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 Objections
Claims 14 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: No space is present between a numerical value and its associated units. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (CN 108617042, machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a smoking device with internal induction heating [0002] having a heating cavity into which tobacco is inserted ([0027], figure 1, reference numeral 11), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a heating zone. A hollow heating element extends into the heating cavity ([0029], figure 1, reference numeral 5), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a heating element, and is made of ferromagnetic materials such as stainless steel [0031] that generates eddy currents under the influence of an alternating magnetic field generated by an induction coil that cause heating [0007]. The induction coil is located within the heating element ([0029], figure 1, reference numeral 20). Both the induction coil and the heating element are located within the cavity (figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses that the induction coil is located within the heating element ([0029], figure 1, reference numeral 20), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of partially extending.
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses that the heating element forms a complete barrier between the cavity and the induction coil (figure 1), and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that stainless steel forms a seal against air flow.
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses that the induction coil extends in a hollow portion of the heating element [0029], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a cavity.
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses that the heating element forms a complete barrier between the cavity and the induction coil (figure 1), and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that stainless steel forms a seal against air flow. This seal is considered to isolate the inside of the heating element from the outside of the heating element.
Regarding claim 18, Chen discloses that the end of the heating element has a slope that reaches a sharp end ([0031], figure 1), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a blade.
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 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 108617042, machine translation relied upon) in view of Batista (US 2022/0322734).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Chen does not explicitly disclose an air path through the heating element.
Batista teaches an aerosol generating that improves induction heating by facilitating homogenous heating [0003] by having an airflow channel that passes through a hollow susceptor arrangement [0155].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hollow susceptor with the airflow channel of Batista. One would have been motivated to do since Batista teaches a channel that improves induction heating by facilitating homogenous heating.
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Chen additionally discloses that the heating element forms a wall (figure 1). Chen does not explicitly disclose an air path through the heating element.
Batista teaches an aerosol generating that improves induction heating by facilitating homogenous heating [0003] by having an airflow channel that passes through a hollow susceptor arrangement [0155]. It is evident that there must be an air outlet though the heating element since air would otherwise be unable to exit the susceptor.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hollow susceptor with the airflow channel of Batista. One would have been motivated to do since Batista teaches a channel that improves induction heating by facilitating homogenous heating.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 108617042, machine translation relied upon) in view of Blandino (WO 2020/182746).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. The heating element of Chen is considered to meet the claim limitation of a heating member. Chen does not explicitly disclose an insulator within the heating element.
Blandino teaches an aerosol provision device having a susceptor (figure 5B, referenced numeral 132) that is heated by an induction coil (abstract, figure 5B, reference numeral 126). The susceptor and induction coil are separated by an insulating member so that other device components are insulated from heat generated by the susceptor (page 17, lines 31-32, page 18, lines 1-4).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an insulating member within the heating element of Chen, between the heating element and the induction coil. One would have been motivated to do so since Chen discloses that the induction coil is located within the heating element and Blandino teaches providing an insulating member between an induction coil and a susceptor so that other device components are insulated from the heat generated by the susceptor.
Regarding claim 9, Blandino discloses that insulating member is in contact with both the induction coil and the susceptor (figure 5B), indicating that it supports and maintains both those components in their positions.
Regarding claim 10, Blandino teaches that the insulator is made from PEEK which fills a volume (page 17, lines 31-32, page 18, lines 1-4, figure 5B, reference numeral 128), and is therefore considered to be a filler.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 108617042, machine translation relied upon) in view of Blandino (WO 2020/182746) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Northrup (US 1,840,247).
Regarding claim 11, modified Chen teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen does not explicitly teach the inductor coil comprising a coating.
Northrup teaches an inductor coil that is coated with an electrically insulating and waterproofing material to prevent against short circuiting (page 2, lines 11-34).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine induction coil with the coating of Northrup. One would have been motivated to do so since Northrup teaches a coating that prevents against short circuiting.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 108617042, machine translation relied upon) in view of Blandino (WO 2020/182746) as applied to claim 8 above, as evidenced by Moses (US 2026/0144644).
Regarding claim 12, modified Chen teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen does not explicitly teach PEEK being electrically insulating.
Moses teaches that PEEK is an electrically insulating material [0055], indicating that the insulator of modified Chen is electrically insulating.
Claims 13-14 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 108617042, machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 13, Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Chen does not explicitly disclose a space between the heating element and the induction coil.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a space between the heating element and the induction coil since there is no evidence of record that the specific relative location of the heating element and induction coil is critical. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 14, Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Chen does not explicitly disclose a space between the heating element and the induction coil being less than 0.2 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a space of less than 0.2 mm between the heating element and the induction coil since there is no evidence of record that the specific relative location of the heating element and induction coil is critical. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C. 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 20, Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Chen does not explicitly disclose a winding diameter of the coil.
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 windings of the induction coil of Chen have the claimed diameter. 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 21, Chen discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Chen additionally discloses that the frequency of the current in the induction coil is 10 kHz-10 MHz [0029], which is considered to also be the frequency of the varying magnetic field since the induction coil creates the magnetic field. Chen does not explicitly disclose the claimed range.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the claimed range is obvious. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Conclusion
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