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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-8, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reevell (WO 2020/074601A1) or Yamada et al. (WO 2020/084776).
Revell discloses in reference to claim 1:
An aerosol generation system (100 and 114 in Fig. 1-7) that generates an aerosol by heating an aerosol generation article (114) that contains an aerosol source (p. 11, second paragraph), the aerosol generation system comprising: a container (formed by walls 126) that has an internal space (108) and an opening that allows the internal space to communicate with an outside and accommodates the aerosol generation article inserted into the internal space through the opening (Fig. 1-6); a first electrical insulation part (166a) that is a film-shaped member having an electrical insulation property (p. 22, second paragraph) and is disposed outside the container (see 124 in Fig. 2a and Fig. 7); an electrical resistance part (164a, b in Fig. 7 and 124 in Fig. 2a) that is disposed outside the first electrical insulation part (see 124 in Fig. 2a) and produces heat in a case where an electric current passes therethrough (p. 21, third paragraph); and a heat radiation suppressor (see either "thermally insulating layer 146" as described on p. 28, first paragraph or alternatively, see cavity 158 as described on p. 6, second paragraph) that is disposed outside the electrical resistance part (see Fig. 2a) and suppresses heat radiation (see p. 28, first paragraph or p. 6, second paragraph).
PNG
media_image1.png
1161
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
372
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 2
The aerosol generation system according to claim 1, wherein
the aerosol generation system comprises, as the heat radiation suppressor, a second
electrical insulation part 166b (p. 22, second paragraph) that is a film-shaped member having an electrical insulation property that is disposed outside the electrical resistance part and suppresses heat radiation; and the electrical resistance part is sandwiched between the first electrical insulation part
and the second electrical insulation part. (p. 22, second paragraph)
Claim 13
The aerosol generation system according to claim 1, further comprising the aerosol generation article.
Claim 4
The aerosol generation system according to claim 1, further comprising a second
electrical insulation part 166b that is a film-shaped member having an electrical insulation property
and is disposed outside the electrical resistance part, wherein the electrical resistance part is sandwiched between the first electrical insulation part and the second electrical insulation part; and
the heat radiation suppressor is disposed outside the second electrical insulation part. . (p. 22, second paragraph)
Claim 6
The aerosol generation system according to claim 2, wherein the first electrical insulation part and the second electrical insulation part are made of one or more materials selected from the group consisting of polyimide, PEEK, polyurethane, epoxy, polyester, acrylic, phenol, and silicone as a material having an electrical insulation property.
Reevell discloses the use of polyimide. . (p. 22, second paragraph)
Claim 8
The aerosol generation system according to claim 1, wherein the first electrical insulation part, the electrical resistance part, and the heat radiation suppressor are fixed to the container by a heat shrinkable tube (146 see page 28).
Yamada discloses in reference to:
Claim 1
An aerosol generation system (100 in Fig. 1-7) that generates an aerosol by heating an aerosol generation article (110) that contains an aerosol source (par. [0038]), the aerosol generation system comprising: a container (132) that has an internal space and an opening that allows the internal space to communicate with an outside and accommodates the aerosol generation article inserted into the internal space (130) through the opening (Fig. 1-6); a first electrical insulation part (see "substrate" part of heater 30, described in par. [0052]) that is a film-shaped member having an electrical insulation property (par. [0052]) and is disposed outside the container (Fig. 6); an electrical resistance part (see "resistance heating element" of heater 30, described in par. [0052]) that is disposed outside the first electrical insulation part (see "sandwiched" in par. [0052]) and produces heat in a case where an electric current passes therethrough (see "resistance heating" in par. [0052]); and a heat radiation suppressor (138) that is disposed outside the electrical resistance part (see par. [0055], [0056] and Fig. 6) and suppresses heat radiation (par. [0055]).
PNG
media_image3.png
825
660
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 7
The aerosol generation system according to claim 1, wherein the heat radiation suppressor 138 is made of one or more materials selected from the group consisting of SiC, TiO₂, alumina, yttria, a metal oxide, and a composite metal containing a plurality of metal atoms and a plurality of oxygen atoms as a material that has a property of suppressing heat radiation.
The heat insulating material 138 can be made of, for example, an aerogel such as silica aerogel, carbon aerogel, or alumina aerogel. The airgel as the heat insulating material 138 may typically be a silica airgel having high heat insulating performance and relatively low manufacturing cost.
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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (WO 2020/074601A1) or Yamada et al. (WO 2020/084776) in view of Cesi et al. (US 2023/0287180A1).
Reevell or Yamada teaches the claimed invention except in reference to:
Claim 3
The aerosol generation system according to claim 2, wherein
the second electrical insulation part is formed by applying varnish containing a material
having an electrical insulation property and a material having a property of suppressing heat
radiation.
Cesi et al. (US 2023/0287180A1) teaches:
the electrical insulating material protecting the copper or aluminum wire is a thin coating of high performance polymer. The coating, referred to as primary electrical insulation or wire enamel, is as thin as possible in order to obtain the maximum number of turns in each slot space. Adequate thermal, mechanical and electrical properties must be maintained. One such polymer, used as primary electrical insulation, is poly(amide-imide) or polyamideimide resin. Outstanding characteristics include high thermal performance, chemical and abrasion resistance, and low coefficient of friction. Polyamideimide coating compositions form flexible and durable films, and are particularly useful as wire enamels, varnishes, adhesives for laminates, non-stick coatings, polyamideimidents and the like. These compositions are particularly noted for their long term high temperature capability (=220° C. (430 F)).
Claim 5
The aerosol generation system according to claim 4, wherein the heat radiation suppressor is formed by applying varnish containing a material having a property of suppressing heat radiation.
Cesi et al. (US 2023/0287180A1) teaches:
the electrical insulating material protecting the copper or aluminum wire is a thin coating of high performance polymer. The coating, referred to as primary electrical insulation or wire enamel, is as thin as possible in order to obtain the maximum number of turns in each slot space. Adequate thermal, mechanical and electrical properties must be maintained. One such polymer, used as primary electrical insulation, is poly(amide-imide) or polyamideimide resin. Outstanding characteristics include high thermal performance, chemical and abrasion resistance, and low coefficient of friction. Polyamideimide coating compositions form flexible and durable films, and are particularly useful as wire enamels, varnishes, adhesives for laminates, non-stick coatings, polyamideimidents and the like. These compositions are particularly noted for their long term high temperature capability (=220° C. (430 F)).
Cesi teaches the provision of film type electrical insulating means that is formed by applying varnish containing a material having a property of suppressing heat radiation. As such one of skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the insulating film or either Reevell or Yamada by by applying varnish containing a material having a property of suppressing heat radiation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOR S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4776. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-F 6:30-10:30, 12-4.
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 5712705569. 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.
/THOR S CAMPBELL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
tsc
Prosecution Insights