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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 11, and 14-15 and supporting remarks filed 08/05/2026 (“Amendment”) have been entered. Accordingly, the claim rejections under 35 USC 103 and 112 are withdrawn. A new drawing objection and a new objection to claim 13 are set forth below. New rejections under 35 USC 103 are necessitated by the amendment. The indication of allowability for claims 5-6 is withdrawn and new rejections under 35 USC 103 are set forth below for claims 5-6; as a result, this action is Non-Final. Claims 1-15 remain pending and are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103 (Amendment p. 7-8) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
To any extent which Applicant’s argument, that Aoun discloses two separate coils which does not read on claim 1 (Amendment p. 7), might similarly be applied to Mironov in the rejection below, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mironov’s inductor coil assembly 130 comprising first and second coils 131 and 132, as described by Mironov and illustrated in Fig. 4, reads on “an induction coil” and the accompanying claim language under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 44, illustrated in Fig. 3.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 13 recites “an aerosol generating substrate” and “an aerosol” which were previously introduced in claim 1, from which claim 13 depends. The Examiner recommends amending claim 13 to recite “[[an]]the aerosol generating substrate according to claim 1” or to delete “the aerosol”, for consistency in claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mironov (US 2020/0221775 A1, of record, provided in IDS dated 05/12/2026) in view of Aoun (US 2022/0183368 A1, of record, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Mironov discloses an aerosol-generating device (Abstract):
The device 100 includes a controller 150 (“controller”) [0134].
The device 100 includes an inductor coil assembly 130 and a susceptor assembly 160 (together an “induction heating arrangement”) for heating an aerosol-forming substrate 20 to form an inhalable aerosol ([0133, 0135, 0141], Figs. 1-3). The inductor coil assembly 130 (“induction coil”) comprises a first inductor coil 131 and a second inductor coil 132 which are co-wound ([0137], Figs. 4-5). The coils 131 and 132 may be formed from different types of wire [0052-55]. However, Mironov fails to specifically disclose coil strands and thus fails to disclose “a plurality of first coil strands and a plurality of second coil strands” as claimed.
The controller 150 is configured to supply an alternating electric current to the coils [0030], and the first and second coils 131 and 132 may be configured to generate different magnetic fields with different frequencies ([0032], claim 1) (which reads on “wherein the controller is configured to control the induction heating arrangement to supply an alternating electric current to the plurality of first coil strands to generate a first electromagnetic field with a first frequency and to supply an alternating electric current to the plurality of second coil strands to generate a second electromagnetic field with a second frequency that is different from the first frequency”).
The induction coil assembly 130 has a “first end” and “second end” as shown in Figs. 1-4.
As shown in Fig. 4, the first and second coils 131 and 132 each extend from one end of the induction coil assembly 130 to the other end. However, Mironov fails to specifically disclose coil strands and thus fails to specifically disclose “wherein the plurality of first coil strands and the plurality of second coil strands extend from the first end to the second end”.
PNG
media_image1.png
517
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Aoun is directed to an aerosol provision device (Title) which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. The device includes a first and second induction coil (Abstract). The coils may be formed from litz wire which comprises a plurality of wire strands [0159], which advantageously reduces wire resistance [0160]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Mironov’s coils 131 and 132 could similarly be formed from a plurality of litz wire strands as taught by Aoun (which reads on “a plurality of first coil strands and a plurality of second coil strands” and “wherein the plurality of first coil strands and the plurality of second coil strands extend from the first end to the second end”).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Mironov by forming the first and second coils 131 and 132 from a plurality of litz wire strands as taught by Aoun, because both Mironov and Aoun are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Aoun teaches that this advantageously reduces wire resistance, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, modified Mironov discloses the first and second coils 131 and 132 as set forth above, which read on the “first coil portion” and the “second coil portion”, respectively.
Regarding claim 3, Mironov’s inductor coil assembly 130 has a “periphery defining a cross-sectional coil envelope” as shown in Fig. 4, which reads on the claim language.
Regarding claim 4, Mironov provides the alternating electric current to the first and second coils 131 and 132 independently of each other [0030-32, 0056, 0138] (which reads on “electrically isolated”).
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the same limitations as claim 1, which are obvious over modified Mironov for the same reasons as set forth above. Furthermore, Mironov discloses that the coils 131 and 132 may be formed from two types of wire having different cross-sections [0052, 0055] (which reads on “wherein the plurality of first coil strands have a first cross-section and the plurality of second coil strands have a second cross-section which differs from the first cross-section”).
Regarding claim 6, Mironov’s coils 131 and 132 may specifically have different cross-sectional shapes [0055, 0137] (which reads on “differ from each other in…cross-sectional shape”).
Regarding claim 7, Mironov’s coils 131 and 132 may be activated independently one at a time [0048, 0138] (which reads on “sequentially” as claimed).
Regarding claim 8, Mironov’s coils 131 and 132 may be activated one at a time [0138] (which reads on the claim language).
Regarding claim 9, Mironov’s device 100 includes a chamber 120 (“heating chamber”) defining a heating zone and receiving an article 10 with an aerosol-forming substrate 20, the coil assembly 130 running along the chamber 120 ([0133, 0141-42], Fig. 3) (which reads on the claim language).
Regarding claim 11, Mironov discloses a first and second susceptor [0071-76] (which reads on the claim language).
Regarding claim 13, modified Mironov discloses the device of claim 1 as set forth above. Mironov discloses using the device 100 to generate aerosol from the aerosol-forming substrate 20 [0141] (which reads on the claim language).
Regarding claim 14, Mironov discloses inserting the article 10 comprising the substrate 20 into the chamber 120 [0133, 0141] (which reads on the “positioning step”). Mironov discloses using the controller 150 to generate the magnetic fields with the coils 131 and 132 one after another [0138, 0141-42] (which reads on the two “actuating” steps; notably, the claim language does not limit the heated “first portion” and “second portion” of the substrate in any way and thus the heated portions may be the same).
Regarding claim 15, Mironov’s heating chamber 120 defines a heating zone [0135]. Mironov discloses a first and second susceptor [0071-76], and Mironov discloses the controller 150 and coils 131 and 132 performing the “actuating” steps of claim 14 above, which reads on the “actuating” steps of claim 15 (notably, the claim does not limit the first/second “susceptor”, “area”, and “portion” in any ways which prevent them from being identical to one another).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mironov (US 2020/0221775 A1, of record, provided in IDS dated 05/12/2026) in view of Aoun (US 2022/0183368 A1, of record, previously cited) as applied to claims 9 and 11, respectively, further in view of Courbat (US 2020/0375255 A1, of record, previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Mironov discloses a first and second susceptor [0071-76], and Mironov discloses the first and second coils 131 and 132 may be configured to generate different magnetic fields with different frequencies ([0032], claim 1). But Mironov fails to specifically disclose that the field generated by the first coil 131 is “adapted to heat a first inductively heatable susceptor having a first resonant frequency” and the field generated by the second coil 132 is “adapted to heat a second inductively heatable susceptor having a second resonant frequency that is different from the first resonant frequency” as claimed.
Courbat is directed to an aerosol generating system with multiple susceptors (Title). Courbat discloses using first and second susceptors which are optimized for heating in magnetic fields with different frequencies (which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand as disclosing different resonant frequencies for the susceptors) [0013]. This advantageously allows for optimized and sequential heating of different portions of an aerosol-forming substrate [0013-16]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would be particularly advantageous in Mironov which already discloses providing different frequencies with its coils 131 and 132.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Mironov by replacing Mironov’s susceptor(s) with Courbat’s first and second susceptors capable of being inductively heated by Mironov’s first and second coils 131 and 132, respectively (which reads on the claim language), because Mironov and Courbat are both in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Courbat teaches that this allows for more customized and optimized heating, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 12, Mironov discloses a first and second susceptor [0071-76], but fails to disclose that they are “positioned around the heating chamber” as claimed. Mironov discloses that the coil assembly 130 “extends helically” around the chamber 120 as shown in Fig. 3.
Courbat is directed to an aerosol generating system with multiple susceptors (Title). Courbat discloses using first and second susceptors which are optimized for heating in magnetic fields with different frequencies [0013]. This advantageously allows for optimized and sequential heating of different portions of an aerosol-forming substrate [0013-16]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would be particularly advantageous in Mironov which already discloses providing different frequencies with its coils 131 and 132 (Mironov [0032], claim 1). Courbat further discloses using three elongate susceptors 280, which advantageously results in more even heating ([0161], Figs. 7-8). The susceptors 280 are spaced apart in a triangular pattern ([0161], Figs. 7-8) (which reads on “positioned around the heating chamber within the heating zone to define, respectively, a first area within the heating zone and a second area within the heating zone”).
PNG
media_image2.png
480
734
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Mironov by replacing Mironov’s susceptor(s) with Courbat’s three susceptors 280 capable of being inductively heated by Mironov’s susceptor assembly 130 (which reads on the claim language), because Mironov and Courbat are both in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Courbat teaches that this allows for more even heating, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 ET.
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.
/MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights