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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Zinovik describes an aerosol-generating article including an aerosol-forming substrate and a multi-layer susceptor arrangement including a first and a second susceptor layer. In one example, the second susceptor material may include permalloy with about 80% Ni and 20% Fe content. See Zinovik, p. 5, ll. 16-19. However, Zinovik does not teach or suggest selecting a nickel-iron alloy within the specific compositional windows recited in claim 26 for use as a second susceptor layer in a multi-layer susceptor arrangement.
Zinovik also discloses that, preferably, the second susceptor material may comprise mu-metal. Mu-metal is a nickel-iron soft ferromagnetic alloy. Zinovik thus provides motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a mu-metal as a preferred material for the second susceptor. Zinovik does not disclose the composition of mu-metal. However, as evidenced by Moronov et al, mu-metal compositions known for use in the art can comprise approximately 77 weight percent nickel, 16 weight percent iron, 5 weight percent copper, and 2 weight percent chromium or molybdenum, which is the same as a claimed composition (see Moronov et al, [0033]). Absent convincing evidence of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select mu-metal having a claimed composition for the nickel-iron alloy of Zinovik, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a suitable susceptor. Applicant has provided no evidence that the claimed compositions provide unexpected results.
Applicant further argues that the claimed alloy compositions are selected to achieve a specific functional behavior of the second susceptor layer. As described in the Specification (without importing limitations therefrom), alloys within the claimed compositional ranges exhibit reduced magnetostriction, which stabilizes the magnetic properties of the second layer after processing and during operation. This stability enables consistent inductive heating performance across manufactured devices. first susceptor material and Mironov do not address these issues.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the alloys of Mironov are used for a different purpose, not in the context of selecting a second susceptor material to achieve controlled thermal behavior within a multi-layer susceptor arrangement, it is well-settled that references need not be combined for the purpose of solving the same problem solved by Appellants. See, e.g., Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."). It is sufficient that the references would have led a skilled artisan to do what Appellants did, although Appellants' particular purpose was different from that of the references. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Rossoll was used as an evidenciary reference to teach what one of ordinary skill in the art knew, that austenitic stainless steel (one of the species of material disclosed by Zinovic for the first susceptor material) is an anti-corrosion material.
The outstanding rejections over the prior art are maintained. Reference to the composition of permalloy has been omitted to avoid confusion.
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 26-32 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/064682 A1, which was published 2 April, 2020, more than one year prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and with the evidence of Moronov et al (US 2022/9369717) and Rossoll et al (US 2020/0029623).
Claims 26, 28 and 35: WO2020/064682A1 discloses an inductively heatable aerosol-generating article comprising an aerosol-forming substrate and a susceptor assembly for inductively heating the substrate. In disclosed embodiments, the susceptor assembly is a multi-layer susceptor assembly comprising adjacent layers comprising a first susceptor material forming a first layer and a second susceptor material forming a second layer in intimate physical contact with each other. (Abs; p 1, lines 4-9; p 2, lines 24-31; p 6, lines 4-5; p 8, lines 19-23).
Preferably, the second susceptor material may comprise mu-metal. Mu-metal is a nickel-iron soft ferromagnetic alloy. WO2020/064682A1 does not disclose the composition of mu-metal. However, mu-metal compositions known for use in the art can comprise approximately 77 weight percent nickel, 16 weight percent iron, 5 weight percent copper, and 2 weight percent chromium or molybdenum, which is the same as a claimed composition (see Moronov et al, [0033]). Alternatively, the known mu-metal may comprise 80 weight percent nickel, 5 weight percent molybdenum, small amounts of various other elements, such as silicon, and the remaining 12 to 15 weight percent iron, which overlays a claimed compositions (see Moronov et al, [0033]). Absent convincing evidence of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a claimed composition for the nickel-iron alloy of WO2020/064682A1, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a suitable susceptor.
Claim 27: WO2020/064682A1 discloses that the first susceptor material may comprise one of aluminum, gold, iron, nickel, copper, bronze, cobalt, conductive carbon, graphite, plain-carbon steel, stainless steel, ferritic stainless steel or austenitic stainless steel. (p 6, lines 1-3).
Claim 29: WO2020/064682A1 discloses an example in which the first susceptor layer has a thickness of about 50 mm and the second susceptor layer has a thickness of between 5 mm and 30 mm, for example 10 mm (p 9, lines 20-26).
Claims 30-32: WO2020/064682A1 discloses an alternative embodiment in which the susceptor assembly comprises a first susceptor 221, a second susceptor 222 and a third susceptor 223 that forms a third layer, wherein the three layers are arranged on top of each other with first and third layers 221 and 223 arranged on opposite sides of the second layer 222, and adjacent layers are intimately coupled to each other (p 26, lines 13-22; Fig. 5). WO2020/064682A1 discloses that the first and second layers are identical to those previously described. The third layer comprises the identical material to the first susceptor (p 26, lines 22-24). As noted above, the first susceptor material may comprise austenitic stainless steel. Austenitic stainless steel is an anti-corrosion material (see Rossoll et al, [0024] for evidence).
Therefore, absent convincing evidence of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select austenitic stainless steel for the first and third susceptor layers, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining suitable susceptor.
Claim 34: in the alternative embodiment discussed above, the first and third layers 221 and 223 arranged on opposite sides of the second layer and adjacent layers are intimately coupled to each other. Therefore, the third layer is adjacent to the second layer , which is adjacent to the first layer of the multi-layer susceptor assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36-45 are allowed.
Claim 33 is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: WO2020/064682A1 is the nearest prior art. In the embodiment wherein the multi-layer susceptor comprises three layers, WO2020/064682A1 discloses that the first and second susceptors are identical to the first and a second susceptors of the bi-layer susceptor assembly, and that the third layer comprises the same material and layer thickness as the first susceptor, which provides a highly symmetric layer structure showing essentially no out-of-plane deformations, and a higher mechanical stability. As discussed above, the thickness of the third susceptor layer is much greater than the claimed range of between 2 mm and 6 mm.
In other prior art, Rossoll et al (US 2020/0029623) discloses a multi-layer susceptor comprising a first layer comprising a first susceptor material intimately coupled to a second layer comprising a second susceptor material and a third layer intimately coupled to a second layer The first layer comprises stainless steel and has a thickness between 10 mm and 50 mm, such as 25 mm or 35 mm. The second layer comprises nickel or a nickel alloy. The third layer comprises an anti-corrosion material such as austenitic stainless steel and has a thickness of 10 mm.
Rossoll et al (US 2020/0093179) discloses a multi-layer susceptor comprising a first layer comprising a first susceptor material intimately coupled to a second layer comprising a second susceptor material and a third layer intimately coupled to a second layer. The first layer comprises stainless steel and has a thickness between 10 mm and 50 mm, such as 25 mm or 35 mm. The second layer comprises nickel or a nickel alloy. The third layer comprises the same stainless steel and thickness as the first layer. In an alternative embodiment, the third layer comprises an austenitic stainless steel of undisclosed thickness that is different from the thickness of the first layer.
The disclosure of Rossoll et al (US 2020/0138105) is similar to that of US 2020/0093179 and of US 2020/0029623 and will not be further described.
The prior art fails to disclose or render obvious a multi-layer susceptor having a third layer with a thickness as claimed and provides no motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art susceptors to form the claimed susceptor with an expectation of success in obtaining a suitable susceptor.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DENNIS R CORDRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-8244. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM (EST).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/DENNIS R CORDRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights