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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/08/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 05/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites in lines 3-4: …”the accommodating unit comprises a protruding portion to be protruded outwards of the accommodating unit and be inserted into the insertion hole.” It is understood that the protruding portion is a structural element that, as claimed, is arranged to protrude outwards of the accommodating unit, into the insertion hole. Thus, the claim should recite instead: …”the accommodating unit comprises a protruding portion arranged to protrude outwards of the accommodating unit and into the insertion hole.” 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 and 7 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 1, the claim, at lines 11-12, recites: …”a center around which the spiral coil is wound is arranged at a point of the outer wall of the accommodating unit.” It is unclear from the language “is wound is arranged”, what is the intended scope of the claim. The claim is directed to a heater assembly rather than a method of making the assembly, thus the language that suggests the spiral coil is wound around the center point, is interpreted as requiring that the coil have a center point which is arranged at a point of the outer wall of the accommodating unit. This interpretation appears to be consistent with the drawings, see Fig 3, where the coil comprises a center hole and the center hole is arranged at a point of the outer wall of the accommodating unit, see Fig 6, distinguished from other coils where the center of the coil is not arranged at a point of the outer wall of the accommodating unit, see Fig 15-16 (depicting a coil wound around the space for the cigarette). Removing “is wound” would overcome this rejection.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites: … “wherein the accommodating unit comprises a contact portion to separate the spiral coil from the inner wall of the accommodating unit.” The present Specification that the contact portion separates the spiral coil from the outer wall of the accommodating unit, ([129]). For the purposes of examination, the contact portion will be examined as though it is intended to separate the spiral coil from the outer wall of the accommodating unit. Replacing inner with outer would overcome this rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0154765 A1) (cited on Applicant submitted IDS of 12/23/2024), in view of Hwang et al. (US 2021/0000180 A1) and Chen 2018/0070639 A1) (cited on Applicant submitted IDS of 12/23/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses:
A heating assembly, ([0010]), comprising:
an accommodating unit configured to accommodate an aerosol generating article, ([010]), and
a first supporter arranged at a side in the accommodating unit, supporting an outer surface
of the aerosol generating article, and separating the outer surface of the aerosol generating article accommodated in the accommodating unit from an inner wall of the accommodating unit, ([0011] each of the protrusions may be considered to be a supporter, thus Lee teaches at least a first supporter). The heating assembly of Lee comprises a probe style heater formed in the shape of a rod with a pointed tip that is inserted into the aerosol generating article, see for example Figs 1-2 ref 30 and 31, where the heater is coupled to the casing, ([0080]), and the heater is an electrical resistive heater, ([0179]). Thus, although Lee discloses a heating assembly, Lee does not disclose that the article is heatable by an induced magnetic field, with the claimed spiral coil arrangement of claim 1.
Hwang teaches an aerosol generating device that includes a heater for heating a tobacco rod inserted into the device, ([0013]). Hwang teaches that the heater may be an electro-resistive heater, ([0044]), but also that the heater may alternatively be an induction heater. {0045]), and that the cigarette may include the susceptor that may be heated by the induction heater, ([0045]). Hwang teaches that susceptor heating element that may comprise a number of alternate shapes, ([0047]), where the heaters may be inserted into the cigarette or arranged outside the cigarette, and may heat the cigarette from the inside or the outside of the cigarette, according to the shape of the heating element, which the shape of the heating element expressly includes tube type heating element, ([0046]). Although Hwang teaches the heater assembly may include an electrically conductive coil for heating the cigarette, Hwang does not teach the shape or configuration of the coil other than depicting as part of the aerosol generating device, ([0045] Fig 1-3).
Chen teaches an atomizing device for an electronic cigarette, ([0006]), and is thus within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Chen teaches using a plurality of electromagnetic induction coils disposed on the periphery of the induction heater, ([0006]). Chen teaches that the induction coils may be defined to any shape, and discloses coils defined to an arc shaped sheet formed by bending a planar coil, where the arc shaped sheet is adaptive to the shape of the cylindrical shaped induction heater, ([0028] Fig 2(a)&(b) reasonably depicting a plurality of spiral coils arranged outside a tube that accommodates an inserted cigarette, where each spiral coils is wound to form a plate shape covering a portion of an outer wall of the accommodating unit, where a center of each spiral coil is arranged at a point of the outer wall of the accommodating unit). Chen teaches disposing the coils at a distance from the induction heater (understood to be a tubular susceptor), where the positioning of the susceptor (heater 122) in relation to the induction coils improves heating efficiency, and the spacing between the coils and the susceptor prevents the coils from being damaged by the heat from the susceptor, ([0028]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the heating arrangement of an aerosol generating device and cigarette according Lee, according to the teachings of Hwang and Chen. Modifying the heater assembly Lee according to the teachings of Hwang, such that the mode of heating is changed from resistive to inductive is obvious because Hwang teaches a similar device where either heating type may be used. Inductive heating is considered to have inherent benefits known to one of ordinary skill in the art, which include the ability to heat the heating element (susceptor) by a magnetic field that does not require an electrical connection to the heating element, allowing the susceptor to be included as a part of the aerosol generating article, rather than the device. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that by doing so, the susceptor element would be replaced after each aerosol generating article is consumed, eliminating the need to clean the susceptor and also any concern that the susceptor element may be damaged from repeated insertion into a cigarette. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it further obvious to modify the coils of Hwang according to the teachings of Chen. While Hwang is silent as to the arrangement of the coils, Chen teaches an arrangement of coils for inductive heating that have improved heating efficiency. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the configuration of modified Lee to be successful, because the aerosol generating article of the modified system would have a similar exterior profile to the aerosol generating article disclosed by Lee, and because Hwang teaches that a tubular susceptor may be incorporated into the aerosol generating article, and the heating coils of Chen were known to work with a tubular susceptor.
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee discloses the heating assembly of claim 1.
The accommodating unit of both Chen comprises a curved wall and Chen teaches that the spiral coil has a plate shape curved along the outer wall of the accommodating unit, ([0028]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 5 and 7, modified Lee discloses the heating assembly of claim 1.
Chen further teaches that the accommodating unit comprises a contact portion to separate the spiral coil from the outer (see 112b interpretation above) wall of the accommodating unit, ([0028] teaching that the induction coils are disposed at a distance from the induction heater (considered to be the susceptor) and that the accommodating unit may comprise an insulating layer between the accommodating unit and the coils, ([0029]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee discloses the heating assembly of claim 1. Lee further discloses that the first supporter comprises a first support body to support the outer surface of the aerosol generating article and a first inflow passage to deliver air in the accommodating unit to an end of the aerosol generating article accommodated in the accommodating unit, ([0131], [0136] Fig 12 disclosing a number of protrusions that support the outer surface of an aerosol generating article when inserted into the accommodating unit, where the support bodies create an air flow passage between the outer surface of the aerosol generating article and the inner surface of the accommodating unit, such that in use air is delivered along the air flow passage to an end of the aerosol generating article accommodated in the accommodation unit).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee discloses the heating assembly of claim 1. Lee further discloses the first supporter comprises a guide unit protruding toward a center of the accommodating unit as the guide unit enters a side of the accommodating unit, the guide unit configured to guide an operation in which the aerosol generating article is inserted into the accommodating unit, ([0136] Fig 12).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee discloses the heating assembly of claim 1. Lee further discloses an end supporter arranged at a side in the accommodating unit, supporting one end of the aerosol generating article, and separating the one end of the aerosol generating article accommodated in the accommodating unit from a floor wall of the accommodating unit, ([0136] Fig 12).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee discloses the heating assembly of claim 1. Lee further discloses a second supporter arranged at another side in the accommodating unit, supporting an outer surface of the aerosol generating article, and separating the outer surface of the aerosol generating article accommodated in the accommodating unit from an inner wall of the accommodating unit, wherein the second supporter comprises a second support body supporting the outer surface of the aerosol generating article and a second inflow passage configured to deliver air outside the accommodating unit to inside the accommodating unit, ([0020], [0136] Fig 12 disclosing a plurality of protrusions forming a plurality of air flow passages).
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee discloses the heating assembly of claim 1. Lee further discloses the inner wall of the accommodating unit is apart from the outer surface of the aerosol generating article accommodated in the accommodating unit to form an airflow passage in which air moves along the outer surface of the aerosol generating article to an end of the aerosol generating article, ([0136] Fig 12 as depicted).
Regarding claim 13, modified Lee discloses the heating assembly of claim 1. The accommodation unit of Lee is designed to have a space between the outer surface of the aerosol generating article accommodated in the accommodating unit, ([0030]). Lee teaches that the protrusion of the path contacts a portion of the outer surface of the cigarette to form an air flow path to sufficiently and smoothly deliver air into the interior of the aerosol generating device, reasonably suggesting that size of the air path is controlled by the distance the protrusion separates the outer surface of the aerosol generating article from the interior surface of the accommodating unit is a result effective variable for the amount of air delivered to the end of the aerosol generating article accommodated in the accommodating unit. Lee does not disclose the distance between the outer surface of the aerosol generating article accommodated in the accommodating unit and an inner wall of the accommodating unit in a radial direction of the accommodating unit is about 0.2 mm to about 3 mm.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the distance between the outer surface of the aerosol generating article and the surface of the accommodating unit, to provide a sufficient and smooth flow of air between the aerosol generating article and the accommodating unit, to the end of the aerosol generating article. The MPEP recognizes that when the only difference between the prior art and the claims us a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, MPEP 2144.04 IV. Changes in Size/Proportion.
Regarding claim 14, modified Lee discloses the heating assembly of claim 1. The accommodation unit of Lee is designed to have a space between the outer surface of the aerosol generating article accommodated in the accommodating unit, ([0030]). Lee teaches that the protrusion of the path contacts a portion of the outer surface of the cigarette to form an air flow path to sufficiently and smoothly deliver air into the interior of the aerosol generating device, reasonably suggesting that size of the air path is controlled by the distance the protrusion separates the outer surface of the aerosol generating article from the interior surface of the accommodating unit is a result effective variable for the amount of air delivered to the end of the aerosol generating article accommodated in the accommodating unit.
Chen teaches that the coils are spaced from the induction heater (understood to be the susceptor) and that the spacing of the coils at a suitable distance will improve the heating efficiency and that spacing the coils away from the will prevent damage to the coils from heat, ([0028]). Thus, Chen teaches that the spacing of the coils from the susceptor element is a result effective variable that may be optimized to improve the efficiency of the coils at heating the susceptor element and avoid damage from the heat of the heating element susceptor.
Neither reference discloses the combined distance from the outer surface from the aerosol generating article to the inner surface of the spiral coil facing the accommodating unit in a radial direction of the accommodating unit is about 3 mm at most.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the distance between the inner surface of the spiral coil and the outer surface of the aerosol generating article. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize from Lee that the distance between the outer surface of the aerosol generating article and the wall of the accommodating unit is a parameter that should be optimized to ensure sufficient smooth flow of air to the end of the aerosol generating article. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize from Chen that the distance between the coil and the susceptor heating element is a parameter that should be optimized to achieve good heating efficiency. Thus, each distance is one that modified Lee teaches is a parameter that should be optimized. Although the claimed range is not taught by either reference, together or separately, the prior art teaches these distances are ones to be varied to optimize the functioning of the system, where the modified device of Lee operates similarly to the claimed device. The MPEP recognizes that when the only difference between the prior art and the claims us a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, MPEP 2144.04 IV. Changes in Size/Proportion.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0154765 A1) (cited on Applicant submitted IDS of 12/23/2024) in view of Hwang et al. (US 2021/0000180 A1) and Chen et al. (US 2018/0070639 A1) (cited on Applicant submitted IDS of 12/23/2024), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeong et al. (KR 10-2022-0082377) (cited on Applicant submitted IDS of 04/11/2024)(English Machine Translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee discloses the heating assembly of claim 1. Chen teaches a plurality of coils. Chen does not teach the coils are electrically connected to each other.
Jeng teaches a similar aerosol generating device, ([0005] Fig 4), and is thus within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Jeng further teaches the heating assembly comprises a plurality of spiral coils, and at least one pair of the plurality of spiral coils is electrically connected to each other, ([0020], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Lee and configured the coils to be electrically connected to each other. Such a modification is considered to inherently require fewer electrical connections to power the coils, an obvious manufacturing advantage.
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee discloses the heating assembly of claim 3. Both Chen teaches two embodiments where there are two and four electromagnetic induction coils, ([0029]), rendering the use of coils in pairs obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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:
Lee et al. (US 2020/0154765 A1), in view of Hwang et al. (US 2021/0000180 A1) and Chen 2018/0070639 A1) are considered the closest prior art of record. Modified Lee discloses the heating assembly of claim 1. The induction coil taught by Chen comprises a spiral coil with a center hole at the center of the coil. Lee discloses the heating assembly comprises the accommodating portion. None of the references, alone or in combination disclose a protruding portion that protrudes outwards and into the hole at the center of the coil. Because there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art of record to secure the coil to the accommodating portion by a protruding portion that extends through the center of the coil, or otherwise include a protruding portion on the accommodating portion that is inserted into the center hole of the coil, it would not be obvious to arrive at the claimed configuration absent impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL E VAKILI whose telephone number is (571)272-5171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 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, Michael H. Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. 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.
/D.E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights