Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/279,252

AEROSOL GENERATING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Aug 29, 2023
Examiner
FELTON, MICHAEL J
Art Unit
1747
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Kt&G Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
59%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 9m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 59% of resolved cases
59%
Career Allow Rate
287 granted / 486 resolved
-5.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 9m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
527
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
58.1%
+18.1% vs TC avg
§102
18.6%
-21.4% vs TC avg
§112
18.8%
-21.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 486 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 10-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a processor that may sense the position of a cover based on information from a positioning sensor [0094], it does not reasonably provide enablement for a processor to be configured to control power supplied from the battery to the heater based on whether or not the cover opens the hole. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. One of ordinary skill does not know how to configure a processor to identify if a cover opens a hole without sensing circuity. Processors are not known to perform this function. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sayed et al. (US 20220183357 A1). Regarding claims 1-3 and 6-9, Sayed et al disclose a an aerosol generating device (100) including a housing (102) including a hole (104) for accommodating an aerosol-generating article and a guide (202) separated from the hole (104), and a lid/cover (108a) that moves between a first position ( open position ) and a second position ( closed position ) along the guide (202) in order to open and close the hole (104) [0019], wherein when the cover (108) is located in the first position, the hole (104) is opened, and when the lid/cover (108) is located in the second position, the hole (108) is closed (see, [0038], [0067-0080] and figures 9A-9E below). PNG media_image1.png 664 455 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claims 2 and 3, the guide (202) is separated from the hole in a first direction and extends in a second direction across the first direction and a remaining part of the guide is located in a second region not corresponding to the hole. Regarding claims 6-9, a spring biases the lid towards the open position when the lid is in or near the open position or toward the closed position when it is in or near the closed position ([0004], [0075-0078], see also claim 1). The spring moves the cover by elastic force before a threshold position between the first and second portion. Pivot points are used as a first and second maintain portions. 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. Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayed et al. (US 20220183357 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Newman et al. (US 20050172976 A1). PNG media_image2.png 381 606 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claims 4 and 5, Sayed et al. do not disclose an air inlet apart from the guide or located at a circumference of the hole. However, Newman et al. disclose a similar smoking device that heats a aerosol generating article which is inserted into a hole and contains an air inlet port around the circumference of the hole (see figure 6, element 1200 below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the air inlet port of Newman et al. to provide air for the smoking device of Sayed et al. so that users could draw air through the device during use. The air inlet located at the top of the hole would also have been protected by the lid of Newman et al. The combination would have been predictable and within the level of skill. Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayed et al. (US 20220183357 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bellusci et al. (US 20210007396 A1). Regarding claims 10-12, Sayed et al. disclose a heater configured to heat the aerosol generating article, a battery to power the heater, and a controller such as a processor and memory to control the power supplied to the heater [0045-0046]. Sayed et al. do not disclose that the processor is configured to control power supplied from the battery to the heater based on whether or not the cover opens the hole. However, Bellusci et al. disclose a similar cover for a similar aerosol generating device. The device of Bellusci et al. contains a detector that provides, “a signal to the controller 18 indicative of whether the cover element 42 is in the closed position or the open position.” [0104]. The controller will not supply power to the heater if the cover is closed because it is assumed that an aerosol generating article is not in the heating cavity [0105]. If the cover is open, the controller may supply power to the heater [0106]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a sensor as disclosed in the invention of Bellusci et al. to detect whether the cover of Sayed et al. is in the open and closed position so that the controller can determine whether or not to provide power to the heating system as described by Bellusci et al. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4805. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Thursday-Friday 7:00-4:30, Wednesday 7:00-1:00. 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. /Michael J Felton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 29, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12564214
TOBACCO SMOKE FILTER AND METHOD OF PRODUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12564216
CIGAR ASHTRAY SYSTEM WITH COOLING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12538940
TOBACCO HAVING REDUCED TOBACCO SPECIFIC NITROSAMINE CONTENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12532907
HYDROPHOBIC PLUG WRAP
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12514281
ARTICLE FOR USE IN AN APPARATUS FOR HEATING SMOKABLE MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
59%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+14.8%)
4y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 486 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month