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
This Office Action is in response to Applicants Amendments and Arguments filed 23 February 2026. As directed by Applicant, no claims are amended or cancelled. Thus, claims 1-12, 14-18 and 22-23 are pending. This is a Final Office action.
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, 10, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Liu (Chinese Patent Publication 204120226, in applicant’s attached IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a heating chamber for an aerosol generation device, the heating chamber comprising:
a tubular side wall (Liu, figs. 2,3; 10, this layer is within 3, and has the ingredients to be vaporized, p. 5, 1st paragraph) having an open first end (on top), the tubular side wall defining an interior volume of the heating chamber;
a metallic layer (Liu, elements 3, p. 4/10 last paragraph, p. 5/10 first paragraph) in direct contact with the tubular side wall and covering a portion of an outer surface of the side wall outside of the interior volume of the heating chamber; and
a heater (Liu, element 4) located at least partially on and in direct contact with the metallic layer (Liu, figs. 2-3; p. 2, 2nd paragraph before Description, “arranged with thermal conducting sleeve (3) and heat generating core (4) outward successively… heat generating core (4) contacts with described thermal conducting sleeve (3)” p. 5 last paragraph, “Heat insulation foam 5 is coated on the outer surface of the heat generating core 4”, and then this heater would be in direct contact with the metal- conducting sleeve 3).
Regarding claim 10, Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further discloses a heating chamber wherein the tubular side wall further comprises a base connected to a second end of the tubular side wall opposite the open first end (Fig. 2, designating 10 the tubular, then the base is 6/7 that extends from one end to the other, they are connected to the heat dams of 6, 61, 62, 63).
Regarding claim 14, Lui discloses an n aerosol generation device, comprising: an electrical power source (Lui, battery 8); the heating chamber according to claim 1 secured in the device (Lui, as above, rejection of claim 1); and control circuitry arranged to control a supply of electrical power from the electrical power source to the heater (Lui, p, 4/10, “makes battery 8 power for heat generating core 4 by controlling internal circuit).
Regarding claim 18, Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further discloses a heating chamber wherein, wherein the heater is located entirely on the metallic layer (Liu, Fig. 2, heater 4 is on layer 3)
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Liu (Chinese Patent Publication 204120226, in applicant’s filed IDS) in view of Meinhart (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0205727).
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach wherein the metallic layer is an electroplated layer. However, Meinhart teaches this is a way to put metal layers in a heater on each other so that they are attached (Meinhart, ¶0066, fig. 4a). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application, to modify the teachings of Liu with the teachings of Meinhart, to create the layers, and attach the layers in a heater, in order to make sure there is good heat transfer between the layers as the heat spreads out, and to do this in a conventional way (electroplating) achieving only the expected result of proper heating.
Claims 3, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Liu (Chinese Patent Publication 204120226, in applicant’s filed IDS) in view of Hajaligol (U.S. Patent 5,665,262).
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further disclose wherein the tubular side wall has a first thickness and the metallic layer has a second thickness smaller than the first thickness. However, given that thicknesses are inherent parts of these walls, there are only limited options regarding the thicknesses of the walls compared to each other, either one is thicker than the other, or they are the same size. Furthermore, Hajaligol teaches a heating chamber with adjacent walls with different sizes (Hajaligol, column 11 line 21, figs. 3- 5, element “300 is 3-5 mils thick”; column 13, lines 24-25, element 310 is preferably 1-3 mils; column 18 lines 30-31, element 122 is 1 to 2 mils). It would have been obvious to try the options, having one wall be thicker than the other wall, and also have them be the same size, in order to determine, through routine experimentation, which is the most effective and the thicknesses would be determined.
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further disclose a heating chamber wherein a portion on the outer surface of the tubular side wall adjacent to the open end is not covered by the metallic layer. This is unclear in the figure of Liu. However, Hajiligol teaches that some layers around a heating chamber cover other layer partially and not at the end (Hajaligol, figs. 3-5 & 11, layers cover but not at the open end). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Liu to at least to try these options to see, as a matter of routine experimentation, to discover to what extent the layers need to cover each other to figure out optimum aerosol generation.
Regarding claim 9, Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a heating chamber wherein the tubular side wall further comprises a second end opposite the open first end, and wherein a portion on the outer surface of the tubular side wall adjacent to the second end is not covered by the metallic layer. This is unclear in the figure of Liu. However, Hajiligol teaches that some layers around a heating chamber cover other layer partially and not at the end (Hajaligol, figs. 3-5 & 11, layers cover but not at the open end). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Liu to at least to try these options to see, as a matter of routine experimentation, to discover to what extent the layers need to cover each other to figure out optimum aerosol generation.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Liu (Chinese Patent Publication 204120226, in applicant’s attached IDS) in view of Akiyama (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/ 0059450).
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further disclose a heating chamber wherein the metallic layer has a thickness of between 10 µm and 50 µm. However, Akiyama teaches a heating chamber wherein the metallic layer has a thickness of between 10 µm and 50 µm (Akiyama, ¶¶0024, 0026; “The heat conduction member 4 may have a thickness from 10 μm to 50 μm”, fig. 1A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a conventional thickness to conform Liu with the teaching of Akiyama, in order to have a conventional thickness for a heat conduction layer, in order to be able to quickly heat up the evaporation chamber, the layer being thin to be able to be quickly heated up, so that evaporation can happen quickly in order to give the operator a puffing experience, where the material is being heated up to the high degree quickly to be evaporated.
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further disclose a heating chamber wherein the tubular side wall has a thickness of 90µm or less. However, Akiyama discloses wherein “the tubular side wall has a thickness of 90µm or less (Akiyama, ¶0022, “the holding member 1, [having] a thickness from 90 μm to 110 μm”, and this overlaps the range and thus renders it obvious. See 2132.01). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Liu to make sure that it its elements surrounding the heating element conform to a conventional size, as is taught in Akiyama, in order to have a good size to hold, and manipulate in the fingers, and any one of the layers in Liu may be considered the “tubular side wall” as the tubular sidewall In Liu is also providing insulation, but the insulation may be manipulated in order to comport with the proper size to handle.
Claims 5, 6, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Liu (Chinese Patent Publication 204120226, in applicant’s attached IDS) in view of Thorens (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/ 0340016).
Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further disclose a heating chamber wherein the metallic layer comprises a metal having a thermal conductivity of at least 150 W/mK. However, Thorens teaches a heating chamber wherein the metallic layer comprises a metal having a thermal conductivity of at least 150 W/mK (Abstract, “porous body”, which is the heat conductive element, ¶0011, “the porous body …having a thermal conductivity…of at least 40 W/m*K, 100 W/m*K, 150 W/m*K, and/or 200 W/m*K“). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Liu with Thorens, to ensure that the heat conductive element has the claimed conductivity, in order to effect the vaporization in a conventional means without unexpected results, vaporizing the vaporizable material in the heating chamber quickly and efficiently, and to have the heat conductivity at the appropriate level for the type of inhalations a user might take so as to take in the proper or comfortable amount of vapor, as a person using the device might enjoy.
Regarding claim 6, Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further disclose a heating chamber wherein the tubular side wall comprises a metal having a thermal conductivity of 50 W/mK or less”. However, Thorens teaches a heating chamber “wherein the tubular side wall comprises a metal having a thermal conductivity of 50 W/mK or less” (Abstract, “porous body”, which is the heat conductive element, ¶0011, “the porous body …having a thermal conductivity…of at least 40 W/m*K”; the range of Thorens overlaps with the range of the claim). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Liu with Thorens, to ensure that the heat conductive element has the claimed conductivity, in order to effect the vaporization in a conventional means without unexpected results, vaporizing the vaporizable material in the heating chamber quickly and efficiently, and to have the heat conductivity at the appropriate level for the type of inhalations a user might take so as to take in the proper or comfortable amount of vapor, as a person using the device might enjoy.
Regarding claim 16, Liu in view of Thorens teaches all the limitations of claim 5, as above, and further teaches a heating chamber wherein the metallic layer is copper (Thorens, ¶0012, “copper”, since Thorens is being used to teach the heat conductivity, it makes sense to use the metal he teaches for the porous body, and thus this would have been combined in the combination above).
Regarding claim 17, Liu in view of Thorens teaches all the limitations of claim 6, as above, and further teaches a heating chamber wherein the tubular side wall is stainless steel (Thorens, ¶0085, “stainless steel”, since Thorens is being used to teach the heat conductivity, it makes sense to use the metal he teaches for the susceptor, and thus this would have been combined in the combination above).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Liu (Chinese Patent Publication 204120226, in applicant’s attached IDS) in view of Kt & G Corp (Korean Patent Publication KR20180070454; in applicant’s IDS filed 6 March 2024).
Regarding claim 11, Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further disclose a heating chamber wherein the tubular side wall further comprises a plurality of protrusions extending radially inwardly from an interior surface of the tubular side wall. However, Kt & G Corp, in their electronic cigarette discloses a plurality of protrusions in their heating chamber (Kt & G, Figures 7-11; 225, 325, 425). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have included the plurality protrusions on interior surface of tubular side to create a smooth airflow path through the cigarette, for ease of use (Kt & G, p. 9, 3rd paragraph; p. 10 8th paragraph).
Regarding claim 12, Liu in view of Kt & G Corp teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, and further teaches a heating chamber wherein a portion of the outer surface of the tubular side wall corresponding to at least one of the plurality of protrusion on the interior surface is covered by the metallic layer (Liu, figs. 2-3; in the combination above, the protrusions are on the inner surface, but the metallic layer is outside, thus the inner surface “is covered” by the metallic layer).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Liu (Chinese Patent Publication 204120226, in applicant’s attached IDS) in view of Levy (U.S. Patent Application 2015/ 0053220).
Regarding claim 15, Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 14, as above, but does not further disclose a heating chamber wherein the heating chamber is removable from the device. However, Levy teaches wherein the heating chamber is removable (Levy, at least claim 7). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Lui, to make the heating chamber removable in order to replace it if there is any damage, and also to possibly replace it to change the metal or volume of the chamber to vary the amount of aerosol produced therein (see Levy claim 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. At first glance it did seem that the amendments, as presented at the interview did overcome the prior art. However, on closer look, however, they do not.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Liu does not disclose that “the heater is located at least partially on and in direct contact with the metallic layer” (Remarks, p. 5, second to last paragraph). And, applicant points to where Liu has the generating core 4, understood to be the heater, not in direct contact with the thermal conducting sleeve 3, understood to be the “metallic layer”, and there is either an intervening layer of insulation (foam 5) (Remarks, p. 6 first paragraph, see Liu, p. 5, second paragraph).
However, the claim only requires that the “heater” be in partially direct contact with the “metallic layer”. As broadly understood, the ”heater” may consist of the heat generating core and the insulation foam together (Liu, p. 5 last paragraph, “Heat insulation foam 5 is coated on the outer surface of the heat generating core” to provide the insulation from a short circuit). Thus understood, the “heater is located at least partially on and in direct contact with the metallic layer” because the outer layer of the “heater”, which is the foam-coated heat-generating core, is in direct contact with the “metallic layer”, which is the metallic thermal conducting sleeve.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 23 are allowed.
Specifically, the prior art does not teach “wherein the tubular side wall and the metallic layer further comprise a plurality of protrusions extending radially inwardly toward the interior volume of the heating chamber to form a plurality of indentations, respectively, in the tubular side wall and the metallic layer, and wherein the plurality of indentations define respective gaps between (1) the tubular side wall and the metallic layer and (2) the heater.” While there are some heating chambers that have protrusions, such as KT & G Corp (Korean Patent Publication KR20180070454; Figs. 7-11, elements 225, 325, 426), the prior art heaters do not have radially inward protrusions of both a tubular layer and metallic layer whereby the protrusions/indentations define gaps between these layers and the heater layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and shows the general state of the art. Please see attached and previously filed forms PTO-892.
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 LAWRENCE SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights