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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The (3) information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/10/2025, 03/21/2025, and 10/19/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10:
The phrase “a hole” in line 2 should be read “the hole” because there is a previous instance of the “hole” in line 2 of claim 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
In claim 1:
The limitation “a power supply unit” in line 2
“unit” is the generic placeholder.
“supply” is the functional language.
A review of the specification shows that, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
The limitation “a power supply unit” in line 2 of claim 1 has been described in published specification para. 0040 as the power supply 111, that may be a rechargeable battery, such as a lithium ion secondary battery.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3-6 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 3:
The limitation "two rigid bodies" in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the limitation is intended to refer to the same “rigid body” in line 5 of claim 1.
For the purpose of substantive examination, it is presumed that it 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)
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses an aerosol generation system (aerosol generating device) comprising:
a power supply unit (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); 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 unit (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).
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.
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). 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).
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_image3.png
521
554
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
680
672
media_image4.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_image5.png
700
760
media_image5.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_image6.png
700
917
media_image6.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_image7.png
108
286
media_image7.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) and CN’476 (CN 212488476U) 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_image8.png
1318
1025
media_image8.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_image9.png
1318
1028
media_image9.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) and CN’476 (CN 212488476U) 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) and CN’476 (CN 212488476U) 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) and CN’476 (CN 212488476U) 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) and CN’476 (CN 212488476U) 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.
Conclusion
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