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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Both claims 9 and 10 recite the limitation “wherein the sensor is disposed to correspond to” the aerosol generating article (claim 9) or the aerosol generating material and a tobacco material. It is unclear what “correspond to” means in the context of these claims.
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) 1 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0055583 to Blandino et al. (hereinafter Blandino) in view of WO 2018/041450 to Fursa et al. (hereinafter Fursa).
With respect to claims 1 and 8, Blandino teaches an aerosol generating device 300 comprising: a housing 140 comprising a chamber 113 configured to accommodate an aerosol generating article; an induction coil 122 configured to generate a variable
PNG
media_image1.png
314
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
magnetic field; a susceptor 110 arranged to surround at least a portion of the chamber and configured to generate heat by the variable magnetic field; and a sensor 126 spaced apart from the induction coil in a length direction of the housing; and a processor 124 electrically connected to the induction coil and the sensor. See paras [0078, 0093-0095, 0098]. As shown in Figure 5 above, the sensor 126 is spaced apart from the susceptor 110 and induction coil 122 in a first direction parallel to the length direction of the housing. Blandino does not disclose that the sensor 126 is arranged in a region in which an intensity of the variable magnetic field is less than or equal to a designated value.
Fursa teaches an inductively heated aerosol generating device. Fursa recognizes that the electromagnetic field created during inductive heating causes “undesirable heating of adjacent conductive parts of the device.” See page 2, lines 14-20. As the temperature sensor of Blandino would have conductive/metallic parts, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to position the sensor of Blandino in a length direction such that the intensity of the variable magnetic field is minimized and the accuracy of the sensor measurements is maintained.
As to claims 9 and 10, the sensor measures the temperature of the aerosol generating article.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blandino and Fursa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2020/165450 to Frake et al. (hereinafter Frake).
With respect to claims 2 and 3, Blandino is silent as to a capacitive sensor configured to detect a moisture amount of the aerosol generating article. Frake discloses an aerosol generating device including a capacitive sensor for detecting a capacitance corresponding the moisture present in an aerosol generating article. See page 2, lines 20-26. Frake teaches that “[a] relatively high measured capacitance may be indicative of a relatively high water content. A relatively low measured capacitance may be indicative of a relatively low water content. The controller varies a supply of power to the at least one heater based on the measured capacitance. Advantageously, varying the supply of power to the at least one heater based on the measured capacitance may enable the system to generate an aerosol having consistent properties.” As Frake recognizes that moisture variability is a concern in tobacco-containing articles (page 3, lines 16-27), and as Blandino also discloses use of tobacco (para [0050]), it would have been obvious to include a capacitive moisture sensor in the aerosol generating device of Blandino. Furthermore it would have been obvious to use the capacitance measurements to control the supply of power to the heater (induction coil) in the manner disclosed by Frake.
As to claim 4, this limitation is directed to the intended use of the device. As the inductive heater is capable of preheating the aerosol generating article of Blandino, it meets the claim limitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Frake teaches that the controller supplies a low power profile to the heater for an initial period of time, which enables the heater to drive off the excess water content from the aerosol-forming substrate over the initial period of time, resulting in the water content of the aerosol-forming substrate being within the normal operating level after the initial period of time. Accordingly, the controller may be configured to supply a low power profile to the at least one heater for a predetermined initial period of time when the capacitance measurements indicate that the water content of the aerosol-forming substrate is above a normal operating level, and further configured to supply the normal power profile to the heater after the predetermined initial period of time. See page 5, lines 18-25. It would have been obvious that the second period of time would be longer than the first period of time if the device is generating an aerosol for an extended period of time.
As to claim 7, the sensors of Frake are disclosed to be electrical contacts. A POSITA would have been apprised of known electrical contacts, such as those fabricated from thin, metal film.
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frake in view of Fursa.
PNG
media_image2.png
426
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 11, Frake teaches a method of operating an aerosol generating device 410, including obtaining a capacitance corresponding to a moisture amount of an aerosol generating article from a sensor 428,430,452,454 arranged and controlling the aerosol generating device to supply power to the heater based on the obtained capacitance. See page 2, lines 20-26. Frake is silent to using an induction device as the heater and to placing the sensor in a region in which an intensity of a variable magnetic field generated by an induction coil is less than or equal to a designated value.
Fursa teaches an inductively heated aerosol generating device and discloses the benefits of using an inductive heater over a resistive heater like that of Frake. Specifically, Fursa discloses that because the inductive heater is not in contact with the aerosol-forming substrate, it is easier to keep clean. See page 1, lines . Fursa further recognizes that the electromagnetic field created during inductive heating causes “undesirable heating of adjacent conductive parts of the device.” See page 2, lines 14-23. It would have been obvious to substitute the resistive heating element of Frake with the inductive heating element of Fursa as he substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143 I.B. Moreover, as the capacitive sensors of Frake would have conductive/metallic parts, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to position the sensor of Frake in a length direction such that the intensity of the variable magnetic field created by the inductive heating element is minimized and the accuracy of the sensor measurements is maintained.
As to claims 12-15, Frake teaches that the controller supplies a low power profile to the heater for an initial period of time (i.e. preheating), which enables the heater to drive off the excess water content from the aerosol-forming substrate over the initial period of time, resulting in the water content of the aerosol-forming substrate being within the normal operating level after the initial period of time. Accordingly, the controller may be configured to supply a low power profile to the at least one heater for a predetermined initial period of time when the capacitance measurements indicate that the water content of the aerosol-forming substrate is above a normal operating level, and further configured to supply the normal power profile to the heater after the predetermined initial period of time. See page 5, lines 18-25. It would have been obvious to extend the second period of time to be longer than the first period of time when the device is generating an aerosol for an extended period of time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 10-2021-0017521 to Park et al. teaches an inductively-heated aerosol generator wherein the susceptor surrounds the chamber. See Figure 6b.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH L MCKANE whose telephone number is (571)272-1275. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6:30a-4:30p 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, Patricia Engle can be reached at 571-272-6660. 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.
/ELIZABETH L MCKANE/Specialist, Art Unit 3991