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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 17-20, 23-24, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hon et al (US 2019/0037925) in view of Hashimoto et al (JP 11123758 A).
Regarding claim 17, Hon discloses a handheld, portable aerosol-forming device, comprising: a DC power source (Fig. 1 #18 battery) configured to energize a heater (Fig. 1 #26 atomizer), the heater (Fig. 1 #26 atomizer) configured to dielectrically heat a solid aerosol-forming substrate by exposure to an RF electric field to release an aerosol from the handheld, portable aerosol- forming device for inhalation by a consumer, wherein the heater (Fig. 1 #26 atomizer) comprises (i) an RF voltage source (Fig. 1 #50 oscillation circuit) and (ii) a first and second electrode (Fig. 1 #56 electrode pads) interconnected to the RF voltage source (Fig. 1 #50 oscillation circuit) to generate an RF electric field between a heating area defined between the first and second electrodes (Fig. 1 #56 electrode pads), wherein the heating area is configured to removably accommodate a cylindrical sample comprising a solid aerosol-forming substrate (Fig. 8 shows a space which may accommodate a cylindrical sample. Also, Fig. 10 shows an example of a cylindrical sample which may be accommodated by the heating area.).
However, Hon does not explicitly teach and wherein the first and second electrodes each form concave surfaces and oppose each other.
Nonetheless, Hashimoto in the same field of endeavor being microwave heating devices and solves the same problem of accommodating, in the heating area, a rounded substrate to be heated teaches wherein the first and second electrodes (Fig. 2 #s1-2 electrodes) each form concave surfaces and oppose each other (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
252
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrodes of Hon by incorporating the cylindrical shape of the electrodes as taught by Hashimoto, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 18, Hon in view of Hashimoto teaches the device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 17), and Hashimoto teaches wherein each one of the first and second electrodes (Fig. 2 #s1-2 electrodes) forms a segment of a cylinder (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
252
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrodes of Hon by incorporating the cylindrical shape of the electrodes as taught by Hashimoto, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 19, Hon in view of Hashimoto teaches the device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 17), and Hon teaches wherein the RF voltage source comprises a transistor amplifier (Fig. 2 #60 transistor).
Regarding claim 20, Hon in view of Hashimoto teaches the device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 17), and Hon teaches further comprising: a sample holder (Fig. 1 #14 atomizer/liquid reservoir section) configured to removably accommodate the sample.
Regarding claim 23, Hon in view of Hashimoto teaches the device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 17), and Hon teaches wherein the first and second electrodes are separated by a slit structure (The space between the electrodes.) and dielectric material (The air in the space is considered a dielectric material.).
Regarding claim 24, Hon in view of Hashimoto teaches the device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 17), and Hon teaches wherein an RF frequency of the RF electric field is in a range of from 1 MHz to 15 GHz ([0035] lines 6-7 ---" The high frequency oscillation circuit may operate at 50 KHz to 980 MHz and at 30 volts to 5000 volts.”).
Regarding claim 27, Hon in view of Hashimoto teaches the device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 17), and Hon teaches wherein the DC power source (Fig. 1 #18 battery) is a battery positioned within a housing (Fig. 1 #11 housing) of the device.
Regarding claim 28, Hon in view of Hashimoto teaches the device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 17), and Hon teaches wherein the housing (Fig. 1 #11 housing) includes the DC power source (Fig. 1 #18 battery) and the heater (Fig. 1 #26 atomizer) therein, the housing (Fig. 1 #11 housing) further comprising a mouthpiece at an end of the housing ([0022] lines 9-12 ---"The air outlet 40 may be formed in the atomizer/liquid reservoir section 14 or it may be formed in a separate end cap or mouthpiece.”).
Regarding claim 29, Hon in view of Hashimoto teaches the device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 17), and Hon teaches further comprising a housing (Fig. 1 #11 housing) that accommodates the DC power source (Fig. 1 #18 battery) and the heater (Fig. 1 #26 atomizer), wherein an air flow channel (Fig. 1 #40 air outlet) is formed in the housing, the air flow channel (Fig. 1 #40 air outlet) being configured to convey aerosol generated through the dielectrically heating with an air flow entering the air flow channel (Fig. 1 #40 air outlet) for inhalation by the consumer.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hon et al (US 2019/0037925) in view of Hashimoto et al (JP 11123758 A) as applied to claim 20, further in view of Fagrell et al (US 2011/0139773).
Regarding claim 21, Hon in view of Hashimoto teaches the device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 20), but does not teach further comprising: an impedance matching unit configured to achieve impedance matching between the RF electric field and the sample holder.
Nonetheless, Fagrell in the same field of endeavor being RF heating devices, teaches further comprising: an impedance matching unit (Fig. 2c #207 tuning device) configured to achieve impedance matching between the RF electric field and the sample holder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hon in view of Hashimoto by incorporating the impedance matching unit as taught by Fagrell for the benefit of affecting the efficiency of the heating system. (Fagrell [0076])
Regarding claim 22, Hon in view of Hashimoto and Fagrell teaches the device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 20), and Fagrell teaches wherein the impedance matching unit (Fig. 2c #207 tuning device) is defined by the first and second electrodes ([0076] lines 1-5 ---"The impedance of applicator 210 may be matched appropriately by selecting suitable dimensions or by using one or more electrical tuning devices 207 that vary the electromagnetic characteristics of the microwave energy coming from the source 206 to the plates 202, 203.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hon in view of Hashimoto and Fagrell by incorporating the impedance matching unit as taught by Fagrell for the benefit of affecting the efficiency of the heating system. (Fagrell [0076])
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hon et al (US 2019/0037925) in view of Hashimoto et al (JP 11123758 A) as applied to claim 17, further in view of Portnoff et al (US 2005/0274065).
Regarding claim 25, Hon in view of Hashimoto teaches the device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 17), but does not teach wherein an operation power in continuous mode is in a range of from 0.1 mW to 50 W.
Nonetheless, Portnoff teaches wherein an operation power in continuous mode is in a range of from 0.1 mW to 50 W ([0197] lines 1-4 ---" For all three tests microwave power levels of 20 W or 2 W/cc were used. However, in Test 1 the microwave mode was continuous wave versus pulsed mode for Tests 2 and 3.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hon in view of Hashimoto by incorporating the range of continuous operating power as taught by Portnoff, since it has been held that "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and whether there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so." The reasonable expectation of success would be vapor being produced. MPEP 2143 G.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hon et al (US 2019/0037925) in view of Hashimoto et al (JP 11123758 A) as applied to claim 17, further in view of Nordh et al (US 9,131,541).
Regarding claim 26, Hon in view of Hashimoto teaches the device as appears above (see the rejection of claim 17), but does not teach wherein the RF voltage source is a solid-state microwave source.
Nonetheless, Nordh in the same field of endeavor being microwave heating devices, teaches wherein the RF voltage source is a solid-state microwave source (Claim 7 ---" The microwave heating apparatus of claim 2, wherein the microwave source is a solid-state microwave generator.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hon in view of Hashimoto by incorporate the solid-state microwave source as taught by Nordh for the benefit of providing a microwave generator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 17-20, 23, 24, and 27-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hashimoto et al (JP 11123758 A).
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach “the first and second electrodes each form concave surfaces and oppose each other.” Examiner respectfully agrees.
However, newly cited prior art reference Hashimoto does teach “the first and second electrodes each form concave surfaces and oppose each other.” See the rejection of claim 17.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Portnoff et al (US 2005/0274065).
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach an operation power in continuous mode is in a range of from 0.1 mW to 50 W. Examiner respectfully agrees.
However, newly cited prior art reference Portnoff teaches an operation power in continuous mode is in a range of from 0.1 mW to 50 W. See the rejection of claim 25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights