Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/007,122

Evaporator

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 27, 2023
Examiner
BACHNER, ROBERT G
Art Unit
2898
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Jt International SA
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
737 granted / 838 resolved
+19.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
870
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.7%
-35.3% vs TC avg
§103
53.3%
+13.3% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
14.9%
-25.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 838 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 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. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0008473). Regarding claim 1. An evaporator for an aerosol generating device comprising: Schmidt discloses Fig. 5 a heating body comprising a plurality of channels(62) arranged through the heating body(60) between an inlet surface(61) and an outlet surface(64), the channels configured to transport liquid from the inlet surface through the heating body by capillary action(see [0081]); wherein the heating body comprises electrically conductive material and the evaporator ([0080])further comprises circuitry (15)for providing a current through the electrically conductive material() to provide resistive heating of the heating body to evaporate a liquid passing through the channels(see [0092]); Schmidt does not disclose: wherein the heating body and circuitry are configured to provide a positive temperature gradient across the heating body from the inlet surface to the outlet surface. However, Schmidt discloses that the device 60 heats up the region of the output side, and the inlet side 61 is not heated. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that there is a temperature gradient from the inlet side to the output side, and as such, the features of claim 1 would have been at least obvious prior to the effective filing date of this application. Regarding claim 2. Schmidt discloses Fig. 5 The evaporator of claim 1 wherein the heating body comprises one or more layers of electrically conductive material arranged to provide the positive temperature gradient across the heating body.(see [0080], 60) Regarding claim 3. Schmidt discloses Fig. 5 The evaporator of claim 1 wherein the electronically conductive material is arranged as a resistive heating layer at the outlet surface. (see [0080], 60) Regarding claim 4. Schmidt discloses Fig. 5 The evaporator of claim 1 wherein resistivity of the heating body varies across the heating body to provide the temperature gradient when a current is provided to the heating body. ([0080] by provides a temperature gradient because part is heated and the other part is not. 60 includes an electrically conductive material on a portion) Regarding claim 5. Schmidt discloses: The evaporator of claim 4 wherein the evaporator comprises a plurality of heating layers([0017]), Schmidt does not disclose: wherein at least two of the plurality of heating layers have a different resistivity. However, the layers can have the same resistivity, or different resistivity. Thus there are a finite number of solutions. The different resistivities would provide different amounts of heat and power consumption. As such, it would have been obvious to try to make the resistance of the layers different for the obvious benefit of delivering different temperatures and power consumption as needed prior to the effective filing date of this application. See MPEP§ 2143. Regarding claim 6. Schmidt discloses Fig. 5 The evaporator of claim 1 wherein the heating body comprises a semiconductor or ceramic wherein the dopant concentration is configured to provide the positive temperature gradient when a current is provided to the heating body. . ([0080] by provides a temperature gradient because part is heated and the other part is not. 60 includes an electrically conductive material on a portion 60 including dopped ceramics, the amount of doping is provided to have the positive temperature gradient) Regarding claim 7. Schmidt discloses: The evaporator of claim 6 wherein the heating body comprises a layer of increased dopant concentration([0080]) Schmidt does not disclose: at the outlet surface. However, Schmidt discloses that multiple heating layers maybe provided, and that the dopant may be used to provide it. ([0017], [0080]) As such, it would have been obvious to provide the dopant where it is needed for the benefit of getting a desired heating profile. That is, the recited features is mere change design choice, which would have been made for the benefit of providing the heating where desired. As such, the features of claim 7 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill In the art. See MPEP 2144.(IV)(B). Here the change in shape would merely provide dopant in a place of a desired result of heating, and it would have been predictable. As such, the features of claim 7 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 8. Schmidt discloses: The evaporator of claim 1 heating body comprises a plurality of heating layers arranged sequentially between the inlet surface and the outlet surface ([0017] [0080]), Schmidt does not disclose: wherein the heating layers are heated to different temperatures to provide the temperature gradient. However, the layers can have the same resistivity, or different resistivity. Thus there are a finite number of solutions. The different resistivities would provide different amounts of heat and power consumption. As such, it would have been obvious to try to make the resistance of the layers different for the obvious benefit of delivering different temperatures and power consumption as needed prior to the effective filing date of this application. See MPEP§ 2143. Regarding claim 9. Schmidt discloses: The evaporator of claim 8 wherein the heating layers comprise a semiconductor material([0080] [0017]) Schmidt does not disclose: where the dopant concentration differs between the plurality of heating layers. However, the layers can have the same resistivity, or different resistivity. Thus there are a finite number of solutions. The different resistivities would provide different amounts of heat and power consumption. As such, it would have been obvious to try to make the resistance of the layers different for the obvious benefit of delivering different temperatures and power consumption as needed prior to the effective filing date of this application. See MPEP§ 2143. Regarding claim 10. Schmidt discloses: The evaporator of claim 8 comprising a layer of insulation between two neighbouring heating layers.(-[0098], using insulation between conducive members to isolate them from each other.) It would have been obvious to provide an insulation between to conductive members for the obvious benefit of preventing them from shorting and allowing the device to work as desired. As such, the features of claim 10 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 11. Schmidt discloses Fig. 5 The evaporator of claim 1 wherein a diameter of one or more channels of the heating body decreases in a direction between the inlet surface and the outlet surface. ([0088], the cross-section of the channels can decrease in the longitudinal direction) Regarding claim 12. Schmidt discloses Fig. 5 The evaporator of claim 1 wherein the temperature gradient is configured such that a liquid passing through the channels evaporates closer to the outlet surface than the inlet surface. (see [0080], the liquid evaporates closer to the heating element, which may include an electrically conductive material coating, which would cause the evaporation at the surface which may be the outlet) Regarding claim 13. Schmidt discloses: The evaporator of claim 1 wherein the evaporator is configured to provide a temperature at the inlet surface of 40° C. or more and a temperature at the outlet surface of between 200° C. and 350° C.([0094] disclosing that the outlet temp may be between 100 and 400 degrees. ) Schmidt does not disclose that the temperature of the inlet is above 40, however, the inlet is connected to the outlet, and would reach that temperature through heat transfer when the outlet is heated, and as such, the features of claim 13 are met because the inlet temperature would rise via heat conduction when the device operates. Regarding claim 14. Schmidt discloses Fig. 5 The evaporator of claim 1 further comprising a liquid store in fluid communication with the inlet surface of the heating body such that liquid is drawn from the liquid store through the heating body during use.([0081] liquid drawing from 18) Regarding claim 15. Schmidt discloses Fig. 5 The evaporator of claim 1 wherein a diameter of the channels is between 5 μm and 200μm. (channels 62 may be between 5-200, see [0082]) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT G BACHNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10-6 EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ajay Ojha can be reached at (571)273-8936. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ROBERT G BACHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 27, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593643
BATCH THERMAL PROCESS CHAMBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588743
HAIRSTYLING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582166
AEROSOL PROVISION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588520
ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581983
SEMICONDUCTOR MODULE COMPRISING A SEMICONDUCTOR AND COMPRISING A SHAPED METAL BODY THAT IS ELECTRICALLY CONTACTED BY THE SEMICONDUCTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+6.5%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 838 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