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 .
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, 3, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lui et al (CN 209807157) with references made to attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, 3, Lui discloses, An aerosol generation system comprising:
a heat generator having a long shape, the heat generator generating heat by being supplied with electricity so as to heat an aerosol generating substrate from an inside thereof; (heat generating layer 201 is shown in Figs 15 and 16, having a long shape which is capable of heating an aerosol substrate.)
a pair of metal plates provided to respectively cover opposing surfaces of the heat generator along the long shape, and to extend further in the longitudinal direction relative to the heat generator at a trailing end opposite a leading end to be inserted into the aerosol generating substrate (Figs 15 and 16 show a pair of metal plates 4 and 202 covering opposing sides of the PTC heater 201. The plates extend further in a longitudinal direction at a trailing end); and
a securing section that holds the pair of metal plates and secures the pair of metal plates to a housing at a region located further toward the trailing end relative to an end of the heat generator and away from the heat generator. (Figs 15 and 16 show a securing section 1 which holds the metal plates 4 and 201 at a trailing end.) Regarding claim 17, electricity is flowed between the plates. Regarding claim 20, the device operates at 220-250 degrees C.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui et al (CN 209807157) in view of Marques Borges et al (US 2020/0107572).
The teachings of Lui have been discussed above. Lui fails to disclose, the aerosol generating substrate into which the heat generator covered by the pair of metal plates is inserted.
Marques Borges discloses, the cartridge 200 comprises an elongate first compartment 208 extending from the proximal end of the body 202 to the distal end of the body 202. The first compartment 208 contains a nicotine source comprising a first carrier material 210 impregnated with about 10 milligrams of nicotine and about 4 milligrams of menthol. (See Paragraph [0257])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to adapt Lui in view of Marques Borges to provide the aerosol generating substrate into which the heat generator covered by the pair of metal plates is inserted for heating the substrate in order to generate the aerosol.
Lui discloses, regarding claim 4, Figs 15 and 16 show a pair of metal plates 4 and 202 covering opposing sides of the PTC heater 201. The plates extend further in a longitudinal direction at a trailing end. Regarding claim 5, Figs 15 and 16 show a securing section 1 which holds the metal plates 4 and 201 at a trailing end. Regarding claim 6, Fig 15 shows an insertion section 3 where the metal plates 4 and 201 are inserted. Regarding claim 7, Figs 15 and 16 show the securing section 1 being a tab shape.
Regarding claim 8, Lui may fail to disclose the securing section being an engineering plastic. Marques Borges discloses the mounting portion 118 is made from plastic. (See Paragraph [0031], [0259])
It would have been obvious to provide the engineering plastic since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim(s) 2, 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui et al (CN 209807157) in view of Jiang et al (CN 111955803).
The teachings of Lui have been discussed above. Lui fails to disclose, regarding claim 9, the heat generator at a leading end to be inserted into the aerosol generating substrate has an angularly protruding shape at the leading end.
Jiang discloses, a heating element 130 sandwiched between two plates 120 and 110 with the tip 1011 being angularly protruding at a leading edge. (See Paragraph [0031] and Fig 2) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the angularly protruding tip so the insertion portion may be at least partially inserted into an object that is to be heated.
Lui fails to disclose, regarding claims 10-12, wherein at least one of the pair of metal plates further includes a leading-end rib formed by bending an edge along the shape at the leading end of the heat generator. Jiang discloses, regarding claims 10-12, the plate 110 has a leading edge rib, which could be formed by a bending machine. This is at the lead edge of the heat generator as shown in Figs 1 and 2. It would have been obvious to adapt Lui in view of Jiang to provide the leading edge rib for receiving one metal plate inside the second.
Regarding claim 13, Lui discloses the heat generator being a tab shape. It would have been obvious to make the heat generator a tabular shape, and wherein a thickness of the tabular shape is smaller than 1/4 of a width of the tabular shape, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. The size of the heat generator would be selected based on the requirements of the device. Lui discloses, regarding claim 14, Figs 15 and 16 show the tabular shape where the metal plates are provided on opposite surfaces of the heat generator 2.
Regarding claim 15, Lui fails to disclose, the heat generator and the pair of metal plates are adhered together by using a conductive adhesive paste. However, Jiang discloses, the heat conductive substrate 120 being bonded to the metal plates 110 and 120 by an adhesive. (See Paragraph [0054]) It would have been obvious to adapt Lui in view of Jiang to provide the conductive paste as this is an obvious alternative for joining conductive members together.
Regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious to provide the metal plates being composed of a nickel containing iron alloy since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui et al (CN 209807157) in view of Alston et al (US 2020/0077707).
The teachings of Lui have been discussed above. Lui fails to disclose, the heat generator is a PTC heater; the PTC heater includes barium titanate; a temperature of the heat generated by the heat generator is below 350°C.
Alston discloses, a power supply configured to provide a current at a voltage; a reservoir configured to contain a vaporizable material; and an atomizer coupled to the reservoir to receive the vaporizable material. The atomizer includes a PTCR (Positive Temperature Coefficient Resistivity) heating element configured to electrically couple to and receive an electrical current from a power source to vaporize the vaporizable material. The PTCR heating element is configured to heat to an operating temperature at which the resistivity reducing current flows to prevent an increase in the operating temperature. (See Paragraph [0023])
It would have been obvious to adapt Lui in view of Alston to provide the PTC heater as a PTC heater is self-regulating and will adjust its heat output to maintain a consistent temperature. It would have been obvious to select 350°C since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Alston disclose, regarding claim 19, The PTCR heating element can include a composition that can include ABO.sub.3-type compounds where the identity of A includes Li, Na, K, Rb, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, Y, La, Ce, Pb, Bi, or mixtures thereof, and the identity of B includes Mg, Al, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Zr, Nb, Hf, Ta, or mixtures thereof; barium titanate (BaTiO.sub.3). (See Paragraph [0026]) It would have been obvious to adapt Lui in view of Alston to provide the PTC heater includes barium titanate since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights