DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in view of amendment filed 2/5/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 29 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 as detailed below.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 25 and 30 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 25, Applicant argues one of skill in the art would not look to cooking heating elements to design an aerosol generating apparatus with puff detection for heating. The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments would be persuasive if there were no teaching or suggestion in the smoking art to use an IR heating element in a smoking apparatus. However, in this case, there is an explicit teaching in the smoking art to use an IR heating element in a smoking apparatus, as taught by Zuber. In view of Zuber being silent to the structure of the IR heating element, the Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to common structures of IR heating elements outside of the smoking art, such as that of Cavada, and would have considered the simple structure of an IR heating filament surrounded by a heater housing taught by Cavada to be applicable to the IR heater of Robinson in view of Zuber with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 30, Applicant argues Robinson does not teach thermal insulation provided between the energy source and the heater. The Examiner disagrees. Robinson teaches thermal insulation provided around the electronic and/or puff control components [0112], reference number 50 of Fig. 3, i.e. between the energy source 36 and the heater 300.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 25, 27, and 28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Robinson (US 2008/0092912) in view of Zuber (US 2011/0126848) and Cavada (US 2008/0141867)
Robinson teaches an apparatus 10 [Fig. 3] comprising: a housing 20 [0080]; a smokable material heating chamber and smokeable material comprised in a cartridge inserted into the smokable material heating chamber (“the third resistance heating element 300 can have the general shape of a tube that is adapted to fit snuggly around a portion of a tobacco rod 89 inserted therein”) [0110]. The interior of tube 300 is interpreted to read on the chamber and tobacco rod 89 wrapped in paper 160 [0095] is interpreted to read on smokeable material comprised in a cartridge inserted into the smokable material heating chamber.
Robinson teaches the smokable material 89 is located within a longitudinal surface of a smokable material heater 300 [0110; Fig. 3]. Robinson does not teach the smokable material is located around a longitudinal surface of a smokable material heater and the smokable material heater is located in a central region of the housing. Zuber teaches an electrical smoking system wherein the heater is configured to heat aerosol forming substrate (smokeable material) located either inside or outside of the heater [0025-0026; 0112-0113]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the device of Robinson such that the smokable material is located around a longitudinal surface of the smokable material heater 300 to achieve the same, predictable result of volatilizing the smokeable material [Zuber 0057]. It is prima facie obvious to substitute art recognized equivalents known for the same purpose (in this case, heater arrangements for volatilizing smokeable material), see MPEP 2144.06. Thus, in modified Robinson, the smokable material heater would be located in a central region of the housing.
Robinson does not teach an infra-red heater. Zuber teaches an infra-red heater as an alternative to an electrically resistive heater [0054-0055]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the device of Robinson such that the smokable material heater is an infra-red heater to achieve the same, predictable result of volatilizing the smokeable material [Zuber 0057]. It is prima facie obvious to substitute art recognized equivalents known for the same purpose, see MPEP 2144.06.
Modified Robinson is silent to the configuration of the IR heater. One of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to conventional configurations of IR heaters. Cavada teaches an IR heater comprising an IR heating element filament surround be an IR transparent tube housing [0024]. As this is a conventional IR heater configuration known in the heating art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to the IR heater of modified Robinson to achieve predictable results, e.g. IR heating of the smokeable material.
Claim 26 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Robinson, Zuber, and Cavada as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Miller (US 2007/0003155).
Modified Robinson is silent to the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the IR heater. Miller teaches an IR apparatus wherein IR radiation generally comprises three levels: IR-A - 700 nm to 1400 nm (1.4 µm) in wavelength, IR-B - 1400 nm (1.4 µm) to 3000 nm (3 µm) in wavelength), and IR-C – above 3 µm [0013]. Thus, 2 out of the 3 IR wavelength levels correspond to the claimed wavelength range. Given the finite number of wavelength levels, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to try either IR-A (700 nm to 1400 nm) or IR-B (1.4 µm to 3 µm) in the apparatus of modified Robinson with a reasonable expectation of success that either of these wavelength ranges would be suitable for the intended purpose of heating and volatilizing the smokeable material.
Claim 29 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thorens (US 2011/0094523) in view of Egilmex (US 4,945,929).
Thorens teaches an apparatus 103 for heating smokeable material comprising [0076; Fig. 1]: a housing 101; a heater 119 in the housing; a heating chamber 127 configured to receive smokeable material 113 [0025]; an air inlet 123. Thorens does not teach a valve in the housing arranged to selectably seal the heating chamber from the air inlet. Egilmex teaches an aerosol device wherein both the inlet and outlet are provided with valves resiliently urged to a closed position so as to present loss of material from the device during periods of non-use thereof [col. 2, l. 18-24; col. 3, l. 44-45], i.e. selectively sealing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this configuration to the apparatus of Thorens such that a valve is provided in the housing arranged to selectably seal the heating chamber from the air inlet, for the reasons above suggested by Egilmex.
Claim 30 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Robinson in view of Clearman (US 4,989,619).
Robinson teaches an apparatus for heating smokeable material comprising a heater [0093], a energy source coupled to the heater [0084]; a heating chamber configured to receive smokeable material [0110], thermal insulation and a housing, wherein the thermal insulation is provided between the smokeable material and an external surface of the housing and around the electronic and/or puff control components 50 [0112, Fig. 3], i.e. between the energy source 36 and the heater 300, wherein the apparatus is configured to heat the smokeable material in the heating chamber [0122].
Robinson does not teach the thermal insulation comprises an aerogel. Clearman teaches a smoking article wherein thermal insulation comprises an aerogel [col. 17, l. 52-59]. As this is a conventional thermal insulation material known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an aerogel as the thermal insulation of Robinson to achieve predictable results, i.e. insulating the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 and 15-24 are allowed.
The examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance can be found in the 7/16/2025 Office action.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, 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.
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights