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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-13 and 18-24 are pending.
Claims 12, 13 and 18-24 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12, 13 and 18-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/3/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 7/3/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the common feature is not merely "the heater comprising an induction coil, configured to generate a variable magnetic field," and thus US 2017/0119054 to Zinovik does not teach the special technical feature.
Independent claim 1 recites a heater comprising "a susceptor, configured to be penetrated by the variable magnetic field to generate heat, wherein the susceptor is formed by molding a moldable sensing material on the induction coil, and wraps the induction coil." Independent claim 13 recites the same limitation for the heater itself. Claim 12 recites a closely corresponding structure in which "a base body" is formed by molding a moldable material on the induction coil and wrapping the induction coil, and a sensing coating is formed on the base body. Zinovik does not disclose this special technical feature.
This is not found persuasive by the Examiner because the special technical feature is the technical feature that is common to all of the independent claims. Claim 13 is directed to an aerosol generation device, comprising an induction coil and a susceptor, claim 12 is directed to an aerosol generation device, comprising an induction coil and other structural features but no susceptor, and claim 1 is directed to an aerosol generation device, comprising an induction coil, a susceptor and other structural features. Thus, the common technical feature is the heater comprising an induction coil, configured to generate a variable magnetic field, which is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of US 20170119054 (Zinovik). Zinovik teaches a heater (1) comprising an induction coil (15), configured to generate a variable magnetic field ([0033]).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 8 and 9 are 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.
The term “basically” in claims 8 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “basically” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by LIU (CN 108617042).
A machine translation has been applied to CN 108617042. All citations to ‘LIU’ refer to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, LIU teaches an aerosol generation device, configured to heat an aerosol-forming product to generate an aerosol (abstract), and comprising:
a cavity (“chamber,” 17) , configured to receive the aerosol-forming product (11-14);
and a heater (5), at least partially extending in the cavity (Fig.1), to heat the aerosol-forming product received in the cavity,
wherein the heater (5) comprises:
an induction coil, configured to generate a variable magnetic field (page 4, lines 26-28); and
a susceptor (5), configured to be penetrated by the variable magnetic field to generate heat (page 4, lines 26-31), wherein the susceptor wraps the induction coil (page 4, lines 19-21).
Regarding the limitation, “wherein the susceptor is formed by molding a moldable sensing material on the induction coil,” this is a product by process claim. The courts have held that product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113 I). In this case, the instant specification teaches that “the susceptor 31 is obtained by molding a sensing metal or alloy on the induction coil 32 through powder metallurgy. Specifically, raw material powder of the sensing metal or alloy is mixed with an organic additive to form injection feeding, and then the injection feeding is coupled inside and outside the resistance heating coil 32 in a mold through injection molding, and is then sintered to obtain the foregoing heater 30. In some preferred implementations, the sensing metal or alloy of the susceptor 31 includes 430-grade stainless steel (SS430), 420-grade stainless steel (SS420), an alloy material (such as permalloy) containing iron and nickel, or the like,” (page 14, lines 3-10). LIU teaches that the hollow susceptor is made of stainless steel (page 4, line 37- page 5, line 2) and that the induction coil is located within the hollow susceptor (page 4, lines 19-21), thus LIU meets the structure implied by the steps in this limitation.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, LIU teaches that the induction coil is embedded in the susceptor and is not exposed outside the susceptor (page 4, lines 19-21).
Regarding claim 6, LIU teaches that the heater further comprises: a conductive pin (4), connected to the induction coil (20), to supply power to the induction coil, wherein the conductive pin at least partially penetrates from the inside of the susceptor to the outside of the susceptor (Fig. 1, page 3, lines 32-33 and page 4, lines 32-35) .
Regarding claims 8 and 9, LIU teaches that the variable magnetic field is basically limited in the susceptor and the variable magnetic field basically has no magnetic leakage outside the susceptor (page 4, lines 32-36 and page 4, lines 19-21).
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.
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 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of BATISTA (WO 2019030000).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, LIU teaches that the induction coil is constructed in a form of a spiral coil extending in an axial direction of the heater (page 2, lines 25-26 and page 3, lines 22-23).
LIU does not expressly teach that a section of a conducting wire material of the induction coil is constructed to be in a flat shape, wherein the section of the conducting wire material of the induction coil is constructed to have an extension size in an axial direction of the induction coil greater than an extension size in a radial direction.
BATISTA teaches an aerosol-generating device (100) comprising a housing (110) defining a chamber (120) for receiving at least a portion of an aerosol-generating article (10), an inductor coil (130) disposed around at least a portion of the chamber (120), and an elongate susceptor element (160) projecting into the chamber (120). BATISTA teaches that the inductor coil (130) is formed from a wire and has a plurality of turns, or windings, extending along its length. The wire may have any suitable cross-sectional shape, such as square, oval, or triangular. The wire may have a flat cross-sectional shape. For example, the inductor coil may be formed from a wire having a rectangular cross-sectional shape and wound such that the maximum width of the cross-section of the wire extends parallel to the magnetic axis of the inductor coil. Such flat inductor coils may allow the outer diameter of the inductor, and therefore the outer diameter of the device, to be minimized (page 15, lines 25-32). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the induction coil wire material of LIU into a flat shape specifically a rectangular shape such that the conducting wire material of the induction coil is constructed to have an extension size in an axial direction of the induction coil greater than an extension size in a radial direction, as taught by BATISTA because it allows for the outer diameter of the inductor, and therefore the outer diameter of the device, to be minimized (BATISTA, page 15, lines 25-32).
Claim(s) 7, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of QI (CN 212464914).
A machine translation has been applied to CN 212464914. All citations to ‘QI’ refer to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 7, LIU does not expressly teach that the conductive pin comprises a first conductive pin and a second conductive pin that are of different materials, to form, between the first conductive pin and the second conductive pin, a thermocouple configured to sense a temperature of the heater.
QI teaches an aerosol generating device comprising: a chamber; a magnetic field generator, specifically an induction coil, and a susceptor, wherein the susceptor comprises: a sensing part configured to at least partially extend in the chamber, and has a hollow extending along the axial direction (abstract). QI teaches a conductive pin that extends from inside the susceptor (30) to outside the susceptor (30) and comprises a first conductive pin (331) and a second conductive pin (332) that are of different materials, to form between them a thermocouple configured to sense a temperature of the heater (Figs. 2 and 3, and page 6, lines 20-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the conductive pin of Liu comprise a first conductive pin and a second conductive pin that are of different materials, to form, between the first conductive pin and the second conductive pin, a thermocouple, as taught by QI in order to accurately monitor the temperature of the susceptor (QI, page 6, lines 7-8).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, LIU does not expressly teach that the induction coil has 6 to 20 windings or turns, or that the induction coil has an extension length of 8 mm to 12 mm, an outer diameter of 1 mm to 3 mm, and an inner diameter of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm.
QI teaches an aerosol generating device comprising: a chamber; a magnetic field generator, specifically an induction coil, and a susceptor, wherein the susceptor comprises: a sensing part configured to at least partially extend in the chamber, and has a hollow extending along the axial direction (abstract). QI teaches that the length of the inductive coil is about 8mm to about 14 mm, and the number of turns or windings is 8 to 15 turns (page 5, lines 16-18). QI teaches that the outer diameter of the tubular support member (34) within the susceptor (30) is 1.0 to 2.0 mm (page 7, line 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the dimensions of the induction coil and the tubular support member within the susceptor, as taught by QI, to the induction coil within the susceptor of LIU, with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results since the susceptors of both LIU and QI are directed to similar susceptors in similar aerosol generating devices used as smoke products.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANA B KRINKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
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.
YANA B. KRINKER
Examiner
Art Unit 1755
/YANA B KRINKER/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights