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 1-20 are pending and subject to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, pages 1-8, filed 11 December 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Monsees, et al (US20130042865A1) or in the alternative Thorens (US20180015237A1)..
The following is a modified rejection.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian, et al (US20200154784A1) and further in view of Monsees, et al (US20130042865A1) or in the alternative Thorens (US20180015237A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sebastian teaches an aerosol generating article, capsule, that is for use with an aerosol generating device. (Abstract) The aerosol generating article is comprised of a layers of substrate sheet that is used as an aerosol source. [0006] The substrate layers can be wrapped in a covering material; where the covering layer is comprised of three layers. The second layer comprising a metal foil. [0007] Sebastian further teaches that the article is designed to be used with a resistive heating member. [0048]
Sebastian teaches a first layer of material that is considered to read on the liner of the instant claim. However, Sebastian fails to specifically disclose the materials that would make up the first layer/ liner.
Monsees, directed to the design of low temperature vaporizers, teaches that a flexible heater can be metallic material and clad in an insulating polyimide film. [0069]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sebastian by using a polyimide insulating layer as taught by Monsees because both Sebastian and Monsees are directed to aerosol generating articles, Monsees teaches polyimides are both thermally and electrically insulating as well as flexible [0069] while also providing excellent tensile strength, tear resistance and dimensional stability [0082], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way
Alternatively, Thorens, directed to electrically heated aerosol generating articles, teaches a heating element can include a metallic etched foil. The heating element may include a metallic etched foil insulated between two layers of an inert material. In that case, the inert material may include commercially available polyimide films, all-polyimide or mica foil.[0158]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sebastian by having a heating element that has a polyimide between the heater and the material as taught by Thorens because both Sebastian and Thorens are directed to heat-not-burn aerosol generating articles, Thorens teaches insulating materials provide are used to control the energy transfer [0158], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
Regarding claim 2, A modified Sebastian teaches that the heating element can have a layer that is located between the foil heating element and the aerosol generating material and that the lining material can be a polyimide film.
Regarding claim 3, Sebastian as modified by Monsees in claim 1 teaches the use of the use of a polyimide covered flexible heater to provide thermal and electrical insulation.
Regarding claim 4, Monsees teaches the polyimide layer provides excellent tensile strength, tear resistance and dimensional stability. [0082]
Regarding claim 6, as discussed in claim 1, Sebastian teaches that the inner layer, lining, can contain an aerosol precursor composition.
Regarding claim 7, Sebastian teaches the use of a phase change material in an aerosol generating article to reduce the temperature. [0047] Sebastian specifically describes the use of phase change materials as being used to cool the air; however, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that phase change materials can be used for cooling in general as the thermodynamics associated with the phase change use the energy that has been created in the article.
Regarding claim 9, Sebastian teaches that the aerosol generating material can have metal that is located in the aerosol generating substrate sheet.
Regarding claim 18, Sebastian teaches that the substrate component has a length of between approximately 10mm to 30mm. [0105] The claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claim 19, Sebastian teaches that the aerosol source member, capsule, comprises a heated end, which is configured to be inserted into the control body, and a mouth end, upon which a user draws to create the aerosol. [0045] A person having ordinary skill would recognize that the airflow through the aerosol source member would be primarily along the axial direction.
Claims 5, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian, et al (US20200154784A1) and further in view of Monsees, et al (US20130042865A1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Jang, et al (US20220110368A1, from IDS dated 08/12/2024)).
Regarding claim 5, Sebastian and Monsees both teach that the inner layer/ liner extends the length of the substrate. Neither of the prior pieces of art suggest a mechanical pressure being applied to the substrate to transfer energy to the article.
Jang, directed to the design of aerosol generating devices, teaches that the aerosol generating substrate is mechanically pressed in the device. (Abstract) Jang teaches that when the cover of the device is closed the aerosol generating article that is going to be heated is pressed between the two heaters. ([0053], Fig 3)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sebastian and Monsees by pressing the aerosol generating article in the device as taught by Jang because Sebastian, Monsees, and Jang are directed to heat-not-burn aerosol generating articles, Jang teaches by doing this the temperature differences between portions of the aerosol-generating substrate can be minimized, and the aerosol-generating substrate can be rapidly heated to a target temperature and the preheating time of an aerosol generation device can be reduced, an initial taste of tobacco smoke can be improved, and a lack of vapor production can be addressed. [0017], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
Regarding claim 16, Sebastian and Monsees are both silent to the possibility of compressing or flattening the smoking article.
Jang, directed to the design of aerosol generating devices, teaches that the aerosol generating substrate is mechanically pressed in the device. (Abstract) Jang teaches that when the cover of the device is closed the aerosol generating article that is going to be heated is pressed between the two heaters. ([0053], Fig 3)
Regarding claim 17, neither Sebastian nor Monsees disclose the smoking article would be flattened or that the deformation would have a ratio.
As discussed in claim 16, Jang teaches that the aerosol generating article that is flattened by the device prior to heating. Jang further teaches that the pressed portion of the substrate has a diameter in a range of 10%-50% of the diameter of the original aerosol generating article.(Figures 5-7; [0057]) The value of pressed aerosol generating article being 50% of the diameter of the diameter of the original article is considered to read on the 2:1 ratio of the instant claim.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sebastian and Monsees by pressing the aerosol generating article in the device as taught by Jang because Sebastian, Monsees, and Jang are directed to heat-not-burn aerosol generating articles, Jang teaches Within these numerical ranges, the phenomenon in which the cigarette paper ruptures may be reduced, and the preheating time may be significantly reduced [0057], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
Claims 8 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian, et al (US20200154784A1) and Monsees, et al (US20130042865A1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Crillo, et al (US20190008208A1).
Regarding claim 8, Sebastian teaches that the foil layer are covered by an outer layer of paper. However, Sebastian is silent as to the use of an absorbent material for absorbing chemicals generated by pyrolysis.
Crillo, directed to smoking systems, teaches that the cartridge can contain material including polyamide-imide and cellulose acetate. [0088] A person having ordinary skill would recognize that cellulose acetate is commonly used in the tobacco arts as a filter material to absorb the chemicals produced during pyrolysis.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sebastian and Monsees by using both cellulose acetate and polyamide in the aerosol generating article as taught by Crillo because Sebastian, Monsees, and Crillo are directed to aerosol generating articles, Crillo teaches both are fire resistant [0088], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
Regarding claim 14, Sebastian teaches that the foil layer is covered by an outer layer of paper but does not teach that the article would have openings for electrodes.
Crillo, directed to smoking systems, teaches that a smoking article can have one or more electrode holes that house electrodes on the cartridge to proximate the electrode to the combustible substance. [0119]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sebastian and Monsees by the using the openings for electrodes by Crillo because Sebastian, Monsees, and Crillo are directed to aerosol generating articles, Crillo teaches this thickness allows the electrodes to be proximate to the substance [0119], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian, et al (US20200154784A1) and Monsees, et al (US20130042865A1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Reevell (US20190261684A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Sebastian teaches that the aerosol generating article is covered in a paper outer wrapper and has a conductive foil below the paper outer wrapper.
Sebastian does not teach that the metallic foil has an electrical contact coating that interacts with the foil at locations along the article.
Reevell, directed to aerosol generating devices, teaches the use of electrodes to heat a substance. Reevell teaches that the device can contain first and second electrodes and the aerosol generating article can be received between the two electrodes. [0007] The two electrodes can be part of at least on heater that is provided on the surface of the article. [0017]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sebastian and Monsees by using electrodes to generate a resistive heating element as taught by Reevell because Sebastian, Monsees, and Reevell are directed to heat-not-burn aerosol generating articles, Reevell teaches when using a resistive heating element this configuration is beneficial not needing to insert a heater in the aerosol generating material in order to heat the material [0017] , and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian, et al (US20200154784A1) and Monsees, et al (US20130042865A1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Iwanaga, et al (US20210235747A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Sebastian teaches that the second layer that is made of a foil material, is covered by a third layer that is comprised of paper [0046] A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the paper covering the foil layer that would cover the band of overlap on the foil would insulate the overlapping area as paper is an insulating material.
Sebastian is silent with respect to how the paper covering would be joined around the article.
Iwanaga, directed to non-combustible smoking articles, teaches the use of a vinyl acetate emulsion adhesive and/or a starch based glue that is used for bonding sheets of material [0038] Iwanaga teaches that in a preferred embodiment both the vinyl acetate and the starch based glue are used for joining different sheets within the article. [0061] A person having ordinary skill would recognize that both starches and vinyl acetate are insulating materials.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sebastian and Monsees by using electrodes to generate a resistive heating element as taught by Iwanaga because Sebastian, Monsees, and Iwanaga are directed to heat-not-burn aerosol generating articles, Iwanaga teaches these types of adhesives can achieve a strong wrapping that does not separate [0061], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian, et al (US20200154784A1) and Monsees, et al (US20130042865A1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Conner, et al (US20150083150A1).
Regarding claim 15, Sebastian and Monsees are silent as to the thickness of the foil that is in the cover of the aerosol generating article.
Conner, directed to aerosol generating system and smoking article, teaches an aerosol generating article that comprises a foil strip. The foil strip has a thickness of about 0.5 microns (0.0005 mm) and about 50 microns (0.05 mm). [0067] The claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.05
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sebastian and Monsees by using a foil thickness as taught by Conner because Sebastian, Monsees, and Conner are directed to heat-not-burn aerosol generating articles, Conner teaches this thickness allows the foil to be laminated to the paper overwrap to enhance heat transfer [0067-0068], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sebastian, et al (US20200154784A1) and Monsees, et al (US20130042865A1), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Park, et al (US20190000133A1).
Regarding claim 20, Sebastian teaches that the electrical connection for heating would occur at the tracks on the aerosol generating article but are silent as to the distance between the electrodes along the foil.
Park teaches that the thermally conductive portions can be spaced longitudinally between 1-10mm. [0004]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sebastian and Monsees by using a foil thickness as taught by Conner because Sebastian, Monsees, and Conner are directed to heat-not-burn aerosol generating articles, Conner teaches this thickness allows the foil to be laminated to the paper overwrap to enhance heat transfer [0067-0068], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRGINIA R BIEGER whose telephone number is (703)756-1014. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7:30-4:30.
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, Phillip 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.
/V.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755