DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 18-35 in the reply filed on 6/24/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 36 and 37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/24/2026.
Specification
The use of the term Insulon (page 24, line 19), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 19-35 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims begin with the indefinite article “A” instead of the definite article “The.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 23-25 and 33 objected to because of the following informalities: No space is present between a numerical value and its associated units. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the limitation “configured to heat smokeable material to volatilize at least one component of the smokeable material for inhalation” (lines 2-3), which is considered to be a statement regarding the intended use of the claimed apparatus comprising a film heater. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2115. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required a film heater capable of heating smokable material.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the limitation “configured to receive a cartridge comprising a smokable material or substantially solid body of smokeable material” (lines 2-3), which is considered to be a statement regarding the intended use of the claimed apparatus comprising a film heater. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2115. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required a chamber that could receive a smokable material in cartridge or plug form.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 18-19, 22-25 and 35 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Hajaligol (US 5,665,262) in view of Mizumo (US 2011/0069985).
Regarding claim 18, Hajaligol discloses a smoking system (column 5, lines 7-15) having a housing (column 5, lines 16-34) a tube (figure 4, reference numeral 350) that surrounds a cylindrical receptacle that receives a cigarette (column 11, lines 22-48, figure 4, reference numeral CR), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a heating chamber, and has a ceramic layer forming the outside of the tube (column 11, lines 49-65, figure 4, reference numeral 310). A heating element is then deposited onto the ceramic layer (column 13, lines 57-67, column 14, lines 1-10). Hajaligol does not explicitly disclose a film heater.
Mizumo teaches a cylindrical heating element [0003] having a cylindrical member (figure 1A, reference numeral 11a) having a metallic pattern (figure 1A, reference numeral 11b) capable of generating heat by being electrified on its outer circumferential surface ([0072], figure 1A, reference numeral 111a). The cylindrical heating element is formed by forming the metallic pattern on a flexible resin sheet that is then rolled and adhered to a cylindrical member ([0117], figure 7C, reference numeral 172), indicating that it is a film heater since it is embedded between two substrates. Mizumo additionally teaches that this heater has high efficiency [0010].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the invention to substitute the heater of Hajaligol for the film heater of Mizumo. One would have been motivated to do so since Mizumo teaches a heater with high efficiency.
Regarding claim 19, it is evident that the chamber of Hajaligol could receive solid smokable material since it is open (figure 4).
Regarding claim 22, Mizumo discloses that the cylindrical member is formed from a polyimide based resin [0195].
Regarding claims 23-25, Mizumo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Mizumo additionally discloses that the thickness of the flexible resin sheet is at least about 12.5 microns [0208], and that the thickness of the heat generating lines is in the range of 12.5 microns to 50 microns [0204]. This means that minimum thickness of the heater ranges is at least 25 microns, or 0.25 mm. Mizumo does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the heater falling within the claimed ranges.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the invention to make the thickness fall within the claimed range. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 35, Hajaligol discloses that the smoke is generated without sustained combustion of a tobacco medium (column 3, lines 39-41).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Hajaligol (US 5,665,262) in view of Mizumo (US 2011/0069985) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Braunshteyn (US 2007/0074734) and Essalik (US 6,270,651).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, modified Hajaligol teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Hajaligol does not explicitly teach (a) a temperature sensor and (b) the temperature sensor mounted on the film heater.
Regarding (a), Braunshteyn teaches a smokeless lighter (abstract) that forms an aerosol from a flavor cartridge [0039] having a control system that controls the heating temperature [0026] by using a temperature sensor so that the temperature can be regulated [0027].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the invention to combine the device modified Hajaligol with the temperature control of Braunshteyn. One would have been motivated to do so since Braunshteyn teaches regulating the temperature of an aerosol forming device.
Regarding (b), Essalik teaches a thin ceramic layer that supports a resistive temperature detector (column 2, lines 63-67, column 3, lines 1-23). The ceramic layer also supports a film heater (column 5, lines 9-17).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the invention to adhere the RTD of Essalik to the glass substrate of the film heater of modified Hajaligol. One would have been motivated to do so since Essalik teaches a temperature sensor that can be adhered to a substrate and measure the temperature of a film heater.
Claims 26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Hajaligol (US 5,665,262) in view of Mizumo (US 2011/0069985) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Monsees (US 2007/0283972).
Regarding claims 26-27 and 30, modified Hajaligol teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Hajaligol does not explicitly teach thermal insulation.
Monsees teaches a smoking device that heats a tobacco cartridge to form a vapor [0003] having an insulator with a partially hollow shell containing a sealed vacuum ([0045], figure 2, reference numeral 24) that minimizes heat transfer from the heater to a case [0044] of the device [0031]. The insulator is located outside and around the heater so that the heater is lined with the insulation ([0031], figure 2, reference numeral 16). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the sealed vacuum comprises a core which is evacuated to a lower pressure than an exterior of the insulation.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the invention to combine the heater of modified Hajaligol with the exterior insulator of Monsees. One would have been motivated to do so since Monsees teaches insulation that minimizes heat transfer from the case.
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Hajaligol (US 5,665,262) in view of Mizumo (US 2011/0069985) and Monsees (US 2007/0283972) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Komeda (US 4,427,123).
Regarding claim 28 and 29, modified Hajaligol teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Hajaligol does not explicitly teach a stainless steel barrier between the insulation and the film heater.
Komeda teaches a bottle with high thermal insulating properties that are maintained for a long period of time (column 1, lines 56-59) created by vacuum insulation (column 1, lines 1-6) in which the insulation is achieved by a metal deposit (column 4, lines 1-14) formed on a stainless steel sheet that forms an interior barrier (column 4, lines 15-21).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the invention to combine the vacuum insulation of modified Hajaligol with the stainless steel of Komeda. One would have been motivated to do so since Komeda teaches vacuum insulation that is long lasting.
Claim 31 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Hajaligol (US 5,665,262) in view of Mizumo (US 2011/0069985) and Monsees (US 2007/0283972) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Reid (US 7,374,063).
Regarding claim 31, modified Hajaligol teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Hajaligol does not explicitly teach wall section on either side of the vacuum area converging to a sealed gas outlet.
Reid teaches an article having first and second walls with a vacuum insulating space between them (column 1, lines 35-50). A vent (figure 1, reference numeral 18) is located between the inner (figure 1, reference numeral 12) and outer tubes that define the vacuum space (figure 1, reference numeral 14). The vent is sealed following the creation of a vacuum (column 3, lines 1-19). Reid additionally teaches that this vent structures allows a very narrow vacuum tube to be constructed (column 1, lines 24-31).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the invention to combine the vacuum insulation of modified Hajaligol with the vacuum tubes of Reid. One would have been motivated to do so since Reid teaches vacuum tubes that allow a very narrow vacuum insulating structure to be created.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Hajaligol (US 5,665,262) in view of Mizumo (US 2011/0069985) and Monsees (US 2007/0283972) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Concept Group (already of record).
Regarding claim 32, modified Hajaligol teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Hajaligol does not explicitly a thickness of the thermal insulation.
Concept Group teaches a vacuum insulating barrier that can be manufactured as thin as 0.004 inches, or 0.1016 mm, that can be fit into extremely small spaces (page 1, middle).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the invention to combine the insulation of modified Hajaligol with the insulating barrier of Concept Group. One would have been motivated to do so since Concept Group teaches an insulating barrier that can be fit into very small spaces.
Regarding claim 33, the 0.1016 mm thickness of modified Hajaligol is considered to meet the claim limitation of approximately 0.1 mm.
Claim 34 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Hajaligol (US 5,665,262) in view of Mizumo (US 2011/0069985) and Monsees (US 2007/0283972) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Bowen (US 2009/0151717).
Regarding claim 34, modified Hajaligol teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Hajaligol does not explicitly teach the housing having a mouthpiece.
Bowen teaches a device for emulating smoking (abstract) having a mouthpiece made from a material that prevents excessive heat from reaching a user’s lips [0071].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the date of the invention to combine the housing of modified Hajaligol with the mouthpiece of Bowen. One would have been motivated to do so since Bowen teaches a mouthpiece that prevents excessive heat from reaching a user’s lips.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 pm.
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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights