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 .
Priority
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.
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.
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 3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Batista (WO 2019/030168) in view of Courbat (KR20200035027). Courbat (US 2020/0163385) is being used as an English language equivalent for Courbat (KR20200035027).
With respect to the limitations of claim 3, Batista teaches a heating element (title, abstract) for a non-combustible aerosol provision device (heat not burn, 0002) comprising: a rod having a longitudinal axis (Figs 3-5, heating element 28, axis L, 0043, 0044) and an outer tapered surface (tapered body section of 28), over at least a majority of a length of the rod, an angle (angle β, 0044) between the longitudinal axis and the outer tapered surface is between 0.5 degrees and 25 degrees (see figure 3, approximately 15°); the rod comprises a distal end portion (Fig 3, front of tapered tip of heating element 28), and a first tapered portion (tapered body section of 28) and a second tapered portion (front tapered tip of 28) each at a respective longitudinal position along the longitudinal axis; the second tapered portion extends from the distal end portion towards the first tapered portion, and a cross-sectional area of the rod increases with distance from the distal end portion in each of the first tapered portion and the second tapered portion (see figures 3-5); the angle is a first angle (angle β, 0044) between the longitudinal axis and an outer tapered surface of the first tapered portion; and the first angle is smaller than (angle of tapered body section) a second angle between the longitudinal axis and an outer tapered surface of the second tapered portion (larger angle of tapered tip); and the first tapered portion transitions into the second tapered portion smoothly and without there being a distinct point change or step change.
Batista discloses the claimed invention except for a difference between the first and second angle is between 5 to 10 degrees and the first tapered portion transitions into the second tapered portion smoothly and without there being a distinct point change or step change.
However, Batista discloses that changing the taper angle (0011-0015) to vary a heating gradient is a design parameter that can be set to control heating characteristics of the heating element, where changing the taper angle would allow for the difference between the first and second angle to be between 5 to 10 degrees. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to have the difference between the first and second angle is between 5 to 10 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable first and second angle parameter ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).
Additionally, Courbat discloses the first tapered portion transitions into the second portion smoothly and without there being a distinct point change or step change (Figs 10, 17, elongate heating portion 142 having a smooth radiused transition, 0102, 0107) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the heating element of Batista having first and second tapered section silent to the recited smooth transition with the first tapered portion transitions into the second portion smoothly and without there being a distinct point change or step change of Courbat for the purpose of providing a known heating element with reduced heat concentration points.
With respect to the limitations of claims 6, 7, 8 and 9, Batista teaches the second tapered portion extends from the distal end portion to the first tapered portion (see figures 3-5);
the first tapered portion is longer than the second tapered portion in a direction of the longitudinal axis (see figures 3-5);
the rod comprises heating material that is heatable by penetration with a varying magnetic field (0009, 0021);
the rod is electrically conductive (0009, the heating element may be made from a conductive material such as metal).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2 and 10-15 allowed.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1 and 10 have been amended.
Claims 4 and 5 are cancelled.
Claims 1-3 and 6-15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed on 1/26/2026 with respect to claims 1, 2 and 10-15 are moot in view of the allowed claims.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 3 and 6-9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued on pages 7-8 of the Remarks that Batista fails to disclose the 0imitations of claim 3 directed to “the difference between the first and second angle is between 5 to 10 degrees” because Batista paragraphs 0011-0015 are directed to changing the apex angles of the heating element in relation to the apex angle of the inductor coil and does not account for changing the difference between the first and second angles, the examiner respectfully disagrees. From figure 3 and paragraphs 0011-0015, increasing the angle β would result in a difference between the first and second angle to be between 5 to 10 degrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would know and be motivated to adjust the angle β because the angle β is a design parameter that can be set to control heating characteristics of the heating element as disclosed by Batista.
The applicant has argued on page 8 that Batista in view of Courbat because Courbat fail to disclose a smooth radiused transition, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen in figures 10 and 11 of Courbat, there is a smooth transition before the angled tip portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN S TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday [8:00-4:00].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN S TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday [8:00-4:00].
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.
/THIEN S TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 3/25/2026