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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 7/6/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/6/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the term “the coil” but then states that the coil in fact comprises first and second coils. Does this mean that there is one continuous wire that is coiled in two separate sections, or are there two separate coils? The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as if it required two separate coils. Claims 2-10 are indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitations “when the first coil or the second coil is cut along a plane passing through each of the first direction and a second direction crossing the first direction, the first coil or the second coil has a cross-sectional area extending in the first direction. It is unclear whether this claim requires anything beyond the mere existence of the coil. It is evident that the coil must be a three dimensional object since it would otherwise fail to form a coil, and clearly any three dimensional object must meet the claim limitation of having a cross sectional area in at least one direction. It is therefore unclear whether the claim limits the claim upon which it depends, and the claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it did not limit the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 3, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “bonding body” is used by the claim to mean “covering,” while the accepted meaning is “a component that bonds to something.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as if it required a covering. Claim 4 is indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 5, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the second direction” in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required the central axis of at least one of the first coil and the second coil to be different from any direction in which the accommodation portion extends.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitation “the first portion and the second portion are respectively wound around a plurality of central axes spaced apart from each other.” It is unclear whether this requires each section to be located around multiple axes, or that the two sections are wound around different axes. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required the first and second sections to be would around different axes. Claims 7-9 are indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear what is required by the limitation “a distance between the cross sections.” The distance between the sections and their associated cross sections is not a property of each section, but rather refers to the relationship between the two sections. It cannot be different at one section than the other. The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required the two sections to be spaced apart from each other. Claims 8 and 9 are indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation “the third portion and the fourth portion are respectively wound around a plurality of central axes spaced apart from each other.” It is unclear whether this requires each section to be located around multiple axes, or that the two sections are wound around different axes. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required the third and fourth sections to be would around different axes.
It is unclear what is required by the limitation “a distance between the cross sections.” The distance between the sections and their associated cross sections is not a property of each section, but rather refers to the relationship between the two sections. It cannot be different at one section than the other. The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required the two sections to be spaced apart from each other.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beidelman (US 2022/0183390).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Beidelman discloses an aerosol provision device (abstract) having a housing that forms an outer cover (figure 1, reference numeral 102) having an opening (figure 1, reference numeral 104), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an accommodation portion, into which an article is partially inserted for heating by a heating assembly ([0045], figure 1, reference numeral 110). The device has an induction heating assembly comprising first (figure 2, reference numeral 124) and second induction coils ([0057], figure 2, reference numeral 126). The coils generate varying magnetic fields [0058] when supplied with electrical power [0056]. The coils are spaced apart along a susceptor into which the aerosol generating article is inserted ([0070], figure 2, reference numeral 132), which is considered to meet the claim limitation the coils being spaced apart along a first direction in which the accommodation portion extends. The two inductors have different resistances [0120].
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beidelman (US 2022/0183390) in view of McConnell (US 2,446,292).
Regarding claim 3, Beidelman discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Beidelman additionally discloses that the inductor coils are made from Litz wires that are wound in helical fashion and are individually insulated [0057], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an insulator. Beidelman does not explicitly disclose a covering.
McConnell teaches an insulated electrical conductor (title) that has a hard outer surface made of nylon (column 3, lines 3-10) that is applied over a neoprene jacket (column 4, lines 3-33) that has good flame and fungi resistance properties (column 2, lines 26-35).
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 coils of Beidelman with the neoprene covered by latex insulator of McConnell. One would have been motivated to do so since McConnell teaches an insulator that has good flame and fungi resistance properties while also having a hard outer surface.
Regarding claim 4, McConnell teaches that nylon is a polyamide (column 4, lines 3-33).
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beidelman (US 2022/0183390) in view of Chen (US 2018/0070639).
Regarding claim 5, Beidelman discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Beidelman does not explicitly disclose the first induction coil having first and second portions with central axes that are spaced apart from each other.
Chen teaches an atomizing device for an electronic cigarette (abstract) having two electromagnetic induction coils ([0028], figure 2a, reference numeral 121) that are not symmetrically disposed [0029], indicating that they would have different central axes. Chen additionally teaches that this arrangement produces a high heating efficiency [0041].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to separate the first induction coil of Beidelman into the two sections of Chen. One would have been motivated to do so since Chen teaches an arrangement that produces high heating efficiency.
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches that the device has a power supply that is connected to both of the coils [0043], indicating that the coils are also electrically connected to each other.
Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches that the sections are spaced apart from each other (figure 2a).
Regarding claim 8, modified Beidelman teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Beidelman does not explicitly teach the second induction coil having third and fourth portions with central axes that are spaced apart from each other.
Chen teaches an atomizing device for an electronic cigarette (abstract) having two electromagnetic induction coils ([0028], figure 2a, reference numeral 121) that are not symmetrically disposed [0029], indicating that they would have different central axes. Chen additionally teaches that this arrangement produces a high heating efficiency [0041].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to separate the second induction coil of Beidelman into the two sections of Chen. One would have been motivated to do so since Chen teaches an arrangement that produces high heating efficiency.
Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches that the sections are spaced apart from each other (figure 2a).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beidelman (US 2022/0183390) in view of Hijma (US 2024/0081411).
Regarding claim 10, Beidelman discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Beidelman does not explicitly disclose a coil support portion.
Hijma teaches an induction heating assembly having a coil support structure (figure 2, reference numeral 60) that comprises a coil protruding from the outer surface (figure 3, reference numeral 62) that forms a groove (figure 3, reference numeral 62) in which the induction coil is positioned ([0061], figure 3, reference numeral 58).
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 outside of the opening of Beidelman with the protruding coil of Hijma. One would have been motivated to do so since Hijma teaches a coil that positions an induction coil.
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