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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to Applicants’ arguments/remarks filed 7-2-2026
With applicants’ arguments, no claims are amended, no claims are canceled, and claims 1-20 are presently examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2 and claims 3-11 which depend from claim 2, require the infrared radiation layer is located on a surface of one side of the base body away from the chamber. The embodiment of FIG 2 shows the infrared radiation layer is located on a surface of one side of the base body away from the chamber and [0046] describes the embodiment of FIG 2, however, as explained by the Applicant in the remarks of 1/26/2026, claim 1 is supported by the tubular base body embodiment of FIG 10-11 or the accompanying disclosure for FIG 10-11 ([0062]-[0066]). The tubular base body embodiment of FIG 10-11 fails to support and meet the written description requirement that the infrared radiation layer 42 is located on a surface of one side of the base body away from the chamber (emphasis added for clarity), because the embodiment of FIG 10-11 is mutually exclusive to the embodiment of FIG 2. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly not know how to perform the claimed invention or mix the two embodiments in a way that would meet the written description requirement. Claims 3-11 similarly fail to comply with the written description requirement for their dependence on claim 2.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14-15 which depend from claim 13, which requires the light convergence mechanism comprises a first light reflection concave surface located in the chamber. Applicant argued in the remarks of 1/26/2026, that claim 1 and the claims depending therefrom are supported by the tubular base body embodiment of FIG 10-11.
However, FIG 10-11 fail to disclose the light convergence mechanism comprises a first light reflection concave surface located in the chamber (emphasis added for clarity). The embodiment of FIG 12 illustrates the first light reflection concave surface as part 43 and described in [0067], however a first light reflection concave surface is not found in the embodiment of FIG 10-11 or the accompanying disclosure for FIG 10-11 ([0062]-[0066]).
The tubular base body embodiment of FIG 10-11 fails to support and meet the written description requirement that the light convergence mechanism comprises a first light reflection concave surface located in the chamber (emphasis added for clarity), because the embodiment of FIG 10-11 is mutually exclusive to the embodiment of FIG 12. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly not know how to perform the claimed invention or mix the two embodiments in a way that would meet the written description requirement. Claims 14-15 similarly fail to comply with the written description requirement for their dependence on claim 13.
Regarding Claim 16, and 17-18 which depend from 16, which requires the aerosol generation device further comprises a heat insulation tube, the heat insulation tube is sleeved on the base body, the heat insulation tube comprises a second light reflection concave surface facing the chamber, and the second light reflection concave surface is configured to converge infrared rays generated by the infrared radiation layer to the aerosol substrate material (emphasis added for clarity). Applicant argued in the remarks of 1/26/2026, that claim 1 and the claims depending therefrom are supported by the tubular base body embodiment of FIG 10-11 or the accompanying disclosure for FIG 10-11 ([0062]-[0066]).
The embodiment of FIG 13 and [0068] discloses a second light reflection concave surface facing the chamber, however this structure is not found in the FIG 10 embodiment which is described in claim 1. The tubular base body embodiment of FIG 10-11 fails to support and meet the written description requirement a second light reflection concave surface facing the chamber (emphasis added for clarity), because the embodiment of FIG 10-11 is mutually exclusive to the embodiment of FIG 13. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly not know how to perform the claimed invention or mix the two embodiments in a way that would meet the written description requirement. Claims 17-18 similarly fail to comply with the written description requirement for their dependence on claim 16.
Regarding Claim 19, which requires the infrared radiation layer 42 is located, at least partially, at a bottom surface of the base body (emphasis added for clarity). Applicant argued in the remarks of 1/26/2026, that claim 1 and the claims depending therefrom are supported by the tubular base body embodiment of FIG 10-11 or the accompanying disclosure for FIG 10-11 ([0062]-[0066]).
However, FIG 10-11 fails to disclose the infrared radiation layer is located, at least partially, at a bottom surface of the base body (emphasis added for clarity). The embodiment of FIG 5 and [0057] discloses the infrared radiation layer is located, at least partially, at a bottom surface of the base body, however this structure is not found in the FIG 10 embodiment which is described in claim 1. The tubular base body embodiment of FIG 10-11 fails to support and meet the written description requirement for the infrared radiation layer is located, at least partially, at a bottom surface of the base body (emphasis added for clarity), because the embodiment of FIG 10-11 is mutually exclusive to the embodiment of FIG 5. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly not know how to perform the claimed invention or mix the two embodiments in a way that would meet the written description requirement.
Regarding Claim 20, which requires the aerosol generation device further comprises a support element detachably connected to the base body, the support element extends at least partially into the chamber and is spaced from the light convergence mechanism by a preset distance, and the support element defines thereon a placement groove configured to place the aerosol substrate material (emphasis added for clarity). Applicant argued in the remarks of 1/26/2026, that claim 1 and the claims depending therefrom are supported by the tubular base body embodiment of FIG 10-11.
However, FIG 10-11 fail to disclose a support element detachably connected to the base body, (emphasis added for clarity). The embodiment of FIG 5 and [0055] discloses a support element detachably connected to the base body; however, this structure is not found in the FIG 10 embodiment which is described in claim 1. The tubular base body embodiment of FIG 10-11 fails to support and meet the written description requirement for a support element detachably connected to the base body, (emphasis added for clarity), because the embodiment of FIG 10-11 is mutually exclusive to the embodiment of FIG 5. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly not know how to perform the claimed invention or mix the two embodiments in a way that would meet the written description requirement.
Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Specifically claim 2 and claims 3-11 which depend from claim 2, requires the infrared radiation layer is located on a surface of one side of the base body away from the chamber. The embodiment of FIG 2 shows the infrared radiation layer is located on a surface of one side of the base body away from the chamber and [0046] describes the embodiment of FIG 2, however, as explained by the Applicant in the remarks of 1/26/2026, claim 1 is supported by the tubular base body embodiment of FIG 10-11. The tubular base body embodiment of FIG 10-11 fails to support or enable the infrared radiation layer 42 is located on a surface of one side of the base body away from the chamber (emphasis added for clarity). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly not know how to perform the claimed invention. Claims 3-11 similarly fail to comply with the enablement requirement for their dependence on claim 2.
Case law holds that applicant’s specification must be “commensurately enabling [regarding the scope of the claims]” Ex Parte Kung, 17 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1990). Otherwise, undue experimentation would be involved in determining how to practice and use applicant’s invention. The test for undue experimentation as to whether or not all compounds within the scope of claim 2-11 can be used as claimed and whether claim 2-11 meets the test is stated in Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1986) and In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed.Cir. 1988). Upon applying this test to claim 2-11, it is believed that undue experimentation would be required because:
(a) The quantity of experimentation necessary is great since the specification does not explain how to combine the embodiments of FIG 2 and FIG 10 on how exactly one might include an infrared radiation layer 42 on one side of a cylindrical base body that is away from the chamber
(b) There is no direction or guidance presented for enabling how a person of ordinary skill in the art might include the infrared layer 42 on one side of the cylindrical base body of claim 1 that is away from the chamber.
(c) There is an absence of working examples concerning enabling how a person of ordinary skill in the art might include the infrared layer 42 on one side of the cylindrical base body of claim 1 that is away from the chamber.
In light of the above factors, it is seen that undue experimentation would be necessary to make and use the invention of claim 2 and claims 3-11 which depend from claim 2.
Regarding Claims 13 and 14-15 which depend from claim 13, which requires the light convergence mechanism comprises a first light reflection concave surface located in the chamber. Applicant argued in the remarks of 1/26/2026, that claim 1 and the claims depending therefrom are supported by the tubular base body embodiment of FIG 10-11.
However, FIG 10-11 fails to disclose the light convergence mechanism comprises a first light reflection concave surface located in the chamber (emphasis added for clarity). The embodiment of FIG 12 illustrates the first light reflection concave surface as part 43 and described in [0067], however a first light reflection concave surface is not found in the embodiment of FIG 10-11 or the accompanying disclosure for FIG 10-11 ([0062]-[0066]). The FIG 10-11 embodiment fails to support or enable a first light reflection concave surface located in the chamber. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly not know how to perform the claimed invention. Claims 14-15 similarly fail to comply with the enablement requirement for their dependence on claim 13.
Case law holds that applicant’s specification must be “commensurately enabling [regarding the scope of the claims]” Ex Parte Kung, 17 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1990). Otherwise, undue experimentation would be involved in determining how to practice and use applicant’s invention. The test for undue experimentation as to whether or not all compounds within the scope of claim 13-15 can be used as claimed and whether claim 13-15 meets the test is stated in Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1986) and In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed.Cir. 1988). Upon applying this test to claim 13-15, it is believed that undue experimentation would be required because:
(a) The quantity of experimentation necessary is great since the specification does not explain how to combine the embodiments of FIG 2 and FIG 10 on how exactly one might enable the light convergence mechanism comprises a first light reflection concave surface located in the chamber
(b) There is no direction or guidance presented for enabling the light convergence mechanism comprises a first light reflection concave surface located in the chamber.
(c) There is an absence of working examples concerning enabling how a person of ordinary skill in the art might include the light convergence mechanism comprises a first light reflection concave surface located in the chamber.
In light of the above factors, it is seen that undue experimentation would be necessary to make and use the invention of claim 13 and claims 14-15 which depend from claim 13.
Regarding Claim 16, and 17-18 which depend from 16, which requires the aerosol generation device further comprises a heat insulation tube, the heat insulation tube is sleeved on the base body, the heat insulation tube comprises a second light reflection concave surface facing the chamber, and the second light reflection concave surface is configured to converge infrared rays generated by the infrared radiation layer to the aerosol substrate material (emphasis added for clarity). Applicant argued in the remarks of 1/26/2026, that claim 1 and the claims depending therefrom are supported by the tubular base body embodiment of FIG 10-11 or the accompanying disclosure for FIG 10-11 ([0062]-[0066]).
However, FIG 10-11 fail to disclose the heat insulation tube comprises a second light reflection concave surface facing the chamber (emphasis added for clarity). The embodiment of FIG 13 and [0068] discloses a second light reflection concave surface facing the chamber, however this structure is not found in the FIG 10 embodiment which is described in claim 1. The FIG 10-11 embodiment fails to support or enable a second light reflection concave surface facing the chamber. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly not know how to perform the claimed invention. Claims 17-18 similarly fail to comply with the enablement requirement for their dependence on claim 16.
Case law holds that applicant’s specification must be “commensurately enabling [regarding the scope of the claims]” Ex Parte Kung, 17 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1990). Otherwise, undue experimentation would be involved in determining how to practice and use applicant’s invention. The test for undue experimentation as to whether or not all compounds within the scope of claim 16-18 can be used as claimed and whether claim 16-18 meets the test is stated in Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1986) and In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed.Cir. 1988). Upon applying this test to claim 16-18, it is believed that undue experimentation would be required because:
(a) The quantity of experimentation necessary is great since the specification does not explain how to combine the embodiments of FIG 13 and FIG 10 on how exactly one might enable a second light reflection concave surface facing the chamber
(b) There is no direction or guidance presented for enabling the light convergence mechanism comprises a second light reflection concave surface facing the chamber.
(c) There is an absence of working examples concerning enabling how a person of ordinary skill in the art might include a second light reflection concave surface facing the chamber.
In light of the above factors, it is seen that undue experimentation would be necessary to make and use the invention of claim 16 and claims 17-18 which depend from claim 16.
Regarding Claim 19, which requires the infrared radiation layer is located, at least partially, at a bottom surface of the base body (emphasis added for clarity). Applicant argued in the remarks of 1/26/2026, that claim 1 and the claims depending therefrom are supported by the tubular base body embodiment of FIG 10-11.
However, FIG 10-11 fail to disclose the infrared radiation layer is located, at least partially, at a bottom surface of the base body (emphasis added for clarity). The embodiment of FIG 5 and [0057] discloses the infrared radiation layer is located, at least partially, at a bottom surface of the base body, however this structure is not found in the FIG 10 embodiment which is described in claim 1. The FIG 10-11 embodiment fails to support or enable the infrared radiation layer is located, at least partially, at a bottom surface of the base body. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly not know how to perform the claimed invention.
Case law holds that applicant’s specification must be “commensurately enabling [regarding the scope of the claims]” Ex Parte Kung, 17 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1990). Otherwise, undue experimentation would be involved in determining how to practice and use applicant’s invention. The test for undue experimentation as to whether or not all compounds within the scope of claim 19 can be used as claimed and whether claim 19 meets the test is stated in Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1986) and In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed.Cir. 1988). Upon applying this test to claim 19, it is believed that undue experimentation would be required because:
(a) The quantity of experimentation necessary is great since the specification does not explain how to combine the embodiments of FIG 13 and FIG 10 on how exactly one might enable the infrared radiation layer is located, at least partially, at a bottom surface of the base body
(b) There is no direction or guidance presented for enabling the infrared radiation layer is located, at least partially, at a bottom surface of the base body.
(c) There is an absence of working examples concerning enabling how a person of ordinary skill in the art might include the infrared radiation layer is located, at least partially, at a bottom surface of the base body.
In light of the above factors, it is seen that undue experimentation would be necessary to make and use the invention of claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, which requires the aerosol generation device further comprises a support element detachably connected to the base body, the support element extends at least partially into the chamber and is spaced from the light convergence mechanism by a preset distance, and the support element defines thereon a placement groove configured to place the aerosol substrate material (emphasis added for clarity). Applicant argued in the remarks of 1/26/2026, that claim 1 and the claims depending therefrom are supported by the tubular base body embodiment of FIG 10-11.
However, FIG 10-11 fail to disclose a support element detachably connected to the base body, (emphasis added for clarity). The embodiment of FIG 5 and [0055] discloses a support element detachably connected to the base body; however, this structure is not found in the FIG 10 embodiment which is described in claim 1. The FIG 10-11 embodiment fails to support or enable a support element detachably connected to the base body. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly not know how to perform the claimed invention.
Case law holds that applicant’s specification must be “commensurately enabling [regarding the scope of the claims]” Ex Parte Kung, 17 USPQ2d 1545, 1547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1990). Otherwise, undue experimentation would be involved in determining how to practice and use applicant’s invention. The test for undue experimentation as to whether or not all compounds within the scope of claim 20 can be used as claimed and whether claim 20 meets the test is stated in Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. Inter. 1986) and In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed.Cir. 1988). Upon applying this test to claim 20, it is believed that undue experimentation would be required because:
(a) The quantity of experimentation necessary is great since the specification does not explain how to combine the embodiments of FIG 13 and FIG 10 on how exactly one might enable a support element detachably connected to the base body,
(b) There is no direction or guidance presented for enabling a support element detachably connected to the base body.
(c) There is an absence of working examples concerning enabling how a person of ordinary skill in the art might include a support element detachably connected to the base body.
In light of the above factors, it is seen that undue experimentation would be necessary to make and use the invention of claim 20.
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 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN-108338415A) in view of Seok (US 20190142071A).
Regarding Claim 1, Hu teaches an aerosol generation device, comprising a heating element (heater 1, [0068], see also FIG 2), wherein
the heating element comprises a base body (heating cylinder 11 [0068], an infrared radiation layer (layer of micro heaters 112, [0068]), and at least one light convergence mechanism (the inner cambered surface (causes convergence) of the base body includes an infrared material coating 114 which rapidly radiates infrared rays to uniformly heat the cigarette, is a light convergence mechanism [0138]);
the base body has an inner surface defining a chamber for accommodating an aerosol substrate material (e.g., the base body 11 accommodates the cigarette [0139]) and has an outer surface opposite to the inner surface (see FIG 2);
the infrared radiation layer is disposed on the inner surface (see FIG 3) of the base body (112 is disposed on the inner surface, see FIG 3), and is configured to generate infrared radiation to circumferentially heat the aerosol substrate material disposed in the chamber (e.g., the infrared material coating 114 which rapidly radiates infrared rays to uniformly heat the cigarette, thus 114 is a light convergence mechanism [0138]);
the at least one light convergence mechanism (114, see FIG 3) is bonded onto the base body and is configured to converge the infrared radiation into the chamber to heat at least a portion of the aerosol substrate material (infrared material coating 114 which rapidly radiates infrared rays to uniformly heat the cigarette, [0138], see FIG 3); and
However, Hu is silent to a lens and therefore fails to explicitly disclose the light convergence mechanism also comprises a light convergent lens located between the infrared radiation layer and the chamber.
Seok teaches a similar smoking device that uses light energy for heating and also teaches that a lens can be coupled to a front surface of the light generation portion and should be included so the light energy can be configured to irradiate a focal length on a fuel by adjusting light energy to apply heat generation and to protect a human body from being harmed by the heating energy. [0077]
Therefore it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light convergence mechanism of Hu to include the lens of Seok so that the light energy an be configured to irradiate a focal length on a fuel buy adjusting light energy to apply heat generation and to protect a human body from being harmed by the heating energy.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Hu teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Hu teaches the light convergence mechanism and the base body are of an integrated structure, e.g., the light convergence mechanism comprises 114 which is sprayed or printed on the inner wall of the cylinder [0099], which is interpreted to be integral in structure. Additionally, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light convergence mechanism to be integral with the base body. The use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see Applicant Arguments and Remarks, filed 7-2-2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 2-11, and 13-20 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Applicants’ arguments, see Applicant Arguments and Remarks, filed 7-2-2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 12 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Regarding the Response to the Rejections under 35 USC 112a
Written Description
Applicant argues on page 7 of the response regarding the written description rejection of claim 2 that “at paragraph –“ the infrared radiation layer 42 may be an infrared radiation coating or film applied to the outer surface of the base body at a lower end surface and that the infrared radiation layer can be disposed on a surface of the base body. It appears Applicant inadvertently omitted a paragraph reference here but is likely referring to paragraph 49 of the instant specification which discloses the infrared radiation layer 42 is disposed on a surface of the base body as illustrated in FIG 2. This is not found persuasive for the same reasons as explained in the previous action. The Applicant has submitted that claim 1 is supported by the circumferential heating embodiment of FIG 10 with its light convergence mechanism formed on the inner surface of the tubular base body (see Applicant remarks and arguments submitted 1/26/2026, page 6, under 35 USC 112a header).
There is no contemplation of the combination of the embodiment of FIG 10 with the alternative embodiment of FIG 2. FIG 10 is a distinct embodiment (see instant [0052], another embodiment) which illustrates the tube forming chamber 411 which includes a convergence lens on the inside surface of the base body. An ordinary artisan would not combine this mutually exclusive embodiment with the claim 2 embodiment (see instant specification which requires the embodiment of FIG 2 which requires the chamber 411 on the terminal end of the device in order to have the infrared radiation layer on a surface of one side of the base body away from the chamber [0052]. Claim 1 requires the FIG 10 embodiment and the FIG 10 embodiment does not include the infrared radiation layer away from the chamber.
Furthermore, the specification does not explain how one of ordinary skill might be expected to modify the two distinct embodiments and combine them or modify them in such a way to position the infrared layer away from the chamber. The two alternative embodiments are therefore mutually exclusive.
Further, there are no teachings in the specification that prescribe the mixing and matching of pieces of mutually exclusive embodiments with those of other alternative embodiments.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the response regarding the written description rejection of claim 13 that the specification introduces multiple ways to realize the light convergence mechanism 43 and that the mechanism is a device configured to converge infrared radiation into the chamber and onto the aerosolizable material.
As explained previously alternative embodiment shown in FIG 10-11 fails to disclose the light convergence mechanism comprises a first light reflection concave surface located in the chamber (emphasis added for clarity), further no description of how a first light reflection concave surface could be added or included in the instant specification description of FIG 10-11 is given [0062]-[0066])
FIG 10-11 uses a converging lens not a mirror/reflecting surface as required, the claim language of claim 13 introduces a surface that requires reflection however this is not supported). Thus the alternative FIG 10-11 embodiment fails to support or enable a first light reflection concave surface located in the chamber.
This is also not found persuasive because although Applicant generally argues the specification discloses these embodiments, Applicant has failed to show how the specification describes the combination of these embodiments or even suggests the combination of two different convergence mechanisms being combined together functioning as a single light convergence mechanism 43 in a single device.
Further, there are no teachings in the specification that prescribe the mixing and matching of pieces of mutually exclusive embodiments with those of other alternative embodiments.
Applicant additionally argues on page 9 regarding the written description rejection of claims 16-18 that the heat insulation tube embodiments of FIG 13 and alternative embodiment FIG 10-11 and the specification includes no teachings that the embodiments of the mutually exclusive embodiments cannot be combined and argues that for this reason a person of ordinary skill that the originally filed specification reasonably conveys possession of the combination of the tubular base body configuration of claim 1 and the heat insulation tube with second light reflection concave surface 72 facing the chamber in claim 13. There is further no teachings in the specification that prescribe the mixing and matching of pieces of mutually exclusive embodiments with those of other alternative embodiments.
This is not found persuasive because the two embodiments are clearly two different/distinct/mutually exclusive embodiments and the Applicant has not specifically pointed to portions of the specification that teaches this combination of the second light reflection concave surface 72 as shown in FIG 13 (and accompanying disclosure in [0068]-[0069], combined with the structure shown in FIG 10 (and accompanying disclosure in [0062]-[0066]), or any disclosure in the written description that explains where the second light reflection concave surface 72 might be found or added in the FIG 10 embodiments in a single device that would be required to be described to support claim 16 as explained above.
Further, there are no teachings in the specification that prescribe the mixing and matching of pieces of mutually exclusive embodiments with those of other alternative embodiments.
Additionally Applicant argues on page 11 regarding the written description rejection of claims 19-20 that the specification reasonably conveys possession of a tubular base body device in which the infrared radiation layer is located at least partially at a bottom surface of the base body, however claim 1 requires the radiation layer to be on the inner or outer surface of the base body.
Regarding Claim 19, which requires the infrared radiation layer 42 is located, at least partially, at a bottom surface of the base body (emphasis added for clarity). Applicant argued in the remarks of 1/26/2026, that claim 1 and the claims depending therefrom are supported by the tubular base body embodiment of FIG 10-11 or the accompanying disclosure for FIG 10-11 ([0062]-[0066]).
However, the embodiment of FIG 10-11 fails to disclose the infrared radiation layer is located, at least partially, at a bottom surface of the base body (emphasis added for clarity, e.g., the infrared radiation layer is located on the outside surface of the base body of the FIG 10 embodiment). The embodiment of FIG 5 and [0057] discloses the infrared radiation layer is located, at least partially, at a bottom surface of the base body, however this structure is not found in the FIG 10 embodiment which is described in claim 1. The tubular base body embodiment of FIG 10-11 fails to support and meet the written description requirement for the infrared radiation layer is located, at least partially, at a bottom surface of the base body (emphasis added for clarity), because the embodiment of FIG 10-11 is mutually exclusive to the embodiment of FIG 5. Accordingly, this is not found persuasive because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to perform the claimed invention or mix the two embodiments in a way that would meet the written description requirement.
Further, there are no teachings in the specification that prescribe the mixing and matching of pieces of mutually exclusive embodiments with those of other alternative embodiments.
Regarding Claim 20, which requires the aerosol generation device further comprises a support element detachably connected to the base body, the support element extends at least partially into the chamber and is spaced from the light convergence mechanism by a preset distance, and the support element defines thereon a placement groove configured to place the aerosol substrate material (emphasis added for clarity).
FIG 10-11, which are required for the support of claim 1, fail to disclose a support element detachably connected to the base body, (emphasis added for clarity). The embodiment of FIG 5 and [0055] discloses a support element 5 detachably connected to the base body; however, this structure is not found in the FIG 10 embodiment which is described in claim 1. The tubular base body embodiment of FIG 10-11 fails to support and meet the written description requirement for a support element detachably connected to the base body, (emphasis added for clarity), because the embodiment of FIG 10-11 is mutually exclusive to the embodiment of FIG 5 which Applicant argues is not mutually exclusive. This is not found persuasive because these two drawings clearly illustrate different embodiments and FIG 10 does not include a support element 5 or a reasonable explanation in the argument of where the support element 5 might be found in the embodiment of FIG 10.
PNG
media_image1.png
337
333
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
382
341
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Further, there are no teachings in the specification that prescribe the mixing and matching of pieces of mutually exclusive embodiments with those of other alternative embodiments.
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly not know how to perform the claimed invention or combine the two mutually exclusive embodiments in a way that would meet the written description requirement.
Enablement arguments
Regarding the enablement arguments on page 11 for claims 2-11, Applicant argues the specification teaches the infrared radiation layer 42 can be at several locations. This is not found persuasive because although the specification might teach the infrared radiation layer can be at several locations Claim 2, which requires the chamber 411 on the terminal end of the device in order to have the infrared radiation layer on a surface of one side of the base body away from the chamber [0052], see also FIG 2-4 and [0052], which explicitly describes FIG 1-4. Claim 1 requires the FIG 10 embodiment and the FIG 10 embodiment does not include the infrared radiation layer away from the chamber (see also [0062]-[0066]). However, Claim 2 depends from claim 1, Therefore it is unclear how to perform both claim 2 and claim 1 to which claim 2 depends. Thus undue experimentation would be required for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding the enablement rejection on page 12 for claim 13-15, Applicant argues the claims are enabled by the working example found in FIG 12, however Applicant also argues claim 1 is enabled with the FIG 10-11 embodiment and its corresponding detailed description of circumferential infrared heating using a light convergence mechanism formed on the inner surface of the tubular base body as set forth in the response of 1-26-2026 page 6, and therefore requires the structural support of FIG 10 (see also [0062]-[0066]). The embodiment of FIG 10-11 is clearly structurally mutually exclusive and an alternative embodiment to the embodiment of FIG 12. Claim 13-15 requires the light convergence mechanism includes a first light reflection concave surface. However, claim 1 and its enabling FIG 10 does not include a reflection surface or a mirror as required by claim 13. Therefore, its unclear how to perform claim 13-15 and thus undue experimentation would be required for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding the enablement rejection on page 13 for claims 16-18, Applicant argues that FIG 13 provides a detailed example of how FIG 10 and the embodiment of Claim 1 can be combined to enable the requirements of claim 16. FIG 13 however includes an infrared radiation layer on both the bottom and sides of the base body and doesn’t explain why the bottom infrared radiation layer or convergence lens on the bottom should be omitted to meet the claim requirements of claim 1 which requires the infrared radiation layer to circumferentially heat the substrate disposed in the chamber and heating from the bottom would not meet this requirement of claim 1 to which claim 16-18 depends. Its unclear how the embodiment of FIG 13 is intended to be modified by claim 16 to meet the limitations of claim 1 and thus undue experimentation would be required for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding the enablement rejection on page 13 regarding claim 19, Applicant argues that FIG 5 provides a working example of the infrared layer being located at least partially at the bottom surface of the base body 41. However, Applicant also argues claim 1 is enabled with the FIG 10-11 embodiment and its corresponding detailed description (see also [0062]-[0066]) of circumferential infrared heating using a light convergence mechanism formed on the inner surface of the tubular base body (see Applicant Remarks submitted 1-26-2026 on page 6). The embodiment of FIG 10-11 is clearly structurally mutually exclusive to the embodiment of FIG 12 because it does not include an infrared radiation layer at the bottom end as required by claim 19. Its unclear how the embodiment of FIG 5 is intended to be modified by claim 19 to meet the limitations of claim 1 and thus undue experimentation would be required for the reasons set forth above.
Regarding the enablement rejection on page 14 regarding claim 20, Applicant argues that FIG 5 teaches a support element 5 detachable connected to the base body 41 extending into the chamber 411 spaced from the light convergence mechanism by a preset distance and defining a placement groove 51 to receive the aerosol substrate material. This is not found persuasive because, Applicant also argues claim 1 is enabled with the alternative FIG 10-11 embodiment (see also [0062]-[0066]) and its corresponding detailed description of circumferential infrared heating using a light convergence mechanism formed on the inner surface of the tubular base body (see Applicant Remarks submitted 1-26-2026 on page 6).
The embodiment of FIG 5 and [0055] discloses a support element 5 detachably connected to the base body; however, this structure is not found in the FIG 10 embodiment which is described in claim 1. The tubular base body embodiment of FIG 10-11 fails to support and meet the written description requirement for a support element detachably connected to the base body, (emphasis added for clarity), because the embodiment of FIG 10-11 is mutually exclusive to the embodiment of FIG 5 which Applicant argues is not mutually exclusive. This is not found persuasive because these two drawings clearly illustrate different embodiments and FIG 10 does not include a support element 5 or a reasonable explanation in the argument of where the support element 5 might be found in the embodiment of FIG 10, or how FIG 10 might be modified to include a support element 5.
PNG
media_image1.png
337
333
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
382
341
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would accordingly not know how to perform the claimed invention or combine the two mutually exclusive embodiments in a way that would meet the written description requirement.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections
Applicant argues on page 15 that Hu teaches uniform circumferential heating not localized convergence via protruding edges and explained that the present invention deliberately departs from that design philosophy with protruding ridges that cause faster local aerosol formation and an overall increase in aerosol formation speed. Applicant also fails to explain which limitations of the claims are not met by the prior art references but merely argues why the architecture of the references differs from the architecture of the invention.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., localized convergence via protruding edges and faster local aerosol formation and an overall increase in aerosol formation speed, and strip shaped convex ridges) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, these arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 16 that the lens is part of a cylindrical body inner wall and defines a chamber surrounding a cigarette (page 17, bullet 1), a lens integrated into a base body to create circumferential convergence inside a tubular chamber (page 17, bullet 2) and strip shaped convex ridges along a cylindrical inner surface that contact and support a cigarette (page 17 bullet 3). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the lens is part of a cylindrical body inner wall and defines a chamber surrounding a cigarette (page 17, bullet 1), a lens integrated into a base body to create circumferential convergence inside a tubular chamber (page 17, bullet 2) and strip shaped convex ridges along a cylindrical inner surface that contact and support a cigarette (page 17 bullet 3)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, these arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicants’ argue on page 18 that there is lack of motivation to combine Hu with Seok because neither reference suggests modifying Hu’s cylindrical heater to incorporate protruding strip shaped convex ridges. This is not found persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., protruding strip shaped convex ridges) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, these arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 19 that claim 1 is not rendered obvious by Hu and Seok because they fail to teach a strip shaped convex cambered surface integrated into the inner surface of the tubular base body. This is not found persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a strip shaped convex cambered surface integrated into the inner surface of the tubular base body) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, these arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 20 that claim 12 is not obvious because Hu does not disclose the integrated lens body relationship of claim 12. This is not found persuasive as explained above because it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light convergence mechanism to be integral with the base body. The use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B).
Conclusion
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 Michael T Fulton whose telephone number is (703)756-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 - 4:30 ET.
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.
/M.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights