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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, species A in the reply filed on 1/20/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 18-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/20/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li (US 10,791,765).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses an electronic cigarette having a power supply set (figure 1, reference numeral 2), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first chassis, that connects to an atomization assembly (figure 1, reference numeral 1), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an aerosol generating assembly, by a thread, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a locating arrangement (column 3, lines 40-59). The atomization assembly has a sleeve (figure 2, reference numeral 11) and a holder (column 3, lines 40-59, figure 2, reference numeral 12), which together are considered to meet the claim limitation of a second chassis. The holder has a chamber that receives tobacco material, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a heater assembly, and has a heating element that heats up under electromagnetic induction (column 3, lines 60-67, column 4, lines 1-4, figure 2, reference numeral 14), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a susceptor. The holder extends around the susceptor (figure 2). An induction coil surrounds the holder and generates the magnetic field (column 4, lines 5-23, figure 2, reference numeral 13).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses that the atomization assembly is surrounded by the sleeve (figure 2), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of enclosing.
Regarding claim 3, the lowest portion of the atomization assembly, which contains the threaded portion, is considered to be a part of the second chassis. The thread is considered to locate the atomization assembly and power supply set relative to each other, which is considered to meet the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses that the threaded end is located at the bottom of the atomization assembly (figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses that a sealing element is located at the bottom of the holder and supports the holder (column 5, lines 40-44, figure 2, reference numeral 17), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an end support.
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses that the atomization assembly is held in position with the power supply set by the thread (figure 1). The seal is considered to support the holder on the power supply set since it is located between the holder and the power supply set.
Regarding claim 8, the threads of the base of the atomization assembly are considered to meet the claim limitation of an abutment, and the corresponding surface of the power supply set is considered to meet the claim limitation of a cooperating surface. It is evident that this interaction locates the two components relative to each other since movement is restricted when the threaded connection is made (figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Li discloses that the atomization assembly has a longitudinal axis (figure 2). The abutment and surface cooperate in a radial direction since the surface forms a circumference into which the threaded abutment is inserted (figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, it is evident that the threading of Li would restrict relative rotational movement of the atomization assembly and power supply set in a direction opposite to the threading.
Regarding claim 11, Li discloses that the threads of the atomization assembly are formed on a protruding structure (figure 2) that is inserted into a recessed socket of the power supply set (figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses that the threaded portion extends axially along the longitudinal axis of the atomization assembly (figure 2).
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.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 10,791,765) in view of Hejazi (US 10,945,465).
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Li does not explicitly disclose a coil support.
Hejazi teaches an aerosol delivery device that has an induction transmitter in the form of a coil that is supported by a coil support that prevents a short circuit from occurring within the device by preventing the coil from contacting other components (column 16, lines 19-55).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of modified Li with the coil support of Hejazi. One would have been motivated to do so since Hejazi teaches a coil that supports an induction coil to prevent a short circuit from occurring.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 10,791,765) in view of Fishpaw, Jr. (US 9,861,125).
Regarding claim 14, Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Li does not explicitly disclose two locating features.
Fishpaw, Jr. teaches an engagement member for a holder (abstract) that connects two parts using two sets of latches (figure 8A, reference numeral 48) located on opposite ends of a base (figure 8A, reference numeral 12) to secure the two parts together (column 5, lines 36-46).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the threaded connection of Li for the latching connection of Fishpaw, Jr. One would have been motivated to do so since Li discloses and Fishpaw, Jr. teaches equivalent connection mechanisms to hold two parts together. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP § 2143, B.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 10,791,765).
Regarding claim 17, Li discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Li additionally discloses that the upper end of the holder is open, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an end support, and defines a chamber that extends to the heating element (column 3, lines 60-67, column 4, lines 1-4), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an air passage. Li does not explicitly disclose the upper end of the holder being formed of a single construction with the rest of the sleeve of Li so that relative rotation of the holder and sleeve is impossible.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sleeve and holder of an integral construction. The use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 II A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755