DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment and remarks filed December 29, 2025. Claims 1, 4-5, and 8 have been amended. Claims 2-3 have been canceled. Claims 1 and 4-10 are pending and stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200305512 A1 (hereinafter LIM) in view of CN 112167717 A (hereinafter WANG) and US 20140000638 A1 (hereinafter SEBASTIAN).
Regarding claim 1, LIM discloses an aerosol generation device with a method for receiving temperature profiles, sensing a cigarette coupled to the heater, identifying the type, selecting a temperature profile, and controlling the power supplied according to the selected profile (abstract). LIM discloses a heater (Fig. 5, heater 130, ¶87) configured to heat a first aerosol generating substrate (Fig. 5, cigarette 200, ¶88) inserted into a cavity (as described in ¶88). LIM further discloses a vaporizer (Fig. 5, vaporizer 180) configured to heat a second aerosol generating substrate (¶90). LIM discloses an airflow path on which an aerosol generated from the second aerosol generating substrate flows (¶72-¶73, ¶90). LIM discloses that air flows through the aerosols in the different portions and ultimately to the user (¶90).
LIM discloses that the heater heats the cigarette (¶87-¶88) and the vaporizer heats a liquid composition (¶90). LIM further discloses a controller (Fig. 5, controller 110, ¶87) configured to control power supplied to the heater and the vaporizer (¶61, ¶87).
LIM does not disclose the heater comprises a support configured to form a bottom surface of the cavity; and a heating element disposed in a center part of the support and configured to be inserted into which the first aerosol generating substrate.
WANG teaches a low-temperature smoking set with a heating piece and heating plate (abstract). WANG teaches that the heating plate is parallel to the bottom wall of the smoking set shell (page 2). WANG teaches that the heating plate is attached to the end face of the substrate (page 2). WANG teaches that the heating member provides a guide hole for the air entering into the aerosol matrix (page 5). WANG teaches that hot air can enter from any position on the end face of the aerosol base because it is on the heating plate and flow through the leaf to enhance the heating effect of the aerosol base (page 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LIM to provide the heater comprises a support configured to form a bottom surface of the cavity; and a heating element disposed in a center part of the support and configured to be inserted into which the first aerosol generating substrate as taught in WANG. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide a support for the heater. Doing so would apply heat to the aerosol base (WANG page 6).
LIM does not disclose the support comprises a plurality of through holes arranged at a distance greater than a preset separation distance from the center part so that the airflow path and the cavity communicate with each other.
WANG teaches a low-temperature smoking set with a heating piece and heating plate (abstract). WANG teaches that the heating plate is parallel to the bottom wall of the smoking set shell (page 2). WANG teaches that the heating plate is provided with a plurality of guide holes (page 2). WANG teaches that in one example the plurality of guide holes are uniformly distributed on the heating plate and in another example the heating plate is a mesh plate (page 2). WANG teaches that his configuration can bring a beneficial effect of making hot air enter through the guide hole and generating a certain heating effect on the tobacco leaf to match with the heating function to increase the throughput of smoke (page 3). WANG teaches that the guide holes can be arranged in various fashions to provide proper heating effect (page 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LIM to provide the support comprises a plurality of through holes arranged at a distance greater than a preset separation distance from the center part so that the airflow path and the cavity communicate with each other as taught in WANG. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously provide through holes on the support to connect the air flow to the cavity. Doing so would apply heat to the aerosol base (WANG page 6) and increase the throughput of smoke (WANG, page 3).
LIM does not disclose wherein an axial direction of the heating element is configured to be inclined with respect to an extending direction of each of the plurality of through holes.
WANG teaches that the guide holes can be arranged in various fashions to provide proper heating effect (page 6). Adapting the holes to be inclined with respect to the heating element is considered to be a change of shape that would predictably be an arrangement to provide proper heating. Courts have held changes in proportion or shape to be prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was 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 container was significant.). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the various patterns taught in WANG would include inclined air holes because doing so would customize heating..
Neither LIM nor WANG disclose that the controller controls power based on a first mode for generating a smokeless aerosol and a second mode for generating a smoke aerosol.
LIM teaches that a profile can be selected including a power control step of controlling power of a battery according to the selected temperature profile (¶4, ¶22).LIM teaches that the controller controls the power to provide various tastes to a user including a feel of soft smoking or full smoking sensation (¶105). LIM teaches that the device can use opening and closing of the air passage to influence the amount of smoke and a smoking impression (¶73).
SEBASTIAN teaches an electronic smoking article that provides for separate delivery of two or more components of aerosol and one or more heaters so as to control the rate of deliver of the rate of heating the separate components (abstract). SEBASTIAN teaches that the smoking article can comprise one or more control components for regulating current flow from the power source (¶11). SEBASTIAN teaches that the controller can have one or more different control schemes (¶14). SEBASTIAN teaches that the controller may operate a first and second heating element (¶17). SEBASTIAN teaches that the article may have a first reservoir and a second reservoir and the control component may function to warm on or more of the first reservoir and the second reservoir to preheat and alter the characteristics (¶19). SEBASTIAN broadly teaches that the controller can perform may tasks of input/output, evaluation, judgment etc. (¶34-¶35) and encourages the application of combinations of controllers to provide the desired level of control of all aspects. SEBASTIAN further teaches that the aerosol composition can produce a visible aerosol upon application of sufficient heat or an aerosol that is invisible to the naked eye (¶55).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LIM to provide that the controller controls power based on a first mode for generating a smokeless aerosol and a second mode for generating a smoke aerosol as taught in SEBASTIAN. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously use the controller to control the power. Doing so would provide desired level of control to all aspects of the article (SEBASTIAN ¶35). Further a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ modes that provide smokeless aerosol and smoke aerosol based on the level of power. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously customize the composition and heat applied for visible and invisible aerosol (SEBASTIAN ¶57) to control all aspects of the device (SEBASTIAN ¶35).
Regarding claim 4, modified LIM discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1 as discussed above. LIM does not disclose wherein a size of each of the plurality of through holes increases from the center part of the support toward an outside of the support.
WANG teaches that the guide holes can be uniformly distributed or that each guide hole can have a different size of the distance from the heating plate (page 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the guide holes of WANG would be made such that holes increase from the center to the outside which would provide better heating. The courts have held changes in proportion or shape to be prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was 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 container was significant.). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that changing the through holes would customize airflow to the article with predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, modified LIM discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1 as discussed above. LIM does not disclose wherein the plurality of through holes comprise: a first through-hole set arranged within a range of a first separation distance to a second separation distance from the center part of the support and having a first diameter; and a second through-hole set arranged within a range of the second separation distance to a third separation distance and having a second diameter greater than the first diameter.
WANG teaches that the guide holes can be uniformly distributed or that each guide hole can have a different size of the distance from the heating plate (page 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the guide holes of WANG would be made such that holes increase from the center to the outside which would provide better heating. The courts have held changes in proportion or shape to be prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was 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 container was significant.). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that changing the diameters through holes would customize airflow to the article with predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, modified LIM discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1 as discussed above. LIM teaches the controller is further configured to supply power to the heater and to cut off the power supplied to the vaporizer in the first mode.
LIM teaches broadly that the controller may check a state of each of the components to determine whether or not the device is in an operable state (¶62). LIM teaches that the battery may supply power to the heater OR the vaporizer as operated by the controller (¶61, emphasis added). LIM further teaches that the elements can be arranged in series, but this is not limited (¶87).
SEBASTIAN teaches an electronic smoking article that provides for separate delivery of two or more components of aerosol and one or more heaters so as to control the rate of deliver of the rate of heating the separate components (abstract). SEBASTIAN teaches that the smoking article can comprise one or more control components for regulating current flow from the power source (¶11). SEBASTIAN teaches that the controller can have one or more different control schemes (¶14). SEBASTIAN broadly teaches that the controller can perform may tasks of input/output, evaluation, judgment etc. (¶34-¶35) and encourages the application of combinations of controllers to provide the desired level of control of all aspects.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the LIM and SEBASTIAN to provide the controller is further configured to supply power to the heater and to cut off the power supplied to the vaporizer in the first mode. A person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that the modes, controllers, heater, vaporizer, power scheme can be modified and adapted to power one or the other of the heater and vaporizer. Doing so would control the device with customizable and predictable results (LIM, ¶61-¶62) and control all aspects of the device (SEBASTIAN ¶35). Further this is considered to be a rearrangement of parts. Courts have held that rearrangement of parts of the prior art is unpatentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04, IV., part C. This is also an intended use recitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 7, modified LIM discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1 as discussed above. LIM teaches the controller is further configured to, when the first aerosol generating substrate is inserted into the cavity in the second mode, supply power to the heater and the vaporizer according to a first sub-mode included in the second mode.
LIM teaches that there is a cigarette database that stores many temperature profiles with respect to a cigarette (¶51). LIM teaches that the database communicates with a user terminal to set a temperature profile depending on the type of cigarette (¶51). These are considered sub-modes. LIM teaches that when the cigarette is inserted the device may operate the heater (¶59). Operation of the heater is controlled by the controller supplying power to the heater (¶61).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the LIM and SEBASTIAN to provide the controller is further configured to, when the first aerosol generating substrate is inserted into the cavity in the second mode, supply power to the heater and the vaporizer according to a first sub-mode included in the second mode. Doing so would control the device with customizable and predictable results (LIM, ¶61-¶62) and control all aspects of the device (SEBASTIAN ¶35). Further this is considered to be a rearrangement of parts. Courts have held that rearrangement of parts of the prior art is unpatentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04, IV., part C. This is also an intended use recitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 8, modified LIM discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 7 as discussed above. LIM teaches wherein the controller is further configured to, when an inhalation substrate that is from the first aerosol generating substrate is inserted into the cavity in the second mode, cut off power supplied to the heater and supply power to the vaporizer according to a second sub-mode included in the second mode.
LIM teaches that there is a cigarette database that stores many temperature profiles with respect to a cigarette (¶51). LIM teaches that the database communicates with a user terminal to set a temperature profile depending on the type of cigarette (¶51). These are considered sub-modes. LIM teaches that when the cigarette is inserted the device may operate the heater (¶59). Operation of the heater is controlled by the controller supplying power to the heater (¶61).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the LIM and SEBASTIAN to provide wherein the controller is further configured to, when a inhalation substrate that is from the first aerosol generating substrate is inserted into the cavity in the second mode, cut off power supplied to the heater and supply power to the vaporizer according to a second sub-mode included in the second mode. Doing so would control the device with customizable and predictable results (LIM, ¶61-¶62) and control all aspects of the device (SEBASTIAN ¶35). Further this is considered to be a rearrangement of parts. Courts have held that rearrangement of parts of the prior art is unpatentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and MPEP 2144.04, IV., part C. This is also an intended use recitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 9, modified LIM discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 8 as discussed above. LIM discloses wherein the first aerosol generating substrate comprises a tobacco rod (Fig. 3, tobacco rod 210, ¶76) and a filter rod (Fig. 3, filter rod 220, ¶76). LIM further teaches and the inhalation substrate comprises the filter rod without the tobacco rod. LIM teaches that the filter rod may include a plurality of segments to form other functions (¶77). A person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that these segments may provide inhalation substrates (i.e. further flavors etc. ¶82) and provide such segments with predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, modified LIM discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1 as discussed above. LIM discloses an input unit configured to receive a user input, wherein the controller is further configured to control power according to the first mode or the second mode based on the user input (¶38).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 29, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-10 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments against the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “Wang, at best, discloses that a heating plate includes a plurality of guide holes (see FIG. 3 and paragraph [0060] of Wang). That is, Wang is silent about an axial direction of the heating plate 142 being configured to be inclined with respect to an extending direction of each of the guide holes 143, as required by amended claim 1. Moreover, FIG. 3 of Wang explicitly shows that the through direction of the guide holes 143 is arranged to be parallel to the axial direction of the insertion portion (144), such that an airflow from the space between the heating plate (142) and the bottom wall (123) toward the aerosol generating substrate (20) is aligned in parallel with the axial direction of the insertion portion (144). Such features of Wang are entirely different from the above-noted features of "the support comprises a plurality of through holes arranged at a distance greater than a preset separation distance from the center part so that the airflow path and the cavity communicate with each other, and wherein an axial direction of the heating element is configured to be inclined with respect to an extending direction of each of the plurality of through holes," (emphasis added) as recited in amended claim 1. “
WANG does not limit the positioning or shape of the holes to be straight and parallel to the heat plate as applicant argues. On the contrary, WANG teaches that the holes should be arranged in various fashions to provide proper heating effect (page 6). Therefore the change of shape to provide inclined holes with respect to the heater is an obvious change of shape done for a purpose of providing a heating effect.
Though not relied upon for the rejection of the claim, US 20170360092 A1 (hereinafter ALTHORPE), teaches slanted inlet passages for creating a circular airflow to improve mixing (¶75).
The remainder of the applicant’s argument relies on the allowability of claim 1 which has been properly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20170360092 A1 (hereinafter ALTHORPE). ALTHORPE discloses that the air inlet passages on the base plate are angled to create a circular airflow or vortex to improve mixing (¶75).
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 STEPHANIE L MOORE whose telephone number is (313)446-6537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9 am to 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, 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.
/STEPHANIE LYNN MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747