Patent Application 15540748 - DEVICE FOR APPARATUS FOR HEATING SMOKABLE MATERIAL

Title: DEVICE FOR APPARATUS FOR HEATING SMOKABLE MATERIAL

Application Information

Invention Title: DEVICE FOR APPARATUS FOR HEATING SMOKABLE MATERIAL
Application Number: 15540748
Submission Date: 2025-05-19T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2017-06-29T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2017-06-29T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 392
National Sub-Class: 390000
Examiner Employee Number: 90603
Art Unit: 3761
Tech Center: 3700

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 4

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

US 0149121🔗
US 0007652🔗

Office Action Text

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 Objections
Claims 28, 47 and 49 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 28, line 2, the term “smokeable” should read “smokable”, the limitation “wherein the apparatus for volatilizing” should read “wherein the apparatus is for volatilizing”, and line 3, the limitation “the device comprising” should read “the device further comprising”.
In claim 47, line 1, the term “smokabel” should read “smokable”, and line 3, the limitation “the device comprising” should read “the device further comprising”.
In claim 49, line 2, the term “smokeable” should read “smokable”, and line 3, the limitation “the device comprising” should read “the device further comprising”.
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.

Claims 28, 30, 34, 37-48, 51 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taluskie (US 2016/0007652).
Regarding claim 28, Taluskie teaches a device (combination of 200 and 836; Fig. 8) for use with an apparatus (this limitation is considered intended use, therefore, little or no patentable weight is given), the device comprising smokable material (836), and wherein the apparatus is for volatilizing at least one component of the smokable material of the device (this limitation is considered intended use, therefore, little or no patentable weight is given), the device further comprising: a support (200 comprising 220 and 210); wherein the smokable material is arranged on the support (as shown in Fig. 8; p.0094), wherein a first portion (811) of the smokable material is arranged on a first portion of the support (as shown in Fig. 8) and has a form so as to be volatilizable more quickly (as shown in Fig. 8) than a second portion (813) of the smokable material arranged on a second portion of the support (as shown in Fig. 8).
Taluskie fails to disclose wherein the support is planar such that a surface of the support is entirely within a plane parallel to a longitudinal axis of the device.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide a planar support, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, the specification of the instant application discloses that “In this embodiment, the heating element 410 is planar, or at least substantially planar. A planar heating element 410 tends to be simpler to manufacture. However, in other embodiments, the heating element 410 may be non-planar. For example, in some embodiments, the heating element 410 may be folded, or crimped, or corrugated, or cruciform in cross section, or the like. A substantially cylindrical heater format is also envisaged. A non-planar heating element 410 can have an outer surface that is better suited to retaining the smokable material 420 thereon. For example, when a corrugated or similar heating element 410 is used, the smokable material 420 may adhere or bond more readily to troughs in the outer surface of the heating element 410 formed by the corrugations. Additionally, a non-planar heating element 410 provides more surface area for conduction of heat to the smokable material 420. It can then support more smokable material 420 in a layer of a given thickness. Smokable materials such as tobacco are often poor heat conductors and so it may be desirable to provide the smokable material 420 in relatively thin layers to reduce electrical power consumption or to increase the rate of heating the smokable material 420.” (page 29, lines 30-32 and page 30, lines 1-12). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of the support of Taluskie from a folded support to a planar support since it is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 30, Taluskie teaches the device as set forth above, wherein the first portion of the smokable material is arranged on the support with a first thickness (as shown in Fig. 8) and the second portion of the smokable material is arranged on the support with a second thickness that is greater than the first thickness (as shown in Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 34, Taluskie teaches the device as set forth above, wherein the first and second portions of the support are first and second sides of the support, respectively (as shown in Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 37, Taluskie teaches the device as set forth above, wherein the support is a heating element for heating the smokable material (heating member 200 comprises a heating element 210; p.0093-0094).
Regarding claim 38, Taluskie teaches the device as set forth above, wherein the heating element is heatable by passing an electric current through the heating element (p.0056; p.0078).
Regarding claim 39, Taluskie teaches the device as set forth above, wherein the smokable material is in solid form or comprises tobacco (p.0052-0053).
Regarding claim 40, Taluskie teaches a cartridge (combination of 803 and 805) for use with apparatus for heating smokable material to volatilize at least one component of the smokable material (this limitation is considered intended use, therefore, little or no patentable weight is given), the cartridge comprising a device as set forth above (as shown in Fig. 8; elements 836 and 200 are located within shell 803).
Regarding claim 41, Taluskie teaches the cartridge as set forth above, comprising a housing (803) defining a chamber (897), wherein the device is located within the chamber (as shown in Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 42, Taluskie teaches the cartridge as set forth above, comprising two electrically-conductive terminals (211a-211b) that are accessible from an exterior of the cartridge (as shown in Fig. 2, 3 and 8), wherein the support is a heating element for heating the smokable material (heating member 200 comprises a heating element 210; p.0093-0094), and the heating element is electrically connected across the electrically-conductive terminals (as shown in Fig. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 43, Taluskie teaches an apparatus (800 comprises 803, 805 and control body 102; p.0092) for heating smokable material to volatilize at least one component of the smokable material (this limitation is considered intended use, therefore, little or no patentable weight is given), the apparatus comprising the device as set forth above (as shown in Fig. 8; p.0092-0094).
Regarding claim 44, Taluskie teaches the apparatus as set forth above, wherein the apparatus is arranged to heat the smokable material to volatilize the at least one component of the smokable material without combusting the smokable material (p.0052).
Regarding claim 45, Taluskie teaches the apparatus as set forth above, comprising a heating element (heating member 200 comprises heating element 210) for heating the smokable material (as shown in Fig. 8), wherein the assembly comprises a controller (106) for controlling the supply of electrical power to the heating element from an electrical power source (110).
Regarding claim 46, Taluskie teaches the apparatus as set forth above, wherein the heating element of the apparatus is the support (as shown in Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 47, Taluskie teaches a device (combination of 200 and 836; Fig. 8) for use with an apparatus (this limitation is considered intended use, therefore, little or no patentable weight is given), the device comprising smokable material (836), and wherein the apparatus is for volatilizing at least one component of the smokable material of the device (this limitation is considered intended use, therefore, little or no patentable weight is given), the device further comprising: a support (200 comprising 220 and 210); wherein the smokable material is arranged on the support (as shown in Fig. 8), wherein a first portion (811) of the smokable material is arranged on a first portion of the support with a first thickness (as shown in Fig. 8) and a second portion (813) of the smokable material is arranged on a second portion of the support with a second thickness (as shown in Fig. 8), and wherein the second thickness is greater than the first thickness (as shown in Fig. 8).
Taluskie fails to disclose wherein the support is planar such that a surface of the support is entirely within a plane parallel to a longitudinal axis of the device.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide a planar support, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, the specification of the instant application discloses that “In this embodiment, the heating element 410 is planar, or at least substantially planar. A planar heating element 410 tends to be simpler to manufacture. However, in other embodiments, the heating element 410 may be non-planar. For example, in some embodiments, the heating element 410 may be folded, or crimped, or corrugated, or cruciform in cross section, or the like. A substantially cylindrical heater format is also envisaged. A non-planar heating element 410 can have an outer surface that is better suited to retaining the smokable material 420 thereon. For example, when a corrugated or similar heating element 410 is used, the smokable material 420 may adhere or bond more readily to troughs in the outer surface of the heating element 410 formed by the corrugations. Additionally, a non-planar heating element 410 provides more surface area for conduction of heat to the smokable material 420. It can then support more smokable material 420 in a layer of a given thickness. Smokable materials such as tobacco are often poor heat conductors and so it may be desirable to provide the smokable material 420 in relatively thin layers to reduce electrical power consumption or to increase the rate of heating the smokable material 420.” (page 29, lines 30-32 and page 30, lines 1-12). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of the support of Taluskie from a folded support to a planar support since it is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 48, Taluskie teaches the device as set forth above, wherein the support is a heating element for heating the smokable material (heating member 200 comprises a heating element 210; p.0093-0094).
Regarding claim 51, Taluskie teaches the device as set forth above, wherein the support is planar such thar a plane of the support is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the device (a center axial plane of 200 is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the device; as shown in Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 52, Taluskie teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for, wherein the support is planar such that the support is not curved.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide a non-curved support since the applicant has not disclosed that that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the curved support of Taluskie. Furthermore, the instant specification discloses that the support can be planar or non-planar (i.e. corrugated or folded) (page 29, lines 30-32 and page 30, lines 1-12).

Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taluskie in view of Wrenn (US 2008/0149121) or Counts (US 5,369,723).
Regarding claim 29, Taluskie teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for, wherein the first portion of the smokable material comprises particles of the smokable material having a first mean particle size, and the second portion of the smokable material comprises particles of the smokable material having a second mean particle size that is greater than the first mean particle size.
Wrenn teaches wherein the first portion of the smokable material comprises particles of the smokable material having a first mean particle size, and the second portion of the smokable material comprises particles of the smokable material having a second mean particle size that is greater than the first mean particle size (p.0060).
Counts teaches wherein the first portion of the smokable material comprises particles of the smokable material having a first mean particle size, and the second portion of the smokable material comprises particles of the smokable material having a second mean particle size that is greater than the first mean particle size (Col. 13, lines 25-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the smokable material of Taluskie, with Wrenn or Counts, by making the first and second portions of the smokable material of different mean particle sizes, for the advantages of changing the rate of heating of the smokable material or flavor to comply with the user requirements. POSITA would have known that modifying the smokable material of Taluskie to have portions with different mean particles sizes would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results, namely, heating rate change and flavor change.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taluskie in view of Moffitt (US 7,163,015).
Regarding claim 36, Taluskie teaches the device as set forth above, except for, wherein the smokable material is bonded to the support by adhesive or by a chemical bond.
Moffitt teaches an electrically heated cigarette smoking system (title) wherein the smokable material (50 or, 50 and 30) is bonded to the support (60) by adhesive (Col. 6, lines 63-67, and Col. 7, lines 1-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Taluskie, with Mottiff, by bonding the smokable material to the support by adhesive, to properly secure the smokable material to the support. POSITA would have known that adhesively bonding the smokable material to the support would have a reasonable expectation of success and yield predictable results, namely, properly securing the smokable material.
Claims 49 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taluskie in view of Counts (US 5,369,723).
Regarding claim 49, Taluskie teaches a device (combination of 200 and 836; Fig. 8) for use with an apparatus (this limitation is considered intended use, therefore, little or no patentable weight is given), the device comprising smokable material (836), wherein the apparatus is for volatilizing at least one component of the smokable material of the device (this limitation is considered intended use, therefore, little or no patentable weight is given), the device further comprising: a support (200 comprising 220 and 210); wherein the smokable material is arranged on the support (as shown in Fig. 8), wherein a first portion (811) of the smokable material is arranged on a first portion of the support (as shown in Fig. 8) and a second portion (813) of the smokable material is arranged on a second portion of the support (as shown in Fig. 8).
Taluskie fails to disclose wherein a first portion of the smokable material comprises particles of the smokable material having a first mean particle size, and a second portion of the smokable material comprises particles of the smokable material having a second mean particle size, and wherein the second mean particle size is greater than the first mean particle size; and wherein the support is planar such that a surface of the support is entirely within a plane parallel to a longitudinal axis of the device.
Counts teaches wherein the first portion of the smokable material comprises particles of the smokable material having a first mean particle size, and the second portion of the smokable material comprises particles of the smokable material having a second mean particle size that is greater than the first mean particle size (Col. 13, lines 25-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the smokable material of Taluskie, with Counts, by making the first and second portions of the smokable material of different mean particle sizes, for the advantages of changing the rate of heating of the smokable material or flavor to comply with the user requirements. POSITA would have known that modifying the smokable material of Taluskie to have portions with different mean particles sizes would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results, namely, heating rate change and flavor change.
Taluskie and Counts combined fail to disclose wherein the support is planar such that a surface of the support is entirely within a plane parallel to a longitudinal axis of the device.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide a planar support, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Furthermore, the specification of the instant application discloses that “In this embodiment, the heating element 410 is planar, or at least substantially planar. A planar heating element 410 tends to be simpler to manufacture. However, in other embodiments, the heating element 410 may be non-planar. For example, in some embodiments, the heating element 410 may be folded, or crimped, or corrugated, or cruciform in cross section, or the like. A substantially cylindrical heater format is also envisaged. A non-planar heating element 410 can have an outer surface that is better suited to retaining the smokable material 420 thereon. For example, when a corrugated or similar heating element 410 is used, the smokable material 420 may adhere or bond more readily to troughs in the outer surface of the heating element 410 formed by the corrugations. Additionally, a non-planar heating element 410 provides more surface area for conduction of heat to the smokable material 420. It can then support more smokable material 420 in a layer of a given thickness. Smokable materials such as tobacco are often poor heat conductors and so it may be desirable to provide the smokable material 420 in relatively thin layers to reduce electrical power consumption or to increase the rate of heating the smokable material 420.” (page 29, lines 30-32 and page 30, lines 1-12). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of the support of Taluskie from a folded support to a planar support since it is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 50, Taluskie and Counts combined teach the device as set forth above, wherein the support comprises an electrically-conductive material layer (Taluskie; 210; p.0076; p.0084; p.0093) and at least one electrical insulator material layer (Taluskie; 220; p.0076; p.0084; p.0093), and wherein said first and second portions of the smokable material are in direct contact with, respectively, said first and second portions of the support, which are provided by said at least one electrical insulator layer (Taluskie; as shown in Fig. 8).

Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 28, Applicant argues that “The Office Action asserts that element 200 of Taluskie (shown in Figure 3) does not have any protrusion or dent/recess and therefore is “planar.” Specifically, the Office Action contends that a planar element can be folded into a conical shape but that the conical shape is still a “planar” element as it has a planar surface that has no protrusions. This is beyond an broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “planar”. The conical shape of Taluskie does not have a surface within a plane and is therefore not planar. Wrenn and/or Counts do not correct these deficiencies. Thus, none of the cited references teach or suggest the planar support as recited in the amended claims. Moreover, a skilled artisan would not have arrived at the planar support of the pending claims based on the cited references. One benefit of the planar support of the pending claims is that it is easier to manufacture. (See page 29, lines 30 to 31 of the PCT application). In contrast, the conical heater/substrate of Taluskie does not provide this advantageous effect, and there is no teaching in Taluskie to modify the heater/substrate of Taluskie to be planar to provide this effect. Rather, Taluskie teaches that the heater/substrate defines an interior passage for the air flow path (see paragraph [0081] of Taluskie) and so one skilled in the art would not modify the heater/substrate of Taluskie to be planar, as a planar shape would not define an interior passage. Thus, with or without Wrenn and/or Counts, a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to take Taluskie and arrive at the claimed device.” on remarks page 8, lines 5-22. In response to Applicant’s arguments, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide a planar support, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application discloses that “In this embodiment, the heating element 410 is planar, or at least substantially planar. A planar heating element 410 tends to be simpler to manufacture. However, in other embodiments, the heating element 410 may be non-planar. For example, in some embodiments, the heating element 410 may be folded, or crimped, or corrugated, or cruciform in cross section, or the like. A substantially cylindrical heater format is also envisaged. A non-planar heating element 410 can have an outer surface that is better suited to retaining the smokable material 420 thereon. For example, when a corrugated or similar heating element 410 is used, the smokable material 420 may adhere or bond more readily to troughs in the outer surface of the heating element 410 formed by the corrugations. Additionally, a non-planar heating element 410 provides more surface area for conduction of heat to the smokable material 420. It can then support more smokable material 420 in a layer of a given thickness. Smokable materials such as tobacco are often poor heat conductors and so it may be desirable to provide the smokable material 420 in relatively thin layers to reduce electrical power consumption or to increase the rate of heating the smokable material 420.” (page 29, lines 30-32 and page 30, lines 1-12). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the shape of the support of Taluskie from a folded support to a planar support since it is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 29, 30, 34 and 36-52, Applicant relies on the same arguments, therefore, the same response applies.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8am-5pm.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.

/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 05/13/2025

/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761