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 (claims 1-13 and 16-20) and Species B (claims 6-8 and 19-20) in the reply filed on 2026 May 14 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 3-5, 9-13, and 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 4-5 and 17-18: the recited induction coil (applicant fig. 13-15 and [98], #40) extending and winding in an axial direction is disclosed only with a susceptor that is a pin or a needle and is therefore directed to Species A’s pin or needle.
Claim 9: the recited magnetic core (applicant fig. 17 and [125], #33) is disclosed only with a susceptor that is a pin or a needle and is therefore directed to Species A’s pin or needle.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, and 19-20 are presently examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: in lines 4-6, “to produce heat, to heat” should be “to heat”, “to produce heat for”, or equivalent.
Claim 2: “to determine a temperature” should be “to permit determining a temperature”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bessant (WO 2019030363 A1).
Claim 1: Bessant teaches an aerosol generation device (fig. 2 and p. 13, lines 6-24, #12), configured to heat an aerosol generation product (14) to generate an aerosol, and comprising:
a cavity (18), configured to receive the aerosol generation product (14);
a susceptor (24), at least partially extending in the cavity (18), and configured to be penetrated by a changing magnetic field (alternating magnetic field) to heat the aerosol generation product (14) in the cavity (18);
and an induction coil (fig. 10 and p. 15, lines 6-12 show a specific induction assembly comprising an induction coil #233), arranged in the susceptor (624 comprising 427 and 627), and configured to generate the changing magnetic field (p. 13, lines 20-24).
Claim 6: Bessant teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 1, wherein the susceptor (fig. 10 and p. 15, lines 6-12, #427 and #627) is constructed into a sheet, and comprises a first surface (topmost surface of 627) and a second surface (bottommost surface of 427) facing away from each other;
and the induction coil (233) is constructed into a planar helical coil located between the first surface (topmost surface of 627) and the second surface (bottommost surface of 427).
Claim 7: Bessant teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 6, wherein the susceptor (fig. 10 and p. 15, lines 6-12, #427 and #627) comprises a first sheet portion (627) and a second sheet portion (427) opposite to each other in a thickness direction;
and the induction coil (233) is located between the first sheet portion (627) and the second sheet portion (427).
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 2 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessant (WO 2019030363 A1) as applied to claim 1 in view of Moloney (WO 2021176224 A1).
Claim 2: Bessant teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 1, wherein the induction coil (p. 13, lines 20-24, #26) and the susceptor (24) are thermally conductive to each other;
and the induction coil (26) is made of a material with a positive or negative temperature coefficient of resistance (the induction coil conducts electricity which indicates that the induction coil’s resistance changes to some extent in response to temperature, i.e., the induction coil has some temperature coefficient of resistance).
Bessant does not explicitly teach that the induction coil permits determining a temperature of the susceptor during use by detecting a resistance of the induction coil.
Moloney teaches an aerosol generation device (title) comprising an induction element (p. 3, line 28 – p. 4, line 2, induction element) and a susceptor (susceptor), wherein detecting a resistance of the induction element and a resistance of the susceptor determines a temperature of the susceptor (p. 3, line 28 – p. 4, line 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Moloney’s resistance sensor to Bessant such that Bessant can detect a resistance of the induction element and a resistance of the susceptor in order to determine a temperature of the susceptor, because doing so would enable Bessant to determine a temperature of the susceptor for the same benefit of Moloney.
Claim 19: modified Bessant teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 2, wherein the susceptor (fig. 10 and p. 15, lines 6-12, #427 and #627) is constructed into a sheet, and comprises a first surface (topmost surface of 627) and a second surface (bottommost surface of 427) facing away from each other;
and the induction coil (233) is constructed into a planar helical coil located between the first surface (topmost surface of 627) and the second surface (bottommost surface of 427).
Claim 20: modified Bessant teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 19, wherein the susceptor (fig. 10 and p. 15, lines 6-12, #427 and #627) comprises a first sheet portion (627) and a second sheet portion (427) opposite to each other in a thickness direction;
and the induction coil (233) is located between the first sheet portion (627) and the second sheet portion (427).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessant (WO 2019030363 A1) as applied to claim 6 in view of Moloney (WO 2020188244 A1 hereinafter Moloney 2).
Claim 8: Bessant teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 6.
Bessant does not explicitly teach that the first sheet portion and the second sheet portion are formed by folding a sheet precursor in half around an axis.
Moloney 2 teaches an aerosol generation device (title) comprising a susceptor (fig. 11 and p. 18, line 30 – p. 19, line 2, #128) formed by folding a sheet precursor in half around an axis (the axis protruding from the page towards a viewer).
Bessant’s susceptor can have any shape (Bessant p. 8, lines 3-7) and heats an aerosol former (Bessant fig. 2 and p. 13, lines 6-7, #14), and Moloney 2’s susceptor heats an aerosol former (Moloney 2 p. 18, lines 30-36, susceptor #128 forms an atomizer #70) to yield expectation to succeed.
The instant specification ascribes no significance or functional difference to the susceptor sheet being folded [applicant 12 and 82-83]. Specifying Bessant’s susceptor sheet shape as a folded sheet would maintain the susceptor’s function and would be an obvious matter of choice, absent evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B): In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The courts have held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was an obvious matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use, as Bessant’s generic susceptor shape, Moloney 2’s specific folded susceptor shape, because doing so would be a simple substitution of susceptor shapes that heat an aerosol former and would otherwise be a patentably indistinct change in shape.
Double Patenting
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/293883.
Claim 1: ‘883 recites an aerosol generation device (C1, aerosol generation device), configured to heat an aerosol generation product (aerosol-forming product) to generate an aerosol, and comprising:
a cavity (cavity), configured to receive the aerosol generation product;
a susceptor (susceptor), at least partially extending in the cavity, and configured to be penetrated by a changing magnetic field to produce heat, to heat the aerosol generation product in the cavity;
and an induction coil (induction coil), arranged in the susceptor (the susceptor wraps the induction coil), and configured to generate the changing magnetic field.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/293883 in view of Moloney (WO 2021176224 A1).
Claim 2: ‘883 recites the aerosol generation device according to claim 1, wherein the induction coil (C1, induction coil) and the susceptor (susceptor) are thermally conductive to each other (the susceptor wraps the induction coil, so the susceptor and the induction coil conduct heat between each other to some extent);
and the induction coil is made of a material with a positive or negative temperature coefficient of resistance (the induction coil conducts electricity which indicates that the induction coil’s resistance changes to some extent in response to temperature, i.e., the induction coil has some temperature coefficient of resistance).
‘883 does not recite that the induction coil permits determining a temperature of the susceptor during use by detecting a resistance of the induction coil.
Moloney teaches an aerosol generation device (title) comprising an induction element (p. 3, line 28 – p. 4, line 2, induction element) and a susceptor (susceptor), wherein detecting a resistance of the induction element and a resistance of the susceptor determines a temperature of the susceptor (p. 3, line 28 – p. 4, line 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Moloney’s resistance sensor to Bessant such that Bessant can detect a resistance of the induction element and a resistance of the susceptor in order to determine a temperature of the susceptor, because doing so would enable Bessant to determine a temperature of the susceptor for the same benefit of Moloney.
Claims 6-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/293883 in view of Bessant (WO 2019030363 A1).
Claims 6-7: ‘883 recites the aerosol generation device according to claim 1, wherein the susceptor (C2, susceptor) comprises a first surface and a second surface facing away from each other;
and the induction coil (induction coil) is constructed into a helical coil located between the first surface and the second surface (the induction coil is embedded in the susceptor).
‘883 does not recite that the susceptor is a sheet, and the induction coil is planar.
Bessant teaches an aerosol generation device (title) comprising a susceptor (fig. 10 and p. 15, lines 6-12, #427 and #627) constructed into a sheet and comprising a first sheet portion (627) and a second sheet portion (427) opposite each other;
and an induction coil (233) constructed into a planar helical coil located between the first sheet portion (627) and the second sheet portion (427), such that the planar shapes optimize heating of the susceptor by the induction coil (p. 4, lines 16-19).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use, as ‘833’s generic susceptor shape and induction coil shape, Bessant’s specific sheet susceptor and flat induction coil, because doing so would optimize heating of the susceptor by the induction coil.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/293883 in view of Bessant (WO 2019030363 A1) as applied to claim 6 in further view of Moloney (WO 2020188244 A1 hereinafter Moloney 2).
Claim 8: modified ‘833 teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 6.
Modified ‘833 does not explicitly teach that the first sheet portion and the second sheet portion are formed by folding a sheet precursor in half around an axis.
Moloney 2 teaches an aerosol generation device (title) comprising a susceptor (fig. 11 and p. 18, line 30 – p. 19, line 2, #128) formed by folding a sheet precursor in half around an axis (the axis protruding from the page towards a viewer).
Bessant’s susceptor can have any shape (Bessant p. 8, lines 3-7) and heats an aerosol former (Bessant fig. 2 and p. 13, lines 6-7, #14), and Moloney 2’s susceptor heats an aerosol former (Moloney 2 p. 18, lines 30-36, susceptor #128 forms an atomizer #70) to yield expectation to succeed.
The instant specification ascribes no significance or functional difference to the susceptor sheet being folded [applicant 12 and 82-83]. Specifying modified ‘833’s susceptor sheet shape as a folded sheet would maintain the susceptor’s function and would be an obvious matter of choice, absent evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B): In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The courts have held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was an obvious matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use, as Bessant’s generic susceptor shape, Moloney 2’s specific folded susceptor shape, because doing so would be a simple substitution of susceptor shapes that heat an aerosol former and would otherwise be a patentably indistinct change in shape.
Claims 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/293883 in view of Moloney (WO 2021176224 A1) as applied to claim 2 in further view of Bessant (WO 2019030363 A1).
Claims 19-20: modified ‘883 teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 1, wherein the susceptor (C2, susceptor) comprises a first surface and a second surface facing away from each other;
and the induction coil (induction coil) is constructed into a helical coil located between the first surface and the second surface (the induction coil is embedded in the susceptor).
‘883 does not recite that the susceptor is a sheet, and the induction coil is planar.
Bessant teaches an aerosol generation device (title) comprising a susceptor (fig. 10 and p. 15, lines 6-12, #427 and #627) constructed into a sheet and comprising a first sheet portion (627) and a second sheet portion (427) opposite each other;
and an induction coil (233) constructed into a planar helical coil located between the first sheet portion (627) and the second sheet portion (427), such that the planar shapes optimize heating of the susceptor by the induction coil (p. 4, lines 16-19).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use, as ‘833’s generic susceptor shape and induction coil shape, Bessant’s specific sheet susceptor and flat induction coil, because doing so would optimize heating of the susceptor by the induction coil.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tobey C. Le whose telephone number is (703)756-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30-18:30 ET.
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.
/TOBEY C LE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights