Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/481,186

INDUCTION COIL ARRANGEMENT

Non-Final OA §103§DP
Filed
Oct 04, 2023
Examiner
DINH, PHUONG K
Art Unit
2831
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Nicoventures Trading Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 12m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
1028 granted / 1180 resolved
+19.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 12m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
1199
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
41.1%
+1.1% vs TC avg
§102
35.2%
-4.8% vs TC avg
§112
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1180 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DP
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 . Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of Aoun (U.S. Patent No. 11,938,010) in view of Levitz (U. S. 2014/0224267). Regarding claims 1, 3-20, Aoun (U. S. Patent 11,938,010) discloses the claimed invention except for the plate comprises a printed circuit board. Levitz discloses a laminate flexible printed circuit board (see paragraph 0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Aoun to provide such features as taught by Levitz so as to easy for manufacture. Regarding claim 2, Aoun and Levitz disclose for the first and second flat spiral coils comprise: (i) 1OzCu and are around 38 microns thick; or (ii) 20zCu and are around 76 microns thick. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Aoun and Levitz to provide such features so as to design for optimum performance. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. 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 1-8, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 206018744 (CN’744) in view of CN 105307526 (CN’526) and further in view of Levitz (U. S. 2014/0224267). Regarding claims 1, 5, 8, 20, CN’744 discloses an induction coil 1, 2 arrangement for use with apparatus for heating smokable material to volatilize at least one component of the smokable material, the induction coil 1, 2 arrangement comprising: a plate 3 having opposite first and second sides, a first flat spiral coil 1 of electrically-conductive material printed on the first side of the plate 3; and a second flat spiral coil 2 of electrically-conductive material printed on the second side of the plate 3. CN’744 discloses the claimed invention except for the plate comprises a printed circuit board (PCB). CN’526 discloses the electronic device 12 comprises a printed circuit board and further Levitz discloses flexible laminate printed circuit board (see paragraph 0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify CN’744 to provide such features as taught by CN’526 and Levitz so as to easy for manufacture. Regarding claim 2, CN’744, CN’526, Levitz disclose the claimed invention except for the first and second flat spiral coils comprise: (i) 1OzCu and are around 38 microns thick; or (ii) 20zCu and are around 76 microns thick. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify CN’744, CN’526 and Levitz to provide such features so as to design for optimum performance. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 3, CN’744 discloses an electrically-conductive connector electrically-connecting the first flat spiral coil 1 to the second flat spiral coil 2; more preferably the electrically-conductive connector extends from a radially-inner end of the first flat spiral coil 1 to a radially-inner end of the second flat spiral coil 2. Regarding claim 4, CN’744 discloses when observed from one side of the induction coil 1, 2 arrangements, the first flat spiral coil 1 follows a clockwise path from a radially-inner end of the first flat spiral coil 1, and the second flat spiral coil 2 follows an anti- clockwise path from a radially-inner end of the second flat spiral coil 2. Regarding claim 6, CN’744 discloses the plate 3 further comprises a heating zone defining a longitudinal axis; and wherein the first and second flat spiral coils 1, 2 are arranged sequentially and in respective planes along the longitudinal axis of the heating zone. Regarding claim 7, CN’744 discloses a retainer (plate 3 and plate 4 are each readable as such a retainer) to which the respective plates 4, 3 of the induction coils 1, 2 arrangements are connected to fix the induction coil 1, 2 arrangements in position relative to one another. Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 206018744 (CN’744 in view of CN’526 and Levitz and further in view of Aldridge (U. S. 2016/0278428) Regarding claims 9, 19, CN’744 and CN’526, Levitz disclose the claimed invention except for apparatus for heating smokable material to volatilize at least one component of the smokable material. Aldridge see figures 1-2, and paragraph 0014 discloses that many materials including tea leaves may be used for smoking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify CN’744 and CN’526, Levitz to provide such feature as taught by Aldridge so as to heat or cook any such material including tea leaves to obtain on edible item. Such material is readable as a smokable material. Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 206018744 (CN’744) in view of Aldridge (U. S. 2016/0278428) and further in view of CN 105307526 (CN’526), Levitz. Regarding claim 10, CN’744 discloses apparatus comprising: a heating zone for receiving one or more articles comprising smokable material; and a magnetic field generator for generating varying magnetic fields that penetrate respective longitudinal portions of the heating zone in use, wherein the magnetic field generator comprises a plurality of flat spiral coils 1, 2 of electrically-conductive material arranged sequentially and in respective planes along a longitudinal axis of the heating zone. CN’744 discloses the claimed invention except for an apparatus clearly stated as used for heating smokable material to volatilize at least one component of the smokable material and wherein each of the flat spiral coils are provided on a PCB. Aldridge see figures 1-2, and paragraph 0014 discloses that many materials including tea leaves may be used for smoking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify CN’744 to provide such feature as taught by Aldridge so as to heat or cook any such material including tea leaves to obtain on edible item. Such material is readable as a smokable material. Further in view of CN’526 discloses the plate 12 comprises a printed circuit board. Levitz discloses flexible laminate printed circuit board (see paragraph 0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify CN’744 and Aldridge to provide such features as taught by CN’526 and Levitz so as to easy for manufacture. Regarding claim 11, CN’744, CN’526, Levitz and Aldridge disclose the planes are substantially parallel to one another. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG K DINH whose telephone number is (571)272-2090. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 8:30 am - 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, Riyami A Abdullah can be reached at 571-270-3119. 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. /PHUONG K DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 04, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599180
AEROSOL PROVISION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599172
NICOTINE POD ASSEMBLIES AND NICOTINE E-VAPING DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603462
ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR HAVING A SHIELD PLATE EMBEDED WITHIN A CONDUCTIVE PLASTIC BRIDGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603463
ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593870
Aerosol Generation Device with a Movable Panel for Hiding Interfaces
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 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
87%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+9.7%)
1y 12m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1180 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