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 .
Response to Amendment
With respect to the claim objection, applicant amended claim 28 filed on 08/12/2026, which overcome the claim objection. Therefore, the claim objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues reference Yamada does not teach the limitation “a heating chamber configured to heat an aerosol-forming substrate, the heating chamber being in fluid communication with both the air inlet and the aerosol outlet and being configured to define an airflow pathway through the heater assembly; a heater mount, the heating chamber being mounted on the heater mount; and a seal configured to seal the airflow pathway, wherein the seal is mounted on the heater mount such that the seal is spaced apart from the heating chamber, and wherein the seal is mounted on a first end of the heater mount and the heating chamber is mounted on a second end of the heater mount, the second end being axially opposite the first end.”
Examiner respectfully disagree. Yamada teaches supporter 46 defines a chamber that contains the heating wire 42, so that supporter 46 is capable to heat an aerosol-forming substrate. As shown in figure 3, the flavor inhaler 10 is assembled, O-ring 34 is mounted on the surface of partition member 30 directly/indirectly such that O-ring 34 is spaced apart from the supporter 46, and O-ring 34 is mounted on a first end portion of partition member 30 and the supporter 46 is mounted on a second end portion of partition member 30 directly/indirectly, the second end being axially opposite the first end. Therefore, the claim rejection is respectfully maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 21-24, 29-30, 32, and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (US 2019/0053544).
PNG
media_image1.png
786
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
826
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Yamada teaches a heater assembly (See figures) for an aerosol-generating device, the heater assembly comprising:
a first heater casing (outer housing 43) comprising an air inlet (air hole 60);
a second heater casing (flow passage pipe 22) comprising an aerosol outlet (outlet; see the annotation of fig.3); and
a heating chamber (supporter 46) configured to heat an aerosol-forming substrate (See para.[0070] “The heating wire 42 is configured to heat and atomize the liquid held in the first liquid holding member 41 to generate the aerosol.” Supporter 46 contains the heating wire 42, so that supporter 46 is capable to heat an aerosol-forming substrate.), the heating chamber (supporter 46) being in fluid communication with both the air inlet (air hole 60) and the aerosol outlet (outlet) and being configured to define an airflow pathway through the heater assembly (See figs.2-3, supporter 46, air hole 60, outlet, and other structure define an airflow pathway.);
a heater mount (partition member 30), the heating chamber (supporter 46) being mounted on the heater mount (partition member 30) (see fig.3); and
a seal (O-ring 34) configured to seal the airflow pathway (See figures and para.[0073] “The first O-ring 34 seals between the partition member 30 and the lid member 23.” Partition member 30 and lid member 23 are parts of the airflow pathway. Hence O-ring 34 seals the airflow pathway.),
wherein the seal (O-ring 34) is mounted on the heater mount (partition member 30) such that the seal (O-ring 34) is spaced apart from the heating chamber (supporter 46) (see fig.3), and
wherein the seal (O-ring 34) is mounted on a first end of the heater mount (partition member 30) and the heating chamber (supporter 46) is mounted on a second end of the heater mount (partition member 30), the second end being axially opposite the first end (see fig.2).
Regarding claim 22, Yamada teaches wherein the first and the second heater casings (outer housing 43 and flow passage pipe 22) are attached to each other and enclose the heating chamber (supporter 46) and the heater mount (partition member 30) (see fig.3, outer housing 43 and flow passage pipe 22 are attached to each other and enclose supporter 46 and partition member 30.), and
wherein the seal (O-ring 34) is arranged between the heater mount (partition member 30) and an internal surface of one of the first and the second heater casings (See fig.3, O-rings 34 is arranged between partition member 30 and an internal surface of outer housing 43 in horizontal direction.).
Regarding claim 23, Yamada teaches the seal (O-ring 34) is arranged between the heater mount (partition member 30) and an internal surface of the first heater casing (outer housing 43) (See fig.3, O-rings 34 is arranged between partition member 30 and an internal surface of outer housing 43 in horizontal direction.).
Regarding claim 24, Yamada teaches the heater mount (partition member 30) is arranged upstream of the heating chamber (supporter 46).
Regarding claim 29, Yamada teaches the first heater casing (outer housing 43), the second heater casing (flow passage pipe 22), the heating chamber (supporter 46), and the heater mount (partition member 30) each have an airflow channel (see figures, each of outer housing 43, flow passage pipe 22, supporter 46, and partition member 30 has a hollow air airflow channel), the airflow channels communicating to define the airflow pathway through the heater assembly (See figures, all of air airflow channels align to define the airflow pathway.).
Regarding claim 30, Yamada teaches the heating chamber (supporter 46) comprises a tubular heating chamber (See figures).
Regarding claim 32, Yamada teaches each end of the tubular heating chamber is flared or funnel shaped (See fig.3, one end of supporter 46 is flared shape and the other end is funnel shaped.).
Regarding claim 36, Yamada teaches the heating chamber (supporter 46) is further configured to receive at least a portion of an aerosol-generating article (supporter 46 has internal space that is capable to receive at least a portion of an aerosol-generating article).
Regarding claim 37, Yamada teaches an aerosol-generating device (See figures), comprising:
a heater assembly according to claim 21 (See the rejection of claim 21); and
a power supply (battery 54) configured to supply electrical power to the heater assembly (See para.[0067] “The electronic circuit board controls an electronic circuit such that the battery 54 supplies the electric power not only to the heating wire 42 of the atomizing unit 40 but also to the light source 52.).
Regarding claim 38, Yamada teaches a method of manufacturing a heater assembly for an aerosol-generating device, the method comprising:
providing a first heater casing (outer housing 43) comprising an air inlet (air hole 60);
providing a second heater casing (flow passage pipe 22) comprising an aerosol outlet (outlet; see the annotation of fig.3);
providing a heating chamber (supporter 46) for heating an aerosol-forming substrate (See para.[0070] “The heating wire 42 is configured to heat and atomize the liquid held in the first liquid holding member 41 to generate the aerosol.” Supporter 46 contains the heating wire 42, so that supporter 46 is capable to heat an aerosol-forming substrate.) and arranging the heating chamber (supporter 46) such that the heating chamber (supporter 46) is in fluid communication with both the air inlet and the air outlet (outlet) to define an airflow pathway through the heater assembly (See figs.2-3, supporter 46, air hole 60, outlet, and other structure define an airflow pathway.);
providing a heater mount (partition member 30) and mounting the heating chamber (supporter 46) on the heater mount (partition member 30);
providing a seal (O-ring 34) for sealing the airflow pathway (See figures and para.[0073] “The first O-ring 34 seals between the partition member 30 and the lid member 23.” Partition member 30 and lid member 23 are parts of the airflow pathway. Hence O-ring 34 seals the airflow pathway.) and mounting the seal (O-ring 34) on the heater mount (partition member 30) such that the seal (O-ring 34) is spaced apart from the heating chamber (supporter 46) (see fig.3), wherein the seal (O-ring 34) is mounted on a first end of the heater mount (partition member 30) and the heating chamber (supporter 46) is mounted on a second end of the heater mount (partition member 30), the second end being axially opposite the first end (see fig.2); and
attaching the first and the second heater casings (outer housing 43 and flow passage pipe 22 to each other to enclose the heating chamber (supporter 46) and heater mount (partition member 30) (see fig.3, outer housing 43 and flow passage pipe 22 are attached to each other and enclose supporter 46 and partition member 30.).
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.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Ryter (US 2014/0224268).
Regarding claim 25, Yamada does not explicitly teach the heater mount comprises a polymer.
However, Ryter teaches in the same field of endeavor of a heater assembly comprising a heater mount (assembly 142) comprises a polymer (See para.[0036] “The assembly 142 may be made of plastics.”).
PNG
media_image3.png
774
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the heater mount of Yamada with a heater mount made of plastic as taught by Ryter, in order to provide a heater mount made of a conventional and low-cost material.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada in view of Usui (US 2009/0214287).
Regarding claim 27, Yamada does not explicitly teach the seal comprises a polymer having a Shore hardness between 30 A and 90 A.
However, Usuo teaches a seal (O-ring 315) comprises a polymer (see para.[0052] “O-ring 315 be of ethylene propylene diene methylene (EPDM)”) having a Shore hardness between 30 A and 90 A [Examiner’s note: EPDM has a Shore hardness between 30 A and 90 A.].
PNG
media_image4.png
556
546
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the O-ring of Yamada with a O-ring made of EPDM as taught by Usui, in order to provide a O-ring made of a desired material with desired characteristics.
Claims 26, 28, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada.
Regarding claim 26, Yamada does not explicitly teach the seal is disposed at a distance of between 4 millimetres and 6 millimetres from the heating chamber.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the location of the seal to be a distance of between 4 millimetres and 6 millimetres from the heating chamber, in order to provide a heater assembly with a desired length, since the relative location between the seal and the heating chamber is nothing more than a result effective variable able to be optimized in order to achieve a recognized result, such as to provide a heater assembly with a desired length, and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 28, Yamada does not explicitly teach the seal has an uncompressed thickness of between 0.5 mm and 2 mm.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the seal to have an uncompressed thickness between 0.5 mm and 2mm, in order to provide a seal with desired thickness, since applicant does not disclose that the seal to have an uncompressed thickness between 0.5 mm and 2mm solved any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and changing the thickness of the seal is an obvious design choice (MPEP 2144).
Regarding claim 33, Yamada does not explicitly teach an axial length of said each flared or funnel-shaped end of the tubular heating chamber is between 0.5 percent and 10 percent of an overall length of the tubular heating chamber.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the size of the heating chamber to be an axial length of said each flared or funnel-shaped end of the tubular heating chamber is between 0.5 percent and 10 percent of an overall length of the tubular heating chamber, in order to provide a heater assembly with a desired dimensions, since the size of the heating chamber is nothing more than a result effective variable able to be optimized in order to achieve a recognized result, such as to provide a heater assembly with a desired dimensions, and discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31 and 34-35 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: References on the record does not teach or suggest the limitation in claim 31.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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 at (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 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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights