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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/17/2024, 03/12/2025, 04/11/2025 and 06/12/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Butin et al. (US 2022/0369714 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, Butin discloses a method of operating an aerosol-generating device – (construed as an aerosol generation system). The system to include an article 10 – (construed as a stick), a substrate 21 – (construed as an aerosol source), a susceptor 30 and an aerosol-generating device 100. The device further contains a cavity 103 into which the article/stick is configured to be inserted and extracted through an opening 105 formed in the aerosol generation device. The device further contains a power supply 150 and a DC/AC converter – (construed as a conversion circuit) connected to the power supply. The DC/AC converter is configured to take the power from the power supply and transform it into a high frequency alternating magnetic field, see [0053], [0141] - [0142] – (construed as a conversion circuit configured to convert power supplied from the power supply into high frequency power). The device further contains a cylindrical coil support as a ferrite core, see [0055] – (construed as a first magnetic body; and a cross section of the first magnetic body in a plane orthogonal to the longitudinal direction of the first magnetic body has a circular shape); and an induction coil 118 that is wound around the ferrite core/first magnetic body and to which the high frequency power is supplied, see [0055], [0141] - [0143]. And as depicted in at least Figs. 1-2, in a state in which the stick is inserted into the cavity, a longitudinal direction of the first magnetic body and a longitudinal direction of the susceptor coincide with an insertion and extraction direction of the stick and the susceptor is positioned on an opening side when viewed from the induction coil.
Regarding claim 3, Butin discloses the susceptor comprises a material having a specific magnetic permeability, see [0019] – (construed as the stick includes a second magnetic body at least partially located inside the susceptor).
Regarding claim 9, Butin discloses the susceptor comprises a material having a specific electrical resistivity, see [0019] – (construed as the stick does not include a magnetic body inside the susceptor).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 4-5, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butin et al. (US 2022/0369714 A1), as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claims 4-5, 12-15, Butin discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed cross section shape of the second magnetic body and susceptor gap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the second magnetic body and susceptor as claimed, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. Further, one would have been motivated to select the circular shape and have a cross-sectional area of the second magnetic body on the plane orthogonal to the longitudinal direction of the second magnetic body is equal to or larger than a cross sectional area of the first magnetic body on the plane orthogonal to the longitudinal direction of the first magnetic body and for the susceptor to have a gap for the purpose of forming a material having a specific magnetic permeability and influence the induction properties of the device, see MPEP 2144.04
Claims 6-8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butin et al. (US 2022/0369714 A1), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Inagaki et al. (US 2022/0022551 A1, used as a English equivalent for WO 2020209112 A1).
Regarding claims 6-8, 10-11, while Butin discloses the article/stick includes a filter 60 – (construed as a suction port) located on the opening side, see at least Fig. 1; it does not explicitly disclose the use of a plug. Inagaki discloses an aerosol supply device. The device being configured to have gaskets or other packing devices – (construed as a plug) being provided between various components to ensure a hermetically sealed device, see [0022]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Butin’s article to have a plug as reasonably suggested by Inagaki to thereby form a hermetic sealed device. Moreover, one would shape the susceptor to extend or not extend to the plug, as a size of the susceptor within the cavity increases/decreases the resistive load of the device useful for determining control of power of the device, see [0043].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 5712705545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights