Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/431,982

AEROSOL GENERATING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 18, 2021
Examiner
KESSIE, JENNIFER A
Art Unit
1747
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Kt&G Corporation
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
193 granted / 303 resolved
-1.3% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
59 currently pending
Career history
362
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.0%
-37.0% vs TC avg
§103
52.0%
+12.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
§112
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 303 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose the claimed limitation that “an end of the second susceptor inserted into the cavity has a thickness that decreases along the longitudinal direction,” asserting that Batista does not disclose a tapered end portion of the second susceptor because no susceptor layer is applied at the tip. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 does not require that the tapered end portion itself include a susceptor layer, nor does claim 1 require that the tapered end portion be actively heated. Rather, the claim recites a structural limitation, namely that an end of the second susceptor inserted into the cavity has a thickness that decreases along the longitudinal direction. Applicant’s own specification supports this broad structural interpretation. The specification expressly states that the first and second susceptors may be formed of the same or different materials and may have different specifications, including length, thickness, density, mass, and volume, without limiting a susceptor to only portions coated with susceptor material (see ¶ [0084]). The specification further explains that the first and second susceptors may be heated to different temperatures due to differences in their specifications, again without requiring that all portions of a susceptor include a susceptor layer (¶ [0085]). Additionally, the specification describes embodiments in which the first and second susceptors are elongated and extend along a longitudinal direction of the cigarette or cavity, reinforcing that the susceptors are structural bodies extending longitudinally rather than being limited to discrete coated regions (¶ [0089]). Thus, Applicant’s specification does not define a “susceptor” as being limited only to a susceptor-coated or actively heated portion, nor does it exclude non-susceptor or thermally insulative portions from being part of a susceptor structure. Applicant’s argument therefore improperly imports an unrecited limitation into the claim. Batista expressly discloses an elongate susceptor element having a tapered free end, wherein the cross-sectional area decreases toward the free end, i.e., the thickness decreases along the longitudinal direction (Batista ¶ [0052], Fig. 8). Batista further explains that the tapered free end may be free of a susceptor layer and may define a thermally insulative tip (Batista ¶ [0027]). However, the absence of a susceptor layer at the tapered end does not negate the presence of a tapered end portion having a decreasing thickness, particularly where claim 1 does not require the tapered end to include a susceptor layer. Accordingly, Batista discloses an end of an elongate susceptor element inserted into a cavity that has a thickness decreasing along the longitudinal direction, as recited in claim 1. Applicant’s argument relies on an unclaimed requirement that the tapered end must itself be a susceptor-coated or actively heated portion, which is unsupported by the claim language and inconsistent with Applicant’s own specification. Regarding Blandino, Applicant contends Blandino does not disclose any structure corresponding to a tapered tip susceptor portion has to been found to be persuasive therefore rejection of claim 1 (and claims depending therefrom) based on Blandino is hereby withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista et al. (WO2019030000) using (US 2020/0245683) as a citing reference, and further in view of Abi Aoun et al. (WO2018178113) using (US 2020/0022412) as a citing reference. Regarding claim 1, Batista teaches an aerosol generating system (fig. 9) comprising: a cigarette 10’ comprising an aerosol generating section 20’ and a nicotine generating section 20” connected to a downstream end of the aerosol generating section, wherein the aerosol generating section includes a moisturizer (aerosol-forming substrate may comprise at least one aerosol-former [0071]), and the nicotine generating section includes a tobacco material comprising nicotine (The aerosol-forming substrate may comprise nicotine [0070]). Batista at paragraphs [0070]–[0071] describes that the aerosol-forming substrate may include one or more aerosol formers or moisturizers, whereas the nicotine-containing section includes a tobacco material comprising nicotine. Thus, Batista expressly distinguishes between the composition of the aerosol-generating substrate and that of the nicotine-containing section, consistent with the claimed distinction in materials; an aerosol generating device 300 comprising a cavity 315 that accommodates at least a portion of the cigarette; an induction coil 130 located around the cavity and configured to generate an alternating magnetic field [0096]; (iii) a first susceptor and a second susceptor arranged in series along a longitudinal direction of the cavity (The heating portions 3801, 3802 are each formed from a susceptor layer [0101]) and configured to be heated by the alternating magnetic field, (iv) a support portion (290 295 and 285) formed at an inner end of the cavity wherein at least one of the first susceptor and the second susceptor are connected to the support portion (fig. 7), and wherein the first susceptor and the second susceptor are heated to different temperatures to have a temperature difference corresponding to a difference between a temperature at which the moisturizer begins to vaporize and a temperature at which the tobacco material begins to vaporize (the composition or dimensions of the susceptor layers from which the first and second heating portions 3801, 3802 are formed may differ. Advantageously, this may facilitate finetuning of the heating characteristics of the elongate susceptor element 360 by selecting different susceptor character [0101]); With respect to the placement of the susceptors, Batista (¶¶ [0031]–[0033]) explicitly describes a plurality of discrete heating portions that may be positioned directly adjacent to each other, and further teaches that the heating portions may be formed from the same or different susceptor materials or layers. As illustrated in Figure 8 and discussed at paragraph [0101], Batista’s heating portions 3801 and 3802 are each formed from susceptor layers on the outer surface of the elongate support body 370. These disclosures collectively indicate that Batista contemplates arrangements in which heating portions are directly adjacent or contiguous, thereby satisfying the recited configuration in which “a first susceptor and a second susceptor [are] directly connected to an end of each other.”. Amended claim 1 further recites that: “an end of the second susceptor inserted into the cavity has a thickness that decreases along the longitudinal direction such that the thickness of the end of the second susceptor is less than a thickness of the end of the first susceptor connected to the support portion of the cavity.” Batista teaches this limitation. Specifically, Batista discloses an elongate susceptor element comprising heating portions formed on an elongate support body (370) that extends along the longitudinal direction of the cavity (Batista Fig. 8; ¶ [0101]). Batista further teaches that the elongate support body includes a tapered free end, wherein the cross-sectional area decreases toward the free end (Batista ¶ [0052]). This tapered free end is inserted into the cavity and therefore constitutes an end of the elongate susceptor structure having a thickness that decreases along the longitudinal direction. While Batista further describes that the tapered free end may be free of a susceptor layer and may function as a thermally insulative tip (Batista ¶¶ [0027], [0095]), claim 1 does not require that the tapered end portion include a susceptor layer or be actively heated. The amended limitation is directed to structural geometry (decreasing thickness), not to material composition or heating functionality. Accordingly, Batista’s tapered end portion satisfies the amended limitation. Moreover, Batista discloses that the opposite end of the elongate susceptor structure, connected to the support portion of the cavity, has a greater cross-sectional thickness than the tapered free end (Batista Fig. 8), thereby meeting the recited relative thickness relationship between the first and second susceptor ends. Batista does not explicitly teach that “a temperature at which the first susceptor heats the aerosol generating section is 30°C to 100°C higher than a temperature at which the second susceptor heats the nicotine generating section.” While Batista teaches first and second heating portions and indicates they may be operated differently, Batista does not disclose the specific numerical differential of 30°C–100°C between the respective heating temperatures (Batista ¶[0101]). However, Batista teaches that first and second discrete heating portions (3801, 3802) may be configured to heat different segments of an aerosol-generating article and further teaches that the composition or dimensions of the susceptor layers forming the first and second heating portions may differ, thereby allowing fine tuning of heating characteristics, including that the first and second heating portions may have different temperature cycles (Batista ¶[0101]). Thus, Batista establishes a system in which different heating portions can be controlled/selected to achieve different temperature profiles, even though Batista does not expressly specify the particular 30°C–100°C temperature difference. Abi Aoun teaches temperature control of an aerosol generating device by arranging the controller and device to heat the aerosol generating material to a selected range of temperatures, including example ranges such as about 50°C to about 150°C, in order to volatilize components without combustion (Abi Aoun ¶[0046]). Abi Aoun further teaches that it is desirable to determine the temperature of the susceptor for purposes of controlling heating of the aerosol generating material (Abi Aoun ¶[0047]) and describes that the controller determines the temperature of the susceptor for such control (Abi Aoun ¶[0055]). Accordingly, Abi Aoun teaches controlling and selecting operating temperatures (including within defined ranges) based on determined susceptor temperature. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Batista’s system (which already contemplates separate heating portions with different temperature cycles and tunable susceptor characteristics) to select and control the respective heating temperatures such that the first susceptor heats the aerosol generating section at a temperature that is 30°C–100°C higher than the temperature at which the second susceptor heats the nicotine generating section, as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable (temperature selection and control) taught by Abi Aoun (Abi Aoun ¶¶[0046], [0047], [0055]) for achieving volatilization without combustion, while maintaining Batista’s multi-zone heating arrangement (Batista ¶[0101]). Regarding claim 3, Batista teaches wherein the aerosol generating device further comprises a support portion formed at an inner end of the cavity and configured to support the first susceptor and the second susceptor, wherein the first susceptor and the second susceptor are elongated and connected to each other, and extend along the longitudinal direction of the cavity from the support portion (depicted in fig. 7-9). Regarding claim 5 and 8, Batista teaches wherein the cigarette further comprises a filter unit comprises: a cooling section connected to the downstream end of the nicotine generating section; and a mouth filter connected to a downstream end of the cooling section connected to a downstream end of the nicotine generating section (a separation between the aerosol-forming substrate and the filter plug [0079]). Regarding claim 9, Batista teaches wherein the first susceptor and the second susceptor are formed of different materials (other embodiments, the composition or dimensions of the susceptor layers from which the first and second heating portions 3801, 3802 are formed may differ [0101]). Regarding claim 10, Batista teaches wherein the first susceptor and the second susceptor are formed of an identical material having different specifications (the first and second heating portions 3801, 3802 are formed from the same susceptor material [0101]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H Wilson can be reached on (571) 270-3882. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 18, 2021
Application Filed
Aug 18, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 17, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 22, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 28, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 13, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 19, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 03, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 04, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 10, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 14, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 26, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 07, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 22, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 20, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 26, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599161
METHOD OF MAKING AEROSOL-FORMING SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599160
LIPID-CONTAINING ORAL COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593871
AEROSOL-GENERATING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12575602
AEROSOL GENERATING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569004
AEROSOL DELIVERY DEVICE WITH SEPARABLE HEAT SOURCE AND SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+25.2%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 303 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month