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 § 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.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “about” in claims 5 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claims without the term “about.”
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.
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 1-5, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courbat (US2020/0375255) in view of Gill (US 2021/0127738).
Regarding claim 1, Courbat teaches a heating system, comprising:
an induction heating assembly configured to generate varying magnetic fields (930, Fig. 9, paragraph [0163]);
a heating target assembly comprising a plurality of heating targets (see the heating chamber in Abstract and claim 1).
Courbat does not teach:
the plurality of heating targets being heatable by penetration with a varying magnetic field, wherein a first subset of the plurality of heating targets has a first resonant heating characteristic and a second subset of the plurality of heating targets has a second resonant heating characteristic,
the first and second resonant heating characteristics being different; and
a controller configured to:
control the induction heating assembly based on the first resonant heating characteristic to generate a first varying magnetic field to heat the first subset; and
control the induction heating assembly based on the second resonant heating characteristic to generate a second varying magnetic field to heat the second subset.
Gill teaches an aerosol generating article (Gill, Title) with a plurality of heating targets (Gill, see first and second heatable susceptor in Abstract) wherein the plurality of heating targets being heatable by penetration with a varying magnetic field, wherein a first subset of the plurality of heating targets has a first resonant heating characteristic and a second subset of the plurality of heating targets has a second resonant heating characteristic (Gill, see Abstract), control the induction heating assembly based on the first resonant heating characteristic to generate a first varying magnetic field to heat the first subset; and control the induction heating assembly based on the second resonant heating characteristic to generate a second varying magnetic field to heat the second subset (see Abstract, “a controller adapted to control the induction coil to selectively and/or sequentially generate a first electromagnetic field with a first frequency and a second electromagnetic field with a second frequency that is different to the first frequency”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Courbat with the plurality of heating targets being heatable by penetration with a varying magnetic field, wherein a first subset of the plurality of heating targets has a first resonant heating characteristic and a second subset of the plurality of heating targets has a second resonant heating characteristic and controlling the resonant heating characteristics to generate varying magnetic fields, as taught by Gill, in order to prevent aerosol from being caught in the different regions (Gill, paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 2, Courbat as modified teaches the heating system according to claim 1, wherein to control the induction heating assembly, the controller is configured to: cause the induction heating assembly to be driven at a first drive frequency to generate the first magnetic field; and cause the induction heating assembly to be driven at a second drive frequency to generate the second magnetic field; wherein the first and second drive frequencies are based on at least the first and second resonant heating characteristics (see Gill, at least paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 3, Courbat as modified teaches the heating system according to claim 2, wherein the induction heating assembly comprises a first heating zone and a second heating zone (Gill, paragraph [0029]), the first heating zone being configured to generate the first varying magnetic field and the second heating zone being configured to generate the second varying magnetic field, and wherein to control the induction heating assembly (see Gill, paragraph [0029]), the controller is configured to: cause the first heating zone to be driven at the first drive frequency to generate the first magnetic field; and cause the second heating zone to be driven at the second drive frequency to generate the second magnetic field (Gill, paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 4, Courbat as modified teaches the heating system according to claim 2, wherein to control the induction heating assembly, the controller is configured to: cause the induction heating assembly to be driven at the first drive frequency to generate the first magnetic field for a first time period; and cause the induction heating assembly to be driven at the second drive frequency to generate the second magnetic field for a second time period (Gill, paragraph [0124]).
Regarding claim 5, Courbat as modified teaches the heating system according to claim 4, but does not teach that the first and second time periods are both less than about 1s. However, the claimed time period is merely a result effective variable, the general conditions of which are recognized by the prior art. Namely, the claim requires that the controller causes the heating assembly to be driven at a frequency for a time period. As Courbat as modified teaches driving the first and second frequencies for a period of time, it is not patentably distinguishable to claim an application specific time period. Thus, making it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide Courbat as modified with the first and second time periods being less than 1s, in order to assess how this time period impacts the desired optimization of the system.
Regarding claim 8, Courbat as modified teaches the heating system according to claim 1,wherein the first subset of the plurality of heating targets and the induction heating assembly form a first induction system having a first resonant frequency based on at least the first resonant heating characteristic and the second subset of the plurality of heating targets and the induction heating assembly form a second induction system having a second resonant frequency based on at least the second resonant heating characteristic (see Gill paragraphs [0020]-[0021] which notes the susceptors can be made by varying materials which dictate they appropriate frequencies they can generate).
Regarding claim 9, Courbat as modified teaches the heating system according to claim 1,wherein the first and second resonant heating characteristics are based on at least one of: materials of the one or more heating targets in the first or second subsets (see Gill paragraphs [0020]-[0021]); thicknesses of the one or more heating targets in the first or second subsets; densities of the one or more heating targets in the first or second subsets; and permeabilities of the one or more heating targets in the first or second subsets (these limitations are not required as the claim is claimed in the alternative).
Regarding claim 10, Courbat as modified teaches the heating system according to claim 1, wherein at least one heating target from the first subset of the plurality of heating targets is arranged between heating targets from the second subset of the plurality of heating targets (Gill, 66, 62, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Courbat as modified teaches the heating system according to claim 1, wherein a difference between the first and second drive frequencies is greater than about 10 kHz (Gill, paragraph [0022]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Courbat (US2020/0375255) in view of Gill (US 2021/0127738).
The prior art of record when considered as a whole, either alone or in combination, does not anticipate or render obvious:
wherein the plurality of heating targets are moveable relative to the induction heating assembly, and wherein at least one of: the first drive frequency is further based on the position of the first subset of the plurality of heating targets relative to the induction heating assembly; and the second drive frequency is further based on the position of the second subset of the plurality of heating targets relative to the induction heating assembly.
In the Examiner’s opinion, it would not be obvious to further modify the prior art structures to arrive at the claimed invention, absent impermissible hindsight. Therefore, rendering claim 6, with dependent claims therefrom are considered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)-270-5054. 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.
/NAEL N BABAA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights