This DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to applicant amendments and remarks filed August 10, 2026. Claims 1-3 and 27 have been amended. Claims 25-26 have been canceled.
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.
Claims 1-3, 16-22, and 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210084981 A1 (hereinafter ROGAN).
Regarding claim 1, ROGAN discloses an aerosol generating article including an aerosol generating material and an inductively heatable susceptor in the first region (abstract). ROGAN discloses an aerosol-generating component (Fig. 1A, combination of first region 12 and second region 14, ¶91) for use with a non-combustible aerosol provision device (Fig. 8, aerosol generating device 42, ¶109). ROGAN further discloses the aerosol-generating component comprising a heating material (Fig. 1A, heatable susceptor 22, ¶93) in thermal contact with an aerosol generating material (Fig. 1A, aerosol generating material 10, ¶91). As clearly shown in Fig. 1A, the heating material is in thermal contact with the aerosol generating material in a first region 12. ROGAN further discloses the heating material comprising a plurality of elongate portions (Fig. 1A, elongate parts 22a, 22b, ¶93) or elements which extend through or around said aerosol generating material in a first direction and wherein the elongate portions or elements are substantially parallel. As can be clearly observed in Fig. 1A, the elongate portions 22a, 22b extend parallel to one another through the aerosol generating material.
ROGAN further teaches the heating material comprises the elongate portions or elements connected at their ends (Fig. 1A, connecting part 23, ¶94) by connecting portions (Fig. 1A, flat part 24, ¶94) and wherein the connecting portions form a curved section at either end of the heating material.
ROGAN discloses that the heating susceptor is a substantially U-shaped. A person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that when something is substantially U-shaped, the area where the vertical and horizonal portions connect is curved. This portions is shown at the bottom of the heating material. However, the limitation of a curved section is considered to be a change of shape. Further, the courts have held changes in proportion or shape to be prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that changes in shape to the susceptor are not limiting (¶25), but also may be done to improve insertion in to the aerosol-generating material (¶25, ¶34) and or optimized to provide uniform resistance (¶20, ¶102) . Further ROGAN teaches susceptors of different shapes (Figs. 5a-5c, ¶106).
Regarding claim 2, ROGAN discloses the aerosol-generating component according to claim 1. ROGAN further discloses wherein the aerosol generating material comprises a plurality of strands of heating material. ROGAN discloses that the aerosol generating material comprises strands (¶95).
Regarding claim 3, ROGAN discloses the aerosol-generating component according to claim 2 as discussed above. ROGAN further discloses wherein the plurality of strands of aerosol generating material are non-planar. ROGAN discloses that the heating material elongate portions are non-planar. As shown in Fig. 4A, the heating material is circular in nature.
Regarding claim 16, ROGAN discloses an aerosol generating article including an aerosol generating material and an inductively heatable susceptor in the first region (abstract). ROGAN discloses an article (Fig. 1A, aerosol generating article 1, ¶90) for use with a non-combustible aerosol-provision device (Fig. 8, aerosol generating device 42, ¶109) comprising the aerosol-generating component according to claim 1. As discussed claim 1 is rendered obvious by ROGAN.
Regarding claim 17, ROGAN discloses the article of claim 16 as discussed above. ROGAN further discloses a mouthpiece (Fig. 1A, filter 11, ¶92) arranged downstream of the aerosol-generating component.
Regarding claim 18, ROGAN discloses an aerosol generating article including an aerosol generating material and an inductively heatable susceptor in the first region (abstract). ROGAN discloses A non-combustible aerosol provision system (Fig. 8, a diagrammatic cross-sectional view of an aerosol generating system, ¶78) comprising: a non-combustible aerosol provision device (Fig. 8, aerosol generating device 42, ¶109); and an aerosol-generating component according to claim 1. As discussed claim 1 is anticipated by ROGAN.
Regarding claim 19, ROGAN discloses the aerosol-generating component according to claim 1. ROGAN further discloses wherein the heating material is in the form of a susceptor (¶7-¶8, ¶93).
Regarding claim 20, ROGAN discloses the aerosol-generating component according to claim 1. ROGAN further discloses the plurality of elongate portions or elements form together a single continuous piece of heating material. ROGAN discloses the heatable susceptor is substantially U-shaped comprising two elongate parts (¶93). Since the susceptor is a single element that is shaped into a U to form the two elongate parts, these parts are considered to be formed of a single continuous piece of heating material that has been shaped into a U shape.
Regarding claim 21, ROGAN discloses the aerosol-generating component according to claim 1. ROGAN further discloses wherein the plurality of elongate portions or elements are arranged in a spaced apart configuration. As shown in Fig. 1A, the elongate parts 22a and 22b are arranged spaced apart (¶93).
Regarding claim 22, ROGAN discloses the aerosol-generating component according to claim 1. ROGAN further discloses the heating material comprises between 2 and 6 elongate portions. ROGAN discloses in Fig. 1A two elongate portions (¶93). It is further noted, though not needed for the rejection, that Fig. 2A, has 3 elongate portions. ROGAN discloses that the susceptor may be U-shaped, E-shaped or I-shaped. Additionally, The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04, VI, Part B. In this case, duplicating the elongate parts is disclosed as a way to facilitate insertion of the susceptor into the region (¶94).
Regarding claim 24, ROGAN discloses the aerosol-generating component according to claim 1. ROGAN further discloses each of the plurality of elongate portions or elements is formed from the same material. ROGAN discloses the heatable susceptor is substantially U-shaped comprising two elongate parts (¶93). Since the susceptor is a single element that is shaped into a U to form the two elongate parts, these parts are considered to be formed of the same material unless expressly disclosed otherwise.
Regarding claim 27, ROGAN teaches the aerosol-generating component according to claim 26. ROGAN further discloses a joining portion extends from a central position on the connecting portions. (As shown below in annotated Fig. 1A). As with the instant application, the susceptor of ROGAN has different portions.
PNG
media_image1.png
243
249
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROGAN as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20220160041 A1 (hereinafter PARK).
Regarding claim 23, ROGAN discloses an aerosol-generating component according to claim 1. ROGAN does not disclose each of the plurality of elongate portions or elements is formed from a different material.
PARK teaches an aerosol generating system with a cigarette, an induction coil, and a first susceptor and a second susceptor (abstract). PARK teaches that the susceptors may be formed of different materials for example the first susceptor may be formed of ferrite and the second susceptor may be formed of stainless steel (Claim 1, ¶83). PARK teaches that using different materials results in heating at different temperatures when the alternating magnetic field passes through the susceptors (¶96).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ROGAN to provide each of the plurality of elongate portions or elements is formed from a different material as taught in PARK. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously have used different materials on the plurality of elements of ROGAN. Doing so would enable the heating of the different portions to a different temperature (PARK ¶96). PARK teaches that this is a needed technique in the art to improve a taste and/or amount of vapor while using a single induction coil (PARK ¶3-¶4, ¶7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As a first matter, the amendments to overcome the objects to claim 1 and the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are sufficient to withdraw those objects and their deletion is noted above.
Applicant argues, I. A "Substantially U-Shaped" Feature Need Not Include A "Curved Section” and II. The "Substantially U-Shaped" Heatable Susceptor of Rogan Does Not Include a "Curved Section" Nor Does It Render Obvious a "Curved Section".
However, as explained in the rejection in the office action mailed May 8, 2026, changes in shape (to a “curved” section) considered prima facie obvious absence new or unexpected results In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). IN this instance, a change of a right angled connection to a “curved” connection is prima facie obvious. Further changes to the shape of the susceptor are encouraged by ROGAN to render the curved section obvious because ROGAN teaches that the shape of the susceptor can be modified to improve heating and bonded areas (¶24-¶25) or improve and create uniform heating (¶102). SO not only is the change to shape prima facie obvious on its face, but there is teaching, suggestion, and motivation to alter the shape to positively affect performance of the device. Therefore, this limitation “curved section” is properly rejected under 35 USC 103 as explained in the previous action.
Applicant argues, III. Rogan Does Not Disclose the "Connecting Portions ... At Either End" Nor Can It Be Modified To Include the "Connecting Portions ... At Either End"
The recitation of “wherein the connecting portions form a curved section at either end of the heating material” includes optional limitations. The connecting portions are at either end. This means that it can be at simply one end or the other. Both ends could be included, though it is not necessary that both ends are connected just that “either” one end or the other end. Therefore this argument is moot.
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 STEPHANIE L MOORE whose telephone number is (313)446-6537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9 am to 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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 571-270-3882. 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.
/STEPHANIE LYNN MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights