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
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)(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.
Claims 1–3, 5, 7, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by machine translation of Zhang (CN 110933783 A).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches an aerosol generating device (aerosol generating device 1000; ¶ [0070]) comprising a body (main unit 1120 including main body 1121; ¶ [0051]) defining a first insertion space (heating cavity formed in main body 1121; ¶ [0051]); a heater holder (fastener 1130; ¶ [0063]) coupled to a heater (fastener 1130 clamps heating component 1110; ¶ [0046]), inserted into the first insertion space (fastener 1130 partially inserted into the heating cavity; ¶ [0064]), and defining a second insertion space (hollow through-hole of fastener 1130; ¶ [0073]); and an extractor inserted into the second insertion space (tubular structure of bracket 1220 inserted into the hollow structure of fastener 1130; ¶ [0073]) and defining a third insertion space (substrate-receiving cavity of bracket 1220; ¶ [0072]).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang further teaches an upper case configured to be detachably coupled to the body to cover an upper portion of the body (upper cover 1210 slidably fitted to and magnetically connected with main unit 1120; ¶ [0074]), wherein the extractor is coupled to the upper case (bracket 1220 connected to upper cover 1210; ¶ [0072]), and the upper case comprises an insertion hole communicating an opening of the third insertion space with an outside (through-hole of upper cover 1210 communicating the substrate-receiving cavity with the outside; ¶ [0072]).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang further teaches the heater holder detachably coupled to the upper case (fastener 1130 removably receiving tubular bracket 1220 connected to upper cover 1210; ¶¶ [0072]–[0073]).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang further teaches the heater holder protruding downward from the upper case when the heater holder and the upper case are coupled (fastener 1130 extending downward from upper cover 1210 in the assembled device; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang further teaches the heater holder detachably coupled to the body (fastener 1130 detachably connected to main unit 1120; ¶ [0046]).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang further teaches the heater holder detachably coupled to each of the upper case (fastener 1130 removably receiving tubular bracket 1220 connected to upper cover 1210; ¶¶ [0072]–[0073]) and the body (fastener 1130 detachably connected to main unit 1120; ¶ [0046]).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang further teaches an air gap in the second insertion space between an outer surface of the extractor and an inner surface of the heater holder (gap between the tubular structure of bracket 1220 and the hollow structure of fastener 1130 forming part of the air-intake channel; ¶ [0073]).
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 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over machine translation of Zhang (CN 110933783 A).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 3 as set forth above. Zhang does not expressly teach a first coupling member disposed at the heater holder and a second coupling member disposed at the upper case, wherein the first coupling member and the second coupling member are coupled together via an attractive force. Zhang, however, teaches a magnet disposed at the upper cover (magnet at an end of upper cover 1210; ¶ [0074]) and a corresponding magnet or magnetic member (magnet or magnetic metal provided on main unit 1120; ¶ [0074]) that cooperate to form a magnetic connection.
It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless the duplication produces a new and unexpected result. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Zhang already employs corresponding magnetic coupling members to releasably couple adjacent components. Thus, duplicating Zhang's known magnetic coupling arrangement at the fastener 1130–upper cover 1210 interface would merely use the same known coupling structure in the same predictable manner to provide releasable attractive-force retention between those components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang by duplicating its corresponding magnetic coupling members at the fastener 1130–upper cover 1210 interface so that the heater holder and upper case are coupled together via an attractive force.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 7 as set forth above, including the heater holder detachably coupled to the body (fastener 1130 detachably connected to main unit 1120; ¶ [0046]). Zhang does not expressly teach a first coupling member disposed at the heater holder and a coupling member disposed at the body, wherein the coupling members are coupled together via an attractive force. Zhang nevertheless teaches corresponding magnetic members used to releasably couple upper cover 1210 to main unit 1120 by magnetic attraction (¶ [0074]).
It has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Zhang's magnetic coupling arrangement is a known technique within the same device for releasably retaining two adjoining components. Applying that arrangement to the existing detachable fastener 1130--main unit 1120 interface would predictably provide attractive-force retention while maintaining detachability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang's fastener 1130---main unit 1120 connection to employ corresponding coupling members coupled together via an attractive force.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over machine translation of Zhang (CN 110933783 A) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0106052 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 5 as set forth above, including the heater holder (fastener 1130; Zhang ¶ [0063]) and the upper case (upper cover 1210; Zhang ¶ [0072]). Zhang does not expressly teach a wing of the heater holder extending over an outer surface of the upper case.
Lee, like Zhang, relates to releasably assembled aerosol-generating devices and teaches a hook portion 65 extending from flange 18 toward an adjacent housing such that hook portion 65 is positioned over an outer surface of second housing 20 when the components are coupled (¶ [0095]). Lee further teaches that the hook arrangement provides releasable mechanical coupling between the adjoining components (¶ [0100]).
It has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Thus, applying Lee's known projecting hook/wing arrangement to Zhang's heater-holder/upper-case interface would predictably provide additional releasable mechanical retention between the coupled components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang's heater holder to include a wing extending over the outer surface of the upper case, as taught by Lee, to provide releasable mechanical retention between the coupled components.
Claims 10–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over machine translation of Zhang (CN 110933783 A) in view of Chen (US 2017/0344076 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 9 as set forth above, including the heater holder (fastener 1130; Zhang ¶ [0063]), the upper case (upper cover 1210; Zhang ¶ [0072]), and the body (main unit 1120; Zhang ¶ [0051]). Zhang does not teach a first coupling member disposed at the heater holder, a second coupling member disposed at the upper case, wherein the first coupling member and the second coupling member are coupled together via a first attractive force, and a third coupling member disposed at the body, wherein the first coupling member and the third coupling member are coupled together via a second attractive force.
Chen is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem addressed by the claimed arrangement—releasably coupling an intervening component to respective surrounding components using attractive forces. Chen teaches movable sleeve 33 carrying third magnetic member 35 between cover 2 carrying first magnetic member 31 and chassis 1 carrying second magnetic member 32, such that magnetic member 35 selectively interacts by magnetic attraction with magnetic members 31 and 32 (¶ [0024]).
It has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Thus, applying Chen's magnetic arrangement to Zhang's analogous heater-holder/upper-case/body arrangement would predictably allow fastener 1130 to be releasably retained relative to both upper cover 1210 and main unit 1120 by respective attractive forces.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang's fastener 1130 to carry a first coupling member configured to attract a second coupling member on upper cover 1210 and a third coupling member on main unit 1120, as taught by Chen, thereby providing the claimed first and second attractive forces.
Regarding claim 11, modified Zhang as set forth regarding claim 10 teaches the claimed first, second, and third coupling-member arrangement, but does not expressly teach the first attractive force and the second attractive force having different strengths.
Chen teaches staged disengagement of the respective magnetic connections such that one magnetic interface separates while the intervening sleeve remains magnetically retained by the other interface, followed by separation of the remaining interface upon further movement (¶ [0036]). Thus, Chen teaches that the relative magnetic retention forces affect the sequence in which the coupled components separate.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are taught in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B). Because the relative magnetic-force strength determines which coupling releases first, the relative strengths are result-effective variables.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the first and second attractive forces of modified Zhang with different strengths to obtain predictable staged separation of the respective magnetic couplings, as taught by Chen.
Regarding claim 12, modified Zhang as set forth regarding claim 10 teaches a heater holder comprising a pipe defining the second insertion space and an extension portion extending outwardly from the pipe (fastener 1130 having a tubular portion and enlarged outwardly extending portion; Zhang Fig. 7), but does not expressly teach the first coupling member disposed at the extension portion.
Chen teaches magnetic member 35 disposed on movable sleeve 33 at the portion positioned to interact with respective magnetic members of the cover and chassis (¶ [0024]).
It has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Positioning Chen's common magnetic coupling member on Zhang's outwardly extending portion would predictably position the coupling member adjacent the upper case and body so that it can interact with corresponding coupling members on both surrounding components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dispose the first coupling member on the extension portion of Zhang's heater holder so that the common coupling member is positioned to magnetically couple the heater holder to the upper case and body as taught by Chen.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over machine translation of Zhang (CN 110933783 A) in view of Chen (US 2017/0344076 A1), and further in view of Reevell (US 2021/0345673 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang as modified by Chen teaches the limitations of claim 12 as set forth above. Zhang further teaches the heater holder having a pipe defining the second insertion space and an extension portion extending from the pipe (fastener 1130; Zhang Fig. 7) and a body pipe defining the first insertion space (tubular heat sink 1140 defining the heating cavity; Zhang ¶ [0065]). Modified Zhang does not expressly teach the extension portion of the heater holder supported by the body when the heater holder is inserted into the first insertion space and an air gap in the first insertion space between an outer surface of the pipe of the heater holder and an inner wall of the body pipe defining the first insertion space.
Reevell, like Zhang, relates to aerosol-generating devices and teaches tubular heating chamber 108 supported within outer casing 102 by outwardly extending flange 138 (¶ [0068]). Reevell further teaches an air gap surrounding heating chamber 108 to reduce heat transfer from the heating chamber to outer casing 102 (¶ [0069]).
It has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Reevell's flange-supported spaced tubular arrangement addresses the same structural problem of supporting an inner tubular heating component within an outer body while maintaining spacing between them. Applying that arrangement to modified Zhang would predictably support the heater-holder pipe within the surrounding body pipe while maintaining an insulating air gap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Zhang as modified by Chen so that the extension portion of the heater holder is supported by the body while an air gap is maintained between the outer surface of the heater-holder pipe and the inner wall of the body pipe, for the predictable benefit taught by Reevell of reducing heat transfer to the surrounding body.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over machine translation of Zhang (CN 110933783 A) in view of Park et al. (WO 2020/122428 A1; corresponding U.S. publication US 2021/0093009 A1 cited herein for English-language disclosure).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth above and further teaches wherein the heater protrudes upward from a bottom of the heater holder into the second insertion space (heating element 1111 extending upward through fastener 1130; Zhang Fig. 4), and wherein the extractor comprises a through-hole at a bottom of the third insertion space such that the heater passes through the through-hole to be disposed in the third insertion space when the extractor is inserted into the second insertion space (heating element 1111 extending through the bottom opening of bracket 1220 into the substrate-receiving cavity; Zhang ¶ [0072]).
Zhang does not teach an induction coil surrounding the first insertion space and configured to cause the heater to generate heat.
Park teaches an aerosol-generating apparatus having susceptor 110 arranged within an ejector 120 and coil 130 surrounding ejector 120 along its longitudinal direction when ejector 120 is coupled to the apparatus (¶ [0058] of corresponding US 2021/0093009 A1). Park further teaches that coil 130 applies an alternating magnetic field to susceptor 110 such that susceptor 110 generates heat (¶ [0062]).
Park is particularly pertinent because it teaches the same type of aerosol-generating arrangement in which an induction-heatable heater extends within a removable surrounding member while an induction coil surrounds the corresponding receiving region. Thus, Park supplies a known induction-heating technique directly applicable to Zhang's heater and surrounding insertion structure.
It has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP § 2143(I)(D). Applying Park's known induction-heating arrangement to Zhang would predictably permit heating element 1111 to generate heat through an alternating magnetic field produced by a coil surrounding the first insertion space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang according to Park by providing an induction coil surrounding Zhang's first insertion space and configuring heating element 1111 as an induction-heatable heater, such that the induction coil causes the heater to generate heat.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. 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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights