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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 02/13/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application Number 18/248,318 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 3-4, 8, and 16, amendment to the specification, and supporting remarks filed 02/12/2026 (“Amendment”) have been entered. Accordingly, the objections to the specification, claim objections, and claim rejections under 35 USC 102-103, 112, and for double patenting have been withdrawn. A new claim objection and new claim rejections under 35 USC 112(d) and 103 are necessitated by the amendment. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-20, 23, and 27-28 remain pending, claims 18-20, 23, and 27-28 remain withdrawn, and claims 1-4, 6, and 8-17 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument that no other cited prior art provides any teaching that would motivation a person of ordinary skill to modify the device of Hong to arrive at the invention (Amendment p. 14) has been fully considered but is not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Hong and Nerudia together provide such motivation as set forth in the rejection below.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102-103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, the arguments are moot because Hong is not cited alone for the amended language of claim 1 (see Amendment p. 13-15 arguing that the amended claim language is not taught by Hong), rather, Hong and Nerudia are cited in combination for the amended claim language. The Examiner notes that Hong does disclose “annular inner and outer walls defining an airflow passage” (which is part of the amended claim language) as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 below, however, this particular portion of the amended claim language is not specifically discussed by Applicant (see Amendment p. 13-15).
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because it recites “at least one engaging feature” and “a tool” which were previously introduced in claim 1 and should therefore refer back to “wherein the receptacle comprises the at least one engaging feature for insertion of the[[a]] tool”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 recites “wherein the receptacle comprises at least one engaging feature for insertion of a tool therein to aid rotation and removal of the receptacle from the device housing”, but amended claim 1 (from which claim 17 depends) already recites “wherein the receptacle comprises annular inner and outer walls defining an airflow passage, wherein the airflow passage at least partially defines at least one engaging feature for insertion of a tool therein to aid rotation and removal of the receptacle from the device housing”. Thus, claim 1 already recites the receptacle comprising the at least one engaging feature and claim 17 fails to further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (CN 207927771 U, previously cited with English translation) in view of Nerudia (EP 3711509 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Hong is directed to a low-temperature smoke generator that is easy to replace the heating element (Title).
The device includes a housing 1 and components arranged therein (which reads on a “device housing defining a device chamber” as claimed) ([0008, 0052], Fig. 1, reproduced below).
The device includes a cigarette holder 41 and a heating component 2 (together reading on the claimed “heater assembly”) ([0013, 0050], Fig. 1).
The cigarette holder 41 and a bracket sleeve 22 (together reading on the “receptacle defining a heating chamber”) removably receives a cigarette 4 (“article”) ([0063-64], Fig. 1).
The heating component 2 includes a heating element 21 (“heating element”) extending into the cigarette holder 41 ([0014, 0056], Fig. 1).
The cigarette holder 41 and bracket sleeve 22 are connected by threads to a coil sleeve 31 of the device, and they may be attached or removed by rotation ([0065], Fig. 7).
The cigarette holder 41 (“annular inner walls”) and bracket sleeve 22 (“annular outer walls”) define an air inlet channel 414 (“airflow passage”) between them ([0068], Fig. 9).
The cigarette holder 41 and bracket sleeve 22 include a positioning buckle 411 and slot 222 for coupling to one another, located within the air inlet channel 414 ([0062], Fig. 7) However, Hong fails to disclose that the buckle 411 and the slot 222 can be used “for insertion of a tool therein to aid rotation and removal of the receptacle from the device housing”.
PNG
media_image1.png
654
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
518
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
588
348
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Nerudia is directed to a smoking substitute system with a cap removal tool (Title). Such a cap and tool increase safety of the device, because the cap may not be removed without the tool key [0018]. The cap 210 has a moveable hinge 232 which engages with tabs 258 of a tool 250, allowing the cap 210 to be removed from the device ([0129-0132], Fig. 5B). The hinge 232 has a hooked end for engaging with a corresponding slot in a cavity 222 (the hinge 232 and corresponding slot together reading on an “engaging feature” as claimed) ([0121], Figs. 2F, 5B). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Nerudia’s cap 210 and hinge 232 could be predictably incorporated into Hong’s device to similarly increase safety, for instance by providing Hong’s slot 222 with an additional slot for accommodating the hooked end of the hinge 232 (see Hong’s Figs. 7 and 9 and Nerudia’s Fig. 5B).
PNG
media_image4.png
636
554
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong by incorporating at least Nerudia’s cap 210 and hinge 232 into Hong’s device and by providing Hong’s slot 222 with an additional slot for accommodating the hooked end of the hinge 232, in order to allow removal of the cap 210 by a tool 520 as taught by Nerudia, because both Hong and Nerudia are directed to electronic vaporization devices, Nerudia teaches that the cap and tool increase safety of the device, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). In modified Hong, the air inlet channel 414 would include the additional slot for accommodating the hooked end of Nerudia’s hinge 232, and thus would “at least partially define” the engaging feature as claimed (see Hong Figs. 7 and 9).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 6, Hong’s bracket sleeve 22 includes an external thread 221 for engaging with an internal thread 312 of the device (the threads 221, 312 reading on the “complementary interlocking features” of claim 2) ([0065], Fig. 7). The external thread 221 reads on the “protrusion” of claim 3 and the internal thread 312 reads on the “first groove”. The threads 221, 312 read on the “threaded portions” of claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, Hong’s bracket sleeve 22 includes a fixing seat 23 (“base”), and the heating element 21 extends from the fixing seat 23 ([0015], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Hong’s heating element 21 is included in the bracket sleeve 22 which may be removed from the device, as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Hong discloses the heating element 21 as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, which is included in and is separately removable from the removable bracket sleeve 22 ([0065], Fig. 7). Hong fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the heating element is supported by the device housing such that the heating element remains in the device housing following removal of the receptacle from the device housing”. However, coupling the heating element 21 to the device instead of the bracket sleeve 22 would be a mere rearrangement of parts which is obvious in view of Hong. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C); see also In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 12, Hong’s heating element 21 is further removable from the bracket sleeve 22 ([0065], Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 16, Hong’s device includes an induction coil 32 (“inductor coil”) which induces a current in the heating element 21 (which is therefore a “susceptor”) ([0008, 0025-26], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, modified Hong discloses the claimed “receptacle” and “engaging feature” as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, which reads on claim 17.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (CN 207927771 U) in view of Nerudia (EP 3711509 A1), further in view of Qiu (JP 2019-506858 A, US 2018/0271174 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, Hong discloses the external thread 221 and internal thread 312 (“protrusion” and “first groove”) as set forth above in the discussion of claims 1-3. However, Hong fails to disclose a “second groove” and “wherein: the receptacle is configured to engage with the device housing by the rotation moving the protrusion out of alignment with the second groove and into alignment with the first groove; and the receptacle is configured to disengage from the device housing by the rotation moving the protrusion out of alignment with the first groove and into alignment with the second groove”.
Qiu is directed to an elastic locking mechanism for an electronic cigarette (Title). The elastic locking mechanism must be removed before accessing a tobacco liquid storage [0004-5, 0151]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that components of Qiu’s elastic locking mechanism 1 could similarly be applied to Hong’s cigarette holder 41 and bracket sleeve 22, because these elements are also regularly removed and/or replaced as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1. The elastic locking mechanism 1 includes an elastic element 50 and a screw cap 20 which prevent an upper and lower component 30, 40 from engaging one another until the elastic element 50 is sufficiently compressed ([0128], Fig. 2). The upper and lower components 30, 40 engage one another via a fixing block 31 and fixing groove 41 (“second groove”); once engaged, the elastic locking mechanism 1 may be removed and the tobacco liquid accessed. ([0137], Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image5.png
516
734
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
576
718
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong by including at least the fixing groove 41 of Qiu for receiving Hong’s external thread 221 to facilitate removal of Hong’s cigarette holder 41/bracket sleeve 22 from the device (and the groove 41 and thread 221 would similarly be unaligned to facilitate attachment of the cigarette holder 41/bracket sleeve 22 to the device), because both Hong and Qiu are directed to electronic vaporization devices, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Qiu’s elastic locking mechanism 1 is similar in its removability to Hong’s cigarette holder 41 and bracket sleeve 22, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, Hong fails to disclose a “biasing member” as claimed.
Qiu discloses the elastic element 50 (which reads on a “biasing member”) as set forth immediately above. It would be obvious to incorporate at least the elastic element 50 into Hong’s device for removably coupling the cigarette holder 41 and bracket sleeve 22 to the device, for the same reasons as set forth immediately above in the discussion of claim 4.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (CN 207927771 U) in view of Nerudia (EP 3711509 A1), further in view of Reevell (CN 110799050 A, US 2021/0145057 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 13, Hong discloses a temperature measuring element 5 which measures the heating element 21 ([0019], Fig. 1). The heating element 21 is detachable from the remainder of the device as set forth above. The element 5 may be a temperature probe 5 which measures from a small distance without direct contact [0067]. However, Hong fails to disclose a “thermocouple” as claimed (see Applicant’s specification at p. 10, distinguishing thermocouples as a narrower subset of temperature sensors).
Reevell is directed to an aerosol generating device with spiral movement for heating (Title). The device includes a temperature sensor such as a thermocouple (“thermocouple”), which may be positioned in any suitable location, such as in contact or proximity with a heating element [0048]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a thermocouple could be placed into contact or proximity with Hong’s heating element 21.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hong by replacing the temperature probe 5 with Reevell’s thermocouple, because both Hong and Reevell are directed to aerosolizing devices and this would involve a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (CN 207927771 U), Nerudia (EP 3711509 A1), and Reevell (CN 110799050 A, US 2021/0145057 A1) as applied to claim 13, further in view of Korus (WO 2020/182712 A1, previously cited).
Modified Hong discloses the thermocouple as set forth above. However, Hong fails to disclose an “intermediate member” as recited in claims 14-15.
Korus is directed to a heating assembly with a body 10 for volatilizing an aerosolizable material (Abstract). The heating assembly 1 may have a first surface 10a (“intermediate member”) abutting from the body 10, which couples the heating assembly 1 with an apparatus and limits the degree of entry of the heating assembly 1 (p. 10 l. 27-p. 11 l. 19, p. 17 l. 24-p. 19 l. 3, Fig. 3). As shown in Figs. 3-4, the first surface 10a joins a heating element 30 with a temperature sensor 219 (p. 13 l. 29, p. 21 l. 9-11), and thus when combining with Hong, one of ordinary skill in the art would similarly position the first surface 10a between modified Hong’s heating element 21 and thermocouple. Korus’ heating assembly 1 is removable from the apparatus (p. 10 l. 25-26), and thus when combining with Hong, one of ordinary skill in the art would include the heating assembly 1 with Hong’s cigarette holder 41/bracket sleeve 22 rather than with Hong’s device (which reads on the first option of claim 15, wherein “the receptacle includes the intermediate member…”).
PNG
media_image7.png
516
932
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
364
598
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to include at least Korus’ first surface 10a with Hong’s cigarette holder 41 and bracket sleeve 22 such that the surface 10a thermally couples Hong’s heating element 21 to the thermocouple, because both Hong and Korus are directed to electronic aerosolization devices, Korus using the first surface 10a to control the degree of entry of the heating assembly 1 which one of ordinary skill in the art would similarly apply to Hong’s cigarette holder 41 and bracket sleeve 22, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
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 MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 ET.
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, Michael H. Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. 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.
/MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747