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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-12, and 20-31 are currently pending and are subject to this office action. Claims 1 and 12 are amended. Claims 2-4, 9, and 13-19 are canceled. Claims 20-31 are newly added. Claims 25-31 are withdrawn. This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 05/19/2026.
Response to Amendments
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 05/19/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
In response to Applicant’s amendments filed 05/19/2026 , the Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claim 1 for lacking antecedent basis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 6-10, filed 05/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the bottom cap of Yamada is a thermal insulator and not a thermally conductive element. Further that Yamada teaches determining a puffing action based on a temperature increase.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not require a specific degree of thermal conductivity. The claims require a thermal conductive element that is thermally conductive with the heater. Yamada teaches wherein the inner tube is preferably made of metal having high heat conductivity in order to facilitate transmission of heat generated by the heating member [0033]. The heat generated by the heating member is transmitted through the inner tube and bottom cap to increase the temperature at the sensor placement portion [0036, 0039]. Thus, Yamada relies upon thermal conduction between the heating member and surrounding structural components. The resin material, as stated by the Applicant, provides an example material of the bottom cap and does not take away from the device operation. The bottom cap still possesses some degree of thermal conductivity and is capable of transferring heat between the heater and sensor placement portion.
Further, Yamada teaches that the circuit detects a user’s puffing action based on data received from the temperature sensor [0036]. During inhalation, the interaction between incoming air and the heated components would result in changing temperature conditions [0040]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the temperature at the sensor may increase or decrease depending on airflow and thermal conditions. The ratio calculation, as mentioned by the Applicant, is merely the processing performed by the circuit after receiving temperature measurements from the sensor. The ratio does not change the underlying disclosure that the circuit determines inhalation based on temperature data [0036]. Yamada does not eliminate heat transfer from the heating member to the sensor. Rather, Yamada teaches balances the effect of the heating member and incoming air to accurately detect puffing, while still relying on heat transferred from the heating member to the sensor placement portion [0038-0040].
The following are modified rejections based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 25-31 are directed to an invention that lacks unity with the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1, 5-8, 10-12, and 20-24, drawn to a vapor generation device.
Group II, claims 25-31, drawn to a vapor generation device.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of “(i) a vapor generation device, configured to heat a vapor generation product to generate an aerosol for inhalation, comprising: (ii) a cavity, configured to receive the vapor generation product; (iii) a heater, configured to heat the vapor generation product received in the cavity; (iv) a wall, defining or forming at least a part of an airflow path of an airflow that passes through the vapor generation device during an inhaling process; (v) a temperature sensor, configured to sense a temperature of the wall; (vi) and a circuit programmed to determine an inhaling action of a user in a case that the temperature sensor detects a temperature drop of the wall; (vii) wherein the circuit is programmed to determine the inhaling action of the user upon detection that the temperature drop of the wall is in a range of 7 °C to 100 °C”, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Yamada (WO 2020084761 A1, hereinafter citations referring to EP 3871525 A1 for English language equivalent).
Yamada, directed to a suction device, teaches (i) an inhalation device (Fig. 1B: #10) configured to generate aerosol by heating a smoking article (Fig. 1B: #110, [0008]), (ii) The device comprises an opening (Fig. 5: #42a) for receiving the smoking article (Fig. 1B: #110, [0029]). (iii) A heating assembly (Fig. 5: #41), comprising a heating member (Fig 5: #43), is used to heat the smoking article (Fig. 1B: #110) received in the opening (Fig. 5: #42a, [0033]). (iv) A bottom cap (Fig. 5: #50), an inner tube (Fig. 5: #42), and a top cap (Fig 5: #48) form an air channel that brings air into the user's mouth [0035], where each component is joined and surrounded by walls, meeting the claim limitation of a wall, defining or forming at least a part of an airflow path of an airflow that passes through the vapor generation device during an inhaling process.
Yamada further teaches (v) a temperature sensor (Fig. 5: #60) that is provided on a wall surface of the bottom cap (Fig. 5: #50) and measures temperature to detect a user's puffing action [0036]. (vi) The device comprises a circuit portion (Fig. 5: #30) that is able to detect the user's puffing action in view of the temperature sensed by the temperature sensor [0036], meeting the claim limitation of a circuit, programmed to determine an inhaling action of a user in a case that the temperature sensor detects a temperature drop of the wall.
(vii) Yamada further teaches wherein (x) the circuit portion is capable of detecting the user's puffing action on the basis of the data received by the temperature sensor [0036], meeting the claim limitation of wherein the circuit is programmed to determine the inhaling action of the user.
Yamada further teaches a temperature increase of 45-55 °C due to the heating of the bottom cap [0039] and an increase of 10-20 °C during inhalation when air enters the device [0040]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both an increase and decrease of temperature may occur during inhalation depending on the interaction of airflow with the heater and monitoring a temperature drop, as opposed to a temperature increase, is an alternative. Differences in temperature ranges alone does not establish patentability unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical. Without such evidence, a temperature drop in the range of 7 °C to 100 °C is considered routine optimization by a person of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05.II(A)).
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 25-31 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO 2020084761 A1, hereinafter citations referring to EP 3871525 A1 for English language equivalent), and further in view of Emmett (WO 2020148214 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
406
303
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
682
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 1, Yamada, directed to a suction device, teaches (i) an inhalation device (Fig. 1B: #10) configured to generate aerosol by heating a smoking article (Fig. 1B: #110, [0008]), (ii) The device comprises an opening (Fig. 5: #42a) for receiving the smoking article (Fig. 1B: #110, [0029]). (iii) A heating assembly (Fig. 5: #41), comprising a heating member (Fig 5: #43), is used to heat the smoking article (Fig. 1B: #110) received in the opening (Fig. 5: #42a, [0033]). (iv) A bottom cap (Fig. 5: #50), an inner tube (Fig. 5: #42), and a top cap (Fig 5: #48) form an air channel that brings air into the user's mouth [0035], where each component is joined and surrounded by walls, meeting the claim limitation of a wall, defining or forming at least a part of an airflow path of an airflow that passes through the vapor generation device during an inhaling process.
Yamada further teaches (v) a temperature sensor (Fig. 5: #60) that is provided on a wall surface of the bottom cap (Fig. 5: #50) and measures temperature to detect a user's puffing action [0036]. (vi) The device comprises a circuit portion (Fig. 5: #30) that is able to detect the user's puffing action in view of the temperature sensed by the temperature sensor [0036], meeting the claim limitation of a circuit, programmed to determine an inhaling action of a user in a case that the temperature sensor detects a temperature drop of the wall.
(vii) The bottom cap (Fig. 5: #50), with the downstream end (Fig. 5: #50a) forming a side wall in connection with the heating assembly (Fig. 5: #41), increases temperature due to heat transmission from the heating member (Fig. 5: #43, [0039]). A prior art structure that is capable of performing the same function as a claimed structure may establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness should the examiner explain how the prior art possesses the functional limitations of the claimed apparatus (MPEP 2114(I)). A person of ordinary skill in the art would know that a thermally conductive element is a component that is capable of transferring heat from one area to another. The bottom cap is designed to transfer heated air flow from the heating element to reach the sensor placement portion (Fig. 5: #62, [0039]), similar in function to a thermal conductive element and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
(viii) Yamada further teaches wherein the temperature sensor (Fig. 5: #60) is retained on an inner side of the outside wall of the bottom cap (Fig. 5: #50). (ix) Yamada teaches a second ring-like member (Fig. 5: #47), meeting the claim limitation of a support, located towards the bottom of the heating assembly (Fig. 5: #41). The second ring-like member (Fig. 5: #47) is connected to a portion of the inner tube (Fig. 5: #42) via the bottom cap (Fig. 5: #50, [0031]). Yamada teaches wherein (x) the circuit portion is capable of detecting the user's puffing action on the basis of the data received by the temperature sensor [0036], meeting the claim limitation of wherein the circuit is programmed to determine the inhaling action of the user.
Yamada further teaches a temperature increase of 45-55 °C due to the heating of the bottom cap [0039] and an increase of 10-20 °C during inhalation when air enters the device [0040]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both an increase and decrease of temperature may occur during inhalation depending on the interaction of airflow with the heater and monitoring a temperature drop, as opposed to a temperature increase, is an alternative. Differences in temperature ranges alone does not establish patentability unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical. Without such evidence, a temperature drop in the range of 7 °C to 100 °C is considered routine optimization by a person of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05.II(A)).Yamada teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however Yamada is silent to:
Wherein the thermal conductive element comprises at least one of copper, silver, aluminum, gold, and an alloy thereof
Emmett, directed to a radiation heated aerosol generating system, teaches a body of a cartridge made of a highly thermally conductive material, wherein the material may be aluminum to provide rapid heat distribution (Pg. 3, Lines 18-25).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious or one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thermal conductive element of Yamada to wherein the thermal conductive element comprises at least one of copper, silver, aluminum, gold, and an alloy thereof because both Yamada and Emmett are directed to improved heating efficiency. Emmett teaches a thermally conductive material in the form of aluminum to provide rapid heat distribution (Pg. 3, Lines 18-25) and this merely involves applying a known material to a known conductive element ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
PNG
media_image2.png
682
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 5, Yamada teaches wherein the bottom cap (Fig. 5: #50) is connected with the heating member (Fig. 5: #43) of the heating assembly (Fig. 5: #41).
PNG
media_image3.png
357
434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
682
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 6, Yamada teaches wherein (i) the heating assembly (Fig. 3: #41) extends along a length of the first opening (Fig. 3: #42a) and surrounds the cavity (Fig. 3: "a" and "b"). (ii) The bottom cap (Fig. 5: #50) is located towards the bottom of the heating assembly (Fig. 5: #41), meeting the claim limitation of wherein the thermal conductive element is located upstream of the heater.
Yamada further teaches wherein (iii) the heating assembly (Fig. 3: #41) comprises a second opening (Fig. 5: #42b) located in the same axis as the bottom cap (Fig. 5: #50), meeting the claim limitation of wherein the heater has an air inlet end portion close to the thermal conductive element in an axial direction. (iv) The bottom cap (Fig. 5: #50) is in communication with a vent hole (Fig. 5: #15) which is an air inlet that allows air to enter the heating assembly (Fig. 5: #41, [0026]).
With regard to Claim 7, Yamada teaches wherein the bottom cap is cylindrically shaped and arranged along a linear axis, similar to the heating assembly of the heating portion [0035].
PNG
media_image2.png
682
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 8, Yamada teaches (i) a second ring-like member (Fig. 5: #47), meeting the claim limitation of a support, located towards the bottom of the heating assembly (Fig. 5: #41). The second ring-like member (Fig. 5: #47) is connected to a portion of the inner tube (Fig. 5: #42) via the bottom cap (Fig. 5: #50), near the second opening (Fig. 5: #42b), to create a sealed space (Fig 5: #54) and support the containment of aerogel (Fig. 5: #44) in the sealed space (Fig. 5: #54, [0031]). (ii) The second ring-like member extends in a circumferential direction [0031] and seals the sealed space (Fig. 5: #54), where the heating member (Fig. 5: #43) is disposed in the sealed space (Fig. 5: #54).
Yamada teaches (iii) wherein the second ring-like member (Fig. 5: #47) is tightly connected to the inner tube (Fig. 5: #42) via the bottom cap (Fig. 5: #50, [0031]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the structure of the bottom cap (Fig. 5: #50) and the second ring like structure (Fig. 5: #47), so that the bottom cap (Fig. 5: #50) partially fits into a hollow of the circumferential second ring-like member to ensure more effective heat transfer, meeting the claim limitation of wherein the thermal conductive element is at least partially located in an annular hollow of the support.
PNG
media_image2.png
682
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 10, Yamada teaches wherein the bottom cap (Fig. 5: #50) comprises an upstream end (Fig. 5: #50b) in which air from the vent hole (Fig. 5: #15) flows from the upstream end (Fig 5: #50b), through the bottom cap (Fig. 5: #50), and introduces air towards the second opening (Fig. 5: #42b) of the inner tube (Fig. 5: #42, [0035]). The upstream end of the bottom cap performs the same airflow function as the claimed invention and produces the same results, therefore being considered a prima facie case of equivalence (MPEP 2183) and meeting the claim limitation of wherein the thermal conductive element is provided with a notch through which the air enters the air inlet end portion during use.
PNG
media_image2.png
682
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 11, Yamada teaches wherein a downstream end (Fig. 5: #50a) of the bottom cap (Fig. 5: #50) is connected to the second opening (Fig. 5: #42b) of the inner tube (Fig. 5: #42, [0035]). The heating member (Fig. 5: #43) is disposed so as to abut against the inner tube (Fig. 5: #42). Figure 5 illustrates wherein the downstream end (Fig. 5: #50a) of the (Fig. 5: #50) surrounds and contains the second opening (Fig. 5: #42b), meeting the claim limitation of wherein the thermal conductive element is constructed to support the heater at the air inlet end portion.
With regard to Claim 24, Yamada teaches wherein the heating member may be a flexible film heater that is fabricated by sandwich a heat-generating resistive element with two polyimide films or other like films [0030].
Claims 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO 2020084761 A1, hereinafter citations referring to EP 3871525 A1 for English language equivalent) and Emmett (WO 2020148214 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Zhang (CN 109846093 A, hereinafter citations referring to English language equivalent US 20240206540 A1).
With regard to Claim 12, modified Yamada teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Yamada is silent to:
Wherein the heater is an infrared emitter that heats the vapor generation product by radiation an infrared ray to the vapor generation product received in the cavity
PNG
media_image4.png
637
419
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Zhang, directed to a low-temperature baking smoking set, teaches wherein a heating assembly (Fig. 6: #3) comprises an infrared coating layer, which assists in reflecting infrared light back to an interior of the heating base body (Fig. 6: #31) for heating smoking material placed inside the heating base body (Fig. 6: #31) to enhance heating efficiency of the smoking material [0051].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heater of modified Yamada to wherein the heater is an infrared emitter that heats the vapor generation product by radiation an infrared ray to the vapor generation product received in the cavity because both Yamada and Zhang are directed to aerosol generating devices with improved heating efficiency. Zhang teaches an infrared coating layer to enhance heating efficiency of the smoking material [0051] and this merely involves simple substitution of a known heating component for another to obtain predictable results.
With regard to Claim 21, modified Yamada teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Yamada is silent to:
A support located upstream of the heater and configured to support a lower end of the infrared emitter
PNG
media_image4.png
637
419
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Zhang, directed to a low-temperature baking smoking set, teaches a fixing seat (Fig. 6: #30) located upstream of an infrared coating layer (Fig. 6: #32) and configured to support a lower end of the infrared coating layer (Fig. 6: #32), wherein the infrared coating layer (Fig. 6: #32) heating smoking material placed inside a heating base body (Fig. 6: #31, [0051]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the fixing seat of Zhang to support the heating assembly (Fig. 6: #30) including the infrared coating layer (Fig. 6: #32).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heater of modified Yamada to wherein a support is located upstream of the heater and configured to support a lower end of the infrared emitter because both Yamada and Zhang are directed to aerosol generating devices with improved heating efficiency. Zhang teaches a fixing seat upstream of an infrared coating layer to support the heating assembly including the infrared coating layer and this merely involves applying a known supporting component to a known assembly ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO 2020084761 A1, hereinafter citations referring to EP 3871525 A1 for English language equivalent) and Emmett (WO 2020148214 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Halliday (WO 2020182739 A1).
With regard to Claim 20, modified Yamada teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however Yamada is silent to:
Wherein the temperature sensor is located and retained between an outer side wall of the thermal conductive element and an inner side wall of the support
PNG
media_image5.png
634
344
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Halliday, directed to an aerosol provision device, teaches a temperature sensor (Fig. 7: #216). The temperature sensor (Fig. 7: #216) is retained within a resilient component (Fig. 7: #214), where the resilient component may be thermally conductive (Pg. 6, Lines 4-5), and an inner surface side wall (Fig. 7: #210a) of a battery support (Fig. 7: #120). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the structural relationship between the temperature sensor, bottom cap, and second ring-like member to wherein the sensor is disposed between the bottom cap and second ring-like member to establish a stronger connection and improved sensing ability for the sensor to control the heating operation of the heater assembly (Pg. 19, Lines 9-12).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structural relationship between the temperature sensor, thermal conductive element, and the support of modified Yamada to include wherein the temperature sensor is located and retained between an outer side wall of the thermal conductive element and an inner side wall of the support because Yamada and Halliday are both directed to aerosol generating devices with temperature sensors for ensuring safe operation temperatures. Halliday teaches a temperature sensor retained between a resilient component and battery support to measure a temperature of the battery (Pg. 19, Lines 9-10) and this merely involves combining the structural relationship of Halliday with the components of Yamada according to known temperature sensing methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO 2020084761 A1, hereinafter citations referring to EP 3871525 A1 for English language equivalent) and Emmett (WO 2020148214 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Horrod (US 20200000148 A1).
With regard to Claim 22, modified Yamada teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Yamada is silent to:
Wherein the heater is an induction heater that heats the vapor generation product after being penetrated by a changing magnetic field
Horrod, directed to an apparatus for heating smokable material, teaches magnetic field generators which generate alternating magnetic fields for penetrating thermally conductive portions to heat aerosol generating material [0110-0111] to and allow freedom and control over a devices heating profile [0071].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heater of modified Yamada to wherein the heater is an induction heater that heats the vapor generation product after being penetrated by a changing magnetic field because both Yamada and Horrod are directed to improving heating efficiency in aerosol generating devices. Horrod teaches magnetic field generators that generate alternating magnetic fields to allow freedom and control over a devices heating profile [0071] and this merely involves simple substitution of a known heating component for another to obtain predictable results.
With regard to Claim 23, modified Yamada teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Yamada is silent to:
Wherein a lower end of the induction heater is supported by the thermal conductive element
PNG
media_image6.png
177
289
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Horrod teaches wherein the magnetic field generators (Fig. 15: #121 & #122) are supported by thermally conductive portions (Fig. 15: #12a & #12b) to intensify heating within the device [0070].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heater of modified Yamada to wherein a lower end of the induction heater is supported by the thermal conductive element because both Yamada and Horrod are directed to improving heating efficiency in aerosol generating devices. Horrod teaches magnetic field generators supported by thermally conductive portions to intensify heating [0070] and this merely involves applying a known heating relationship to a known aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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