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 .
The status of the 08/27/2026 claims, is as follows: Claims 1-20 have been amended; and Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 8-13 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.
In claim 8:
The limitation "a container" in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because there is a previous instance of “container” in line 5 of claim 1. It is unclear if the “container” in line 4 of claim 8 is intended to refer to the same container in line 5 of claim 1.
For the purpose of substantive examination, it is presumed that the “container” in line 4 of claim 8 has antecedent basis in line 5 of claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200154765) in view of CN’476 (CN 212488476U, published on 02/09/2021) and Courtbat (US 20260060312)
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses an aerosol generation system (aerosol generating device) comprising:
a power supply (battery 110; fig. 18) that supplies electric power (para. 0173);
a heater (heater 30; fig. 2) that heats a substrate (cigarette 7) containing an aerosol source (para. 0070);
a container (container 11; fig. 2) that has an internal space and an opening (opening 21; fig. 2) through which the internal space communicates with an outside (para. 0074), and
a holder (bottom wall 29) that holds the heater (fig. 2),
wherein the heater includes an electric resistor (para. 0179) and is inserted into the substrate (cigarette 7), the electric resistor producing heat in accordance with the electric power supplied from the power supply (para. 0173), wherein the heater has a first portion and a second portion (annotated fig. 4), the first portion extending in a first direction in which the substrate is inserted and removed (annotated fig. 4), the second portion extending in a second direction different from the first direction (annotated fig. 4), and
wherein the holder (bottom wall 29) holds the second portion of the heater (fig. 4),
wherein the heater has a first portion and a second portion (annotated fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
680
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee does not disclose the heater includes an electric resistor, a rigid body, and an electric insulator disposed between the electric resistor and the rigid body,
wherein the second portion of the rigid body abuts the holder on a side of the holder that is in the internal space of the container and the holder holds the second portion of the rigid body.
However, CN’476 discloses a heater (heating component) for use in aerosol generating device, wherein the heater includes an electric resistor (heating unit 15), a rigid body (substrate 11, heat conducting layer 13), and an electric insulator (first insulating layer 12, third insulating layer 16) disposed between the electric resistor and the rigid body (para. 0068, 0042; figs. 3-4).
PNG
media_image2.png
416
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heater of Lee to include the rigid body and the electric insulator disposed between the electric resistor and the rigid body as taught by CN’476 (it is noted the modification only modifies the configuration of the heater 30 of Lee while keeping the shape of the heater 30 as shown in fig. 2 of Lee having the first portion and the second portion). The heater having the configuration as taught by CN’476, in which the resistor is sandwiched by the insulating layers 12, 16 and by the layers 11, 13 or claimed rigid body as shown in fig. 3, allows for better temperature distribution, preventing overheating and burnt flavors, thus effectively improving the user experience (para. 0041 of CN’476).
The modification does not disclose the second portion of the rigid body abuts the holder on a side of the holder that is in the internal space of the container and the holder holds the second portion of the rigid body.
However, Courbat discloses second portion of the heater (base portion 170 of the susceptor assembly 160. It is noted the susceptor assembly 160 is the heater because it is capable of heating the aerosol-generating material) abuts the holder (wall of the housing 110) on a side of the holder that is in the internal space of the container and the holder holds the second portion of the heater (para. 0158-0159; annotated fig. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
684
672
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heater of Lee in view of CN’476 such that the second portion of the heater abuts the holder on the side of the holder that is in the internal space of the container and the holder holds the second portion of the heater as taught by Courtbat. Doing so would advantageously allow the heater of Lee in view of CN’476 to be removably coupled to the holder of Lee using a releasable clip, a threaded connection, or similar mechanical coupling etc. (para. 0159 of Courtbat). The modification would result in structure as shown, in which the second portion of the rigid body (substrate 11 and heat conducting layer 13 of CN’476) abuts the holder (bottom wall 29 of Lee) on a side of the holder that is in the internal space of the container (container 11 of Lee) and the holder (bottom wall 29 of Lee) holds the second portion of the rigid body.
PNG
media_image4.png
710
572
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Lee discloses the system, wherein the rigid body has an L-shape formed by the first portion and the second portion (annotated fig. 2 indicates the first portion and the second portion form an L-shape).
PNG
media_image1.png
680
533
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, the modification discloses the system,
wherein the heater includes two rigid bodies (substrate 11, heat conducting layer 13 of CN’476), and
wherein the two rigid bodies (substrate 11, heat conducting layer 13 of CN’476) are disposed such that the two first portions sandwich the electric resistor and the electric insulator (annotated fig. 3 of CN’476) and that the two second portions are oriented in opposite directions from each other (annotated fig. 4 of Lee).
PNG
media_image5.png
521
554
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
680
672
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, the modification discloses the system,
wherein the heater (heater 30 of Lee) includes two electric insulators (first insulating layer 12, third insulating layer 16 of CN’476), wherein the electric resistor (heating unit 15 of CN’476) is sandwiched between the two electric insulators (12, 16) (fig. 3 of CN’476), and wherein the electric resistor (heating unit 15 of CN’476) and the electric insulators (12, 16 of CN’476) are sandwiched between the first portions of the two rigid bodies (layers 11, 13 of CN’476) (fig. 3 of CN’476).
Regarding Claim 5, the modification discloses the system,
wherein, in a portion of the heater (heater 30 of Lee) inserted into the substrate (cigarette), the electric resistor (heating unit 15 of CN’476) is within a region sandwiched between the two electric insulators (insulators 12, 16 of CN’476) (fig. 3), and the two electric insulators (insulators 12, 16) are within a region sandwiched between the first portions of the two rigid bodies (layers 11,13 of CN’476) (fig. 3 of CN’476).
Regarding Claim 6, the modification discloses the system,
wherein, in the portion of the heater (heater 30 of Lee) inserted into the substrate (cigarette of Lee), ends of the first portion of the rigid body (annotated fig. 3 of CN’476) not in contact with the electric insulators are joined to each other (annotated fig. 3. It is noted the ends of the first portion as indicated are not in direct contact with the insulators 12, 16 and they join together at the pointed end).
PNG
media_image7.png
700
760
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The modification does not disclose ends of the first portion of the other rigid body (i.e. layer 13 of CN’476) not in contact with the electric insulators are joined to each other.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to modify the layer 13 of CN’476 to have the same shape as the layer 11 since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation is to provide to greater surface area to distribute heat to the target area, thereby improve the temperature field distribution of the heating component for the aerosol generating device (para. 0070 of CN’476). The modification would result in the structure shown below.
PNG
media_image8.png
700
917
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, the modification discloses the system,
wherein the holder (bottom wall 29 of Lee) holds the second portion of the rigid body (substrate 11, heat conducting layer 13 of CN’476) while being separated from the electric insulator (according to Webster definition, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hold, “hold” is interpreted to mean to carry. The bottom wall 29 carries or support the substrates 11 and 13 and the bottom 29 is separated from the insulators 12, 16 by at least substrates 11 and 13).
PNG
media_image9.png
108
286
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Lee discloses the system,
wherein the aerosol generation system further comprises:
a container (container 11) that has an internal space (path 20) and an opening (opening 21) through which the internal space communicates with an outside, and that accommodates the substrate (cigarette) inserted into the internal space through the opening (para. 0073-0074), and
wherein the holder (bottom wall 29) holds the heater (heater 30) such that a leading end of the heater protrudes in a direction extending from a bottom of the container toward the opening (opening 21) (fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 15, CN’476 discloses the system, wherein the rigid body (substrate 11) is formed of a metal plate (metal) (para. 0030).
Regarding Claim 16, CN’476 discloses the system, wherein the rigid body (substrate 11) is formed of an SUS metal plate (stainless steel) (para. 0045).
Regarding Claim 20, Lee discloses the system, wherein the aerosol generation system (aerosol generating device) includes the substrate (cigarette 7).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Lee (US 20200154765), CN’476 (CN 212488476U), and Courtbat (US 20260060312) as applied to claim 8, further in view of Goetz (US 20120255546)
Regarding Claim 9, the modification discloses the system as set forth above, except the aerosol generation system further comprises a sealer that seals a hole provided in the holder.
However, Goetz discloses an aerosol generating system (vaporizer) comprises a sealer (two gaskets 224) to form a seal around the cigarette holder portion 206 on either side of the heating element 226 (para. 0054; fig. 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Lee to include the sealers (i.e. at least one gasket 224 of Goetz) on the side of the heater 30 of Lee facing the cigarette to seal the hole provided in the holder (i.e. bottom wall 29 of Lee). Doing so would prevent air and vapor from escaping the vaporization area formed by the gaskets. The modification would result in the structure shown below.
PNG
media_image10.png
1318
1025
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, the modification discloses the system, wherein the holder (bottom wall 29 of Lee) has a hole through which the electric resistor (resistive heater of Lee, para. 0179) and the electric insulator (first insulating layer 12, third insulating layer 16 of CN’476) extend, and wherein the sealer (gasket 224 of Goetz) is secured to the holder and seals the hole (para. 0054 of Goetz).
Regarding Claim 11, the modification discloses the system, wherein the sealer (gasket 224 of Goetz) is disposed opposite the second portion of the rigid body with the holder (bottom wall 29 of Lee) interposed therebetween (annotated fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image11.png
1318
1028
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, the modification discloses the system, wherein the sealer (gasket 224 of Goetz) is disposed in contact with the electric insulator (first insulating layer 12, third insulating layer 16 of CN’476) (fig. 15 of Goetz. It is noted the gasket 224 of Geotz is in contact with the heater 30. The heater 30 comprises the insulators 12, 16 disposed therein as taught by CN’476, therefore the gasket 224 is in contact with the insulators 12, 16 of CN’476).
Regarding Claim 13, the modification discloses the system, except the sealer is composed of silicone.
However, Goetz further discloses O-ring is constructed to plastic, silicone etc. to provide the sealing purpose for which it is intended (para. 0063).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gasket 224 of Goetz to be composed of silicone, because it is known to utilize silicon in the gasket/O-ring to effectively provide sealing purpose.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Lee (US 20200154765), CN’476 (CN 212488476U), and Courtbat (US 20260060312) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Plojoux (US 20180007971)
Regarding Claim 14, the modification discloses the system, except the holder is composed of PEEK.
However, Plojoux discloses the holder (heating element mount) is composed of PEEK (PEEK) (para. 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the holder of Lee (i.e. bottom wall 29) to be composed of PEEK, because the use of moldable polymer allows the holder to be molded around the heater and thereby firmly hold the heater (para. 0017 of Plojoux).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Lee (US 20200154765), CN’476 (CN 212488476U), and Courtbat (US 20260060312) as applied to claim 1, further in view of CN’291 (CN 111449291, published on 07/28/2020)
Regarding Claim 17, the modification discloses the system, except the electric insulator is composed of polyimide.
However, CN’291 discloses the electric insulator (insulating layer 122) is composed of polyimide (polyimide) (para. 0064).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric insulator of CN’476 to be composed of polyimide as taught by CN’291, because it is known to utilize polyimide as the material for the insulating layer that is suitable for aerosol generating device.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Lee (US 20200154765), CN’476 (CN 212488476U), and Courtbat (US 20260060312) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Yamada (US 20200120981)
Regarding Claim 18, the modification discloses the system, except the electric insulator has a film-like configuration.
However, Yamada discloses the sheet heater 30 for use in an inhalation system 3 (fig. 1), wherein the heater 30 comprises an electric insulator that has a film-like configuration (para. 0095).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heater of Lee in view of CN’476 such that it has the electric insulator that has the film-like configuration as taught by Yamada, in order to utilize the heater as the sheet heater that has slim design ideal for use in the portable aerosol generating device.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Lee (US 20200154765), CN’476 (CN 212488476U), and Courtbat (US 20260060312) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Antonopoulos (US 20200084838)
Regarding Claim 19, the modification discloses the system, except the electric resistor is composed of SUS.
However, Antonopoulous discloses the electric resistor (resistive heating element) is composed of SUS (stainless steel) (para. 0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric resistor of Lee to be composed of SUS as taught by Antonopoulous, because it is known to utilize stainless steel as the material for the electric resistor that is suitable for use in the aerosol generating device.
Response to Amendment
With respect to claim objections: since amendment made to claim 10, therefore the claim objections are withdrawn.
With respect to notification of 112f for the phrase “a power supply unit” in line 2 of claim 1: since amendment made to the phrase “power supply unit”, therefore the 112f notification is withdrawn.
With respect to 112b rejections: since amendment made to claim 3, therefore the 112b rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are respectfully considered moot in view of new ground of rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on (571) 270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BONITA KHLOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights