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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 16-30 are pending and are subject to this office action. This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 6/11/26
Claim 16 is amended.
Claim 30 is new.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments filed 6/11/26, the Examiner withdraws the rejection to Claims 16-29 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 6/11/26, pages 7-12) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues: (1) Mironov does not disclose a stopper having its own longitudinal axis extending transversally relative to the longitudinal axis of the cavity and having a circular cross-section defined relative to the stopper axis, (2) Mironov does not render obvious a T-shaped stopper, and (3) Mironov fails to teach the curved surface of Claim 19. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant further argues Mironov does not disclose wherein the cavity lacks a heating element as claimed in new Claim 30. The Examiner agrees; however, upon consideration of the new claim, a rejection is made in view of Mironov 2 (US 20160150825 A1).
Regarding argument (1), Mironov explicitly discloses a stopper having its own longitudinal axis extending transversally relative to the longitudinal axis of the cavity and a circular cross-section defined relative to the stopper axis. Mironov teaches that support element 16 is provided at the base for mounting the heating element ([0016], [0049], Fig 1). Mironov also explicitly teaches “the support element may limit the movement of a consumable within the cavity of the heating compartment” ([0017]) such that the support element stops the movement of an inserted article. Where support element 16 is depicted as a cross shape, the element has a longitudinal axis extending transversally relative to the longitudinal axis of the cavity (Fig 1). Moreover, support element 16 is depicted as a cross shape with limbs extending to the edge of an outer circle, the support element comprises a circular cross-section defined relative to the stopper axis (Fig 1). Therefore, Mironov explicitly discloses a stopper similarly as claimed.
Regarding argument (2), while Mironov does not explicitly disclose wherein the stopper is configured in a T-shaped, Mironov does not explicitly teach away from other possible shapes. Rather, Mironov further states the “support element 16 has a shape such that air can pass through apertures 18 in the support element 16.” ([0049]). Thus, it is obvious that other simple shapes which allow air to pass through the apertures could be utilized. Moreover, the Examiner did not state that the shape of the stopper is “arbitrary” as claimed by the Applicant, but rather given that a T-shaped stopper merely involves a change in shape of the stopper from a cross-shape to a T-shape, the modification would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, who would also find the particular shape of the stopper an obvious matter of design choice. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found a change in shape from a cross or X-shape to a T-shape, an obvious matter of design choice, absent further evidence to the contrary.
Regarding argument (3), Mironov teaches a curved surface within the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claim 19. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, “curved surface” may be interpreted to be the outer radius of the stopper element. Accordingly, Mironov Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate that the side surface of compartment 10 to which the support element 16 extends, is curved. Thus, absent further evidence to the contrary, the outer radial surface of the stopper element has a curved surface similarly as claimed.
The following rejections are maintained and modified where necessary based on Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
New Claim 30 states “wherein the cavity lacks a heating element.” The direct support Applicant provides for new Claim 30 is Figures 1A and 1B. However, Applicant’s Specification describes the elements of Figures 1A and 1B as the following: “The aerosol-generating device 10 further comprises a heating element 20. The heating element 20 is configured as a resistive hearing (sic) element or as an induction heating element 20. The heating element 20 is arranged at least partly surrounding the cavity 14.” (Page 13, lines 30-32). Thus, Figures 1A and 1B appear to directly disclose a cavity which comprises a heating element. Therefore, for the purpose of examination, the limitation “wherein the cavity lacks a heating element” will be interpreted as “wherein the cavity lacks a heating element extending into the cavity.”
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)(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.
Claims 16-20 and 22-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mironov (WO 2019030167 A1, with equivalent US 20200236999 A1 used for the purpose of citations and cited in IDS dated 11/2/23).
Regarding Claim 16, Mironov discloses an aerosol-generating device (device 22. [0015], Fig 2), comprising:
a cavity configured to receive an aerosol-generating article comprising aerosol- forming substrate (consumable 28 is configured to fit within chamber 34. [0052]-[0053], Figs 2-3);
a heating element disposed at least partly surrounding the cavity (induction coil 32. [0053], Figs 3-4); and
a stopper having a circular cross-section defined by a cross-section of the stopper taken in a plane perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the stopper (heating compartment 10 is provided with support elements 16. [0049], Fig 1. Support element 16 is depicted as a cross shape with limbs extending to the edge of an outer circle, such that the support element comprises a circular cross-section defined relative to the stopper axis. Fig 1),
wherein the longitudinal axis of the stopper extends transversally relative to a longitudinal axis of the cavity (Where support element 16 is depicted as a cross shape, the element has a longitudinal axis extending transversally relative to the longitudinal axis of the cavity. Fig 1),
wherein the circular cross-section corresponds to a shape of the stopper measured in the plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the stopper (Support element 16 is depicted as a cross shape with limbs extending to the edge of an outer circle, such that the support element comprises a circular cross-section defined relative to the stopper axis. Fig 1)
wherein the stopper is disposed at a distal portion of the cavity (when heating compartment 10 is inserted into device 22, support element 16 is disposed at a distal portion of the chamber 34. [0053], Fig 3),
wherein the stopper is configured to stop the aerosol-generating article when the aerosol-generating article contacts the stopper (the support element may limit the movement of a consumable within the heating cavity. [0017]),
wherein the stopper is arranged transversally spanning a distal portion of the cavity (support elements span from the side surface to the heating element 16. [0049], Fig 1),
wherein the stopper is arranged such that air can flow from distal of the stopper around the stopper into the cavity (The support element 16 has a shape such that air can pass through apertures 18. [0049], Fig 1),
wherein the terms proximal and distal refer to relative positions of components, or portions of components, of the aerosol-generating device in relation to a direction in which the components of the aerosol-generating device are oriented relative to a user during use of the aerosol-generating device, with a component oriented towards the user being a proximal component and a component at an opposite end of the aerosol-generating device being a distal component (consumable 28 is inserted into the proximal end 26 of device 22. [0051]-[0052], Fig 2-3).
Regarding Claim 17, Mironov discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the stopper is arranged crossing a longitudinal central axis of the cavity (Support elements span from the side surface to the heating element 16 such that the elements are arranged crossing a longitudinal central axis of the cavity. [0017], [0049], Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Mironov discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the stopper is a pin, a bar, a rod, a pole, a shaft, a beam, a rail, a strut, a spoke, a stem, a spoke, or a crossbar (Support elements 16 are depicted as spokes. [0051], Figs 1-2).
Regarding Claim 19, Mironov discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the stopper has a curved surface (side surface of compartment 10 is curved. [0049], Figs 1-2).
Regarding Claim 20, Mironov discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the stopper is configured cross-shaped (Support elements 16 are in a cross shape. [0017], [0049], Figs 1-2).
Regarding Claim 22, Mironov discloses an aerosol-generating device
wherein the cavity comprises an inner sidewall (the chamber 34 comprises walls into which compartment 10 is inserted. [0053], Fig 3),
wherein the inner sidewall comprises a first recess (the housing chamber may comprise a recess. [0029]), and
wherein the stopper is mounted in the first recess (the recess of the side surface of the housing chamber may provide a snap-fit locking mechanism for the heating compartment 10, which is provided with support elements 16. [0029], [0049]).
Regarding Claim 23, Mironov discloses an aerosol-generating device
wherein the inner sidewall further comprises a second recess opposite the first recess (The housing chamber may comprise recesses. [0029]. Wherein the chamber comprises a plurality of recesses, the chamber comprises at least a first and second recess), and
wherein the stopper is mounted in the second recess so as to be mounted between the first recess and the second recess (The plurality of recesses correspond to locking elements on compartment 10. [0029], [0049]).
Regarding Claim 24, Mironov discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the stopper is arranged at a base of the cavity, and wherein the base of the cavity is arranged at the distal portion of the cavity (consumable 28 is inserted into the proximal end 26 of chamber 34 such that support element 16 is disposed at the base of chamber 34 which is the distal portion of the cavity. [0051]-[0053], Figs 2-3).
Regarding Claim 25, Mironov discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the cavity is further configured as a heating chamber (chamber 34 is configured as a heating chamber. [0005]-[0007], [0053], Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 26, Mironov discloses an aerosol-generating device further comprising
an airflow channel distal of the cavity and the stopper (The device comprises an air inlet at the distal end of the heating compartment such that air may pass into the compartment. [0024]-[0026]),
wherein the airflow channel is arranged to enable airflow into the cavity past the stopper (The air inlet is position such that the air flow passes through the apertures 18 formed by support element 16. [0024]-[0026], [0049]).
Regarding Claim 27, Mironov discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the stopper is arranged in the airflow channel (The support element 16 is arranged such that air can pass through apertures 18. [0049], Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 28, Mironov discloses an aerosol-generating device wherein the stopper is arranged closer to a proximal end of the aerosol-generating device than to a distal end of the aerosol-generating device (consumable 28 is inserted into the proximal end 26 of Chamber 34 such that support element 16 is disposed at a distal portion of the chamber 34. [0051]-[0053], Figs 2-3).
Regarding Claim 29, Mironov discloses an aerosol-generating system comprising
an aerosol-generating device according to claim 16 (see claim 16) and
an aerosol-generating article comprising aerosol-forming substrate (consumable 28 containing aerosol-forming substrate. [0052], Fig 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mironov.
Mironov does not explicitly disclose wherein the stopper is configured in a T-shaped. However, given that a T-shaped stopper merely involves a change in shape of the stopper from a cross-shape (as discussed above in regard to Claim 20) to a T-shape, the modification would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. A person having ordinary skill in the art would find the particular shape of the stopper an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). Therefore, it follows that a person having ordinary skill in the art, through reshaping of the stopper disclosed in Mironov, would arrive at a T-shaped stopper as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mironov, in view of Mironov 2 (US 20160150825 A1). Mironov discloses an aerosol-generating device (device 22. [0015], Fig 2), comprising: a cavity configured to receive an aerosol-generating article comprising aerosol-forming substrate (chamber 34; [0052]-[0053], Figs 2-3), a heating element disposed at least partly surrounding the cavity (induction coil 32; [0053], Figs 3-4); and a stopper having a circular cross-section in a plane perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the cavity (support element 16; [0049], Fig 1). Mironov discloses wherein the support element is attached to a susceptor heating element which may be a pin or a blade ([0009], [0016]) but does not disclose wherein the cavity lacks a heating element extending into the cavity.
However, Mironov also teaches that the support element comprises further functionality, independent of supporting the induction element blade, such that “the support element may limit the movement of a consumable within the cavity of the heating compartment” and air may be drawn through holes of the support element and into the heated consumable ([0017]).
Additionally, Mironov 2 discloses a similar induction heating arrangement ([0038]) wherein the susceptor is a pin or blade located within the aerosol-generating article ([0039], [0126], Fig 3) and not attached to the device. Moreover, Mironov 2 teaches that: “the lack of a heating element that needs to penetrate an aerosol-forming substrate means that insertion and removal of an aerosol-generating article into an aerosol-generating device is less likely to cause inadvertent damage to either the article or the device. The overall aerosol-generating system is, therefore, more robust.” ([0029]). Thus, the device is made more robust by relocating the blade susceptor from the device to the article itself, and thereby the device lacks a heating element extending into the cavity, similarly as claimed.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the induction heating elements of Mironov by relocating the susceptor element blade into the article substrate as taught by Mironov 2 because Mironov and Mironov 2 are both directed to inductively-heated aerosol-generating systems, Mironov teaches the use of a support element to limit movement of the article in the cavity and promote airflow, Mironov 2 teaches the relocation of bladed susceptors to an article such that the heating device cavity lacks a heating element extending into the cavity, and this merely involves applying known inductively-heated aerosol-generating system components to a similar inductively-heated aerosol-generating system to yield predictable results.
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 Jeffrey Buckman whose telephone number is (571)270-0888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-4:00.
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.
/JEFFREY A. BUCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights