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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6 are 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al (CN 211832830).
Zhou discloses the heating mechanism claimed including a chamber (shown with element 65 in Figure 5), a heater (61) in a tubular form extending in an axial direction of the chamber wherein the heater is configured to heat an aerosol generation product (e.g., cigarette or cigar) removably received in the chamber, a first end cap (63) connected to an end of the heater (61) wherein the first end cap comprising an inner cylinder (shown by element 632 in Figures 5 and 6) at least partially extending into an interior of the chamber, and the inner cylinder having a closed end (which is shown by its bottom portion) and an open end that receives and abuts the aerosol generation product (A) wherein a substantially closed space is formed between the closed end and the open end (see Figure 7).
With respect to claim 3, Zhou discloses a position of an end of the heater that is between a closed end and an open end of the chamber (65) as the heater is positioned inside the chamber which has an open end and a closed end as illustrated in Figure 5.
With respect to claim 6, Zhou discloses a second end cap (64) at one end of the heater.
With respect to claim 8, Zhou discloses the heater comprising a base body (613) with an infrared transmitter (i.e., a heating track 614, see par 0050, which is made of material including nickel-chromium, tungsten or platinum which is known to emit infrared radiation) the is configured to generate infrared rays for heating.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 211832830) in view of Liu (US 2015/0296884).
Zhou discloses the heating mechanism claimed including the first end cap (63) having an the inner cylinder having an outer wall (see Figure 5 ) that extends into an interior of the chamber but does not explicitly show an outer cylinder connected to the inner cylinder wherein an end of the heater is positioned between an inner wall of the outer cylinder and the outer wall of the inner cylinder as claimed.
Liu shows a cap (31) having an inner cylinder (313) with an outer wall and an outer cylinder (311) with an inner wall wherein the inner cylinder is shown extending into an interior of a chamber wherein aerosol generation takes via a heater (shown by an atomizer 2), and Liu further shows the heater with its connection terminals provided between the inner wall of the outer cylinder and the outer wall of the inner cylinder with a connection portion therebetween.
In view of Liu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Zhou with the first end cap including an inner cylinder and an outer cylinder that can accommodate the heater with its terminals therebetween so that the first end cap can more effectively provide a support for the heater with its connection terminals that can be more conveniently and effectively aligned with the chamber.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 211832830) in view of Reevell (US 2021/0378309).
Zhou discloses the heating mechanism claimed except for an insulator located outside the heater in a radial direction wherein the insulator abuts against the first end cap and the second end cap as claimed.
Reevell discloses it is known to provide an insulator (154) that is provided outside of a heater (124) in a radial direction wherein the insulator extends substantially along an entirety of a chamber as illustrated in Figure 4.
In view of Reevell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Zhou with an insulator that located outside the heater in a radial direction wherein the insulator abuts against the first end cap and the second end cap so that an entirety of the chamber can be effectively insulated to predictably confine heating within the chamber to effectively heat the aerosol generation product without heat loss.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Zhou, Applicant argues that Zhou shows external air that flows directly through the bottom channel 631 and upward into the space immediately below the aerosol generation product and thus the Zhou’s configuration cannot form a substantially closed space between the closed end and the aerosol product.
This argument is not deemed persuasive since Zhou discloses for a side wall of the end cap (63) that allows for an airflow (631) and not from the bottom of the end cap wherein such structure substantially disclosed for an closed space between the closed end of the cap and the open end as claimed. Also see annotated drawings below.
PNG
media_image1.png
330
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
369
699
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, Zhou is deemed to show the claimed first end cap having a closed space formed between the closed end and the open end as illustrated by the annotated drawing above.
All other arguments are based on Zhou ,and thus the Applicant’s arguments are not deemed persuasive for the reasons given for Zhou.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights