Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/360,759

AEROSOL-GENERATING DEVICE AND HEATING ASSEMBLY THEREOF

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jul 27, 2023
Examiner
WILL, KATHERINE A
Art Unit
1747
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Hainan Moore Brothers Technology Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allow Rate
297 granted / 449 resolved
+1.1% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
44 currently pending
Career history
493
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
51.4%
+11.4% vs TC avg
§102
24.1%
-15.9% vs TC avg
§112
18.3%
-21.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 449 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 . 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. Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "the end of the functional part" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 provides antecedent basis for “a functional part” but not for an end of the functional part. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN21448324U) (claims are mapped to the translation provided by Applicant with the IDS filed 1/22/26). Claims 1 and 16. Li et al. discloses a heating device for a non-combustion smoking set (aerosol-generating device) comprising a heating device 5 (heating assembly) (Abstract). Heating device 5 includes a base 51 (fixing base) and a thick film heating rod 52. The thick film heating rod 52 is fixed on the base 51. Heating rod 52 comprises thick film heating layer 521 (covering film) wrapped around the heating core 522 (heating rod). The thick film heating layer 521 directly generates heat to bake the cigarette 100 (Page 5, paragraphs 2-3; See Figure 2 reproduced and annotated below). PNG media_image1.png 450 278 media_image1.png Greyscale Claim 2. Li et al. discloses that the heating core 522 (heating rod) is cylindrical and the functional part and the fitting part are arranged in an axial direction of the heating rod (See Figure 2 reproduced above). Claim 3. Li et al. discloses that the functional part is located completely outside the fixing base and an end surface of an end of the functional part abuts against an end surface of the fixing base (See Figure 2 reproduced above). Claim 6. Li et al. discloses that the heating core 522 (heating rod) has a pointed tip at one end, opposite the end forming the fitting part (See Figure 2 reproduced above). Claims 7 and 8. Li et al. discloses that the thick film heating layer 521 (covering film) comprises a first insulating coating (base film), a heating resistor layer (heating film) printed on the first insulating coating, and a second insulating coating covering the heating resistor layer (Page 5, paragraph 4). Claims 11 and 12. Li et al. discloses that the heating core 522 (heating rod) may be an iron tube, a ceramic tube, an aluminum tube, a copper tube, a stainless steel tube, or a glass tube, etc., specifically, a substrate tube with high thermal conductivity may be selected as required (Page 5, paragraph 10). The thick film heating layer 521 (covering film) comprises a first insulating coating (base film), a heating resistor layer (heating film) printed on the first insulating coating, and a second insulating coating (insulating film between heating film and heating rod/insulating material on heating rod) covering the heating resistor layer (Page 5, paragraph 4). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN21448324U) (claims are mapped to the translation provided by Applicant with the IDS filed 1/22/26) in view of Deng et al. (US 2020/0359704). Claim 9. Li et al. discloses the heating assembly of claim 8 wherein the heating resistance layer has positive and negative electrodes 523 (electrode leads) (Page 5, paragraph 4) but does not explicitly disclose that the covering film comprises two conductive films that are provided on the base film and connected to the heating film and wherein the positive and negative electrodes 523 (electrode leads) are connected to the two conductive films. Deng et al. discloses a microporous ceramic thick-film heating element for an electronic cigarette oil atomizing core, comprising: a microporous ceramic substrate, a heating resistive layer and an electrode layer coupled to an upper surface of the microporous ceramic substrate, and the heating resistive layer including a middle portion and two connecting portions disposed at both ends of the middle portion respectively, and the electrode layer including two separated electrode films, and the two connection parts being coupled to upper ends of the two electrode films respectively, and the middle portion being coupled to an upper surface of the microporous ceramic substrate; the heating resistive layer being provided for heating the microporous ceramic substrate to atomize a smoke oil of an electronic cigarette and discharge the atomized smoke oil from the microporous ceramic substrate to the outside (Deng [0012]). Deng et al. teaches that by setting the thickness of the heating resistive layer and the thickness of the electrode film, the electrode film has good conductivity and adhesiveness, so that the heating resistive layer and the electrode film can be coupled to the microporous ceramic substrate tightly without the risk of falling off easily, and the heating resistive layer has little heat accumulated inside and high atomization efficiency (Deng [0022]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include two conductive films on the base film and connected to the heating film of Li et al. in order to provide high atomization efficiency as taught by Deng et al. Claim 10. Modified Li et al. discloses that the microporous ceramic thick-film heating element further comprises two lead pins, and the microporous ceramic substrate has two positioning blind holes and two electrode films disposed above respectively, and lower ends of the two lead pins are passed through the two electrode films, inserted into the two positioning blind holes respectively and soldered with the two electrode films respectively. With the aforementioned structure, the configuration of the positioning blind hole and the lead pin allows the lead pin to be installed to a precise position of the microporous ceramic substrate quickly to improve the installation efficiency of the lead pin (Deng [0015]). Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN21448324U) (claims are mapped to the translation provided by Applicant with the IDS filed 1/22/26). Claims 14 and 15. Li et al. discloses the heating assembly of claim 7 but does not explicitly disclose that the covering film is formed by sintering a flexible film tape wound on the heating rod, or that the flexible film tape is manufactured by a tape casting process. However, the limitations “wherein the covering film is formed by sintering a flexible film tape wound on the heating rod” and “wherein the flexible film tape is manufactured by a tape casting process” are directed to the process of making the heating assembly, not the structure of the heating assembly itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (See MPEP §2113). Since the process steps recited in claims 14 and 15 do not appear to imply any particular structure, the heating assembly of Li et al. is sufficient to establish a case of prima facie obviousness for claims 14 and 15. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 5, and 13 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is Li et al. (CN21448324U). Li et al. discloses the heating assembly of claim 1 but does not disclose a mounting hole communicating with the fitting hole is formed on the fixing base, and wherein the functional part is partially accommodated in the mounting hole; or that a gap is formed between the heating film and the fixing base. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine A Will whose telephone number is (571)270-0516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00AM-6:00PM(EST). 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 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. /KATHERINE A WILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 27, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593877
VAPING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12543801
ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12538943
NONWOVEN POUCH COMPRISING HEAT SEALABLE BINDER FIBER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12538945
Method and System for Identifying Smoking Articles
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12527346
PODS FOR VAPORIZERS AND SMOKING PRODUCTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 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
66%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+21.3%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 449 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