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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality: “the” should be inserted after “supply” (line 3). Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Species-(a), in the reply filed on 3-10-2026, is acknowledged -- with the grounds for the traversal recited in the reply at pages 2-3. This is found persuasive and the restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
●the connector “configured to supply power to the heater” in claim 2
●the power supply unit “configured to supply power to the heater” in claim 4
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 is considered to be indefinite in that the antecedent of “the partial region” (lines 2-3) is not clearly defined given that a partial region is previously recited in claim 1 (line 13) and previously recited in claim 8 (line 2).
Claim 13 is considered to be indefinite in that the antecedent of “the region” (lines 2-3) is not clearly defined given that a partial region is previously recited in claim 11 (line 9) and previously recited in claim 13 (line 2). Does ‘the region” refer to one of the previously recited partial regions or to a different region?
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 1, 6-8, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR102330300B1 in view of Kim (KR102029225B1).
Claims 1 and 11, KR102330300 (i.e. KR300) teaches an aerosol generating device 100 for generating an aerosol by heating a cigarette 200, the aerosol generating device comprising:
●a provided pipe 131 comprising an opening into which the cigarette is inserted, a first
surface (the inner surface) enclosing at least a partial region of an outer circumferential surface of the cigarette 200 when the cigarette 200 is inserted, and a second surface (the outer surface) opposite to the first surface;
●a heater 133 provided on the second surface of the pipe 131 and configured to heat
the pipe 131; and
●a provided insulating layer 132a placed next to the second surface of the pipe 131
and configured to provide electrical insulation and arranged between the heater 133 and the second surface of the pipe 131
●wherein the heater 133 comprises a heating material (“printed” in claim 1 refers to how the heating material is applied and is not considered to provide a structural feature to the claimed structure – i.e. the aerosol generating device) directly on insulating layer 132a in a pattern enclosing at least a partial region of the second surface of the pipe 131 (Abstract; page 3, paragraphs 5-7; page 7, paragraphs 7-8; page 8, paragraphs 3-4; Figures 2, 6 and 7). 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.
Claim 1, KR300 does not teach that the heating material is a heating wire. Claim 11, KR300 does not teach that the heating material is a heating wire which is printed.
However, it is conventional and well-known in the art that such a heating material, as illustrated by KR300, may be in the form of a printed heating wire – as demonstrated by Kim, for example. Kim teaches a heater for a cigarette type electronic tobacco heater. Kim provides a heater pattern 20 comprising being in the form of a printed wire which allows one the ability to improve upon the heating process (Abstract; page 3, paragraphs 4-6 and 12-13; page 4, paragraphs 8-10).
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 KR300 that the heating material is a printed heating wire in that it is conventional and well-known in the art that such a heating material may be in the form of a printed heating wire – as demonstrated by Kim – which Kim teaches allows one the ability to improve upon the heating process.
Claims 6 and 15, KR300 teaches a layer 132b (“coating” and “deposited” in claim 6 each refer to how the layer is applied and are not considered to provide structural features to the claimed structure – i.e. the aerosol generating device) on the second surface of the pipe 131 and the printed heating wire (page 8, paragraph 6). The layer 132b is an insulation layer which may be coated/deposited thereon (page 7, paragraphs 10-11).
Claims 7 and 12, KR300 teaches that the insulating layer 132a is stacked on substantially an entire region of the second surface of the pipe 131.
Claims 8 and 13, KR300 teaches that the insulating layer 132a is on a partial region of the second surface of the pipe 131, the partial region corresponding to a part of the pattern in which the printed heating wire is present (“printed” in claim 8 refers to how the heating material is applied and is not considered to provide a structural feature to the claimed structure – i.e. the aerosol generating device).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR102330300B1 in view of Kim (KR102029225B1), as applied to claims 1, 6-8, 11-13, and 15 above, and further in view of Thorens (EP 2399636A1).
Claim 2, KR300 teaches a heating electrode 134 connecting to the heating pattern to a power supply 110. The heating electrode 134 corresponds to electrical connection terminals (i.e. the heater 133 comprises a plurality of terminals comprising a first terminal and a second terminal) that provide the power supplied from the power supply unit 110 to the heating pattern (page 8, paragraph 5).
Claim 2, KR300 does not teach a connector between the first and second terminals and the power supply unit 110.
However, such connectors are conventional and well-known in the art – as demonstrated by Thorens, for example. Thorens teaches a connector 209 between a power supply unit 107 and a heating 119 with terminals therebetween; and, Thorens also teaches that the connector may be absent (paragraphs 89-94).
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 a connector between the first and second terminals and the power supply unit 110 in that such connectors are conventional and well-known in the art – as demonstrated by Thorens – where it is obvious to replace one connection type (that of KR300) with another art recognized alternative connection type (that of Thorens – use of a connector).
With respect to claimed connector, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The instant specification teaches a structure for the claimed connector to perform the claimed function. KR300 teaches a structure for the claimed connector to perform the same claimed function. KR300 is thus considered to meet this limitation of the claim.
Claim 3, in KR300 modified the heating wire comprises one end portion connected to the first terminal and another end portion connected to the second terminal, the other end portion being opposite to the one end portion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections to claim 4, set forth in this Office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and, dependent claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (i.e. claim 4).
Claims 9-10 are 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.
Claim 14 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 4, the closest prior art of record to KR300 (as modified above and herein) teaches that the aerosol generating device 100 comprises a power supply unit 110 connected to the connector (which has a body) and configured to supply the power to the heater 133 wherein the connector comprises: a first connector terminal connected to the first terminal; a second connector terminal connected to the second terminal; and a third connector terminal connected to the power supply unit 110. However, KR300, alone or in combination with the other prior art of record, does not teach or fairly suggest that the body is made of a flexible printed circuit board (FPCB) extending from the third connector terminal to the first connector terminal and the second connector terminal.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 9, the closest prior art of record to KR300, alone or in combination with the other prior art of record, does not teach or fairly suggest that the pipe comprises, on the second surface, a groove inwardly formed to correspond to the pattern in which the heating wire is present (“printed” in the claim refers to how the heating material is applied and is not considered to provide a structural feature to the claimed structure – i.e. the aerosol generating device).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 14, the closest prior art of record to KR300 modified by Kim, in combination with the other prior art of record, does not teach or fairly suggest that before the placing of the pipe, forming, on the outer surface of the pipe, a groove inwardly formed to correspond to the pattern in which the heating wire is printed.
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).
Prior Art of Record
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s invention: Lim teaches a patterned heater on a surface for heating a cigarette.
Conclusion
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