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 § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fallon et al. (EP 3725172) as cited by applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Fallon discloses, an aerosol generating device (apparatus 300) configured to operate with a flat-shaped tobacco article (the apparatus 300 is operated with cartridge 400 which has a flat shape; in particular, the present application does not specify which dimensions would qualify an article to be a flat-shaped article; according to par. [0025] and [0065], the cartridge may contain a tobacco material) comprising a substrate portion, (see par. [0064]: "the aerosol generating material in the cartridge 400"; and par. [0025]) the device comprising: a heating chamber (the cavity defined by the interior of heater support section 307 and lid section 309, when in the operating position, represents a heating chamber in the sense of the present application, i.e. a chamber receiving a heater) extending according to a chamber axis (i.e. the longitudinal axis of the apparatus 300) and configured to receive the substrate portion of the tobacco article, (see fig. 12 and par. [0077] to [0080]: when in the operating position, the opposing sections "A" of the planar bases 404, 404' are received in the first longitudinal slot 307b and the second longitudinal slot 309b receives respective second opposing sections "B" of the planar bases 404, 404') the heating chamber comprising a heating plate defining two opposite edges extending according to the chamber axis; (see the plate-shaped heater 313 shown in fig. 8 and par. [0062]: "heater 313 is in the form of a thin elongate plate") a supporting structure extending along the chamber axis and comprising two recess portions facing one another, each recess portion being adapted to receive at least a part of one of said edges of the heating plate and (see par. [0059]: "The heater support section 307 defines a platform that supports a heater 313 and par. [0062]: "The heater 313 is arranged with its longitudinal axis parallel with that of the apparatus 300 and is supported in the heater support section 307 upright along one of its long edges "; wherein it is clear from fig. 8, fig. 11a, 11b and from the sliding kinematics of the sections 307, 309 - see par. [0077] - that the longitudinal edges of the heater 313 are received in the first longitudinal slot 307b and second longitudinal slot 309b) delimited by two opposite retention sides designed to retain the corresponding edge; (i.e. first longitudinal slot 307b and second longitudinal slot 309b) at least one retention side of each recess portion being inclined in respect with a transversal axis parallel to the heating plate and perpendicular to the chamber axis. (this feature is realized in Fallon by the rounded edges of the first longitudinal slot 307b, as shown in fig. 11a - see also the present claim 4, See Paragraphs [0056]-[0087])
Regarding claims 2, 4, Figs 11a and 11b show the retention sides 307a and 307b being inclined and having a rounded edge. Regarding claim 3, the slots 307a and 307b are in contact with the heating element as shown in Fig 12. Regarding claim 5-6, Fig 11a shows each groove as being along the arrows.
PNG
media_image1.png
358
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the heater 313 is in good thermal contact with the cartridge body which houses the aerosol generating material. (See Paragraph [0080]) Regarding claim 9, Figs 11a and 11b show the supporting parts being symmetrical. Regarding claims 10 and 11, a holding structure designed to clump said symmetric parts together according to the transversal axis / the holding structure is a part of a housing of the device), see in Fallon the mutually engaging sections 307, 309, which do also form part of the device housing, as shown in fig. 8, 9.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallon et al. (EP 3725172).
Regarding claim 8, Fallon may fail to disclose the heater is made from ceramic. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a ceramic heater, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallon et al. (EP 3725172) in view of Yamada (US 2020/0120981).
The teachings of Fallon have been discussed above. Fallon fails to disclose the heating chamber comprises two heating plates facing each other.
Yamada discloses, Fig 2 a shows the heating chamber in an aerosol generating device, would have two heating plates 16, facing each other. (See Paragraphs [0014], and [0050])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to adapt Fallon in view of Yamada to provide the to heating plates facing each other for attaining a better flavor from the smoking material.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fallon et al. (EP 3725172) in view of Colosio (US 2015/0283338).
The teachings of Fallon have been discussed above. Fallon fails to disclose delimiting the heating chamber by a pair of lateral walls.
However, Colosio disclose an aerosol inhalation device having a chamber with side walls delimiting the chamber. (See Claim 18.) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to delimit the heating chamber by a pair of lateral walls for ensuring a secure fit of anything inserted into the chamber.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 15-18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights