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 1-16 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claims recite the insulating member comprises a thermoplastic, PEEK, which is already required by claim 1, and therefore does not further limit the claim, and thus are unpatentable. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blandino et al. (WO2018073376A1 as cited in the IDS dated 06/30/2026 and hereinafter referring to the English version US-20200054069-A1), and further in view of Gewen (CN-108968154-A, hereinafter referring to the English translation provided), the NPL “PEEK” (Polyether ether ketone - Wikipedia), and Thorsen (WO-2017194763-A2).
Blandino directed to an aerosol provision device 100 (Figure 2;[0031]) comprising:
A tubular heating element 110 (i.e., heater component) ([0075]);
an insulating member 130 that encircles the heater component 110 (i.e., extending around the heater component) ([0075]);
at least one coil extending around the insulating member such that the insulating member is positioned between the at least one coil and the heater component (Figure 3; [0009]-[0017]), wherein the at least one coil is configured to heat the heater component ([0064]-[0066]),
Blandino discloses the insulating member can include one or more thermal insulators such as “a closed-cell material, a closed-cell plastics material, an aerogel, vacuum insulation, silicone foam, a rubber material, wadding, fleece, non-woven material, non-woven fleece, woven material, knitted material, nylon, foam, polystyrene, polyester, polyester filament, polypropylene, a blend of polyester and polypropylene” ([0075]), but Blandino does not explicitly disclose the insulating member has a melting point greater than about 250 degrees Celsius and comprises polyether ether ketone (PEEK), however, Bandino does teach the smokable material is heated to a temperature of about 50 to 250 degrees Celsius ([0071]), therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the insulating member which surrounds the heater, would need to have a melting point greater than at least 250 degrees Celsius to prevent the insulating member from melting and ruining the aerosol generating device.
Additionally, Gewen directed to a tobacco heating device, discloses the tobacco heating device comprising a heating rod, a heating tube 1015, and an insulation sleeve 1014 (i.e., insulating member) ([0045]).
Gwen further discloses the insulating member 1014 can be made of insulation materials such as polyether ether ketone (PEEK) ([0045]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Blandino by making the thermal insulating member PEEK as taught by Gewen, because PEEK is just another type of a thermally insulating material, both are directed to electronic cigarettes, Gewen teaches PEEK is a known insulating member in the art for insulating heater components ([0045]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of using a known insulator material of a similar device to yield predictable results.
Modified Blandino teaches PEEK as the insulating member, wherein PEEK comprises a melting point of 343 degrees Celsius (as evidenced by the NPL “PEEK”, page 1), which makes obvious the claimed range of the insulating member having a melting point greater than about 250 degrees Celsius, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Blandino further discloses the insulating member has a length in a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the device (Figures 2-3), but does not explicitly disclose the length of the insulating member in a parallel direction to the longitudinal axis is greater than the length of the heater component.
Thorsen, directed to an aerosol generating device, discloses the device comprising a tubular heating arrangement 23 surrounded by a thermal insulator 31 ([0034]-[0035]).
Thorsen further discloses the thermal insulator helps reduce heat passing from the heater arrangement to the exterior of the apparatus and helps keep down the power requirements for the heater arrangement as it reduces heat losses ([0035]).
Thorsen further discloses the insulator also helps keep the exterior of the apparatus cool during operation of the heater arrangement ([0035]) and the length of the insulating member 31 in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the device is greater than a length of the heater component 23 (Figures 2-4).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified Blandino by extending the insulating member to be longer than the heater component in a lengthwise direction, as taught by Thorsen, because both are directed to electronic cigarettes, Thorsen teaches the insulator helps reduce heat passing through to the exterior of the apparatus, helps keep down power requirements by reducing heat losses, and keeps the exterior of the apparatus cool during operation ([0035]), thus it would be obvious that extending the insulating member of Blandino to resemble the insulating members length of Thorsen, would obviously help further cool down the heater component and prevent loss of heat, and this merely involves applying a known technique of lengthening an insulating member of a similar device to yield predictable results.
In regards to claims 2-3, Modified Blandino discloses PEEK as the insulating member, which comprises a melting point of 343 degrees Celsius (as evidenced by the NPL “PEEK”, page 1). Therefore, the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the meting point being greater than about 300 and 340 degrees Celsius, respectively, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claims 4-5, Modified Blandino discloses the operating temperature of the device is anywhere from 50 to 250 degrees Celsius ([0071]) and further teaches the melting point of the insulating member, PEEK, is 343 degrees Celsius (Gewen [0045]; “PEEK” page 1), therefore Modified Blandino discloses a maximum temperature is less than the melting point of the insulating member by about 93 degrees Celsius. The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the difference between the maximum temperature of heating and the melting point of the insulating member being at least about 60 degrees Celsius, and at least about 90 degrees Celsius, respectively, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claims 6-7, Blandino discloses the insulating member comprising PEEK (Gewen [0045]), which has a thermal conductivity of 0.25 W/mK (“PEEK”, page 2), which is less than the respectively claimed thermal conductivities of less than 0.5 W/mK and 0.35 W/mK and therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claims 8-9, Blandino discloses the gap G of Figure 3 is anywhere from 1 to 3 mm. Blandino further shows the Gap distance in Figure 3 is the same size as the insulating member in Figure 2, therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the thickness of the insulating member is anywhere from 1 to 3 mm (Figures 2-3; claim 10; [0079]), which overlaps the claimed range of the insulating member having a thickness of between 0.25 mm and about 1 mm and less than about 0.7 mm, respectively, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 10, Blandino discloses the coil, the heater component, and the insulating member are coaxial (Figures 1-4).
In regards to claim 11, Blandino discloses the insulating member can be positioned such that it provides a gap between the heater component and the insulating member (i.e., air gap around the heater component) ([0075];[0079]).
In regards to claim 12, Blandino discloses the air gap can be between 1 and 3 mm (Figure 3; claim 10; [0079]), which overlaps the claimed range of the insulating member positioned away from the heater component by a distance of greater than about 2.5 mm, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 13, Blandino discloses an apparatus of a system for heating smokable material to volatize at least one component of the smokable material (i.e., an aerosol provision system) ([0004];[0031]-[0032]) comprising:
the aerosol provision device detailed in claim 1; and
an article comprising smokable material (i.e., aerosol generating material) ([0029]-[0039]).
In regards to claims 14-15, Modified Blandino discloses PEEK as the insulating member, which comprises a melting point of 343 degrees Celsius (as evidenced by the NPL “PEEK”, page 1). Therefore, the range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the melting point being greater than about 300 and 340 degrees Celsius, respectively, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 16, Modified Blandino discloses the operating temperature of the device is anywhere from 50 to 250 degrees Celsius ([0071]) and further teaches the melting point of the insulating member, PEEK, is 343 degrees Celsius (Gewen [0045]; “PEEK” page 1), therefore Modified Blandino discloses a maximum temperature is less than the melting point of the insulating member by about 93 degrees Celsius. The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the difference between the maximum temperature of heating and the melting point of the insulating member being at least about 60 degrees Celsius, and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELEINE PAULINA DELACRUZ whose telephone number is (703)756-4544. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, 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.
/MADELEINE P DELACRUZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights