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 use of the ter ms Wi-Fi and Bluetooth [0039] , which are trade names and/or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The term s should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term s should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term s . Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Claim Objections Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: There is no space between “ polyetheretherketone ” and “(PEEK)”. Appropriate correction is required . 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 5 - 6 and 18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention . Regarding claim 5 , it is unclear what is required by the limitation “wherein further comprising” (line 1) since it is unclear what component is required to have the limitations of the claim. The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as if it required the recited components to be part of the aerosol generating system. It is unclear what is required by the limitations “a casing” and “a support part… having a cylindrical shape and an inner side of the casing.” Does that mean that the casing and the support part are the same component? Are they separate components that abut one another? The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required the support part and the casing to be the same component. Claim 6 is indefinite by dependence. Regarding claim 18 , w here applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp. , 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “ Pertier element ” is used by the claim , while there is no accepted meaning. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it did not limit the claim upon which it depends. 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 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 -4, 7-9, 11-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 10,405,584) in view of Blandino (US 2022/0183371) . Regarding claim s 1 , 12 and 18 , Chen discloses an atomizing device for an electronic cigarette for an electronic cigarette that generates a vortex in a magnetic field (abstract), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an aerosol generating system , having an induction heater (figure 1, reference numeral 122), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a holder, that defines a storage space in which the tobacco material is inserted (column 3, lines 41-48, figure 1, reference numeral 123), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an internal space. The device has a housing (figure 1, reference numeral 11) and an electromagnetic induction device (column 3, lines 8-13, figure 1, reference numeral 12), which together are considered to meet the claim limitation of an electromagnetic induction source, that has an insulating layer (figure 1, reference numeral 13), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first layer and electromagnetic induction coils (column 3, lines 54-67, column 4, lines 1-5, figure 1, reference numeral 121), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of a conductor layer. The coils are supplied with an oscillating alternating current (column 6, lines 16-19). The housing itself is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second layer. The housing covers the coil, and both the housing and coil are outside of the insulation layer (figure 1). Chen does not explicitly disclose a thermal conductivity of the housing being higher than a thermal conductivity of the insulating layer. Blandino teaches an aerosol provision device having an inductor coil (abstract) having an insulation layer located between a susceptor and an insulating member [0076] made from PEEK having a thermal conductivity of 0.25 W/ m·K [0077], and an outer cover having a coating made from a material with a high thermal conductivity of greater than 200 W/ m·K so that the device is cool through heat loss [0078] . It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the insulating layer of Chen from the PEEK of Blandino and to coat the housing of Chen with the soft touch paint of Blandino . One would have been motivated to do so since Blandino teaches suitable materials to insulate against heat transfer and to dissipate heat to cool a smoking device. Regarding claims 2 and 3 , Chen discloses that all the components between the coil and the susceptor are cylindrical (figure 2), therefore including the walls of the insulating layer. Regarding claim 4 , Chen discloses that the induction heater generates heat under the influence of the magnetic field generated by the induction coils (abstract), indicating that it is a susceptor. Regarding claim 7 , Chen discloses that the coil is around the induction heater (figure 2). Regarding claim 8 , Chen discloses that the coils form part of a cylinder around the induction heater (figure 2), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a cylindrical shape. Regarding claim 9 , Chen discloses that the coils are located outside of the induction heater (figure 2), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of opposed. Regarding claim 11 , modified Chen teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen does not explicitly teach the claimed components having the claimed relative thicknesses. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the claimed components have the claimed relative thicknesses. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence that the change in size results in a difference in performance. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV A. Regarding claim 14 , Blandino teaches that the outer coating is a soft touch paint [0078], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a thermal diffusion layer. Regarding claim 15 , Chen discloses that the housing extends below the other components of the device and forms an open space at its very bottom (figure 1), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an extended region having a cooling portion. The housing and other components of the device all form cylindrical shapes (column 3, lines 14-26, figure 2). Regarding claim 16 , Chen discloses that the induction heater has an opening at its top into which a cigarette is inserted (figure 2). Regarding claim 17 , Chen discloses that the cooling portion is in the form of a recess in the middle of the bottom of the device (figure 1), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of opposed. Regarding claim 19 , Chen discloses that the coils are approximately flat and extend across the device (figure 2), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of transverse. Regarding claim 20 , Chen discloses that tobacco material is placed in the induction heater (column 3, lines 41-48), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a substrate. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 10,405,584) in view of Blandino (US 2022/0183371) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu (US 2019/0191767). Regarding claims 5 and 6 , modified Chen teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen does not explicitly teach a support part. Wu teaches a heating device having an electromagnetic inductive coil (abstract) that is wound around a supporter in slots to provide stability ([0040], figure 3, reference numeral 121). It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wind the coil of modified Chen in the slots of the supporter of Wu. One would have been motivated to do so since Wu teaches that using a supporter allows an induction coil to be more stably supported. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 10,405,584) in view of Blandino (US 2022/0183371) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Prest (US 2018/0213660 ), as evidenced by Slaughter- Zrostilik (US 12,158,291). Regarding claim 10 , modified Chen teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen does not explicitly teach a Young’s modulus of (a) the housing and (b) the insulating layer. Regarding (a), Prest teaches a housing of an electronic device made from a moldable matrix that is hardened into a solid form (abstract) having a Young’s modulus of 1 GPa [0051]. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the housing of the device of Chen have the Young’s modulus of the housing of Prest . One would have been motivated to do so since Prest teaches a Young’s modulus that is suitable for a solid housing. Regarding (b), Slaughter- Zrostilik teaches that the Young’s modulus of PEEK is 3.6 GPa (column 21, lines 5-11). Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 10,405,584) in view of Blandino (US 2022/0183371) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kumar (US 2013/0014755). Regarding claim 1 3 , modified Chen teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Chen does not explicitly teach the housing having an inorganic insulating filler. Kumar teaches a vaporizing apparatus having a housing with an outer surface made of silica aerosol that is a durable material ([0017], figure 3, reference numeral 12). Applicant’s specification teaches that silica is an inorganic insulating filler [0074]. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the housing of modified Chen with the silica aerogel of Kumar. One would have been motivated to do so since Kumar teaches that silica aerogel forms a durable outer material. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1426 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Philip Louie can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-1241 . 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. /RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755