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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group II, claims 12-14 in the reply filed on 1/27/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-11 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/27/2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is fewer than 50 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 12-21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Batista (US 11,896,052) in view of Qi (US 2025/0295171, hereafter referred to as Qi ‘171).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, Batista discloses an aerosol generating device that generates heat by surface plasmon resonance (abstract) having a first light source (figure 6, reference numeral 240) and a second light source (figure 6, reference numeral 242) that direct light towards a first heating element (figure 6, reference numeral 244) and a second heating element (column 15, lines 32-41, figure 6, reference numeral 246). The heating elements (column 15, lines 42-46) comprise a planar heating portion (column 15, lines 47-53, figure 7, reference numeral 252) comprising a coating layer having a plurality of metallic particles (column 15, lines 54-67, column 16, lines 1-4, figure 8, reference numeral 262) and a plurality of pores between sections of the coating layer (column 16, lines 5-20, figure 8, reference numeral 264). The coating layer is positioned on a substrate layer (column 15, lines 54-67, column 16, lines 1-4, figure 8, reference numeral 258). The plurality of metallic particles are metallic nanoparticles that generate heat by surface plasmon resonance when exposed to light (column 1, lines 57-65). Batista does not explicitly disclose the coating layer being a foam.
Qi ‘171 teaches a porous a heating module for an aerosol generating apparatus in which the heating occurs in a porous body (abstract, figure 4, reference numeral 22). The porous body is a metal foam made of a mixture and gas so that heating efficiency is increased.
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 substrate of Batista from the metal foam of Qi ‘171. One would have been motivated to do so since Qi ‘171 teaches that a metal foam porous body improves heating efficiency in an aerosol generating apparatus.
Regarding claim 13, Batista discloses that the wavelength of the light is between 380 nanometers and 700 nanometers (column 3, lines 19-21).
Regarding claim 14, Batista discloses that the first light source is located on an opposite side from the second light source (figure 6), indicating that they are configured to heat opposite sides of a heating element.
Regarding claim 16, the planar heating portion of Batista is considered to meet the claim limitation of a substrate.
Regarding claim 17, the metal and gas foam of Qi ‘171 is a different material from the metallic nanoparticles of Batista since the metallic nanoparticles do not contain any gas.
Regarding claim 19, the plurality of pores and pervious area are identified in the below annotated version of figure 8 of Batista:
PNG
media_image1.png
280
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, it is evident that the pores of Batista are in fluid communication with each other since the area below them is open (figure 8).
Regarding claim 24, Batista discloses the entrances to the pores are located in recesses (figure 8), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of a cavity.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista (US 11,896,052) in view of Qi (US 2025/0295171, hereafter referred to as Qi ‘171) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Qi (US 12,357,027, hereafter referred to as Qi ‘027).
Regarding claim 22, modified Batista teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Batista does not explicitly teach a reflecting body.
Qi ‘027 teaches a smoking article comprising a tube that contains aerosol forming matrix that is heated using infrared radiation rays (abstract). The tube is surrounded by an infrared reflecting layer that prevents rays from being transmitted beyond the matrix to improve the heat utilization rate (column 6, lines 9-17, figure 3, reference numeral 114).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position a reflecting layer on the opposite side of the planar heating portion from the light source of modified Batista. One would have been motivated to do so since Qi ‘027 teaches a reflecting layer that prevents rays from being transmitted beyond a heating area so that the heat utilization rate is improved.
Regarding claim 23, Batista discloses that the side of the planar heating portion opposite the light source is a periphery of the planar heating portion (figure 8).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista (US 11,896,052) in view of Qi (US 2025/0295171, hereafter referred to as Qi ‘171) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Terry (US 8,550,068).
Regarding claim 25, modified Batista teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Batista additionally discloses that the aerosol generating device receives an aerosol forming substrate in a cavity (column 9, lines 1-5). The device transfers liquid aerosol forming substrate from the article to the heating element using a liquid transport element in the form of a capillary wick (column 9, lines 27-38). Modified Batista does not explicitly teach the planar heating portion having a piercing member.
Terry teaches a personal vapor inhaling unit having a cavity that receives a cartridge within it so that the substance is brought into contact with a wick that transports the substance through the wick to a heating element where the substance is vaporized (abstract). A distal wick of the unit punctures a seal or cap that contains the substance to be vaporized within the cartridge so that the substance comes into direct contact with the wick (column 6, lines 63-67, column 7, lines 1-4, figure 8, reference numeral 134). Terry additionally teaches that this allows arrangements of different sizes to deliver different doses (column 14, lines 16-27).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the planar heating portion of Batista with the puncturing wick of Terry and the article of Batista with the reservoir of Terry. One would have been motivated to do so since Terry teaches that this liquid transferring form allows arrangements of different sizes to deliver different doses.
Conclusion
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