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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 16-36 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claim 36 is newly added.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 12/03/2025 containing
amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-12, the Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would appreciate that making Iwanaga’s heater be part of the article as taught by Mironov would result in an article with a more complicated structure through a more complicated process and could not be produced using a current cigarette making machine with no modification thereto, and therefore it would not have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art to have considered making Iwanaga’s elongate internal heating element be part of the aerosol-generating article as taught by Mironov. The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive because Iwanaga teaches that various methods can be used for producing the electric heating-type smoking system, and the production methods described below are example production methods ([0045]). Further, Iwanaga makes no specific reference to the heater configuration being essential for the article to be produced using a current cigarette making machine. Rather, the paragraphs that the Applicant refers to reference the wrapper production line. Specifically, paragraph [0057] references the wrapper being made of paper on both sides makes it possible to provide a smoking article that can be produced at a high speed by using a current cigarette making machine with no modification thereto. Further, paragraphs [0070]-[0071] references the first sheet 43 of the smoking article containing the flavor component can be realized through a very simple process. None of these would one of ordinary skill in the art interpret as the heating element configuration negatively impacting the production process. Paragraph [0068] describes this configuration of the electric heating-type smoking system can be realized with a simple structure; however, there is no indication of the specifics of the configuration. Whether the configuration referenced is no heating material being part of the aerosol-generating article, or more likely, just the device comprising heating electronics for heating the article, of which the device comprising an induction coil and the article comprising a susceptor element would still define a simple structure. As such, there is nothing in Mironov that teaches away from the modification of Iwanaga’s elongate internal heating element to be part of the aerosol-generating article of Mironov.
On pages 12-13, the Applicant argues that as Mironov teaches the aerosol-forming substrate is preferably and advantageously in the form of a sheet and Iwanaga teaches that the sheet-processed material may be gathered instead of being cut may be used as the tobacco filler, when making the modification to Iwanaga one of ordinary skill in the art would have made Iwanaga’s tobacco filler a gathered homogenized sheet. The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive because Mironov teaches if the aerosol-forming substrate is a solid aerosol-forming substrate, the solid aerosol-forming substrate may comprise, for example, one or more of: powder, granules, pellets, shreds, strands, strips or sheets containing one or more of: herb leaf, tobacco leaf, tobacco ribs, expanded tobacco and homogenized tobacco [0031]. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the heating element of Mironov may be used with various types of tobacco substrates, such as the cut rag of a leaf tobacco of Iwanaga.
In specific regards to the Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-15, filed 12/03/2025, with respect to the new claim 36, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The new claim requires the new limitations of both an internal heating element that is a susceptor element and an external heating element that is a resistive element, of which the previously cited prior art does not teach. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously applied art and newly found art.
On pages 15-17, the Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the dimensions of the elongate susceptor in Mironov are not selected to reduce the likelihood of damaging of breaking the heating element as the elongate susceptor in Mironov does not need to penetrate the aerosol forming substrate, unlike the heating element in Iwanaga. The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive because both Iwanaga and Mironov are directed to heating elements for internally heating an aerosol-generating substrate. As such one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the dimensions of the elongate susceptor in Mironov could be successfully applied to the heater of the device of Iwanaga for internally heating the aerosol-generating substrate.
On pages 17-19, the Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious, from any combination of the cited references, to have selected the specifically claimed feature without hindsight knowledge of the Applicant’s claimed invention, and there is nothing that would have made the asserted modifications predictable. The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive because Mironov teaches clear motivation for having an elongate internal heating element located within the aerosol-generating substrate, that being as the elongate susceptor is part of a consumable item, and thus is only used once, any residues that form on the susceptor during heating do not cause a problem for heating of a subsequent aerosol-generating article, and the flavor of a sequence of aerosol-generating articles may be more consistent due to the fact that a fresh susceptor acts to heat each article (see [0011]). Further, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain the size of the elongate internal heating element of Mironov when incorporating the elongate internal heating element to Iwanaga, as Iwanaga is silent to size of the elongate internal heating element. Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to look to other known teachings of elongate heating element sizes that one of ordinary skill could apply to Iwanaga with a reasonable expectation of success in the elongate internal heating element being suitable sized for use in an aerosol generating device.
The following is the modified rejection made based on amendments made to the claims.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the aerosol-generating system comprising an aerosol-generating article with an elongate internal heating element that is a susceptor element and an aerosol-generating device comprising an external heating element that is a resistive heating element must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 36 recites an aerosol-generating system comprising: an aerosol-generating article comprising an elongate internal heating element located within the aerosol-generating substrate, wherein the internal heating element is a susceptor element, and an aerosol-generating device comprising an external heating element located around a perimeter of the device cavity, wherein the external heating element is a resistive heating element. However, the use of both external resistive heating element and internal susceptor heating elements at the same time does not appear to be envisaged by the Applicant based on the drawings and specification. It is not clear in the specification that those heating elements could be used in combination and appear to be listed more as alternatives. As such, claim 36 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claim(s) 16-25 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwanaga (WO2020/115897, citations will refer to the English equivalent US2021/0235747) in view of Mironov (US2017/0086508).
Regarding claims 16-20 and 25, Iwanaga teaches:
An aerosol-generating article (rod 14, [0013], figure 1) comprising:
An aerosol-generating section (tobacco part 24) comprising an aerosol-generating substrate (tobacco filler 23) comprising a plurality of strands of aerosol-generating material (a cut rag of a leaf tobacco in a random orientation, [0030]).
Wherein the aerosol-generating substrate has a density of 250 milligrams per cubic centimeter or more ([0032]). The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claim 16 range of between 100 milligrams per cubic centimeter and 700 milligrams per cubic centimeter and the claim 25 range of between 275 milligrams per cubic centimeter and 500 milligrams per cubic centimeter and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Wherein the aerosol-generating substrate is tobacco cut filler (the tobacco filler 23 is formed of a cut rag of leaf tobacco, [0030]).
As the tobacco filler 23, for example, dried tobacco leaf cut into strips having a width of 0.8 to 1.2 mm may be used ([0031]), which defines a mean cut width of the tobacco cut filler. The range taught by the prior art falls within the claim 17 range of between 0.3 mm and 2 mm and is therefore prima facie obvious.
A main body 12 that includes a heater 21 ([0014]). The heater 21 may be formed in the shape of a blade that can be inserted into the rod 14 to heat the rob 14 from the inside ([0018]), and therefore defines an elongate internal heating element located within the aerosol-generating substrate in thermal contact with the plurality of strands of aerosol-generating material. The heating manner of the heater 21 may be an induction heating manner ([0018]), and therefore reads on wherein the elongate internal heating element is a susceptor element.
Iwanaga does not appear to disclose (I) the aerosol-generating article comprising the elongate internal heating element, and (II) wherein a ratio of a mean cut width of the tobacco cut filler to a width of the elongate internal heating element is between 0.05 and 4, as Iwanaga is silent to the width of the elongate internal heating element.
In regard to (I), Mironov, directed to an aerosol-generating article teaches:
An aerosol-generating article (10) comprising an aerosol-generating section (aerosol-forming substrate 20) and an elongate internal heating element (blade-shaped susceptor 25) located within the aerosol-generating substrate in thermal contact with the aerosol-generating material (a blade-shaped susceptor 25 is located within the aerosol-forming substrate, in contact with the aerosol-forming substrate, [0097], figure 1); wherein the elongate internal heating element is a susceptor element (susceptor 25, [0097], figure 1).
The elongate susceptor is part of a consumable item, and thus is only used once. Thus, any residues that form on the susceptor during heating do not cause a problem for heating of a subsequent aerosol-generating article. The flavor of a sequence of aerosol-generating articles may be more consistent due to the fact that a fresh susceptor acts to heat each article ([0011]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to make the elongate internal heating element of Iwanaga be part of the aerosol-generating article as taught by Mironov, because both Iwanaga and Mironov are directed to aerosol generating systems for heating an aerosol generating article with a blade shape susceptor in contact with the aerosol-forming substrate, Mironov teaches the elongate susceptor being part of the aerosol-generating article makes the flavor of a sequence of aerosol-generating article more consistent, and this merely involves configuring a susceptor to internally heat an aerosol-generating article in a known way (i.e. as part of the aerosol-generating article) to a similar aerosol-generating substrate to yield predicable results.
In regard to (II), Mironov further teaches:
The susceptor preferably has a width of between 1 mm and 5 mm ([0022]).
Therefore, as Iwanaga is silent to size of the elongate internal heating element, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to look to other known teachings of elongate heating element sizes that one of ordinary skill could apply to Iwanaga with a reasonable expectation of success in the elongate internal heating element being suitable sized for use in an aerosol generating device. As such, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate to Iwanaga the width the elongate heating element being between 1 mm and 5 mm as taught by Mironov, because both Iwanaga and Mironov are directed to aerosol generating devices with an elongate internal heating element for heating an aerosol generating article, and this merely involves incorporating a known width of an elongate internal heating element to a similar aerosol generating device to yield predicable results. The elongate internal heating element having a width of between 1 mm and 5 mm falls withing the claim 18 range of between 0.5 mm and 5 mm and is therefore prima facie obvious.
As a mean cut width of the tobacco cut filler of Iwanaga is between 0.8 to 1.2 mm, modified Iwanaga having a width of the elongate internal heating element be between 1 and 5 mm would yield a ratio of a mean cut width of the tobacco cut filler to a width of the elongate internal heating element is between 0.16 and 1.2. The range taught by the prior art falls within the claimed range of between 0.05 and 4 as recited in claim 16, between 0.06 and 3 as recited in claim 19, and between 0.13 and 1.5 as recited in claim 20, and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 21, Iwanaga further teaches wherein the aerosol generating substrate has a mass of 250 to 320 mg ([0032]). The range taught by the prior art falls within the claimed range of between 120 and 340 mg and therefore is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 22, Iwanaga further teaches wherein an average length of the plurality of strands of aerosol-generating material is approximately 1 to 40 mm ([0031]).
Iwanaga is silent to the length of the elongate internal heating element. However, Mironov further teaches that an elongate internal heating element may preferably have a length of between 5 and 15 mm ([0022], length of the susceptor).
Therefore, as Iwanaga is silent to size of the elongate internal heating element, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to look to other known teachings of elongate heating element sizes that one of ordinary skill could apply to Iwanaga with a reasonable expectation of success in the elongate internal heating element being suitable sized for use in an aerosol generating device. As such, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate to Iwanaga the length the elongate heating element being between 5 and 15 mm as taught by Mironov, because both Iwanaga and Mironov are directed to aerosol generating devices with an elongate internal heating element for heating an aerosol generating article, and this merely involves incorporating a known length of an elongate internal heating element to a similar aerosol generating device to yield predicable results. Modified Iwanaga having a length of the elongate internal heating element be between 5 and 15 mm would yield a ratio of an average length of the plurality of strands of aerosol-generating material to a length of the elongate internal heating element is between 0.067 and 8. The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of between 0.1 and 1 and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 23, Iwanaga further teaches that a width of the aerosol-generating section is 7 mm ([0032], the circumference of the tobacco part 24 is 22 mm). As modified Iwanaga has the width of the elongate internal heating element being between 1 and 5 mm, a ratio of the width of the elongate internal heating element to a width of the aerosol-generating section is between 0.14 and 0.71 which falls within the claimed range of between 0.1 and 0.8 and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 24, Iwanaga further teaches wherein the aerosol-generating material comprises between 10 percent by weight and 30 percent by weight of aerosol former (where the tobacco filler includes tobacco and the aerosol-generating base material [0031]; the aerosol-generating base material is preferably contained in an amount of 10 to 30% by weight with respect to the leaf tobacco and the aerosol-generating base material is a material capable of generating an aerosol through heating [0032]; and therefore the aerosol-generating base material is considered to be an aerosol former). The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of between 15 percent by weight and 30 percent by weight of aerosol former and therefore is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 27, Iwanaga further teaches the aerosol-generating article further comprising a downstream section located downstream of the aerosol-generating section (connecting part 27), the downstream section comprising a support element having an upstream end abutting the aerosol-generating section (paper tube 35, figure 2, [0028]).
Regarding claim 28, modified Iwanaga further teaches wherein the elongate internal heating element extends between an upstream end of the aerosol-generating section and a downstream end of the aerosol-generating section (as shown in Figure 1 of Mironov).
Regarding claims 29-33, Iwanaga teaches:
• An aerosol-generating system (electric heating-type smoking system 11), comprising: an aerosol-generating article (rod 14, [0013], figure 1) comprising:
• An aerosol-generating section (tobacco part 24) comprising an aerosol-generating substrate (tobacco filler 23) comprising a plurality of strands of aerosol-generating material (a cut rag of a leaf tobacco in a random orientation, [0030]).
• Wherein the aerosol-generating substrate has a density of 250 milligrams per cubic centimeter or more ([0032]). The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of between 100 milligrams per cubic centimeter and 700 milligrams per cubic centimeter and is therefore prima facie obvious.
• An aerosol-generating device (main body 12) comprising an elongate internal heating element configured to be inserted into the aerosol-generating substrate of the aerosol-generating section of the aerosol-generating article (heater 21 that may be formed in the shape of a blade that can be inserted into the rod 14 (tobacco part 24) to heat the rod 14 from the inside, [0018]).
• Wherein the aerosol-generating substrate is tobacco cut filler (the tobacco filler 23 is formed of a cut rag of leaf tobacco, [0030]).
• As the tobacco filler 23, for example, dried tobacco leaf cut into strips having a width of 0.8 to 1.2 mm may be used ([0031]), which defines a mean cut width of the tobacco cut filler. The range taught by the prior art falls within the claim 30 range of between 0.3 mm and 2 mm and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Iwanaga does not appear to disclose wherein a ratio of an average width of the plurality of strands of aerosol-generating material to a width of the elongate internal heating element is between 0.05 and 4, as Iwanaga is silent to the width of the elongate internal heating element.
Mironov further teaches:
The susceptor preferably has a width of between 1 mm and 5 mm ([0022]).
Therefore, as Iwanaga is silent to size of the elongate internal heating element, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to look to other known teachings of elongate heating element sizes that one of ordinary skill could apply to Iwanaga with a reasonable expectation of success in the elongate internal heating element being suitable sized for use in an aerosol generating device. As such, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate to Iwanaga the width the elongate heating element being between 1 mm and 5 mm as taught by Mironov, because both Iwanaga and Mironov are directed to aerosol generating devices with an elongate internal heating element for heating an aerosol generating article, and this merely involves incorporating a known width of an elongate internal heating element to a similar aerosol generating device to yield predicable results. The elongate internal heating element having a width of between 1 mm and 5 mm falls withing the claim 31 range of between 0.5 mm and 5 mm and is therefore prima facie obvious.
As a mean cut width of the tobacco cut filler of Iwanaga is between 0.8 to 1.2 mm, modified Iwanaga having a width of the elongate internal heating element be between 1 and 5 mm would yield a mean cut width of the tobacco cut filler to a width of the elongate internal heating element is between 0.16 and 1.2. The range taught by the prior art falls within the claimed range of between 0.05 and 4 as recited in claim 29, between 0.06 and 3 as recited in claim 32, and between 0.13 and 1.5 as recited in claim 33, and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 34, Iwanaga further teaches wherein the aerosol generating substrate has a mass of 250 to 320 mg ([0032]). The range taught by the prior art falls within the claimed range of between 120 and 340 mg and therefore is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 35, Iwanaga further teaches wherein an average length of the plurality of strands of aerosol-generating material is approximately 1 to 40 mm ([0031]).
Iwanaga is silent to the length of the elongate internal heating element. However, Mironov further teaches that an elongate internal heating element may preferably have a length of between 5 and 15 mm ([0022], length of the susceptor).
Therefore, as Iwanaga is silent to size of the elongate internal heating element, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to look to other known teachings of elongate heating element sizes that one of ordinary skill could apply to Iwanaga with a reasonable expectation of success in the elongate internal heating element being suitable sized for use in an aerosol generating device. As such, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate to Iwanaga the length the elongate heating element being between 5 and 15 mm as taught by Mironov, because both Iwanaga and Mironov are directed to aerosol generating devices with an elongate internal heating element for heating an aerosol generating article, and this merely involves incorporating a known length of an elongate internal heating element to a similar aerosol generating device to yield predicable results. Modified Iwanaga having a length of the elongate internal heating element be between 5 and 15 mm would yield a ratio of an average length of the plurality of strands of aerosol-generating material to a length of the elongate internal heating element is between 0.067 and 8. The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of between 0.1 and 1 and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwanaga (WO2020/115897, citations will refer to the English equivalent US2021/0235747) in view of Mironov (US2017/0086508) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Zuber (WO2013/098410, cited in IDS dated 12/30/2024).
Regarding claim 26, Iwanaga does not appear to disclose the aerosol-generating article further comprising an upstream section located upstream of the aerosol-generating section, the upstream section comprising an upstream element having a downstream end abutting the aerosol-generating section.
Zuber, directed to an aerosol-generating article, teaches:
An aerosol-generating article (smoking article 1) comprising an upstream section located upstream of the aerosol-generating section (front plug 2 that is upstream of aerosol-forming substrate 7), the upstream section comprising an upstream element having a downstream end abutting the aerosol-generating section (as shown in figure 1, page 10, third paragraph).
The front-plug may prevent egress of the aerosol-forming substrate from the distal end of the rod during handling and shipping. Another advantage of the front-plug is that it may assist location of the aerosol-forming substrate at a predetermined distance from the distal end of the rod for optimum engagement with a heat source such as a heating element (page 4, fourth paragraph).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the aerosol generating article of Iwanaga by incorporating a front plug upstream of the aerosol-generating section as taught by Zuber, because both Iwanaga and Zuber are directed to aerosol-generating articles, Zuber teaches the front-plug may prevent egress of the aerosol-forming substrate from the distal end of the rod during handling and shipping, and this merely involves incorporating a known element of an aerosol-generating article (i.e. front plug) to a similar aerosol generating article to yield predicable results.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwanaga (WO2020/115897, citations will refer to the English equivalent US2021/0235747) in view of Mironov (US2017/0086508) and Hodgson (US2024/0277054).
Regarding claim 36, Iwanaga teaches:
An aerosol-generating system (electric heating-type smoking system 11, [0013], figure 1), comprising:
An aerosol-generating article (rod 14, [0013], figure 1) comprising:
An aerosol-generating section (tobacco part 24) comprising an aerosol-generating substrate (tobacco filler 23) comprising a plurality of strands of aerosol-generating material (a cut rag of a leaf tobacco in a random orientation, [0030]).
Wherein the aerosol-generating substrate has a density of 250 milligrams per cubic centimeter or more ([0032]). The range taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of between 100 milligrams per cubic centimeter and 700 milligrams per cubic centimeter and is therefore prima facie obvious.
An elongate internal heating element in thermal contact with the plurality of strands of aerosol-generating material (heater 21 that may be formed in the shape of a blade that can be inserted into the rod 14 to heat the rod 14 from the inside, [0018]) and wherein the internal heating element is a susceptor element (the heating manner of the heater 21 may be an induction heating manner, [0018]).
As the tobacco filler 23, for example, dried tobacco leaf cut into strips having a width of 0.8 to 1.2 mm may be used ([0031]), which defines an average width of the plurality of strands of aerosol-generating material.
An aerosol-generating device (main body 12, [0013], figure 1) comprising:
A housing (housing 15) defining a device cavity (insertion part 13), the device cavity being configured to receive at least a portion of the aerosol-generating article ([0014], figure 4).
Iwanaga does not appear to disclose (I) the aerosol-generating article comprising the elongate internal heating element, (II) wherein a ratio of a mean cut width of the tobacco cut filler to a width of the elongate internal heating element is between 0.05 and 4, as Iwanaga is silent to the width of the elongate internal heating element, and (III) an external heating element located around a perimeter of the device cavity, and wherein the external heating element is a resistive heating element.
In regard to (I), Mironov, directed to an aerosol-generating article teaches:
An aerosol-generating article (10) comprising an aerosol-generating section (aerosol-forming substrate 20) and an elongate internal heating element (blade-shaped susceptor 25) located within the aerosol-generating substrate in thermal contact with the aerosol-generating material (a blade-shaped susceptor 25 is located within the aerosol-forming substrate, in contact with the aerosol-forming substrate, [0097], figure 1); wherein the elongate internal heating element is a susceptor element (susceptor 25, [0097], figure 1).
The elongate susceptor is part of a consumable item, and thus is only used once. Thus, any residues that form on the susceptor during heating do not cause a problem for heating of a subsequent aerosol-generating article. The flavor of a sequence of aerosol-generating articles may be more consistent due to the fact that a fresh susceptor acts to heat each article ([0011]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to make the elongate internal heating element of Iwanaga be part of the aerosol-generating article as taught by Mironov, because both Iwanaga and Mironov are directed to aerosol generating systems for heating an aerosol generating article with a blade shape susceptor in contact with the aerosol-forming substrate, Mironov teaches the elongate susceptor being part of the aerosol-generating article makes the flavor of a sequence of aerosol-generating article more consistent, and this merely involves configuring a susceptor to internally heat an aerosol-generating article in a known way (i.e. as part of the aerosol-generating article) to a similar aerosol-generating substrate to yield predictable results.
In regard to (II), Mironov further teaches:
The susceptor preferably has a width of between 1 mm and 5 mm ([0022]).
Therefore, as Iwanaga is silent to size of the elongate internal heating element, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to look to other known teachings of elongate heating element sizes that one of ordinary skill could apply to Iwanaga with a reasonable expectation of success in the elongate internal heating element being suitable sized for use in an aerosol generating device. As such, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate to Iwanaga the width the elongate heating element being between 1 mm and 5 mm as taught by Mironov, because both Iwanaga and Mironov are directed to aerosol generating devices with an elongate internal heating element for heating an aerosol generating article, and this merely involves incorporating a known width of an elongate internal heating element to a similar aerosol generating device to yield predictable results.
As an average width of the plurality of strands of the aerosol-generating material of Iwanaga is between 0.8 to 1.2 mm, modified Iwanaga having a width of the elongate internal heating element be between 1 and 5 mm would yield a ratio of an average width of the plurality of strands of aerosol-generating material to a width of the internal heating element is between 0.16 and 1.2. The range taught by the prior art falls within the claimed range of between 0.05 and 4 and is therefore prima facie obvious.
In regard to (III), Iwanaga further teaches the aerosol-generating device comprising an external heating element located around a perimeter of the device cavity, wherein the external heating element is a resistive heating element.
However, Iwanaga does not appear to disclose use of both an internal heating element and an external heating element, rather just as alternatives.
Hodgson, directed to an aerosol generating device, teaches:
Using both external and internal heating elements increases the heating effect of the article, including providing faster heating and a better heat distribution through the article ([0156]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the aerosol-generating system of Iwanaga by incorporating both internal and external heating elements as taught by Hodgson, because both Iwanaga and Hodgson are directed to aerosol-generating systems for heating aerosol-generating articles, and Hodgson teaches this provides faster heating and better heat distribution through the article.
It would be further obvious to make the internal heating element be a susceptor heating element and the external heating element be a resistive heating element as choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143, E.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicole A Szumigalski whose telephone number is (703)756-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 4:30 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, Philip Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1241. 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.
/N.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755