DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2-10-2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16-19, 25-26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gill (WO 2020/120271 A1).
Claim 16: Gill teaches heater assembly for an aerosol generating device, comprising:
●heating chamber 10 configured to heat an aerosol forming substrate 24;
●a first set of two or more susceptors 26 configured to heat a first heating zone of the heating
chamber 10 (i.e. area around susceptors 26); and
●a second set of two or more susceptors 26 configured to heat a second heating zone of the
heating chamber 10 (area around susceptors 26),
●wherein the first heating zone and the second heating zone are arranged at different
longitudinal positions of the heating chamber 10, and
●wherein the first set of susceptors 26 is spaced apart from the second set of susceptors 26
such that the first set of susceptors 26 is not connected to the second set of susceptors 26 by a susceptor material
(Pg13 Lns1-20; Pg1 Lns1-14 Lns29-31; Fig1 Fig3; annotated Figs2a and 2b below; also, Fig5 meets the above claim limitations (Pg14 Lns22-32). Other locations within reference may be included in the above recited locations (paragraphs, drawing, abstract, claims) to demonstrate further the features in the reference as claimed in the instant claims. Although Gill teaches the claim limitation of “for an aerosol generating device” (claim-16 preamble), this limitation is considered to be an intended use of the claimed heater assembly and is not considered to provide a structural limitation to the claimed heater assembly (i.e. claimed structure).
FIGURE 2a
PNG
media_image1.png
343
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIGURE 2b
PNG
media_image2.png
542
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 17: Gill teaches the heater assembly according to claim 16, wherein a susceptor 26 of one or both of the first and the second sets of susceptors is elongated along a longitudinal axis of heating chamber 10 -- illustrated in Figures 1 and 3.
Claim 18: Gill teaches the heater assembly according to claim 16, wherein one or both of the first and the second sets of susceptors are arranged circumferentially around heating chamber 10 -- illustrated in Figures 2a and 3.
Claim 19: Gill teaches the heater assembly according to claim 18, wherein the susceptors 26 of the first set of susceptors and susceptors 26 of the second set of susceptors are arranged alternately, such that a susceptor of the first set is neighbored by two susceptors 26 of the second set (annotated Fig2a below).
PNG
media_image3.png
431
522
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 25: Gill teaches the heater assembly according to claim 16, wherein a gap is provided between heating surfaces of susceptors 26 of the first set of susceptors and heating surfaces of the susceptors 26 of the second sets of susceptors -- illustrated in Figures 2a and 2b.
Claim 26: Gill teaches the heater assembly according to claim 16, wherein a gap is provided between heating surfaces of susceptors 26 within one or both of the first and the second set of susceptors – illustrated in Figures 2a and 2b.
Claim 28: Gill teaches the heater assembly according to claim 16, wherein the first and second sets of susceptors are mounted on a common base 18 arranged at a distal end -- illustrated in Figure 3.
Claim 29: Gill teaches the aerosol generating device comprising the heater assembly as recited in claim 16.
Claim 30: Gill teaches an aerosol generating system 1 (Pg11 Lns29-30) comprising the aerosol generating device comprising the heater assembly as recited in claim 16. Also, Gill teaches aerosol generating article 20 comprising aerosol forming substrate 24, wherein aerosol generating article 20 is configured to be at least partly inserted into heating chamber 10 (Pg13 Lns6-31; Fig1 Fig4).
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.
Claims 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill as applied to claims 16-19, 25-26, and 28-30 above and further in view of Taurino (WO 2019/234245 A1).
Claim 21: Gill; teaches the assembly according to claim 16. However, Gill does not teach that at least a portion of a susceptor 26 of one or both of the first and the second sets of susceptors comprises a curved shape along a longitudinal direction of heating chamber 10.
Taurino teaches the curved susceptors (Fig4e) (Pg12 Lns24-26) are a conventional and well-known alternative to non-curved susceptors (Fig4a) (Pg11 Lns32-35) (Pg3 Lns17-32).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provided in Gill that at least a portion of a susceptor 26 of one or both of the first and the second sets of susceptors comprises a curved shape along a longitudinal direction of heating chamber 10 in that Taurino teaches, in the same art of Gill, that curved susceptors are a conventional and well-known alternative to non-curved susceptors where it is obvious to replace one shape of susceptors (that of Gill) with another art recognized alternative shape of a susceptor (that of Taurino) where success has been demonstrated.
Claim 27: Gill teaches the heater assembly according to claim 16. However, Gill does not teach that a shape of susceptor 26 of the first set of susceptors differs from a shape of susceptor 26 of the second set of susceptors.
Taurino teaches the curved susceptors (Fig4e) (Pg12 Lns24-26) are a conventional and well-known alternative to non-curved susceptors (Fig4a) (Pg11 Lns32-35) (Pg3 Lns17-32). Also, Taurino teaches that curved susceptors may be combined with non-curved susceptors (Fig4e) (Pg12 Lns24-26) where in Taurino susceptors 20a and 20b may be considered as being a first set of susceptors and susceptor 20c a second set of a susceptor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provided in Gill that a shape of susceptor 26 of the first set of susceptors differs from a shape of susceptor 26 of the second set of susceptors in that Taurino teaches, in the same art of Gill, using susceptors together having different shapes is conventional and well-known alternative to using susceptors together having the same shape where it is obvious to replace one shape of a particular set of susceptors (that of Gill) with another art recognized alternative shape of a particular set of susceptor (that of Taurino) where success has been demonstrated.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill.
Claim 22: with respect to the claimed a susceptor 26 of the second set of susceptors being longer, measured parallel to a longitudinal axis of heating chamber 10, than a susceptor 26 of the first set of susceptors, this feature -- that which one skilled in the art would consider -- is a function of, among other variables, the desired amount of aerosol generating substrate required to be heated, material making up the susceptors, composition of the aerosol generating substrate, and size of the aerosol generating article. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have optimized the claimed feature -- to which one skilled in the art would consider -- based on known variables, such as those listed for example; and thus, this claimed feature cannot be considered critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum and workable ranges by routine experimentation,” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 195). “It is a well settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same this as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results that prior inventions.” In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill as applied to claims 16-19, 25-26, and 28-30 above and further in view of Mironov (WO 2019/030353 A1).
Claim 23: Gill teaches the heater assembly according to claim 16. However, Gill does not teach that a susceptor 26 of the second set of susceptors comprises a thinner distal portion and a broader proximal portion, and wherein proximal refers to a direction closest to a user and distal refers to a direction away from the user. In Gill the user-end is located at air outlet 16 (Pg12 Lns26-31).
However, it is conventional and well-known in the art that susceptors may generally have a thinner portion at one end and a broader portion at the other end. This is illustrated by Mironov in Figures 2 and 3 where susceptors 180 have a thinner portion and a broader portion at one end -- as well as a broader portion at the other end (Abstract; Pg28 Lns21-32; annotated Fig2 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
534
736
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have provided in Gill that a susceptor 26 of the second set of susceptors (or the first set) comprises a thinner portion at one end and a broader portion at the other end in that Mironov teaches that such is conventional and well-known where it is obvious to replace one shape of susceptors (that of Gill) with another art recognized alternative shape of a susceptor (that of Mironov) where success has been demonstrated.
With respect to providing both ends of the susceptor 26 with both a thinner and a broader portion, it has been held that a configuration of a claimed structure is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed structure is significant (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 20, Gill teaches that a susceptor 26 of one or both of the first and the second sets of susceptors is flexible (in that it is aluminum) (Note: claim limitation of “in a direction orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the heating chamber” is written as what could occur were the flexible susceptor be operated upon is not considered to provide a structural limitation to the claimed heater assembly (i.e. claimed structure)) (Pg8 Ln12-15). However, Gill alone or in combination with the other prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest that a susceptor of one or both of the first and the second sets of susceptors is configured to hold aerosol generating article 20 after being inserted into heating chamber 10. Specifically, susceptors 26 do not have contact with wrapper 28 or the walls of heating chamber 10 such that susceptors 26 cannot exert hold upon aerosol generating article 20. This is illustrated in Figures 2a and 3.
Claim 24 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 24, Gill alone or in combination with the other prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest that a susceptor of the second set of susceptors forms a paddle-like shape wherein paddle-like shape is defined in the instant specification at page 15, lines 10-13 (reference made to Figures 2d and 2e specifically):
PNG
media_image5.png
158
968
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The particularly claimed paddle-like shape provides improved gripping of an inserted aerosol generating article into the heating chamber 14 and securely holds the aerosol generating article (Pg15, Ln7 to Pg16, Ln15).
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The amendments and comments filed on 2-10-2026 and 1/9/2026 have been entered and fully considered -- the results of which are provided herein.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA GRAY whose telephone number is (571) 272-5778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 AM to 5:30 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, Phil Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/LINDA L GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745