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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 28 line 26 refers the control module to be item 12 or is that item 13?
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-4, 8, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moloney (WO-2021176224), in view of, Greenfield (WO-2020223350)
Moloney teaches:
In regards to claim 1, Moloney teaches a testing equipment for testing a susceptor arrangement (110 fig. 1, ‘susceptor arrangement’) in simulated heating conditions of a heated susceptor arrangement (110 fig. 1, ‘susceptor arrangement’) arranged in an aerosol-generating device (100 fig. 1, ‘aerosol generating device’) during a user experience, the testing equipment comprising: (abstract; 24 page 50 to 21 page 51; 116, 120 fig. 1,’ aerosol generating material’, ‘consumable’)
a holder module comprising a holder for receiving a susceptor arrangement to be tested; (100, 116, 120 fig. 1, ‘aerosol generating device’, ’ aerosol generating material’, ‘consumable’)
control module comprising an inductive heating arrangement (106, 158 fig. 1, ‘control management/temperature determiner’, ‘inductive element/heating arrangement’) and a measurement device comprising a control circuit; wherein the inductive heating arrangement is configured to generate an alternating magnetic field for inductively heating a susceptor arrangement; (20-31 page 8, ‘An induction heater may comprise an inductive element, for example, an inductive coil and a device for passing a varying electric current, such as an alternating electric current, through the inductive element. The varying electric current in the inductive element produces a varying magnetic field.’)
wherein the measurement device is configured to determine values associated to physical characteristics of the susceptor arrangement from measurements related to a load applied to the control circuit responsive to a susceptor arrangement in operational communication with the inductive heating arrangement; and (abstract; 24 page 50 to 21 page 51; 116, 120 fig. 1,’ aerosol generating material’, ‘consumable’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Moloney to provide an apparatus for generating desired parameters such as temperature for an aerosol generating device used for testing a consumable an/or susceptor arrangement.
Moloney does not teach:
wherein the control circuit is configured to power the inductive heating arrangement for one test cycle or several subsequent test cycles of the susceptor arrangement and configured to determine if determined values associated to physical characteristics of the susceptor arrangement correspond to predetermined susceptor values.
Greenfield teaches:
wherein the control circuit is configured to power the inductive heating arrangement for one test cycle or several subsequent test cycles of the susceptor arrangement and configured to determine if determined values associated to physical characteristics of the susceptor arrangement correspond to predetermined susceptor values. (para. [0277]; 110, 140, 150 fig(s) 1, 3A to 4A, ‘determines a plurality of parameters generates parameters and calibrates for testing susceptor arrangement’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Greenfield to determine a plurality of physical characteristics for an apparatus for generating desired parameters such as temperature for an aerosol generating device used for testing a consumable an/or susceptor arrangement.
In regards to claim 3, Moloney & Greenfield teach a testing equipment according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein values associated to physical characteristics of the susceptor arrangement are apparent electrical conductance values and the predetermined susceptor values are predetermined electrical conductance values. (Greenfield: para(s) [0202, 0240, 0330], ‘Additionally or alternatively, the configuration of susceptor element 140 is based on a predetermined type and/or amount of one or more materials from which susceptor element 140 is constructed.’)
In regards to claim 4, Moloney & Greenfield teach a testing equipment according to claim 1, (claim rejection 1) wherein the holder comprises a cavity for receiving and accommodating a susceptor arrangement in the cavity. (Moloney: 9-14 page 14, ‘The consumable 120 comprising the aerosol generating material 116, and is this example also comprising the susceptor arrangement 110, is inserted into the body 112 configure the device 100 for use.’; 110, 112, 116 fig. 1, ‘susceptor arrangement’, ‘outer body’, ‘aerosol generating material’)
In regards to claim 8, Moloney & Greenfield teach a testing equipment according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) further comprising a calibration susceptor for running a test cycle for determining a calibration factor for the testing equipment, the calibration susceptor having fix susceptor values, throughout a test cycle. (Greenfield: para. [0277]; 110, 140, 150 fig(s) 1, 3A to 4A, ‘determines a plurality of parameters generates parameters and calibrates for testing susceptor arrangement’)
In regards to claim 16, Moloney & Greenfield teach a testing equipment according to claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) further comprising a calibration susceptor for running a test cycle for determining a calibration factor for the testing equipment, the calibration susceptor having fix susceptor values comprising fix electrical conductance values, throughout a test cycle. (Greenfield: para. [0277]; 110, 140, 150 fig(s) 1, 3A to 4A, ‘determines a plurality of parameters generates parameters and calibrates for testing susceptor arrangement’)
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moloney (WO-2021176224), Greenfield (WO-2020223350), in view of Mironov (TWI692274 also published as TW201601600).
Moloney & Greenfield teach:
In regards to claim 2, Moloney & Greenfield teach a testing equipment according to claim 1, wherein the control module is configured to output acceptance of a tested susceptor assembly, (Moloney: abstract; 24 page 50 to 21 page 51; 116, 120 fig. 1,’ aerosol generating material’, ‘consumable’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Moloney & Greenfield to provide an apparatus for generating desired parameters such as temperature for an aerosol generating device used for testing a consumable an/or susceptor arrangement.
Moloney & Greenfield don’t teach:
if predetermined susceptor values are reached or to output rejection of a tested susceptor assembly, if predetermined susceptor values are not reached.
Mironov teaches:
if predetermined susceptor values are reached or to output rejection of a tested susceptor assembly, if predetermined susceptor values are not reached. (para(s) [0035-0038], ‘the power supply electronics further include a microcontroller, which is programmed to interrupt the generation of AC power from the DC/AC inverter when the temperature of the sensor of the aerosol forming substrate exceeds the Curie temperature of the sensor during operation, and is programmed to resume the generation of AC power when the temperature of the sensor drops back below the Curie temperature.’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Mironov to provide a method for an apparatus for generating desired parameters such as temperature for an aerosol generating device used for testing a consumable an/or susceptor arrangement.
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) 9-13, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moloney (WO-2021176224), Greenfield (WO-2020223350), in view of Mironov (TWI692274 also published as TW201601600).
Moloney teaches:
In regards to claim 9, Moloney teaches a method for testing a susceptor arrangement (110 fig. 1, ‘susceptor arrangement’) in a testing equipment in simulated heating conditions of a heated susceptor arrangement (110 fig. 1, ‘susceptor arrangement’) in an aerosol-generating device during a user experience, the method comprising: (100, 116, 120 fig. 1, ‘aerosol generating device’, ’ aerosol generating material’, ‘consumable’)
a) bringing the susceptor arrangement into operational communication with an inductive heating arrangement, and inductively heating the susceptor arrangement with the inductive heating arrangement; (abstract; 24 page 50 to 21 page 51; 116, 120 fig. 1,’ aerosol generating material’, ‘consumable’)
b) determining values associated to physical characteristics of the susceptor arrangement from measurements related to a load applied to a control circuit, the measurements being responsive to the susceptor arrangement in operational communication with the inductive heating arrangement during a test cycle; (abstract; 24 page 50 to 21 page 51; 116, 120 fig. 1,’ aerosol generating material’, ‘consumable’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Moloney to provide an apparatus for generating desired parameters such as temperature for an aerosol generating device used for testing a consumable an/or susceptor arrangement.
Moloney does not teach:
providing a susceptor arrangement comprising at least a first susceptor material and a second susceptor material;
repeating steps a) and b); thereby determining values associated to physical characteristics of the susceptor arrangement for subsequent test cycles; comparing determined values associated to physical characteristics of the tested susceptor arrangement with predetermined susceptor values;
accepting or rejecting the tested susceptor arrangement, if a difference between determined and predetermined susceptor values exceeds a predefined threshold.
Greenfield teaches
characteristics of the susceptor arrangement for subsequent test cycles; comparing determined values associated to physical characteristics of the tested susceptor arrangement with predetermined susceptor values; (para. [0277]; 110, 140, 150 fig(s) 1, 3A to 4A, ‘determines a plurality of parameters generates parameters and calibrates for testing susceptor arrangement’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Greenfield to determine a plurality of physical characteristics for an apparatus for generating desired parameters such as temperature for an aerosol generating device used for testing a consumable an/or susceptor arrangement.
Greenfield does not teach:
providing a susceptor arrangement comprising at least a first susceptor material and a second susceptor material;
accepting or rejecting the tested susceptor arrangement, if a difference between determined and predetermined susceptor values exceeds a predefined threshold.
Mironov teaches:
providing a susceptor arrangement comprising at least a first susceptor material and a second susceptor material; (para [0037], ‘When a receptor is made of more than one material, the material of the receptor can be optimized in other aspects. For example, the selection of materials can ensure that the Curie temperature of the first material of the receptor is higher than the maximum temperature to which the receptor should be heated. Thus, the first material of the sensor can be optimized, for example, to generate maximum heat and transfer it to the remainder of the aerosol forming substrate to provide efficient heating of the sensor. However, in addition, the sensor may include a second material whose Curie temperature corresponds to the maximum temperature reached by the sensor, and the magnetic characteristics of the sensor change completely once this Curie temperature is reached.’
accepting or rejecting the tested susceptor arrangement, if a difference between determined and predetermined susceptor values exceeds a predefined threshold. (para(s) [0035-0038], ‘the power supply electronics further include a microcontroller, which is programmed to interrupt the generation of AC power from the DC/AC inverter when the temperature of the sensor of the aerosol forming substrate exceeds the Curie temperature of the sensor during operation, and is programmed to resume the generation of AC power when the temperature of the sensor drops back below the Curie temperature.’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Mironov to provide a method for an apparatus for generating desired parameters such as temperature for an aerosol generating device used for testing a consumable an/or susceptor arrangement.
In regards to claim 10, Moloney, Greenfield, & Mironov teach a method according to claim 9, therein averaging determined values associated to physical characteristics of the susceptor arrangement over several or over all test cycles and comparing said averaged susceptor values with the predetermined susceptor values. (Greenfied: para [0310], ‘In some non-limiting embodiments, control device 110 provides an amount of electrical current to inductor element 120. For example, control device 110 may provide an amount of electrical current to inductor element 120 based on a time average value of electrical current to be provided to inductor element 120. In such an example, the time average value of electrical current to be provided to inductor element 120 may be to maintain a specified temperature of susceptor element 140.’)
In regards to claim 11, Moloney, Greenfield, & Mironov teach a method according to claim 9, (see claim rejection 9) where predetermined values associated to physical characteristics of the susceptor arrangement comprise a maximum and a minimum in electrical conductance per test cycle at predefined times during a test cycle. . (Greenfield: para. [0277]; 110, 140, 150 fig(s) 1, 3A to 4A, ‘determines a plurality of parameters generates parameters and calibrates for testing susceptor arrangement’)
In regards to claim 12, Moloney, Greenfield, & Mironov teach a method according to claim 9, (see claim rejection 9) wherein the first susceptor material of the susceptor arrangement and the second susceptor material of the susceptor arrangement are in intimate physical contact with each other, wherein the second susceptor material comprises a Curie temperature of below 500 degree Celsius. (Mironov: para [0037], ‘teaches one can have a first and a second material whose Curie temperature corresponds the maximum temperature reached by the sensor meaning material used can vary therefore the Curie temperature can vary.’)
In regards to claim 13, Moloney, Greenfield, & Mironov teach a method according to claim 9, (see claim rejection 9) wherein the first susceptor material comprises no Curie temperature or comprises a Curie temperature. (Mironov: para(s) [0035-0038])
In regards to claim 17, Moloney, Greenfield, & Mironov teach a method according to claim 9, where predetermined values associated to physical characteristics of the susceptor arrangement comprise a maximum and a minimum in electrical conductance per test cycle at predefined times during a test cycle, during a heating period of the test cycle. (Greenfield: para. [0277]; 110, 140, 150 fig(s) 1, 3A to 4A, ‘determines a plurality of parameters generates parameters and calibrates for testing susceptor arrangement’)
In regards to claim 18, Moloney, Greenfield, & Mironov teach a method according to claim 9, (see claim rejection 9) wherein the first susceptor material comprises a Curie temperature above 500 degree Celsius. (Mironov: para [0037], ‘teaches one can have a first and a second material whose Curie temperature corresponds the maximum temperature reached by the sensor meaning material used can vary therefore the Curie temperature can vary.’)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5-7, 14-15 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 Examiner completed a Similarity Search and PE2E search 06/24/2026. The subject matter in claims 5-7, 14-15 was not taught in any of the references reviewed by the Examiner which discloses a clip arrangement in a cavity for a susceptor arrangement, comprising a cooling device between heating cycles a moveable holder to a control mechanism a second susceptor material comprising a Ni-Fe-alloy comprising 75 weight percent to 85 weight percent Ni and 10 weight percent to 25 weight percent Fe, and a third susceptor material intimately coupled to the second susceptor material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited Ribarich (US-20130277362-A1), Ogasawara (US-20040004071-A1), and Campbell (US-5613505) references further describe inductive heating systems as described by the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3973. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Stephanie E Bloss can be reached at (571)272-3555. 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.
/K.C.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights