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
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: acronyms should be spelled out on first use. 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 1-4, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 112385899A, with EP 4029387A1 as the English-language equivalent).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Li teaches an electric aerosol generation system for tobacco (consumable with a flavor component) (Li para 2-4) (‘flavor inhaler’) comprising a heater (Li para 3), wherein the heater comprises: a heating element which includes a plurality of heating portions (Li fig 1, 3, item 1; para 31); and a plurality of first energization regions electrically connected to the respective heating portions (Li fig 1-4, items 2; para 31).
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches an electric aerosol generation system for tobacco as above for claim 1. Li further teaches the presence of a heating controller configured to control heating by electrically controlling individual ones of the plurality of first energization regions (Li para 31, 40-42).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Li teaches an electric aerosol generation system for tobacco as above for claim 2. Li further teaches the heating controller is configured to control the plurality of first energization regions in such a manner as to heat in order of a first heating region and a second heating region (Li para 31-38, 40), the first heating region and the second heating region each including one or more of the plurality of heating portions (Li para 31-38, 40), and wherein a surface area of the second heating region is greater than a surface area of the first heating region, which may be considered the downstream side along an airflow path (Li fig 1, the lower item 2 region is larger than the upper item 2 region). It is respectfully noted that as the only structure provided for the ‘flavor inhaler’ is of the heater itself, the heater may be oriented so any given side or section becomes oriented on a downstream side of an airflow.
Regarding claim 15, Li teaches an electric aerosol generation system for tobacco as above for claim 1. Li further teaches that the heating element has a flat, plate shape (Li fig 1-4 all illustrate flat plates).
Regarding claim 16, Li teaches an electric aerosol generation system for tobacco as above for claim 15. Li further teaches that the first energization regions have a flat plate shape (Li figs 1-4, items 2) where the heating element and the energizations regions overlap (Li figs 1, 3) in the thickness direction of the heating element and would thereby allow a current to flow through in the thickness direction.
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 5-9, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Courbat et al. (US 2020/0163386).
Regarding claims 5-8, 14, and 17, Li teaches an electric aerosol generation system for tobacco as above for claim 1.
Li is silent with respect to one or a plurality of second energization regions, that the second energization regions face both a region between the first energization regions and the first energization regions, that the second energization regions have a shape corresponding to and overlapping with the respective first energization regions, where the heating element is a laminate of two or more heating elements, wherein at least one of the first and second energization regions comprises a stainless steel electrode.
Li and Courbat are related in the field of heaters specialized for aerosol generating devices. Courbat teaches laminating at least two heating layers, which may be symmetric, and may be stainless steel for its electrical conductivity (Courbat para 46, 54, 47, 117), around a support layer (Courbat para 57, 119) noting that this particularly compensates for tensile and/or compressive stresses due to differences in thermal expansion behavior of the materials that make up each layer (Courbat para 57, 119). Courbat further teaches that the multilayer laminate increases the overall AC resistance of the heating element is significantly increased (Courbat para 118), thereby providing higher heating efficiency (Courbat para 57).
It would be obvious to duplicate (laminate two or more together) the heater of Li as taught by Courbat, providing for a symmetric (that is the second energization region having a shape corresponding to and overlapping that of the respective first energizing regions), that has the second energization regions facing both a region between the first energization regions and the first energization regions because they are laminated face-to-face, because this would provide the heater of Li with an increase in overall AC resistance and thus provide high heating efficiency while not creating an issue with differences in the thermal expansion behaviors of each layer. It would further be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select stainless steel as the base electrode material of Li as taught by Courbat because it would provide for an electrode with high electrical conductivity.
Regarding claim 9, Li in view of Courbat teaches an electric aerosol generation system for tobacco as above for claim 5. Li further teaches that the heater comprises a connecting electrode electrically connected to the first energization region or the one or the plurality of second energization regions and extending in a long-side direction of the heating element (Li fig 1, item 4).
Regarding claim 11, Li in view of Courbat teaches an electric aerosol generation system for tobacco as above for claim 9. Li further does not teach or suggest that there is any protrusion of any electrodes from an area in which the heating element extends, excluding the connecting electrode (e.g. Li fig 1, 3).
Regarding claims 13, Li teaches an electric aerosol generation system for tobacco as above for claim 1. Li further teaches that the heater is used to heat tobacco (Li para 52).
Li is silent with respect to the flavor inhaler further comprising an accommodation part configured to accommodate a consumable material having a flavor component, wherein the consumable material is to be positioned in the accommodation part such that the heater is inserted into the consumable material.
Li and Courbat are related in the field of heaters specialized for aerosol generating devices. Courbat teaches a flavor inhaler (Courbat para 1, 3, 23) with an accommodation part configured to accommodate an aerosol generating substrate (consumable material having a flavor component) (Courbat para 98, fig 1, item 20) where the aerosol generating substrate (consumable material) is positioned within the accommodation part such that the heater is inserted into the consumable material, noting that ‘blade’ type heaters are particularly appropriate for use with solid or paste aerosol forming substrates (Courbat para 31, 100, fig 1, items 110, 142).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the heater of Li within a structure of an aerosol generating device comprising an accommodation port for a solid or a paste aerosol generating substrate where the heater inserts into the consumable material as taught by Courbat because Li is intended to be utilized in this manner. Further, the heaters of Courbat and Li are functional equivalents and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use either heater in the base aerosolizing apparatus (see MPEP 2144.06(II)).
Regarding claim 14, Li teaches an electric aerosol generation system for tobacco as above for claim 1.
Li is silent with respect to the heating element including a PTC element.
Examiners Note: Applicant’s As-Filed Specification defines PTC as ‘positive temperature coefficient’ at paragraph 49, and goes on to describe that this acts as a temperature control via Curie temperatures in paragraph 50. Therefore, the use of Curie temperatures and thermal limiting will be considered to meet the claimed PTC element.
Li and Courbat are related in the field of heaters specialized for aerosol generating devices. Courbat teaches that the heating element may have a set Curie temperature, which acts as a self-limiting mechanism to prevent overheating of the aerosol generating substrate. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heater of Li to comprise a composition with a desired Curie temperature as taught by Courbat because this provides a self-limiting mechanism to prevent overheating of the aerosol generating substrate.
Regarding claim 19, Li teaches an electric aerosol generation system for tobacco as above for claim 18.
Li is silent to the consumable material includes a plurality of portions each being positioned facing a corresponding one of the plurality of heating portions at a time of inhalation, the plurality of portions having respective flavor components.
Li and Courbat are related in the field of heaters specialized for aerosol generating devices. Courbat teaches a consumable material (aerosol generating substrate) that comprises a plurality of portions that face a corresponding heating portion with flavor components, e.g. the aerosol generating substrate may be considered a first and second portion divided down the vertical middle with the left half facing a first corresponding heating portion and the right half facing a second corresponding heating portion (Courbat fig. 1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the multi-region heater of Li in the same manner such that one surface faces one portion of an aerosol generating substrate and the opposite surface faces a second portion of an aerosol generating substrate.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Courbat as applied to claims 5 and 9 above, and further in view of Schneider et al. (US 2015/0163859).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Li in view of Courbat teaches a flavor inhaler comprising a multi-region heater as above for claims 5 and 9.
Li in view of Courbat is silent with respect to an insulating layer, such as glass being applied to the surface of the first or second energization regions and/or the connecting electrode.
Li in view of Courbat and Schneider are related in the field of heating elements for aerosol generation devices. Scheneider teaches apply a protective glass layer over the heating element so they cover the entirety of the heater substrate (Scheneider para 26) which improves thermal distribution over the heater and makes the heater easier to clean while preventing oxidation or corrosion (Scheneider para 26).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heater of Li in view of Courbat to possess a protective glass layer over the full surface of the heater substrate as taught by Scheneider because this improves the thermal distribution of the heating element and makes it easier to clean while preventing oxidation and/or corrosion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/LAURA B FIGG/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 9/29/26
Prosecution Insights