Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/923,898

HEATING BODY AND AEROSOL-GENERATION DEVICE INCLUDING SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 07, 2022
Examiner
PAIK, SANG YEOP
Art Unit
3761
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Shenzhen First Union Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
907 granted / 1386 resolved
-4.6% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
1434
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
57.6%
+17.6% vs TC avg
§102
17.6%
-22.4% vs TC avg
§112
17.4%
-22.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1386 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 . 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(s) 1, 2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borges et al (US 2020/0375251) in view of Hikino et al (US 4,426,570). Borges shows a heating body for heating an aerosol-forming substrate/article, the heating body including an electric heating element (24) that receives electric power of a power supply with a base body (22) that is configured for insertion into the aerosol-forming substrate wherein the base body (22) illustrates having an accommodation within which the electric heating element (24) is accommodated therein as illustrated in Figure 1. But, Borges does not show explicitly show the base body having an accommodation cavity wherein an infrared radiator is arranged on the base body that is configured to receive heat generated by the electric heating element and heat up to generate infrared rays for heating the aerosol-forming substrate as claimed. Hikino discloses it is known to provide a heating base (1) having an accommodating cavity within which a heating element (2) is accommodated therein with an infrared radiator (3; refractory film) is arranged on the base body for an increased radiation heat. In view of Hikino, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Borges with the base body (22) with an accommodation cavity within which a heating element is accommodated therein for the protection of the heating element wherein the an infrared radiator such as a refractory infrared material is further arranged on the base body to increase its heating capability to predictably brings about an rapid heat to meet the desired heating temperature for heating the aerosol-generating substrate. With respect to claim 2, Hikino discloses the infrared radiator is an infrared radiation film on an outer surface of the base body as illustrated in Figure 2. With respect to claim 15, Borges disclose the aerosol-generating device with a heating chamber (32) with the heating body arranged therein. Claim(s) 3-14, 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borges in view of Hikino as applied to claims 1, 2 and 15 above, and further in view of Gallager (US 1,365,978). With respect to claims 3 and 16, Borges in view of Hikino shows the heating body claimed except for a shape of the accommodation cavity matches with a shape of the base body. Gallager discloses it is known to provide a heating body having a base body (A) having an accommodation cavity within which a heating element is accommodated therein wherein Gallager discloses that a shape of the accommodation cavity matches with a shape of the base body as illustrated in Figure 1. In view of Gallager, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Borges, as modified by Hikino, with the accommodation cavity matches a shape of the base body so that heating generated by the heating element within the cavity can be uniformly and evenly transferred and distributed along the base body. With respect to claims 4 and 17, Borges, as modified by Gallager, further discloses the base body (A), as taught by Gallager, with an closed end and an open end wherein the electric heating element can be conveniently accommodated predicably from an open end and protected within the base body. With respect to claims 5 and 18, Gallager shows it is known to provide a first pin wire (14’) and a second pin wire (15’) that is respectively connected to ends of the heating element wherein both first and second pin wires extend out of the base body from the open end as illustrated in Figure 2. With respect to claim 6, Gallager shows a first connection point made between the one end of the first pin wire and the heating element, and a second connection made between the one end of the first pin wire and the heating element wherein both first and second connection points are located in the accommodating cavity of the base body as shown in Figure 2. With respect to claim 7, Gallager shows a distance between the first connection point and the open end, and a distance between the second connection point and the open end wherein such distance is illustrated to be of a small distance as illustrated in Figure 2, and while Gallager does not explicitly disclose such distance to be between 1 mm and 3 mm, it would have been obvious to provide such distance to be in the claimed range or any other suitable range so that the pin connections are made close proximity to the open end as such connection can be conveniently and suitable made. With respect to claim 8, Gallager shows a seal member E that is configured to seal the open end as illustrated in Figure 2. With respect claim 9, Gallager shows the heating body having a base (F) with an end surface of the open end abuts against the bottom base as illustrated in Figure 2. With respect to claims 10 and 20, Gallager shows a tapered protruding potion arranged at the closed end wherein Borges also shows the base body having a tapered protruding point wherein the such protruding point would be formed by extending the base body from a closed end as taught shown by Gallager. With respect to claims 11 and 12, Gallager discloses a keeping member shown by an insulating tube D accommodated in the base body wherein Gallager further shows that the keeping member is tube with the heating element having a spiral section arranged on an outer surface of the keeping member and an extension section located in the inner hole/tube. With respect to claim 13, Hikino discloses that a material of the infrared radiator (3) is a refractory material including an oxide material (column 2, lines 1-7). With respect to claim 14, Hikino discloses that the base body is made of quartz or glass, and Gallager also discloses that the base body material is made a glass quartz (e.g., silica). With respect to claim 15, Borges disclose the aerosol-generating device with a heating chamber (32) with the heating body arranged therein. Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borges in view of Hikino as applied to claims 1, 2 and 15 above, and further in view of Hosokawa et al (US 3,970,816). Borges in view of Hikino discloses the heating body claimed except for the infrared radiator that is an infrared radiation powder filled in the accommodating cavity of the base body. Hosokawa shows it is known to provide a heating element (11) provided with an infrared radiator in a form of an infrared radiation powder material that can generates rapid infrared radiation heat. Also, see column 1, lines 30-32. In view of Hosokawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Borges with the infrared radiator that is provided in an infrared radiation power material filled in an accommodation cavity of the base body of Borges, as modified by Hikino as an alternative arrangement that can predictably generate rapid infrared radiation heat for heating the aerosol-forming substrate as claimed. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection based on Hikino as stated in the ground of rejection. It is noted that Hikino is applied to teach the base body having an accommodation cavity with an infrared radiation arranged on the base body. Applicant also argues that Borges discloses an optical sensor 26 wherein having an infrared radiation on the heating body, as modified by Hosokawa, would interfere with the normal detection function of the optical sensor. This argument is not deemed persuasive since the optical sensor is measuring an optical wavelength that is in the range of a visible wavelength in the range of 390 nm to 700 nm (equivalent to .39 um to .70 um; also, see para 0106 of Borges) wherein the infrared radiation heat is generated in the near infrared wavelength of 5-16 um in Hosokawa which is outside of the visible light spectrum and, thus, would not interfere the normal detection function of the optical sensor of Borges as argued by Applicant. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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. /SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 07, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 08, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601440
SYSTEM TO CONVEY A FLUID
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594618
WELDING POWER SUPPLIES AND USER INTERFACES FOR WELDING POWER SUPPLIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595870
UNDERWATER HEATED PIPE FOR THE TRANSPORT OF FLUIDS AND METHOD FOR ASSEMBLING SUCH A PIPE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598988
Integrated Circuit Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588456
REFLECTOR PLATE FOR SUBSTRATE PROCESSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+16.5%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1386 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