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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 10-15, 19, 21-23, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John et al. (US 2018/0271153) in view of Litten et al. (US 20170347711).
As to claim 1, John et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a consumable for use with a noncombustible aerosol system, in which the consumable comprises a support and aerosol generating material (see abstract, 0033, 0037, 0048), the method comprising providing a support (see 0121, receptacle 57 of Fig. 14); surface treating the first surface ( etching, see 0040), and applying aerosol generating material to at least a first portion of the first surface of the support (see 0040), in which the surface treatment step comprises changing a physical characteristic of the surface without embossing or perforating as required by claim 1.
John et al. fails to teach the surface treatment is one of electrostatic coating at least a portion of the first surface of the support, exposing at least a portion of the first surface of the support to ultraviolet radiation or plasma surface treatment of at least a portion of the first surface of the support as required by claim 1.
Litten et al. discloses a cartridge used for heating a smokable material such as tobacco (see 0046). Litten et al. teaches a substrate of electrically conductive material (formed of metal – see 0133) that is etched with a pattern (tracks, 0134), and the smokable material fills the pattern (see 0135). Litten et al. further teaches surface treating with oxygen plasma and then an adhesive material is applied (see 0165) to adhere the smokable material to the surface).
It would have bene obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of John et al. to include the surface treatment process of Litten et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both references are directed to forming products for smokable tobacco, where Litten et al. further teaches a surface treatment that improves the adhesion of the tobacco material to the substrate.
As to claim 2, Litten et al. states the treatment improves the adhesion between the surface and the tobacco (see 0165).
As to claim 3-4, etching of the surface removes the native oxide layer, thereby reducing reactive sites, reducing corrosion.
As to claim 6, the support is a metal plated material (see 0041 of John).
As to claim 7, the support is a metal or metal-alloy (see 0041 of John).
As to claim 10, the method further comprises the step of separating the support into two or more smaller units of desired shape and size (see 0134 of John).
As to claims 12-13, Litten discloses the adhesive coating can be applied via electrostatic coating (see 0165) and is cured (see 0167).
As to claims 14 and 15, John teaches etching the surface of the support (see 0040).
As to claim 19, the plasma treatment comprises activation of the support (See 0165).
As to claim 21, the surface treatment is applied to the etched portions of the surface and the material is applied to such portions (see 0040 of John and 0165 of Litten).
As to claim 22, the entire surface of the substrate is treated and then the tobacco material is applied in the receptacles.
As to 23, the aerosol generating material is applied in three or more discrete portions provided in a grid pattern (see Fig. 3 of John).
As to claim 27, John teaches treating the support with a further treatment of perforating the receptacle (see 0078).
As to claims 28-29, John teaches the aerosol generation material is applied as a slurry and is allowed to cure (see 0122).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John et al. (US 2018/0271153) in view of Litten et al. (US 20170347711) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kessler et al. (DE 102018127922).
The teachings of John et al. and Litten et al. as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
John et al. and Litten et al. fail to teach the surface treatment includes a step of exposing to ultraviolet radiation as required by claim 17.
Kessler et al. teaches a method of forming a vaporizing device for tobacco. Kessler teaches tie layers of adhesive being used to connect materials to foils where the adhesive material can be UV-curing acrylate adhesive (see translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of John et al. and Litten et al. to include the UV curable adhesive of Kessler et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both Litten and Kessler et al. teaches the use of curable adhesives for foils and tobacco materials and Kessler et al. further teaches an alternative adhesive that can be used in aerosol generating products for tobacco. It has been established that the mere substitution of one known element for and alternative used for the same intended purpose provides predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/CACHET I PROCTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights