Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/289,312

AEROSOL GENERATING APPARATUS AND METHOD OF CONTROLLING SAME

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Nov 02, 2023
Examiner
OGG, DAVID EARL
Art Unit
2119
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Kt&G Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
241 granted / 290 resolved
+28.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
317
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
13.2%
-26.8% vs TC avg
§103
41.0%
+1.0% vs TC avg
§102
10.9%
-29.1% vs TC avg
§112
30.9%
-9.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 290 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Claims 1-15 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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. Claim(s) 2, 12 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 2, 12 reach recite the limitation “continued smoking”. The antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim is unclear as it implies a reference to a beginning of smoking that is not present in the claims. Claim 3 is rejected based on dependency to rejected Claim 2. 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, 4-6, 11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee, US Patent Pub US 20200329776 A1 (hereinafter Lee). Claim 1 Lee discloses an aerosol-generating apparatus comprising: a heater configured to heat at least a portion of an aerosol-generating article (Lee, para 96, 98 - The aerosol generating device with a heater to heat an aerosol generating material.); a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the heater (Lee, para 125 – Temperature sensor measuring a temperature of the heater.); and a processor configured to control supply of power to the heater according to a first preheating profile that defines a preset preheating time and a preset preheating temperature (Lee, para 124, 135 – The controller/processor supplying power to the heater in a time period/”preset preheating time” to a desired heating temperature/”preset preheating temperature” in a preheating period/”first preheating profile”.), wherein the processor is further configured to, when the temperature of the heater is higher than or equal to a reference temperature, control the supply of power to the heater according to a second preheating profile that is different from the first preheating profile. (Lee, para 135 – When the temperature is higher than the desired heating temperature, the power supplied is decreased to lower the temperature by shortening a duration of the initial phase/”second preheating profile”.) This rejection also applies to claim 11. Claim 4 Lee discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. Lee further discloses a temporal section during which a target temperature is reached is set to be shorter in the second preheating profile than in the first preheating profile. (Lee, para 135 - To cope with the rapid change in the temperature of the heater in an initial phase of the preheating section, an amount of power supplied may be rapidly adjusted by shortening a duration of the initial phase/”second preheating profile”.) Claim 5 Lee discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. Lee further discloses a temporal section during which a target temperature is maintained is set to be longer in the second preheating profile than in the first preheating profile. (Lee, para 110 - the controller may change the phases in a direction of increasing the durations of the phases/”first and second preheating profiles” in various patterns based on the temperature of the heater to stabilize it in the preheating range.) Claim 6 Lee discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. Lee further discloses a temporal section during which the temperature of the heater decreases is set to be longer in the second preheating profile than in the first preheating profile. (Lee, para 110 - the controller may change the phases in a direction of increasing the durations of the phases/”first and second preheating profiles” in various patterns based on the temperature of the heater.) The rejections of claims 5 and 6 also apply to claim 14. 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 non-obviousness. Claim(s) 2-3, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, US Patent Pub US 20200329776 A1 (hereinafter Lee) as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 11, 14 above, and in view of Lee, WIPO Patent Num WO2020231194A2 (hereinafter Lee194). Claim 2 Lee discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. But Lee fails to specify when the temperature of the heater is higher than or equal to the reference temperature, determine that continued smoking is performed. However Lee194 teaches when the temperature of the heater is higher than or equal to the reference temperature, determine that continued smoking is performed. (Lee194, lines 367-368 - The puff detection sensor may detect a user’s puff based on a temperature change.) Lee and Lee194 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to aerosol generating devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above aerosol generating device, as taught by Lee, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Lee194. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to maintain a preset temperature for generating an aerosol by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Lee194 (Lines 401-403). This rejection also applies to claim 12. Claim 3 The combination of Lee and Lee194 teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. Lee194 further teaches when insertion of the aerosol-generating article is detected, measure the temperature of the heater and determine whether the temperature of the heater is higher than or equal to the reference temperature. (Lee194 – Insertion of a cigarette or a cartridge/”aerosol-generating article” is detected, a heating operation is started to reach a target temperature.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above aerosol generating device, as taught by Lee and Lee194, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Lee194. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to maintain a preset temperature for generating an aerosol by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Lee194 (Lines 401-403). Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, US Patent Pub US 20200329776 A1 (hereinafter Lee) as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 11, 14 above, and in view of Han et al, US Patent Pub US 20200352231 A1 (hereinafter Han). Claim 9 Lee discloses all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. But Lee fails to specify a display configured to display a preheating mode of the aerosol-generating apparatus, wherein the processor is further configured to control the display to display the preheating mode according to the first preheating profile or the second preheating profile. However Han teaches a display configured to display a preheating mode of the aerosol-generating apparatus, wherein the processor is further configured to control the display to display the preheating mode according to the first preheating profile or the second preheating profile. (Han, para 202 – A display capable of outputting visual information about the preheating.) Lee and Han are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to aerosol generating devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above aerosol generating device, as taught by Lee, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Han. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide current status information to a user by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Han (para 202). Claim 10 The combination of Lee and Han teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above. Han further teaches when the preheating time according to the first preheating profile or the second preheating profile is reached, control the display to output a notification indicating that the preheating is completed. (Han, para 202 – A display capable of outputting visual information about completion of the preheating.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above aerosol generating device, as taught by Lee and Han, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Han. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide current status information to a user by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Han (para 202). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7 and 15 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. Dependent claim(s) 8 is/are allowable over art based on their dependence upon claim 7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s claim defines over the prior art of record because the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, does not teach when the temperature of the heater is higher than or equal to the reference temperature, control the supply of power to the heater according to the second preheating profile after a certain delay time has passed. Citation of Pertinent Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li et al, Chinese Patent Num CN112353016A relates to claims regarding an intelligent temperature control method for an infrared radiation heating smoking set using multiple stages with adjusted heating times and temperatures. Lee, WIPO Patent Num WO2020101203A1 relates to claims regarding an aerosol generating device, a heater for heating the aerosol generating substrate and a control unit for controlling the power supplied to the heater for controlling the temperature of the heater of the aerosol generating device. Lin et al, US Patent Pub US 20220211117 A1 relates to claims regarding an electronic cigarette preheating method and preheating system to perform heating for the preset heating time or until the preset target temperature value is reached. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E OGG whose telephone number is (469) 295-9163. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 7:30 am - 5:00 pm CT. 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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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. /DAVID EARL OGG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 02, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596339
PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT DEVICE, PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591217
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING A CONFIGURATION PROCESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12572134
I/O Server Services for Selecting and Utilizing Active Controller Outputs from Containerized Controller Services in a Process Control Environment
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12547153
METHOD, CONTROL UNIT, MEASUREMENT SYSTEM, COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12544834
AGENT DROPLET DEPOSITION DENSITY DETERMINATIONS FOR POROUS ARTICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
83%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+12.1%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 290 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