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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 July 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 20 July 2026:
Claims 1-4, 11, 13-14, 17-19, 22 and 27-30 are pending
Claims 27-30 are withdrawn
Claims 1, 13-14 and 17 are amended
Claims 5-10, 12, 15-16, 20-21 and 23-26 are cancelled
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to the claims filed 20 July 2026 have been acknowledged. The rejection to Claims 15-16 are withdrawn due to cancellation of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 20 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
On Page 8-10 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant has amended the claims to clarify that the air aperture array is arranged on the air path on the side of the heating element, wherein the aperture array is further recited to only require progressive variance of the flow area instead of either the aperture flow area or density. Applicant argues that neither Li nor Zhang discloses a progressively varying flow area, and that Li’s disclosure does not mention any modification for changing the size or shape of their holes.
It would appear that Applicant is claiming that the flow area is in reference to the size/shape of each individual aperture hole in the recited array and not describing an overall flow area change of the entire array. When interpreting the claims in such a manner, Examiner agrees that Li does not provide any disclosure or motivation for adjusting the size (i.e., flow area) of each hole to vary progressively along the length of the heating element and therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gage et al (Publication No. US20200128880A1).
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 8-10 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant has amended the claims to clarify that the air aperture array is arranged on the air path on the side of the heating element, wherein the aperture array is further recited to only require progressive variance of the flow area instead of either the aperture flow area or density. Applicant argues that neither Li nor Zhang discloses a progressively varying flow area, and that Li’s through-holes as depicted in the drawings would not seem suitable to be airflow through holes.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that Li was not used to disclose air apertures around an air path as Zhang already discloses this. Li’s disclosure was used to show that arranging the density of holes (such as air apertures) to have a progressively varying aperture density is known in the prior art. Since Li’s holes are also disposed on a heating element such as Zhang’s air aperture holes, one ordinarily skilled in the art would find it obvious to arrange the air aperture holes on Zhang’s heating element to have a progressive aperture density variance as disclosed by Li, resulting in the same heating resistance variance benefit disclosed by Li while also arriving at the same configuration as disclosed by the Applicant.
On Page 10 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant argues that Zhang teaches away from modifying their air apertures because it requires uniform distribution of the vent holes. However, Examiner does not find this argument convincing because, while Zhang does state that the apertures are uniformly distributed, Zhang’s disclosure does not make any explicit statement that they can only be uniformly distributed or that the uniform distribution is required to maintain some form of benefit to the heating element structure. Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art could modify Zhang’s air apertures if there is a clear reason for the modification within the prior art.
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.
2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 11, 13-14, 17, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (Publication No. US20200085103A1, cited in IDS dated 25 March 2025) in view of Gage et al (Publication No. US20200128880A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang discloses a heating element (1/2) and heater (100) (i.e., aerosol provision device) for heating/aerosolizing a cigarette (i.e., aerosol-generating material) comprising:
a receptacle (3) configured to receive at least a portion of an article (i.e., cigarette) comprising aerosol-generating material (Figs. 7-9; [0060]);
the receptacle comprises an opening (311) for passing through a heating part of the heating element, thus defining a heating zone between the receptable and heating part (see Fig. 8; [0060]; area between the heating element and receptacle is considered the heating zone);
and a heating element (1/2) protruding from the receptacle (3) into the heating zone (i.e., zone between heating element and receptacle) at a distal end of the receptacle (i.e., end with through hole 301) (see Figs. 7-9; [0060]; the heating element protrudes from the through hole; the hole is shown on one end of the receptacle which can be considered as the distal end);
and configured to heat the heating zone (Figs. 7-9; [0058-0063]; the heating element within the receptacle heating zone heats said zone via varying magnetic fields).
the heating element having a free end (i.e., end with Opening 311) towards a proximal end of the receptacle (see Figs. 7-9; [0060]; the hole 301 is located on a distal end whereas the opening is located on the opposite proximal end of the receptacle);
wherein an air path (13) is defined through the heating part (11) heating element (1/2) (Fig. 3; [008-009, 0044];
wherein the air path comprises a plurality (i.e., array) of air apertures on an outer side of the heating element (1/2) (see Figs. 1-3; [0045]; the vent holes are bored through the walls of the heating element; figures show the holes boring through the outer side of the heating element).
Zhang does not disclose the flow area of the array of apertures varies progressively along the length of the heating element.
However, it should be noted that the change in size or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design (see MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B). For example, Gage, directed to a smoking article cartridge, notes that in an enclosure embodiment, a plurality of perforations (i.e., aperture array) can be made on the walls of the enclosure [0041]. The size, quantity and density of the plurality of holes can be varied on different portions of the walls so that the airflow can be controlled through the enclosure ([0041]; one example given is where density can be varied from a middle section to a periphery; one ordinarily skilled in the art can apply this to sizing based on Gage’s disclosure).
Though Gage does not explicitly note that these air flow perforations are disposed on a heating element air path, it should be noted that Zhang’s heating element already has the air path and aperture features, wherein the components are formed such that the air path inside of the heating element such that the heating element sides can be considered the air path enclosure, and its walls the enclosure walls disposed with air aperture holes/perforations.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious engineering design choice for one ordinarily skilled in the art to take Gage’s disclosure and adjust the size and shape of the array of apertures (i.e., holes) disclosed by Zhang such that the air flow area of the apertures varies progressively along the length of the heating element sides (i.e., the aperture hole size varies along the heating element), and predictably yield a heating element that forms an enclosure in which the air path is located in, and wherein the apertures vary in flow area progressively along the length of the heating element enclosure sides so that the flow of air through the heating element enclosure (i.e., air path) can be controlled.
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang further discloses the heating element (1/2) protruding into the heating zone is configured to be heated to a sufficient heat (i.e., temperature) to heat a cigarette (200) (i.e., generate aerosol from the aerosol-generating material) [0062].
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang further discloses the air path (13) communicates between external to the heating zone (i.e., external air intake) and the heating zone (see Fig. 8; [0051]; the air path can draw in external air which indicates it is in communication with an area external to the heater; external air is drawn into the heating body through its air vents 15 which is shown to open into the heating zone formed by the receptacle 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang further discloses the heating element (1/2) comprises an air conduit (Air flow path 13) and an air outlet (Air vent 15) in fluid communication between the air conduit and the heating zone (see Figs. 1-3, 8; [0049-0051]; the air path is shown to be a conduit within the heating element that is in communication with the air vents/outlets that direct air outwards to the receptable heating zone).
Regarding Claim 11, Modified Zhang does not explicitly disclose at least a first air aperture of the array of air aperture differs in flow area from at least a second air aperture of the array of air apertures.
However, it should be noted that Modified Zhang discloses that the array of air apertures has a progressively varying flow area (see Claim 1 rejection for full modification). As such, it is implied that the size of each aperture along the length of the heating element is not uniform. Since the flow areas of the apertures are not uniform, it would be apparent to one ordinarily skilled in the art that the flow area of a first air aperture located on one end of the heating element, would differ from a second air aperture of the array located on a different end of the heating element.
Regarding Claims 13-14, Modified Zhang does not explicitly disclose the array of holes are arranged such that a flow area of the array of air apertures increases in a direction from the distal end to the proximal end or vice versa.
However, it should be noted that Modified Zhang discloses that the array of air apertures has a progressively varying flow area (see Claim 1 rejection for full modification). As such, it is implied that the size of each aperture along the length of the heating element is not uniform. Since the flow areas of the apertures are not uniform, one ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that the size of each aperture would vary to be either smaller or larger than an adjacent aperture along the length of the heating element (i.e., distal to proximal end or vice versa). For example, Gage notes that in varying the size/density of the apertures, they can be arranged in virtually any pattern on the side walls [0041].
Therefore, it would have been an obvious engineering design choice based on Gage’s disclosure for one ordinarily skilled in the art to rearrange the holes on the heating element disclosed by Zhang to be in a pattern wherein the aperture flow area/size increases from the distal to the proximal end or vice versa of a heating element, and predictably yield a heating element with an array of apertures that is still capable of guiding external air through and out of the heating element.
Regarding Claim 17, Zhang further discloses a first wall region of the heating element comprising the array of air apertures, and a second wall region of the heating element free of the array of air apertures (see annotated Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
1001
747
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, Zhang further discloses the air conduit (13) is a first air conduit and the air outlet (15) is a first air outlet and the heating element (1/2) comprises a second air conduit (Air inlet 130) (see Fig. 3; [0044]);
and a second air outlet (15) in fluid communication between the second air conduit (130) and the heating zone (i.e., zone between the heating element and receptacle) (see Figs. 3, 8; [0044, 0051]; the second air conduit/inlet is in communication with the apertures/outlets via the first air conduit, wherein the outlets are in communication with the heating zone as shown in Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 22, Zhang further discloses the heating element (1/2) comprises of metallic material with high magnetic permeability that is capable of generating an alternative (i.e., varying) magnetic field vortex that can generate heat via hitting and friction (i.e., penetration) of molecules moving at high speeds [0058, 0062].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (Publication No. US20200085103A1, cited in IDS dated 25 March 2025) in view of Gage et al (Publication No. US20200128880A1) as applied to Claim 4 above, and further in view of Liu et al (Publication No. .
Regarding Claim 18, Modified Zhang does not disclose the air outlet comprises a mesh.
However, Li, directed to an atomization assembly, discloses a heating sheet (122) (i.e., heating element) with through holes (122s/r/t) (i.e., apertures) with different configurations of hole densities along the width and length direction of said heating sheet so that said sheet is able to distribute heat to meet specific needs of the atomization/heating assembly (see Figs. 20-22; [0091-0093]; alternative embodiments are considered equivalent; through holes are considered equivalent to the apertures of the air outlet). Li further notes that an alternative solution to the aperture configuration is to construct the heater/heating element with a mesh (see Fig. 23; [0094]; the mesh design constructs gaps similar to the through holes/apertures and are therefore considered equivalent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the heating element such that the air outlets/holes disclosed by Modified Zhang comprise a mesh as disclosed by Liu, as both are directed to an aerosol generating/provision device heating element, where one ordinarily skilled in the art can reasonably incorporate a mesh with an array of hole apertures as disclosed by Liu, to a similar heating element air outlet/hole as disclosed by Zhang, and predictably result in a heating element with mesh air outlets that are capable of guiding external air through and out of the heating element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vu P Pham whose telephone number is (703)756-4515. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (7:30AM-4:00PM EST).
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.
/V.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights