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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 20 line 4, the specification recites “at least 1 mililitres”.
Page 22 line 1, the specification recites “Figure 4 a schematic”
Page 23 line 15 and page 26 line 24, the specification recites “formed form polyester”
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the Applicants’ arguments/remarks filed 4-22-2026.
Claim 14 is currently amended, Claims 14-24 are presently examined. Claims 25-26 are withdrawn.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 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumoto (US20190124993A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Matsumoto teaches a heater assembly for an aerosol-generating system, the heater assembly (FIG 3, [0035]) comprising:
a liquid aerosol-forming substrate storage component (see FIG 3 and [0044, liquid storage compartment 32);
a reservoir of free-flowing liquid aerosol-forming substrate (see FIG 3, [0043] liquid reserving space 31d, aerosol generating liquid),
the reservoir being in fluid communication with the liquid aerosol-forming substrate storage component (see FIG 3 and [0044], the reservoir of liquid substrate 31d is the bottom portion of 32 and is in fluid communication); and
a heating element (porous heat generating sheet 7, [0045]) comprising
a first portion (embedded portion of suctioning unit 72 extending into the interior of liquid supply member 32, see [0046] and FIG 3),
a second portion (heater unit 71, [0045]), and
a further portion (distal reservoir side portion of suctioning unit 72 , 72b that penetrates/passes through 32 that extends into the liquid reserving space 31d, see [0046]), wherein
the first portion of the heating element is embedded in the liquid aerosol- forming substrate storage component (see FIG 3, portion of 72a embedded in liquid storage component 32),
the second portion of the heating element is not embedded in the liquid aerosol-forming substrate storage component (see heater unit 71, arranged facing the front surface of the lid 31d and is not inside the liquid supply member 32, see [0045] and [0053]-[0054] ), and
the further portion of the heating element is located in the reservoir and is not embedded in the liquid aerosol forming substrate storage component (suctioning units 72 are inserted into the liquid reserving space 31d side through the insertion holes 31e and that each end may extend towards liquid reserving space 31d in a state of penetrating through the liquid supply member 32 (not shown in FIGs but explicitly disclosed in [0046]) Therefore, the distal portion of 72 extends a distal portion of 72 past liquid supply member 32 into reservoir 31d (see [0046]).
Regarding Claim 15, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Matsumoto discloses a third portion (embedded portion of 72b embedded in storage component 32) and a fourth portion (portion of 72b located after 72b penetrates the liquid supply member), and wherein
the third portion of the heating element is embedded in the liquid aerosol- forming substrate storage component ((embedded portion of 72b embedded in storage component 32, see also [0045]-[0046]) and
the fourth portion is not embedded in the liquid aerosol-forming substrate storage component (portion of 72b located after 72b penetrates the liquid supply member, see also [0045]-[0046] and FIG 3, also compare to annotated FIG 4(1) below).
PNG
media_image1.png
393
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Matsumoto discloses the second portion of the heating element extends between the first portion and the third portion (see annotated FIG 4(1) above to see extension sequence), and
the third portion of the heating element extends between the second portion and the fourth portion (see annotated FIG 4 above for extension sequence).
Regarding Claim 17, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations as set forth above.
Additionally, Matsumoto discloses porous heat generating sheet 7 (See FIG 4) comprises a sheet or strip of material having a length, a width perpendicular to the length, and a thickness perpendicular to the length and the width, the length being greater than the width and greater than the thickness (the strip of material that makes up the porous heat generating sheet 7 as shown in FIG 3-4.
Matsumoto discloses the sheet 7 is a flat rectangular sheet (see FIG 4 and [0049]-[0051]) , and that the heater sheet 7 can have an aspect ration of 3:1 and be 250mm2 in area and be 0.1 to 3mm thick [0048]. Therefore, interpreting length as the longer side, with a 3:1 ratio of length to width the length is greater than the width and with a thickness of 0.1 to 3 mm the width is greater than the thickness (e.g., 27.4 mm x 9.1 mm if area is 250mm2 and ratio is 3:1 which are both greater than the disclosed thicknesses).
Regarding Claim 18, Matsumoto disclose the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally Matsumoto teaches a cross section of the heating element varies along a length of the heating element. (see varying cross section between first and second points in annotated FIG 4(2) below.)
PNG
media_image2.png
533
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Matsumoto discloses the heating element extends between a first end and a second end (see serpentine conductive path of heating element in annotated FIG 4(2)), and
the heating element has a first cross- sectional area at a first point between the first end and the second end (see annotated FIG 4(2))
a second cross- sectional area at a second point between the first point and the second end, (see annotated FIG 4(2)) and
a third cross- sectional area at a third point between the second point and the second end, each of the first cross-sectional area and the third cross-sectional area being less than, the second cross-sectional area (see annotated FIG 4(2)) , e.g., the first and third cross sectional areas at the first and third points are less than the second cross sectional area at the second point).
Regarding Claim 20, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Matsumoto discloses the heating element weaves into and out of the liquid aerosol-forming substrate storage component (see FIG 3 and FIG 4, the heating element is folded as shown in FIG 3 and portions of the heating element conductive path weaves in and out of the liquid aerosol forming substrate storage component).
Regarding Claim 21, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Matsumoto discloses the heating element further comprises one or more of curves (See conductive serpentine curves in FIG 4) and folds (the heating element is literally folded so that 72a and 72b can be bend down and penetrated into 32 and pass through into 31d as explained above, [0045]-[0046], see also FIG 3 and FIG 4).
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.
Claim 22 and 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US20190124993A1).
Regarding Claim 22, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations as set forth above.
Matsumoto fails to explicitly disclose a second heating element. However, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the heating element of Matsumoto so that Matsumoto includes a second heating element next to the first heating element see FIG 3-4 The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI B.
Regarding Claim 23, Matsumoto discloses the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Matsumoto teaches the second heating element comprises a first part and a second part, and wherein the first part of the second heating element is embedded in the liquid aerosol- forming substrate storage component and the second part of the second heating element is not embedded in the liquid aerosol-forming substrate storage component (e.g., the first part is the part that is emersed in the liquid storage (See annotated FIG 3 and FIG 4, and the part of the heating element that is outside the liquid storage is the second part, which meets the claim).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US20190124993A1) in view of Mironov (US 20180228217A1).
Regarding Claim 24, Matsumoto disclose the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Matsumoto fails to explicitly disclose suitable temperatures for which heating elements are heated and is accordingly silent to both the first portion and the second portion of the heating element are heated to at least 50 degrees Celsius.
However, Mironov teaches heating elements for aerosol generating devices and teaches suitable temperatures for heating heating elements and teaches they may be heated to a temperature of at least 50 degrees Celsius [0015].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heating element temperature of Matsumoto to have a temperature of at least 50 degrees Celsius as taught by Mironov because both Matsumoto and Mironov are directed to aerosol generating devices comprising heating elements, Matsumoto is silent in regards to suitable temperatures for use in heating elements and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable temperatures for a similar article. Mironov teaches known suitable temperatures for a similar heating element and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges (such as temperatures) by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, and most specifically claim amendments filed 4-22-2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14-24 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Matsumoto (US20190124993A1) as set forth above. The amendment to claim 14 necessitated remapping of the rejection as set forth above.
Applicant argues ending on page 8:
PNG
media_image3.png
118
518
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive. However, Examiner respectfully agrees with Applicant that the liquid below the bottom of the liquid supply member 32 is free flowing. As explained above in the rejection of claim 14, Matsumoto teaches suctioning units 72 are inserted into the liquid reserving space 31d side through the insertion holes 31e and that each end may extend towards liquid reserving space 31d in a state of penetrating through the liquid supply member 32 (not shown in FIGs but explicitly disclosed and prescribed by Matsumoto in [0046]) Therefore, the distal portion of 72 extends a distal portion of 72 past liquid supply member 32 and into reservoir 31d of free flowing liquid (see [0046]).
The remaining arguments rely on the newly amended claim 14 which is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
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 T Fulton whose telephone number is (703)756-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 - 4:30 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.
/M.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights