DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Rojo-Calderon employs a single induction coil having a plurality of selectively energized coil sections. In contrast, the portions of Courbat relied upon by the Examiner employ a plurality of inductively heatable susceptors in association with different induction coils. Thus, Courbat's arrangement achieves localized heating using a structure in which respective susceptors are associated with respective induction coils, rather than sections of a single induction coil as required by claim 1. This distinction is significant. The rejection does not suggest substituting one known component for another component performing the same function in substantially the same arrangement. Instead, the proposed modification extracts the plurality of susceptors from Courbat's multi-coil heating architecture and incorporates those susceptors into Rojo-Calderon's materially different single-coil construct…Applicant respectfully submits that a person of ordinary skill starting with Rojo-Calderon's single induction coil having selectively energizable sections would not have been motivated incorporate Courbat's plurality of device-side susceptors, while at the same time omitting the corresponding plurality of induction coils with which Courbat's susceptors are employed. A person of skill in the art in fact would not have reasonably expected that modified arrangement to operate in the claimed manner.”
The Examiner disagrees. In Rojo-Calderon, the susceptor, located in the substrate, is inductively heated by an induction heater to transfer heat to the substrate [0027-0028]. In Courbat, the plurality of susceptors, located in the device, are inductively heated by an induction heater to transfer heat to the substrate [0060, 0076]. A single susceptor being located in an aerosol-generating substrate and a plurality of susceptors located in an aerosol-generating device are components recognized in the prior art as equivalents known for the same purpose of transferring heat to an aerosol generating substrate. A person of skill in the art in fact would have reasonably expected that modified arrangement to operate in the claimed manner. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. ___, ___, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a plurality of susceptors provided in the device would be inductively heated by the induction heater and transfer heat to the substrate regardless if the induction heater comprises a single induction coil comprising a plurality of sections, or a plurality of induction coils. An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Applicant argues “The Action acknowledged that Rojo-Calderon does not teach the claimed heating modes and relies upon Courbat's disclosure of supplying power to induction coils according to different sequences depending upon desired aerosol delivery. Even assuming that Courbat's different sequences could be characterized as different heating modes, Courbat applies those teachings in the context of its own induction heating architecture. The rejection then applies Courbat's concept to the sections of Rojo-Calderon's single induction coil. Again, the rejection relies upon selective reconstruction, which is not proper.”
The Examiner disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the individually heatable coil sections of Rojo-Calderon may be heated in different patterns just as the individually heatable coils of Courbat are heated in different patterns. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the different heating patterns of Courbat to the device of Rojo-Calderon to allow for the user to customize aerosol generation by selecting how the coil sections are powered and consequently how the susceptors and substrate are heated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojo-Calderon (US 20190053541) in view of Courbat (US 2022/0354177).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 15, Rojo-Calderon teaches an aerosol generating device, comprising: a heating chamber for receiving at least part of an aerosol generating substrate [0034]; an induction heating arrangement configured to heat the aerosol generating substrate to generate an aerosol to be inhaled, the induction heating arrangement comprising a single induction coil disposed around or adjacent to the heating chamber [0035]; a controller configured to control the induction heating arrangement to supply an alternating electric current to the single induction coil [0018]; wherein the induction heating arrangement includes a plurality of connectors associated with the single induction coil, the plurality of connectors being arranged and configured to permit the supply of the alternating electric current to one or more coil sections of the single induction coil to selectively energize the one or more coil sections [0015, 0018, 0019].
Rojo-Calderon teaches the substrate comprises the susceptor [0043]. Rojo-Calderon does not teach the aerosol generating device comprises a plurality of inductively heatable susceptors positioned in the heating chamber adjacent to each coil section to define corresponding heating areas within the heating chamber. Courbat teaches an aerosol generating device comprising a comprises a plurality of inductively heatable susceptors positioned in the heating chamber adjacent to induction coils to define corresponding heating areas within the heating chamber [Fig. 1; 0184-0186]. The susceptor being provided as part of the aerosol generating device, rather than within the substrate, is thus an art recognized equivalent known for the same purpose of heating a substrate to form an aerosol. Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980) (There was evidence that both phthalocyanine and selenium were known photoconductors in the art of electrophotography. "This, in our view, presents strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one for the other in an electrophotographic environment as a photoconductor." 209 USPQ at 759.). Courbat also teaches the plurality of susceptors enables heating different portions of a substrate [0159, 0166]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the device of Rojo-Calderon a plurality of inductively heatable susceptors positioned in the heating chamber adjacent to each coil section to define corresponding heating areas within the heating chamber for the reasons above suggested by Courbat.
Rojo-Calderon does not teach the claimed heating modes. Courbat teaches the controller is configured to supply power to the inductor coils in a different sequence depending on the desired delivery of aerosol to the user and the aerosol-generating device may be controllable by the user to change the sequence [0224]. In other words, the device comprises at least two heating modes, each heating mode comprising an associated section activation pattern, and the controller is configured to control the induction heating arrangement to supply the alternating electric current to the induction coils in accordance with a first section activation pattern if a first heating mode is selected, and to supply the alternating electric current to the induction coils in accordance with a second section activation pattern, different than the first section activation pattern, if a second heating mode is selected. Rojo-Calderon teaches a single inductor coil comprising a plurality of coil sections. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply the concept of Courbat and apply it to the single induction coil, i.e. the device comprises at least two heating modes, each heating mode comprising an associated section activation pattern, and the controller is configured to control the induction heating arrangement to supply the alternating electric current to the one or more coil sections of the single induction coil in accordance with a first section activation pattern if a first heating mode is selected, and to supply the alternating electric current to the one or more coil sections of the single induction coil in accordance with a second section activation pattern, different than the first section activation pattern, if a second heating mode is selected. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to allow for the user to customize aerosol generation by selecting how the coil sections are powered and consequently how the susceptors and substrate are heated.
Rojo-Calderon teaches the device is included in an aerosol generating system with an aerosol generating substrate [0041-0043]. The method of using the aerosol generating system of Rojo-Calderon in view of Courbat as described above thus reads on the claimed method.
Regarding claim 2, Rojo-Calderon teaches the connectors are arranged in pairs to permit the supply of the alternating electric current to each coil section via a corresponding pair of the connectors [0062].
Regarding claim 3, Rojo-Calderon teaches the controller is configured to supply the alternating electric current to each coil section via a corresponding pair of the connectors [0062, 0064].
Regarding claim 4, Rojo-Calderon teaches the plurality of connectors are arranged and configured so that, in use, each coil section generates an electromagnetic field concentrated in a different region of the heating chamber [0015, 0036]. In view of Courbat as applied to claim 1 above [0159, 0166], each region corresponds to a location of an adjacently positioned inductively heatable susceptor.
Regarding claim 5, Rojo-Calderon teaches the single induction coil is a helical coil which extends around the heating chamber about a longitudinal axis, and the plurality of connectors are spaced along the longitudinal axis to define longitudinally arranged coil sections [0062].
Regarding claim 6, Courbat as applied to claim 1 above teaches the teaches the controller is configured to supply the alternating electric current sequentially [0224]. Thus, in modified Rojo-Calderon, in the first section activation pattern the controller is configured to supply the alternating electric current sequentially to each coil section.
Regarding claim 7, Courbat as applied to claim 1 above teaches the teaches the second activation pattern involves sequential powering of the coils [0224]. Thus, in modified Rojo-Calderon, supply the alternating electric current sequentially to a first subset of coil sections and thereafter to a second subset of coil sections.
Regarding claim 8, Rojo-Calderon teaches the controller is configured to control the induction heating arrangement to supply an alternating electric current to a first coil section to generate a first electromagnetic field and to supply an alternating electric current to a second coil section to generate a second electromagnetic field, wherein the first electromagnetic field has a first frequency and the second electromagnetic field has a second frequency that is different from the first frequency [0015, 0018]
Regarding claims 12-13, Rojo-Calderon teaches the controller is configured to control the induction heating arrangement to heat one or more of the coil sections to a first temperature, and to heat one or more other of the coil sections to a second temperature that is different than the first temperature and the controller is configured to control the induction heating arrangement to heat a first coil section within a first subset of coil sections to the first temperature and to simultaneously heat a second coil section within the first subset of coil sections to the second temperature [0037-0039].
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojo-Calderon and Courbat as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Gill (WO 2019/219740).
Rojo-Calderon teaches the controller is configured to control the induction heating arrangement to supply an alternating electric current to a first coil section to generate a first electromagnetic field and to supply an alternating electric current to a second coil section to generate a second electromagnetic field, wherein the first electromagnetic field has a first frequency and the second electromagnetic field has a second frequency that is different from the first frequency and to control the induction heating arrangement to supply an alternating electric current to a third coil section to generate a third electromagnetic field, wherein the third electromagnetic field has a third frequency that is different from the first and second frequencies [0015, 0018, 0062]. Modified Rojo-Calderon teaches the electromagnetic fields are adapted to heat three inductively heatable susceptors [Courbat 0070]. Modified Rojo-Calderon does not teach the susceptors have different resonant frequencies. Gill teaches using susceptors having different resonant frequencies permits selective (or "zonal") heating of the aerosol forming material to be carried out [page 5, l. 5-29]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use different resonant frequencies for the susceptors of modified Rojo-Calderon for the reasons above suggested by Gill.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, 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.
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights