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 03/06/2024 and 03/06/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “The heating system according to claim 1, 4” which should be corrected to “The heating system according to claim 4”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an adjustment assembly configured to move the one or more heating targets relative to the induction heating assembly” in claim 12. In particular, the claim limitation “an adjustment assembly” is a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language “configured to move the one or more heating targets relative to the induction heating assembly” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder “an adjustment assembly” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “an adjustment assembly” in claim 12 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not include structure that performs the function of the adjustment assembly. The specification denotes that the adjustment assembly is element 210, but does not explain what components constitutes the adjustment assembly, and in the figures element 210 is presented as a box without any specified components. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For purposes of examination the adjustment assembly is taken to be any mechanical components that is able to “move the one or more heating targets relative to the induction heating assembly.”
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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)(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 1-4, 8-11, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Batista (US20220295894A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
786
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
838
302
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figs. 3 and 4 of Batista
PNG
media_image3.png
800
694
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figs. 5A-C of Batista
Regarding claim 1, Batista teaches a heating system, comprising:
an induction heating assembly (16) configured to generate a varying magnetic field ([0051] providing the first and second induction coils with different configurations so that the magnetic field generated by each coil under the same applied current is different); and
a heating target assembly (14) comprising one or more heating targets ([0097] susceptor arrangement 14 comprises multiple susceptor blades),
wherein the one or more heating targets (14) are moveable relative to the induction heating assembly ([0112] radial movement of the susceptor arrangement 14),
the one or more heating targets (14) being heatable by penetration with the varying magnetic field ([0047] a “susceptor arrangement” means a conductive element that heats up when subjected to a changing magnetic field).
Regarding claim 2, Batista teaches the heating system according to claim 1,
wherein the heating target assembly (14) is flexible ([0010] each susceptor may comprise a flexible portion).
Regarding claim 3, Batista teaches the heating system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more heating targets (14) are moveable between a first position (Fig. 3) and a second position (Fig. 4, 5A-C),
the second position (Fig. 4, 5A-C) being closer to the induction heating assembly (16) than the first position (Fig. 3, [0101] susceptor 14 moves radially, which would be understood to move a portion of 14 closer to coil 16).
Regarding claim 4, Batista teaches the heating system according to claim 3, wherein the one or more heating targets (14) are:
biased towards the first position ([0109] susceptor arrangement 14, original position without insertion of element 12); and
moveable towards the second position ([0110] radial movement of the susceptors such that the aerosol-generating article 12 can be accommodated within the susceptor arrangement 14).
Regarding claim 8, Batista teaches the heating system according to claim 1, 4
further comprising a controller ([0101] controller) configured to select a drive frequency and cause the induction heating assembly to operate at the selected drive frequency ([0101] controller may be configured to control the supply of electrical energy from the power supply to the induction coil 16 or to the individual induction coils 16; which would be understood to select a drive frequency such that the coils receive electrical energy), wherein:
the controller ([0101] controller) selects the drive frequency based on the position of the one or more heating targets (14) relative to the induction heating assembly (16, [0037] resonant frequency; [0101, 0110] controller may be configured to control the supply of electrical energy from the power supply to the induction coil 16 or to the individual induction coils 16; article 12 can be accommodated within the susceptor arrangement 14).
Regarding claim 9, Batista teaches the heating system according to claim 2,
wherein at least one of the one or more heating targets (14) are rigid ([0010] a portion of the susceptor upstream of the flexible portion may be rigid to enable secure attachment of the susceptor).
Regarding claim 10, Batista teaches the heating system according to claim 2,
wherein at least one of the one or more heating targets (14) are flexible ([0010] a portion of the susceptor upstream of the flexible portion may be rigid to enable secure attachment of the susceptor)
Regarding claim 11, Batista teaches the heating system according to claim 1, wherein, in use, the one or more heating targets (14) are moved due to contact with an entity (12) being heated ([0110] flexible portion 44 enables radial movement of the susceptors such that the aerosol-generating article 12 can be accommodated within the susceptor arrangement 14).
PNG
media_image4.png
876
480
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Batista
Regarding claim 15, Batista teaches the heating system according to claim 1, wherein the induction heating assembly (16) comprises a top side facing towards the one or more heating targets (14), and a bottom side facing away from the one or more heating targets (14, Annotated Fig. 1),
wherein the varying magnetic field is asymmetric such that the magnetic field strength at the top side is substantially greater than the magnetic field strength at the bottom side ([0032] flux concentrator may concentrate the magnetic field lines to the interior of the flux concentrator thereby increasing the heating effect of the susceptor arrangement by means of the induction coil; where the concentration of magnetic field lines to the interior is understood to cause an asymmetric magnetic field).
Regarding claim 16, Batista teaches the heating system according to claim 1, wherein the induction heating assembly (16) comprises a plurality of heating zones ([0049] a first heating zone and a second heating zone) each heating zone being arranged to generate a varying magnetic field to heat a respective region of the heating target assembly (14, [0099-0102]).
Regarding claim 17, Batista teaches the heating system according to claim 16, wherein each heating zone ([0049] a first heating zone and a second heating zone) is independently controllable ([0100] the induction coils 16 may be separately controllable to enable heating of separate heating zones).
PNG
media_image5.png
876
478
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Batista
PNG
media_image6.png
698
530
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Batista
Regarding claim 18, Batista teaches the heating system according to claim 1, wherein the induction heating assembly (16) is shaped to correspond to a shape of the heating target assembly (14, Fig. 1, 6).
Regarding claim 19, Batista teaches the heating system according to claim 1, wherein the induction heating assembly (16) has a curved profile to correspond to a curved profile of the heating target assembly (14, Fig. 1, 6).
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.
Claims 5-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista (US20220295894A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hellmers (US12150584B2).
Regarding claim 5, Batista teaches the heating system according to claim 3, but is silent on wherein when a region of the heating target assembly is arranged in the first position, the region is heated to a lower temperature than when the region arranged in the second position.
PNG
media_image7.png
832
582
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Hellmers
Hellmers teaches wherein when a region of the heating target assembly (50) is arranged in the first position (Col. 5 lines 15-25 plate 50 to move upwardly along the axis 24 to an inoperative position), the region is heated to a lower temperature (Col. 5 lines 15-25 operative current is no longer induced in the plate 50 to heat the plate 50) than when the region arranged in the second position (Col. 5 lines 1-20 plate 50 in the lower region 44 when the plate 50 is an operative position, as shown in FIG. 2 . In this operative position, the plate 50 is located within the magnetic field delivered by the induction coil 18).
Batista and Hellmers are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of heating assemblies. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Batista to incorporate the teachings of Hellmers to have the first and second position be heated at different temperatures to allow heating to occur at a desired temperature without manual operation or complex circuitry (Hellmers Col. 1 lines 10-25).
Regarding claim 6, Batista and Hellmers teach the heating system according to claim 5, and Batista teaches the induction heating (16) assembly is configured to operate at a drive frequency ([0037] resonant frequency); and is heated resonantly when arranged in the second position ([0037] resonant frequency; [0101, 0110] controller may be configured to control the supply of electrical energy from the power supply to the induction coil 16 or to the individual induction coils 16; article 12 can be accommodated within the susceptor arrangement 14).
Batista is silent on the drive frequency is selected such that the region is heated non-resonantly when arranged in the first position.
Hellmers teaches the drive frequency is selected such that the region is heated non-resonantly when arranged in the first position (Col. 5 lines 15-25 operative current is no longer induced in the plate 50 to heat the plate 50; where operative current not being applied would be the equivalent of a non-resonant heating operation).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Batista to incorporate the teachings of Hellmers to have heating occur non-resonantly to allow heating to occur at a desired temperature without manual operation or complex circuitry (Hellmers Col. 1 lines 10-25).
Regarding claim 12, Batista teaches the heating system according to claim 1, further comprising an adjustment assembly configured to move the one or more heating targets relative to the induction heating assembly.
Hellmers teaches further comprising an adjustment assembly (54) configured to move the one or more heating targets (50) relative to the induction heating assembly (18).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Batista to incorporate the teachings of Hellmers to have an assembly that moves the heating target in order allow heating to occur at a desired temperature without manual operation or complex circuitry (Hellmers Col. 1 lines 10-25).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista (US20220295894A1) and Hellmers (US12150584B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 20120305546).
Regarding claim 7, Batista and Helmers teach the heating system according to claim 6, but are silent on wherein: the region of the heating target assembly and the induction heating assembly form an induction system having: (i) an initial resonant frequency when arranged in the first position, and (ii) a final resonant frequency when arranged in the second position; and the drive frequency is selected such that: a difference between the final resonant frequency and the drive frequency is smaller than the difference between the initial resonant frequency and the drive frequency.
Chen teaches the region of the heating target assembly and the induction heating assembly form an induction system having: (i) an initial resonant frequency when arranged in the first position ([0044] no pan is present, understood to have a resonant frequency), and (ii) a final resonant frequency when arranged in the second position ([0044] pan is present, having a resonant frequency that is different than that of no pan present, by nature of resonant frequencies); and
the drive frequency ([0044] operating frequency) is selected such that:
a difference between the final resonant frequency and the drive frequency is smaller than the difference between the initial resonant frequency and the drive frequency ([0044-0045] operating frequency is a resonant frequency).
Batista, Hellmers, and Chen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of heating assemblies. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Batista and Hellmers to incorporate the teachings of Chen to have the first and second positions have different resonant frequencies, where the drive frequency is closer to the second resonant frequency as heating occurring at the second position is desired and where operating at the resonant frequency is key to transferring the optimal amount of power from the induction coil to the vessel (Chen [0040]).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista (US20220295894A1) and Hellmers (US12150584B2) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Matsen (US 20160316522 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Batista and Helmers teach the heating system according to claim 12, but are silent on further comprising a controller configured to control the adjustment assembly, and thereby movement of the one or more heating targets, based on one or more criteria.
Matsen teaches further comprising a controller (140) configured to control the adjustment assembly, and thereby movement of the one or more heating targets, based on one or more criteria ([0045, 0057] controller 140 to the hydraulic actuator 160 include commands to move the first and second portions 110A, 110B of the apparatus 110 together and apart).
Batista, Hellmers, and Matsen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of heating assemblies. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Batista and Hellmers to incorporate the teachings of Matsen to have a controller move the targets so that heating may be applied and removed according to the desired state of the heated material (Matsen [0045]).
Regarding claim 14, Batista, Hellmers, and Matsen teach the heating system according to claim 13, but Batista and Helmers are silent on wherein the one or more criteria include at least one of: a measured temperature; a user input received by the heating system; a time; and power supply constraints.
Matsen teaches wherein the one or more criteria include at least one of: a measured temperature; a user input received by the heating system; a time; and power supply constraints ([0057] after a single pulse (or multiple pulses in some embodiments) of a high-strength non-oscillating magnetic field to the heat-treated material 130 at 208, and the subsequent compression of the heat-treated material at 210 is completed and the compressive forces are removed; where a single pulse is taken to be a power supply constraint).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Batista and Hellmers to incorporate the teachings of Matsen to have a controller move the targets based on power supply constraints so that heating may be applied and removed according to the desired state of the heated material (Matsen [0045]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista (US20220295894A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (CN 109309977A) with citations made to attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 20, Batista teaches the heating system according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the induction heating assembly is flexible.
Yang teaches wherein the induction heating assembly is flexible ([0045] the formation of coil plate 100 than the traditional coil thinner, coil 20 shape is more flexible).
Batista and Yang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of heating assemblies. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Batista to incorporate the teachings of Yang to have the induction heating assembly be flexible so it is easy to realize coils of various shapes which can greatly shorten the manufacturing time, making it suitable for production line operation and realizing mass production (Yang [0046]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 8/6/2026
Prosecution Insights