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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/24/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17, and 20-26 are currently pending and are subject to this office action. Claims 9-11, 13, 15-17, and 20-26 are withdrawn. Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 18-19, and 27-31 are canceled. This office action is in response to Applicant’s request for continued examination filed on 02/24/2026.
Response to Amendments
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 02/24/2026 containing remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 6-9, filed 02/24/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant argues that Lee’s disclosure is limited and does not teach all the limitations of claim 1.
The Examiner agrees. The description of Lee does not fully disclose each and every element of the limitations of claim 1 for anticipation. Although the figures of Lee were also used to support the rejection, the figures do not clearly depict the limitations of the claims and can be seen as ambiguous. Thus, the previous rejection over Lee is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fursa (WO 2019030361 A1).
The following are modified rejections based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fursa (WO 2019030361 A1, hereinafter citations referring to English language equivalent US 20210145061 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
249
446
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
285
451
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 1, Fursa, directed to an aerosol-generation device teaches (i) a device (Fig. 4: #12) used for heating an aerosol forming substrate (Fig. 4: #34) of an aerosol generating article (Fig. 2: #14) to generate aerosol [0097]. (ii) The device comprises an inductor coil (Fig. 4: #26) formed from a wire comprising an electrically conductive core [0031] and is configured to receive at least a portion of an aerosol-generating article (Fig. 4: #14) within the inductor coil (Fig. 4: #26, [0018]).
(iii) An outer surface of the inductor coil (Fig. 6: #26) may be overmoulded with a portion of the housing [0027]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that overmoulding would involve forming a material around the inductor coil such that it surrounds the exterior surface of the coil. Figure 6 illustrates where an inner portion of the housing (Fig. 6: #217) is overmoulded with respect to an outer surface of the inductor coil (Fig. 6: #26, [0101]). Thus, the overmoulded configuration inherently encapsulates at least an outer edge of the inductive coil. (iv) An inner surface of the inductor coil (Fig. 4: #26) may contact the aerosol-generating article (Fig. 4: #14) received within the inductor coil [0034].
With regard to Claim 7, Fursa teaches wherein the housing may comprise materials made from plastics or polyether ether ketone (PEEK) [0048].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fursa (WO 2019030361 A1, hereinafter citations referring to English language equivalent US 20210145061 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Naito (US 20130305504 A1).
With regard to Claim 5, Fursa teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however Fursa is silent to:
Wherein the conductive wire has a substantially rectangular cross-section having a width in a range of 2.75 mm +- 30% to 5.95 mm +- 30% and a thickness in the range 0.05 mm +- 30% to 0.1 mm +- 30%; or the conductive wire has a substantially circular cross-section having a diameter of 0.2 to 0.65 mm
Naito, directed to a gang socket and jig for manufacturing a capacitor element, teaches wherein a conductive lead wire has a transverse cross-sectional shape of a circle with an outer diameter of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm [0080]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the conductive wire of Fursa to fit the claimed measurements because the diameter range of Naito helps to prevent corrosion [0082]. There is a significant amount of overlap in the diameter range of 0.2 to 0.65 mm of the claimed invention and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to modify the conductive wire of Fursa to have a substantially circular cross- section having a diameter of 0.2 to 0.65 mm because both Fursa and Naito are directed to using conductive wires while preventing heat damage from the wire. Naito teaches a lead wire with a diameter of 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm to help prevent corrosion and this merely involves applying a known wire size to a known aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWATOSIN O DIYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 am - 6 pm.
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, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. 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.
/O.O.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights