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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-15 are cancelled. Claims 16-30 are presently examined.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the objections to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of 12/18/2025 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the objections to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of 12/18/2025 are withdrawn.
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)(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.
Claims 16-17, 20, 27-28 and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qiu (CN 210158014, machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 16 and 28, Qiu discloses an atomizer (figure 2, reference numeral 10), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a cartridge, having an outer shell that defines a liquid reservoir (figure 2, reference numeral 11), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a liquid reservoir. The device has an induction heating element ([0060], figure 7, reference numeral 200), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a susceptor assembly, that has a porous liquid absorption substrate that transports liquid from the liquid storage chamber ([0061], figure 7, reference numeral 220), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a mounting region since it must be directly connected to the atomizer to receive liquid. The liquid absorption substrate is made from porous glass [0062], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second non-magnetic material. The liquid absorption substrate is stacked with a heating layer ([0061], figure 7, reference numeral 210), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a heating region. The heating layer is made of a ferromagnetic material [0063], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first material heatable by an alternative magnetic field. The induction heating element is laid flat at the bottom of the atomizer [0060], indicating that a susceptor holder must be present since the induction heating element is affixed to the atomizer. It is evident that the relative weight of the ferromagnetic material is higher in the heating layer than the liquid absorption substrate since the liquid absorption substrate is made from glass rather than the ferromagnetic material.
Regarding claim 17, Qiu discloses that the housing is provided with a smoke outlet channel at its middle ([0044], figure 2, reference numeral 15), indicating that the induction heating element must be mounted at the outside of the housing since there is no structure in the middle.
Regarding claim 20, applicant’s specification discloses that glass is an electrically insulating material (page 5, lines 21-27).
Regarding claim 27, Qiu discloses that the induction heating element is planar (figure 7).
Regarding claim 30, Qiu discloses a battery device that receives the heating device having the atomizer [0016], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an aerosol generating device. The battery device has an electromagnetic induction coil that generates eddy currents in the induction heating element [0048], which is therefore considered to meet the claim limitation of an inductor coil. The current is supplied by a controller [0048], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of control circuitry.
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu (CN 210158014, machine translation relied upon) in view of Potter (US 12,458,067).
Regarding claim 18, Qiu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Qiu does not explicitly disclose the shell made from an electrically insulative material.
Potter teaches an apparatus for generating an inhalable medium (abstract) having a cartridge formed from a plastics material that supports other components of the cartridge (column 7, lines 32-44). Applicant’s specification discloses that plastics are a suitable electrically insulative material (page 5, lines 21-27).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the plastics of Potter as the shell material of Qiu. One would have been motivated to do so since Potter teaches a material for forming a cartridge body that supports other components. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 19 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu (CN 210158014, machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 19, Qiu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Qiu additionally discloses that the smoke outlet channel is located in an inner cavity of the housing [0044], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an internal passage of the susceptor holder. The smoke outlet channel extends longitudinally (figure 2), and the induction heating element is located planar and extends vertically (figure 7), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of being planar and extending parallel to the longitudinal axis. The induction heating element is located within the inner cavity ([0044], figure 2, reference numeral 12). Qiu does not explicitly disclose the shell being tubular.
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 shell of Qiu be tubular. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding claim 29, Qiu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Qiu does not explicitly disclose multiple mounting regions.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to split the mounting region of Qiu into multiple mounting regions. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI B.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu (CN 210158014, machine translation relied upon) in view of Liu (US 9,271,528).
Regarding claim 21, Qiu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Qiu does not explicitly disclose the liquid absorption substrate being made from a hydrophilic material.
Liu teaches an electronic cigarette (abstract) having a liquid guiding component that absorbs and reserves water like a sponge and transfers liquid to a heater that is made of glass fibers (column 4, lines 4-17).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the liquid absorption substrate from the liquid guiding component of Qiu from the glass fibers of Liu. One would have been motivated to do so since Liu teaches a suitable material for transferring liquid to a heater that reserves water like a sponge.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu (CN 210158014, machine translation relied upon) in view of Mironov (US 9,820,512).
Regarding claim 22, Qiu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Qiu does not explicitly disclose a mesh susceptor.
Mironov teaches a cartridge for use in an aerosol generating system having a mesh susceptor element that heats an aerosol forming substrate (abstract) that forms a meniscus in the interstices of the mesh susceptor element (column 1, lines 35-47). The mesh is made from filaments (column 2, lines 27-29). Mironov additionally teaches that this mesh provides for efficient heating of the aerosol forming substrate (column 2, lines 20-23).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the susceptor of Qiu in the form of the mesh of Mironov. One would have been motivated to do so since Mironov teaches that a mesh susceptor provides for efficient heating.
Regarding claim 23, Mironov teaches that the mesh is woven (column 2, lines 27-29).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu (CN 210158014, machine translation relied upon) in view of Mironov (US 9,820,512) as applied to claim 23 above, as evidenced by What is Woven Fabric? (already of record).
Regarding claim 24, modified Qiu teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Qiu does not explicitly teach the woven mesh of modified Qiu having filaments that extend in a weft direction.
What is Woven Fabric? teaches that all woven fabrics have a weft direction (page 2, What is a Woven Fabric?).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu (CN 210158014, machine translation relied upon) in view of Mironov (US 9,820,512) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Hazani (US 2021/0251296), as evidenced by What is Woven Fabric? (already of record).
Regarding claim 25, modified Qiu teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Qiu does not explicitly teach (a) the liquid absorption substrate being a woven material and (b) the woven material having a weft direction.
Regarding (a), Hazani teaches an aerosol generation device (abstract) having a woven fabric wick that forms a liquid drawing element [0181].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the liquid absorption substrate of modified Qiu from the woven fabric wick of Hazani. One would have been motivated to do so since Hazani teaches a wick that draws liquid.
Regarding (b), What is Woven Fabric? teaches that all woven fabrics have a weft direction (page 2, What is a Woven Fabric?).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (a) that applicant’s specification indicates that the claimed susceptor assembly is made up of separate susceptor elements and a separate wicking element, in contrast to Qiu, (b) that interpreting the porous liquid absorption substrate as the claimed mounting region is inconsistent with the claimed structure since the claim requires the susceptor element to be separate from a wicking component, (c) that the claims require different regions of the susceptor element to have different proportions of the same magnetic material, (d) that the susceptor element is not the entire susceptor assembly, and (e) that the dependent claims are allowable due to dependence on an allowable claim.
Regarding (a), (b) and (d), applicant states that limitations are not being imported from the specification into the claims, and then proceeds to base an entire argument on precisely such importing. The Courts have explicitly held that it is proper to interpret explicitly recited claim terms in light of the specification but that limitations that are not explicitly recited must not be imported into the claims. See MPEP § 2111 and MPEP § 2111.01 II. In this case applicant refers to the specification’s disclosure of multiple susceptor elements and a wicking within a single susceptor assembly, while the claims only require a susceptor assembly having a single susceptor element. Creating an entire claim construction based on limitations which are not claimed (a plurality of susceptor elements and a wicking element) is exactly what the Courts have enjoined when determining claim scope. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Regarding (c), the terms “heating region” and “at least one mounting region” do not require that each of those regions is made up a single layer or material having a uniform composition throughout. In this case the mounting region is defined as a narrower outer part of the heating element of Qiu and the heating region is defined as the inner part. The failure of the heating layer of Qiu to extend to furthest edge of the heating element indicates that its proportion relative to the substrate in the outer region is less than its proportion relative the substrate in the inner region. The two regions are shown in the annotated version of figure 7 of Qiu shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
365
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding (e), all claims including the independent claim are rejected as set forth above.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are allowable due to dependence on an allowable claim, however, all claims are rejected as set forth above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights