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 1-20 are pending and subject to this Office Action. This is the First Action on the merits of the claims.
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 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-13, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia Garcia (US20200359676A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gracia Garcia teaches a sheet type aerosol generating article comprising
• at least two aerosol generating sheets each comprising aerosol generating material; and
• an inductively heatable susceptor;
• wherein the inductively heatable susceptor is positioned between the aerosol generating sheets and each of the aerosol generating sheets has an exposed surface. [0005-0011] The susceptor taught by Gracia Garcia is considered to read on the support of the instant claim.
Gracia Garcia teaches that the article, to include both the aerosol generating material and the susceptor (support) can be perforated. ([0017], [0052], [0107])
Regarding claim 2, Garcia Garcia teaches the aerosol generating sheet can comprise a liquid absorbent material. [0026]
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Garcia Garcia teaches that the first and second aerosol generating sheets positioned on opposite sides of the inductively heatable susceptor [0014] and that the aerosol generating sheets can comprise a liquid absorbent material. [0026] The teaching of an aerosol generating article that is comprised of layer that could be a susceptor/ support layer located between two absorbent sheets of material that can be used to hold a liquid aerosol generating material is considered to read on the laminate structure.
Regarding claim 6, Garcia Garcia teaches the susceptor can comprise a metal foil [0024] which is known to be an impermeable material.
Regarding claim 7, Garcia Garcia teaches that the material that is between the two layers of aerosol generating material is a susceptor material. [0015]
Regarding claim 10, Garcia Garcia teaches that the aerosol generating material that is attached to the susceptor/ support can be a sheet of aerosol generating material and may be any type of solid or semi-solid material. ([0025], [0040])
Regarding claim 12, Garcia Garcia teaches the aerosol generating sheets can be adhered to the susceptor [0013] and may be any type of solid or semi-solid material including powder, granules, pellets, shreds, strands, porous material or foam material. [0025]
Regarding claim 13, Garcia Garcia teaches that the aerosol generating sheets attached to the susceptor may may comprise a liquid absorbent material, for example a fibrous material. [0026] The aerosol generating material is absorbed onto the absorbent material in order to be vaporized.
Regarding claim 32, Garcia Garcia teaches the volatile compounds that are released by the aerosol generating substrate can include nicotine or flavoring. ([0028], [0076])
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 3, 9, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Garcia (US20200359676A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mironov, et al (US20170318862A1, from IDS dated 11/20/2023).
Regarding claim 3, Garcia Garcia teaches that the aerosol generating material can be absorbed onto an absorbent material but is silent with respect to the absorbent material being located in one or more discrete zones.
Mironov, directed to the design of aerosol generating articles for heatable devices, teaches an aerosol generating article that is comprised of a base layer (support) and an aerosol generating material that can be attached to the surface of the base layer.([0005], [0016]) Mironov teaches that the aerosol forming substrate can comprise a plurality of aerosol-forming substrates arranged separately on the base layer. [0023] Mironov further teaches that these discrete portions can be an aerosol generating material on a porous carrier. [0025]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Garcia Garcia by having a substrate with discrete portions of aerosol generating material on the susceptor material as taught by Mironov because both Garcia Garcia and Mironov are directed to heated aerosol generating articles, Mironov teaches this allows the aerosol generating article to comprise two or more different aerosol forming substrates [0023], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
Regarding claim 9, Garcia Garcia teaches the material the layers can be an absorbent material but does not teach a adsorbent or sorbent material that would merely hold the aerosol generating source material.
Mironov teaches a porous carrier material that can have the “liquid nicotine source sorbed onto the porous carrier material.”([0025], [0037]) The sorption of the active liquid material onto the carrier mater is considered to read on the aerosol generating material being on the surface of the support.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Garcia Garcia by using a porous sorbent material for holding an aerosol generating material as taught by Mironov because both Garcia Garcia and Mironov are directed to heated aerosol generating articles, Mironov teaches this allows the aerosol generating article to comprise two or more different aerosol forming substrates [0023], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
Regarding claim 22 and 23, modified Garcia Garcia teaches that the discrete zone (porous material) is in one side of the barrier and the discrete portion (substrate sheet) of the article is on the opposite side of the susceptor/support.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Garcia (US20200359676A1) and Mironov, et al (US20170318862A1, from IDS dated 11/20/2023) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Taurino (US20210386118A1).
Regarding claim 17, Garcia Garcia, as modified by Mironov, discloses the discrete portions have a specific size and shape and that the size and shape is defined by the sorbent material. (Figure 2)
However, the prior art is silent with respect to the
Taurino teaches a substrate that is separated from a transport material (porous material) by a barrier layer. [0019-0020] Taurino teaches that the barrier layer is a layer that is impermeable or prevents or partially stops the transfer of liquid. [0018] Taurino discloses that the barrier layer defines an area around the transport material (discrete zone). ([0095-0096], Fig 4A and 4B)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Garcia Garcia and Mironov by using a barrier layer that surrounds the porous material (discrete zone) as taught by Taurino because Garcia Garcia, Mironov, and Taurino are directed to heated aerosol generating articles, Taurino teaches this prevents the liquid from being transported until a desired temperature is reached [0095], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Garcia, et al (US20200359676A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuczaj (US20150208727A1).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Kuczaj, directed to a method of generating aa aerosol with consistent properties, teaches a method of controlling aerosol production where the heater is heated in phases to control the temperature. In phase one the heater is heated to an initial temperature. [0019-0020] When the first phase ends the temperature is reduced to a second, lower temperature. [0021] In the method taught by Kuczaj, the heating element is heated to an initial temperature quickly and then the temperature is reduced to a temperature lower than the temperature in the first phase for the remaining phases/ time the aerosol generating article is heated.[0084] Kuczaj provides multiple specific examples of the heating method showing time and temperature for each phase. ([0086-0088], table 1 below)
Phase 1 (Temperature 1 / Time 1)
Phase 2 (Temperature 2 / Time 2)
Phase 3 (Temperature 3 / Time 3)
Example 1
360°C / 45s
320°C / 145s
380°C / 170s
Example 2
340°C / 60s
320°C / 180s
360°C / 120s
Example 3
380°C / 30s
300°C / 110s
340°C / 220s
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Garcia Garcia by the method of heating having phase time and temperature by Kuczaj because both Garcia Garcia and Kuczaj are directed to heated aerosol generating articles, Kuczaj teaches this method reduces the likelihood of substrate combustion and reduces the amount of energy consumed by the aerosol-generating device, [0021] and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
Claims 20-21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Garcia, et al (US20200359676A1) and Mironov, et al (US20170318862A1, from IDS dated 11/20/2023) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Harrod, et al (WO2018134159A1).
Harrod teaches Regarding claims 20 and 21, Garcia Garcia, modified by Mironov, teaches the aerosol generating material is supported on a substrate material and can be in discrete sections.
However, modified Garcia Garcia teaches the discrete zones would be for multiple discrete aerosol generating portions.
Harrod, directed to the design of an apparatus for heating smokable material, teaches an aerosol generating article that is comprised of a carrier/ substrate material having discrete quantities of smokable material. (p 1 ln 25-26) Harrod teaches that the carrier is shaped to form a thermal barrier that is located between/around thermally-conductive portions that hold the smokable material. (p1-2 ln 31-3) The aerosol generating material is considered to read on the discrete portion of the instant claim and the thermal barrier is considered to read on the discrete zone of the instant claim.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Garcia Garcia and Mironov by using the thermal barrier zones (discrete zones) as taught by Harrod because both Garcia Garcia, Mironov, and Harrod are directed to heated aerosol generating articles, Harrod teaches the thermal barrier inhibits heat conduction from one or more of the aerosol generating portions of the substrate toward another portion of the substrate while in use. (p4 ln 28-29) and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
Regarding claim 24, the modified Garcia Garcia of claim 22 would include discrete sections of an aerosol generating substrate that is located on either side of a support (susceptor) where the discrete sections of aerosol generating material are surrounded by the thermal barrier. Harrod teaches that the surface area of the thermal barrier (discrete zone) is larger than the area of the aerosol generating material covers. (p 15 ln 11-13)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Garcia Garcia and Mironov by using the thermal barrier zones (discrete zones) that has a surface area that is greater than the discrete section as taught by Harrod because both Garcia Garcia, Mironov, and Harrod are directed to heated aerosol generating articles, Harrod teaches that the increase in the surface area of the discrete zone would help dissipate heat from the carrier at the thermal barrier and thus impair heat conduction across the thermal barrier (p 15 ln 12-13) and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRGINIA R BIEGER whose telephone number is (703)756-1014. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7:30-4:30.
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, Phillip 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.
/V.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights