CTFR 18/245,595 CTFR 85976 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “ensuring consistent and proper electrical connection between the inductor coil and the electrical component”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns , 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) . 07-37-03 AIA In response to applicant's argument, on page 9, that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin , 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Applicant argues hindsight reasoning; however an anticipatory rejection is made, not an obviousness rejection. Applicant argues, the first inner part 600 is only disclosed to guide, not hold the wire of the excitation coil. However, while the wires are guided, a “guide” is a structure which directs the positioning of something. “Hold” is defined as remaining in position. The guide 620 would keep the wire ends in position in the device. They are held in place and prevented from moving from side to side. Claim Objections 07-45 AIA Claim 32 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only, and/or, cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim . See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 32 not been further treated on the merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 32 recites the limitation "claim 2" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 32 depends on claim 30, which depends on claim 1. It is not clear which limitations applicant is intending to include in the claim via “when dependent on claim 2.” Claim 32 recites the limitation "positioning means" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also unclear if this recitation would refer to the first positioning means or the second positioning means. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1-2, 6, 16-17, 20, 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Kwon (WO 2020/130752) as cited by applicant with references made to English Equivalent (EP 3900552) . Regarding claim 1, Kwon discloses an aerosol provision device (See Figs 1-12), the device comprising: : a heater assembly configured to receive aerosol generating material, wherein the heater assembly comprises a susceptor (heat pipe/susceptor 400) which is heatable by penetration with a varying magnetic field; and an inductor coil (coil 300) extending around the heater assembly wherein the inductor coil (300) is configured to generate the varying magnetic field; wherein the inductor coil comprises a coil wire end (320) engaged with the electrical component; and wherein the chassis comprises a coil wire end positioning arrangement (600) configured to hold and align the coil wire end with respect to the electrical component. (See Paragraphs [0005], [0056], [0061], Figs 4-11.) While the wires are guided, a “guide” is a structure which directs the positioning of something. “Hold” is defined as remaining in position. The guide 620 would keep the wire ends in position in the device. They are held in place and prevented from moving from side to side. Regarding claim 2, Fig 4 shows the coil having a second end, adjacent to first end 320, with a first and second positioning means show in element 600, which are side by side notches. Regarding claims 16-17, Kwon discloses, a chassis holding the aerosol generating assembly and the electrical component (See Fig 10); the aerosol generating assembly having: a heater assembly configured to receive aerosol generating material, wherein the heater assembly comprises a susceptor (heat pipe/susceptor 400) which is heatable by penetration with a varying magnetic field; and an inductor coil (coil 300) extending around the heater assembly wherein the inductor coil (300) is configured to generate the varying magnetic field; wherein the inductor coil comprises a coil wire end (320) engaged with the electrical component; and wherein the chassis comprises a coil wire end positioning arrangement (600) configured to hold and align the coil wire end with respect to the electrical component. (See Paragraphs [0005], [0056], [0061], Figs 4-11.) Fig 4 shows the coil having a second end, adjacent to first end 320, with a first and second positioning means show in element 600, which are side by side notches. While the wires are guided, a “guide” is a structure which directs the positioning of something. “Hold” is defined as remaining in position. The guide 620 would keep the wire ends in position in the device. They are held in place and prevented from moving from side to side. Regarding claim 6, 20, Fig 4 shows the ends being axially aligned. Regarding claim 30, the element 500 is shown as being a support for the coil wire, with part 600 being fixed to the pipe 500. Therefore the pipe 500 would comprise the wire end positioning arrangement. The support could also be considered element 600 as it supports the coil and comprises the positioning arrangement 620. (See Figs 6, 7, 10) Regarding claim 31-33, Fig 4 shows the two positioning means having a tab and an opening for receiving the wire ends and extends parallel to the electrical component. The tab is shown as the vertical part of the positioning means and the perpendicular extending part is the part considered to be the opening. Regarding claim 36, the device comprising: an aerosol generating assembly; an electrical component; and a chassis holding the aerosol generating assembly and the electrical component (See Fig 10); Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5-6, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (WO 2020/130752) . The teachings of Kwon have been discussed above. Kwon fails to disclose the ends not being axially aligned. However, it would have been obvious to either axially align or not axially align the coil ends depending on the design of the device and where the connections for the coil are located. The axial alignment is a matter of obvious design choice . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 3-4, 7-11, 18, 34-35 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5. 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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. /BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 5/27/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/245,595 Page 2 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/245,595 Page 3 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/245,595 Page 4 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/245,595 Page 5 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/245,595 Page 6 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/245,595 Page 7 Art Unit: 3761
Prosecution Insights