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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 5, 12 and 18 are amended. Claims 1-20 are presently examined.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the objection to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 3/23/2026 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 3/23/2026 are overcome.
Specification
The use of the terms Wi-Fi and Bluetooth [0039], which are trade names and/or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 10,405,584) in view of Blandino (US 2022/0183371).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Chen discloses an atomizing device for an electronic cigarette for an electronic cigarette that generates a vortex in a magnetic field (abstract), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an aerosol generating system, having an induction heater (figure 1, reference numeral 122), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a holder, that defines a storage space in which the tobacco material is inserted (column 3, lines 41-48, figure 1, reference numeral 123), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an internal space. The device has a housing (figure 1, reference numeral 11) and an electromagnetic induction device (column 3, lines 8-13, figure 1, reference numeral 12), which together are considered to meet the claim limitation of an electromagnetic induction source, that has an insulating layer (figure 1, reference numeral 13), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first layer and electromagnetic induction coils (column 3, lines 54-67, column 4, lines 1-5, figure 1, reference numeral 121), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of a conductor layer. The coils are supplied with an oscillating alternating current (column 6, lines 16-19). The second layer located outside the coil as indicated on annotated figure 1 shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
521
283
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen discloses a housing outside all components of the induction source including the second layer (column 3, lines 8-13, figure 1, reference numeral 11), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a casing. Both the second layer and coil are outside of the insulation layer (figure 1). Chen does not explicitly disclose a thermal conductivity of the second layer being higher than a thermal conductivity of the insulating layer.
Blandino teaches an aerosol provision device having an inductor coil (abstract) having an insulation layer located between a susceptor and an insulating member [0076] made from PEEK having a thermal conductivity of 0.25 W/m·K [0077], and an outer cover having a coating made from a material with a high thermal conductivity of greater than 200 W/m·K so that the device is cool through heat loss [0078].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the insulating layer of Chen from the PEEK of Blandino and to coat the second layer and housing of Chen with the soft touch paint of Blandino. One would have been motivated to do so since Blandino teaches suitable materials to insulate against heat transfer and to dissipate heat to cool a smoking device.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Chen discloses that all the components between the coil and the susceptor are cylindrical (figure 2), therefore including the walls of the insulating layer.
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses that the induction heater generates heat under the influence of the magnetic field generated by the induction coils (abstract), indicating that it is a susceptor.
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses that the coil is around the induction heater (figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses that the coils form part of a cylinder around the induction heater (figure 2), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a cylindrical shape.
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses that the coils are located outside of the induction heater (figure 2), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of opposed.
Regarding claim 11, modified Chen teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen does not explicitly teach the claimed components having the claimed relative thicknesses.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the claimed components have the claimed relative thicknesses. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 14, Blandino teaches that the outer coating is a soft touch paint [0078], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a thermal diffusion layer.
Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses that the housing extends below the other components of the device and forms an open space at its very bottom (figure 1), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an extended region having a cooling portion. The housing and other components of the device all form cylindrical shapes (column 3, lines 14-26, figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses that the induction heater has an opening at its top into which a cigarette is inserted (figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses that the cooling portion is in the form of a recess in the middle of the bottom of the device (figure 1), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of opposed.
Regarding claim 19, Chen discloses that the coils are approximately flat and extend across the device (figure 2), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of transverse.
Regarding claim 20, Chen discloses that tobacco material is placed in the induction heater (column 3, lines 41-48), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a substrate.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 10,405,584) in view of Blandino (US 2022/0183371) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu (US 2019/0191767).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, modified Chen teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen does not explicitly teach a support part.
Wu teaches a heating device having an electromagnetic inductive coil (abstract) that is wound around a supporter in slots to provide stability ([0040], figure 3, reference numeral 121).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wind the coil of modified Chen in the slots of the supporter of Wu. One would have been motivated to do so since Wu teaches that using a supporter allows an induction coil to be more stably supported.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 10,405,584) in view of Blandino (US 2022/0183371) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Emmett (US 2024/0032599), as evidenced by Slaughter-Zrostilik (US 12,158,291) and MIT (Material Property Database, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, https://www.mit.edu/~6.777/matprops/polyimide.htm).
Regarding claim 10, modified Chen teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen does not explicitly teach (a) the Young’s modulus of the insulating layer, (b) the second layer being made of polyimide, and (c) the Young’s modulus of polyimide.
Regarding (a), Slaughter-Zrostilik teaches that the Young’s modulus of PEEK is 3.6 GPa (column 21, lines 5-11).
Regarding (b), Emmett teaches an inductive heating mechanism for an aerosol generating system (abstract) in which induction coil heating element is attached to an electrically insulating polyimide substrate [0178].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second layer of modified Chen from the polyimide of Emmett. One would have been motivated to do so since Emmett teaches a suitable substrate for an induction coil. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 10,405,584) in view of Blandino (US 2022/0183371) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamazaki (US 2004/0101696).
Regarding claim 13, modified Chen teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen does not explicitly a material of the second layer.
Yamazaki teaches a laminate having a thin dielectric layer [0002] made from a resin that contains a dielectric filler that has an inductive layer applied to it [0022]. The filler is a metal oxide [0023], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an inorganic material.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the thin dielectric layer of Yamazaki as the second layer of modified Chen. One would have been motivated to do so since Chen teaches a layer that mounts an inductor.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 10,405,584) in view of Blandino (US 2022/0183371) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Minami (WO 2019/198162, English language equivalent US 11,963,550 relied upon).
Regarding claim 18, modified Chen teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen does not explicitly teach a Peltier element.
Minami teaches a heat sink structure that has a heat conductive layer and a Peltier element stuck to it by an adhesive so that heat is conducted away from it (column 16, lines 66-67, column 17, lines 1-30).
It would therefore have been obvious to combine the housing of modified Chen with the Peltier element of Minami. One would have been motivated to do so since modified Chen teaches that the housing has soft touch paint to release heat Minami teaches combining a heat releasing layer with a Peltier element to increase heat transfer.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that agreement was reached that claim 1 patentable over the previously cited references. However, the interview summary of 6/5/2026 indicates that agreement was reached that the rejection of record would be overcome by the proposed amendment. In this case, a new identification of the parts of Chen to the claimed components renders the claims unpatentable. This is considered to be a new grounds of rejection relying on the same references.
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 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