranged on the protrusion portion.
However, Reevell discloses an aerosol generating device including a heater and a temperature sensor configured to detect a temperature of the heater, wherein the temperature sensor is arranged on or in thermal contact with a heater feature to monitor heater temperature during operation (¶¶[0098]–[0101]; Figs. 6(a), 7).
Reevell is directed to aerosol generating devices and heater temperature control, and therefore is in the same field of endeavor as Batista.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the temperature sensor disclosed by Reevell on the protrusion portion taught by Batista, because the protrusion portion directly contacts the aerosol generating article and represents an optimal location for accurately detecting heater temperature during aerosol generation. This modification involves the predictable placement of a known temperature sensor on a known heater feature to perform its intended function of temperature monitoring (MPEP § 2143; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Accordingly, claim 3 is unpatentable as obvious over Batista in view of Reevell.
Regarding claims 8 and 13:
Batista teaches an aerosol generating device including a heater having a first region arranged to contact an aerosol generating article and a second region arranged at an end of the first region (¶¶[0096]–[0104]; FIGS. 4, 5B, 5C).
However, Batista does not expressly teach that a surface defined by an edge of an end portion of the second region is inclined with respect to a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the accommodating space extends, as required by claims 8 and 13.
Reevell, which is in the same field of endeavor as Batista, discloses heater structures having end edges that are inclined, beveled, trapezoidal, or otherwise non-perpendicular relative to the longitudinal direction of the heating chamber (¶¶[0078]–[0084]; FIGS. 2, 2(a), 4, 6(a)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second region of Batista to include an inclined edge as disclosed by Reevell, because such a modification constitutes a predictable structural variation within the same field of endeavor to control airflow and heat transfer, consistent with the principles set forth in MPEP §§2141, 2141.01(a), and 2143.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. 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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747