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 .
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, provisional applications 62/394243 (filed 09/14/2016), 62/453544 (filed 02/02/2017), 62/500509 (filed 05/03/2017), and 62/525773 (filed 06/28/2017) fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Applicant states that this application is a continuation of US 11707089 (02/26/2020), which is a continuation of 12178245 (03/14/2019), which is national phase of PCT/IL2017/051041 (09/14/2017). A continuation or divisional application cannot include new matter. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part because this application contains the following matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application:
Claim 18 recites the method of claim 1 comprising detecting classification information for the at least one plant material, determining a multi-stage heating profile based on the classification information, and determining characteristics of the first heating, the second heating, or combinations thereof, using the multi-stage heating profile.
The specification of the instant application contains the following paragraph (0044, as published):
In some applications, the control circuitry is configured to determine a classification of the plant material, and at least partially in response thereto, to determine the first smoking profile and the updated smoking profile. In some applications, based upon the classification of the plant material, the control circuitry is configured to determine a manner in which to vary a temperature to which to drive the heating element to heat the plant material, in response to changes in the airflow through the vaporizing unit. In some applications, the plant material is housed inside a capsule, and the control circuitry is configured to determine the classification of the plant material automatically by measuring a characteristic of the capsule.
While the specification mentions classification in multiple different areas, all other instances refer to classification of the capsule. The above citation to paragraph 0044 is the only passage that explicitly details classification of the plant material.
This same paragraph appears in US Patent 11707089 at 7:45-58 and in US Patent 12178245 at 7:42-54.
However, the classification of the plant material, as claimed in claim 18, is not supported in the provisional applications (which make no mention of classification, as claimed).
Accordingly, claim 18 is not supported in the earlier filed applications and is not afforded the earlier date(s).
For the purposes of examination, claim 18 will be understood has having priority to the date when the subject matter entered the specification. As best as understood, it appears this subject matter was added in US 12178245, filed 03/14/2019.
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
Claim 19 recites “wherein the first heating heats the at least one plant material to a first overshoot temperature prior to the at least one plant material settling on a first target temperature within the first target temperature range, the first overshoot temperature being greater than the first target temperature” and “the second heating heats the at least one plant material to a second overshoot temperature prior to the at least one plant material settling on a second target temperature within the second target temperature range, the second overshoot temperature being greater than the second target temperature.” Claim 1 requires a first heating that heats the plant material within a first target temperature range and a second target range. Claim 19 requires heating the plant material to first and second overshoot temperatures that are greater than the first and second target temperatures, respectively. Here, it is unclear in what way the first and second overshoot temperatures relate to the first and second target temperature ranges, respectively. For instance, it is unclear if the first overshoot temperature is greater than the first target temperature range that the plant material is heated to. If the first overshoot temperature is greater than the first target temperature range, then it is unclear in what way the firs heating can include both heating beyond the target temperature range and to the target temperature range. In other words, it is unclear if the overshoot temperature refers to a maximum temperature of the respective temperature ranges.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-12, 14-17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (US 2009/0133691).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada teaches method for operating a device (para. 0001) using multi-stage heating (para. 0019; multi-mode heating profile), comprising (Fig. 8):
PNG
media_image1.png
318
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 of Yamada (annotated showing the start and end periods of the first heating mode)
first heating at least one plant material within a first target temperature range for one or more first durations of time (The first heating mode is taken as beginning at the time in which the power source is on to the time in which sucking sensing is determined, which defines heater temperature range from 0 to Tb) (para. 0127 defines this period as including an early preheating temperature to Ta and a late preheating temperature to temperature Tb) (Alternatively, the first heating mode can be taken as excluding the ramp up from 0 to Ta and only include the period between Ta and Tb), the at least one plant material including at least one constituent compound (tobacco-para. 0038); and
PNG
media_image2.png
318
506
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 of Yamada (annotated showing the start and end periods of the second heating mode)
second heating the at least one plant material within a second target temperature range for one or more second durations of time (The second heating mode is taken as beginning at the end of the first heating mode and ending at the second Ta, which defines heater temperature range from Tb to Tc), the second heating causing at least a partial vaporization of the at least one constituent compound (para. 0128; “atomizing heating temperature Tc is a temperature of the heater 116 enough to atomize the solution L, namely turn it into an aerosol.”), the second target temperature range being greater than the first target temperature range (the first range is from 0 to Tb, or from Ta to Tb, where para. 0125 describes Ta as 150°C, para. 0127 describes Tb as being 185°C, and paragraph 0128 describes Tc being 220°C. Here, the first range is then 0 to 185°C, or from 150-185°C, and the second range is from 185-220°C).
Regarding claim 7, Yamada teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second target temperature range (Tb to Tc or 185-220°C is between a vaporization temperature (Yamada, para. 0128; “atomizing heating temperature Tc is a temperature of the heater 116 enough to atomize the solution L, namely turn it into an aerosol. “) of the at least one constituent compound (tobacco) and a pyrolysis temperature of the at least one plant material (The instant application identifies, in para. 0166, that tobacco has a vaporization temperature of 150-230°C and begins to become pyrolyzed at 250°C. The second range of Yamada, being 185-220°, is between the 150-230°C and 250°C range of tobacco).
PNG
media_image3.png
318
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 of Yamada (annotated showing a linear increase from Tb to Tc)
Regarding claim 8, Yamada teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 7, and further teaches wherein the second heating heats the at least one plant material for a series of second durations of time (the second heating mode includes a linear increase in temperature from Tb to Tc, which occurs over some period of time. This time period can be broken down into individual seconds, milliseconds, etc.), each one of the series of second durations of time being at a successively higher target temperature that is within the second target temperature range (this is met as the linear increase illustrates a progressive increase in temperature over time).
PNG
media_image3.png
318
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 of Yamada (annotated showing a linear increase from Tb to Tc)
Regarding claim 9, Yamada teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 7, and further teaches wherein the second heating heats the at least one plant material (the second heating mode includes a linear increase in temperature from Tb to Tc, which occurs over some period of time) for a single second duration of time (This time period can be regarded as a single duration in that it is a constant increase, as opposed to a variable increase. In this case, a constant increase means that the duration of the temperature increase occurs for some amount of time and does not occur in a step wise manner) such that a temperature of the at least one plant material continually escalates through at least a portion of the second target temperature range during the single second duration of time (this is met as the linear increase illustrates a progressive increase in temperature over time).
PNG
media_image3.png
318
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 of Yamada (annotated showing a linear increase from Tb to Tc)
Regarding claim 10, Yamada teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 7, and further teaches wherein the second heating heats the at least one plant material for a series of second durations of time (the second heating mode includes a linear increase in temperature from Tb to Tc, which occurs over some period of time. This time period can be broken down into individual seconds, milliseconds, etc.), each one of the series of second durations of time including heating within a band of temperatures that has a progressively higher maximum target temperature that is inside the second target temperature range (this is met as the linear increase illustrates a progressive increase in temperature over time from Tb to Tc).
Regarding claim 11, Yamada teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 10, and further teaches wherein the second heating heats the at least one plant material such that each one of the series of second durations of time includes continually escalating a temperature of the at least one plant material within a particular one of the band of temperatures (this is met as the linear increase illustrates a progressive increase in temperature over time from Tb to Tc).
Regarding claim 12, Yamada teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 7, and further teaches wherein the second heating heats the at least one plant material within the second target temperature range that is between 180° C. and 220° C (the second range is from 185-220°C).
Regarding claim 14, Yamada teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first target temperature range is below a vaporization temperature of the at least one constituent compound (0 to 185°C or 150-185°C), and the second target temperature range is between the vaporization temperature (Yamada, para. 0128; “atomizing heating temperature Tc is a temperature of the heater 116 enough to atomize the solution L, namely turn it into an aerosol. “) of the at least one constituent compound (the second range is from 185-220°C) and a pyrolysis temperature of the at least one plant material (The instant application identifies, in para. 0166, that tobacco has a vaporization temperature of 150-230°C and begins to become pyrolyzed at 250°C. The second range of Yamada, being 185-220°, is between the 150-230°C and 250°C range of tobacco).
Regarding claim 15, Yamada teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first target temperature range is between 90° C. and 170° C. (0 to 185°C or 150-185°C), and the second target temperature range is between 180° C. and 220° C (185-220°C).
Regarding claim 16, Yamada teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second heating heats the at least one plant material in response to at least one of a detection of an airflow in the device, a detection of a selectable action on the device, or combinations thereof (para. 0128; “when the user sucks on the mouthpiece 104, the user's sucking action is sensed by the sucking sensing sensor 176 and a sensing signal is supplied to the control unit 168. Upon receiving the sensing signal, the control unit 168 quickly raises the heater 116 from the late preheating temperature Tb to an atomizing heating temperature Tc (220.degree. C., for example), on the basis of a detection signal from the temperature sensor 180 (atomizing heating mode). The atomizing heating temperature Tc is a temperature of the heater 116 enough to atomize the solution L, namely turn it into an aerosol.”).
Regarding claim 17, Yamada teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second heating includes automatically initiating the second heating following a completion of the first heating (para. 0128; “when the user sucks on the mouthpiece 104, the user's sucking action is sensed by the sucking sensing sensor 176 and a sensing signal is supplied to the control unit 168. Upon receiving the sensing signal, the control unit 168 quickly raises the heater 116 from the late preheating temperature Tb to an atomizing heating temperature Tc (220.degree. C., for example), on the basis of a detection signal from the temperature sensor 180 (atomizing heating mode). The atomizing heating temperature Tc is a temperature of the heater 116 enough to atomize the solution L, namely turn it into an aerosol.”) [Here, Yamada’s control circuit automatically causes the heater temperature to increase based on sensor feedback. In this case, the control circuit, performs the function of raising the temperature of the heater automatically based on feedback control, and that this occurs following an end of the preheating mode).
Regarding claim 21, Yamada teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second target temperature range includes a maximal temperature limit that is less than a pyrolysis temperature of the at least one plant material. (The instant application identifies, in para. 0166, that tobacco has a vaporization temperature of 150-230°C and begins to become pyrolyzed at 250°C. The second range of Yamada, being 185-220° includes a maximal temperature, 220°C, that is less than the 250°C described as being the temperature at which tobacco begins to pyrolyze.).
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) 2-6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of McCullough (US2016/0354561; relying on earlier filing date).
Regarding claims 2-3, Yamada teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first heating includes initially heating the at least one plant material at a lower part of the first target temperature range (early preheating mode to Ta) for at least one first time period (time period shown in Fig. 8), and subsequently heating the at least one plant material at an upper part of the first target temperature range (late preheating mode to Tb) for at least one second time period (time period from Ta to Tb shown in Fig. 8).
As Yamada teaches tobacco as the plant constituent material, Yamada fails to teach wherein the first heating causes a decarboxylation of the at least one plant material (claim 2) or a decarboxylation of the at least one constituent compound occurring only during the subsequent heating (claim 3).
The instant specification describes, in paragraph 0210-0211, decarboxylation of cannabis occurring at a temperature between 140-170°C (which corresponds to the temperature range of Yamada)
McCullough relates to a method of delivering cannabis in a vaporizer (Abstract; para. 0042) and teaches heating cannabis to a first temperature sufficient to volatilize THC (150-160°C-para. 0064) and a second, higher, temperature (180-200°C-para. 0064) sufficient to volatilize CBD (para. 0080) and that the maximum heating temperature can be approximately 190-200°C (para. 0081).
Here, McCullough teaches a similar range of heating values of the first mode (i.e., 150-160° compared to Yamada’s 0-185, or 150-185°C) and the second mode (i.e., 190-220° compared to Yamada’s 185-220°C). Additionally, these temperature ranges overlap with the range detailed in the instant specification as causing decarboxylation in cannabis. Further, since McCullough teaches that the respective temperatures are carried out to volatilize THC and CBD, it stands to reason that the heating modes are performed long enough for decarboxylation to occur.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Yamada with McCullough, by replacing the tobacco material of Yamada, with the cannabis taught by McCullough, in order to provide a method of vaporizing cannabis, which would allow for the resulting constituents to be used for medical purposes (See para. 0003 of McCullough).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 3, and further teaches wherein the initial heating heats the at least one plant material to reduce a humidity of the at least one plant material (the early preheating mode of Yamada would, as a result, reduce any moisture content in the plant material. This is understood to be the result of heating the plant material to a temperature from 0 to 150°C, which includes a temperature above the boiling point of water. Necessarily, any moisture in the plant material would be reduced, at least partially).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 4, and further teaches wherein the initial heating heats the at least one plant material at the lower part of the first target temperature range that is between 90° C. and 120° C (Yamada teaches 0-150° range which encompasses the claimed range of 90-120°C. See MPEP 2144.05; “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 4, and further teaches wherein the subsequent heating heats the at least one plant material at the upper part of the first target temperature range that is between 140° C. and 170° C (the late preheating stage includes the range from Ta to Tb, or 150-185°C. See MPEP 2144.05; “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”).
Regarding claim 13, Yamada teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 7, except for wherein the first heating causes a decarboxylation of the at least one plant material.
As Yamada teaches tobacco as the plant constituent material, Yamada fails to teach wherein the first heating causes a decarboxylation of the at least one plant material (claim 2) or a decarboxylation of the at least one constituent compound occurring only during the subsequent heating (claim 3).
The instant specification describes, in paragraph 0210-0211, decarboxylation of cannabis occurring at a temperature between 140-170°C (which corresponds to the temperature range of Yamada; i.e., 0 to 185°C, or from 150-185°C,)
McCullough relates to a method of delivering cannabis in a vaporizer (Abstract; para. 0042) and teaches heating cannabis to a first temperature sufficient to volatilize THC (150-160°C-para. 0064) and a second, higher, temperature (180-200°C-para. 0064) sufficient to volatilize CBD (para. 0080) and that the maximum heating temperature can be approximately 190-200°C (para. 0081).
Here, McCullough teaches a similar range of heating values of the first mode (i.e., 150-160° compared to Yamada’s 0-185, or 150-185°C) and the second mode (i.e., 190-220° compared to Yamada’s 185-220°C). Additionally, these temperature ranges overlap with the range detailed in the instant specification as causing decarboxylation in cannabis. Further, since McCullough teaches that the respective temperatures are carried out to volatilize THC and CBD, it stands to reason that the heating modes are performed long enough for decarboxylation to occur.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Yamada with McCullough, by replacing the tobacco material of Yamada, with the cannabis taught by McCullough, in order to provide a method of vaporizing cannabis, which would allow for the resulting constituents to be used for medical purposes (See para. 0003 of McCullough).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Bless (US2019/0000144).
Note: For the purposes of examination, claim 18 will be understood has having priority to the date when the subject matter entered the specification. As best as understood, it appears this subject matter was added in US 12178245, filed 03/14/2019.
Regarding claim 18, Yamada teaches the claimed method, as applied in claim 1, except for detecting classification information for the at least one plant material; determining a multi-stage heating profile based on the classification information; and determining characteristics of the first heating, the second heating, or combinations thereof, using the multi-stage heating profile.
Bless relates to smoking articles and methods (para. 0001) and teaches operating the smoking article in a multi-stage heating profile (para. 0044; “the current regulating component can cycle the current to the heating element off and on to maintain a first temperature that is below an aerosol forming temperature and then allow an increased current flow in response to a current actuation control component so as to achieve a second temperature that is greater than the first temperature and that is an aerosol forming temperature. Such controlling can improve the response time of the article for aerosol formation such that aerosol formation begins almost instantaneously upon initiation of a puff by a consumer. According to some aspects, the first temperature (which can be characterized as a standby temperature) can be only slightly less than the aerosol forming temperature defined above. Specifically, the standby temperature can be about 50° C. to about 150° C., about 70° C. to about 140° C., about 80° C. to about 120° C., or about 90° C. to about 110° C.”)
Bless also teaches detecting classification information for the at least one plant material determining a multi-stage heating profile based on the classification information, and determining characteristics of the first heating, the second heating, or combinations thereof, using the multi-stage heating profile (para. 075; “identification of the constituent components of the aerosol-generating element 180 may allow optimization of the heating of the aerosol-generating element 180 based on those constituent components. As previously mentioned, the constituent components of the aerosol-generating element 180 include, in some aspects, tobacco, a tobacco component, or a tobacco-derived material (i.e., a material that is found naturally in tobacco that may be isolated directly from the tobacco or synthetically prepared).”) (see also para. 0089 which details using identification device 160 to identify an attribute of the tobacco material) (para. 0097 details using the identification to determine temperature profile) (para. 0104 details modulating the electrical energy or power to the heater in response to the identified attribute) (see also Abstract; “an aerosol-generating element identification device configured to identify an attribute of the aerosol-generating element, and a control device in communication with the aerosol-generating element identification device and configured to modulate the electrical energy provided to the heating element by the power source to direct the heating element to heat the aerosol-generating element to an aerosolization temperature associated with the identified attribute of the aerosol-generating element.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Yamada with Bless, by adding to the heating profile of Yamada, with the attribute identification and heating profile determination based on such identification taught by Bless, for in doing so would tailor the heating profile to the specific type of plant material intended to be vaporized, which would improve vaporization of the plant material.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Kuczaj (US2015/0208727)
Regarding claim 20, Yamada teaches the claimed method, as applied to claim 1, except for wherein the first heating has a heating rate of 50° C. per second or more, and the second heating has a heating rate of less than 50° C. per second.
PNG
media_image4.png
318
506
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 of Yamada (annotated showing variable heating rates)
Yamada does teach the first heating (from 0 to Tb, or from Ta to Tb) occurring at a first rate (i.e., temperature increase per unit of time going from 0 to Tb, or from Ta to Tb) and that the second heating (from Tb to Tc) occurring at a second rate (i.e., temperature increase per unit of time going from Tb to Tc).
Yamada does not describe the time scale shown in Figure 8. As such, Yamada, while disclosing respective first and second heating rates, does not disclose explicitly that the first heating rate is 50° C. per second or more and the second heating rate is less than 50° C. per second. However, some heating rate of °C per second is inherently disclosed for both rates.
Additionally, Yamada teaches the first heating being from 0 to Tb (0 to 185°C, or from Ta to Tb (150-185°C), and the second heating being from Tb to Tc (185-220°C).
Kuczaj relates to a method of generating aerosol (para. 0001) in which the vaporization of tobacco (para. 0042) involves a multi-stage heating profile (Fig. 5 and 8). Kuczaj details various time periods of each phase of the heating profile (see paragraphs 0086-0088) and that the time duration (i.e., t1, t2, t3 shown in Figure 8) can be selected to suit the circumstances (para. 0085).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Yamada with Kuczaj, by modifying the first and second heating rate of Yamada, being inherently of some value, with the teachings of Kuczaj, since the heating rate is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to achieve a recognized result. In this case the recognized result would be ensuring an appropriate preheating temperature is reached, as well as, a sufficient vaporization temperature during use. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the duration of the first heating stage and the second heating stage (shown in Figure 8 of Yamada) would determine the rate at which the temperature, at each stage, is reached. Varying the duration of each stage would allow for varying heating profiles, including vaporization durations, to be achieved. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05-ll-A and MPEP 2144.05-ll-B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise disclose “wherein the first heating heats the at least one plant material to a first overshoot temperature prior to the at least one plant material settling on a first target temperature within the first target temperature range, the first overshoot temperature being greater than the first target temperature” and “the second heating heats the at least one plant material to a second overshoot temperature prior to the at least one plant material settling on a second target temperature within the second target temperature range, the second overshoot temperature being greater than the second target temperature” as required in claim 19. In this case, requiring first and second temperature overshoots that are greater than first and second target temperatures, respectively, amounts to a heating profile distinct from that taught in Yamada.
Additionally, there is no evidence of record to suggest that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, or otherwise consider it obvious, to modifying the heating profile of Yamada to include the first and second overshoot temperatures as required in claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2014/0270727 to Ampolini et al. details a muti-stage heating profile in which a heating element is operated at a first temperature below an aerosol forming temperature and a second, higher, temperature that is an aerosol forming temperature (para. 0039).
US20140000638 to Sebastian et al. details a muti-stage heating profile in which a heating element is operated at a first temperature below an aerosol forming temperature and a second, higher, temperature that is an aerosol forming temperature (para. 0045).
US2013/0255702 to Griffith et al. details a muti-stage heating profile in which a heating element is operated at a first temperature below an aerosol forming temperature and a second, higher, temperature that is an aerosol forming temperature (para. 0019).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 12:00-8:00 PM (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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights