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 .
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 09/08/2026.
Claims 16-35 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claim 16 is amended.
Claims 34-35 are previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 09/08/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection(s) of claim 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 16 is amended to require that a volume of the air-tight space filled with the microporous material is at least 30 percent. Prior art of record Ding and Hon do not teach the newly presented limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Thorsen (US 20220183374 A1).
On page 7 the Applicant argues that Ding and Hon do not make obvious claim 16, as Ding does not teach that space 63 or space 64 is airtight.
The Examiner disagrees.
Ding describes space 63, 64 as being a thermal insulating space formed by enclosing the first fixing bracket 71, the second thermal insulating barrel 62, and the second fixing bracket 72 ([0058]; Fig. 1). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an enclosed space would be airtight, particularly to ensure proper thermal insulation. Thus, the Examiner maintains that Ding appropriately teaches the claimed airtight space.
Applicant's arguments filed, see page 9, filed 09/08/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Hupkes does not appropriately teach the claimed first and second elements forming the microporous insulating material, as Hupkes instead teaches that casing parts 41, 42 are portions of a rigid surround and are separate from the identified insulation layer 20.
The Examiner disagrees and maintains that the modification of Ding with Hupkes appropriately makes obvious the claim.
Hupkes teaches that a heater casing 40 may be comprised of elements 41, 42 that have matching first and second connection elements 43 ([0062]; Figs. 5C-5E). The Examiner notes that Hupkes is merely supplied to demonstrate that it is known in the art to form any tubular insulation assembly component from two connected elements. It is appropriate to apply this teaching to any tubular portion, including to the heater casing or to the insulating material of Ding, to make assembly easier.
Applicant's arguments filed, see page 9, filed 09/08/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 30 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Lyubomirskiy, which teaches a conductivity of a thermal insulation 11, does not support the conclusion that the conductivity would be in the claimed range of below 0.05 W/m-K at 280 degrees Celsius.
As stated in the non-final rejection, the Examiner acknowledges that Lyubomirskiy does not explicitly specify that the taught thermal conductivity would apply at 280 C. However, the Examiner previously stated that it would be expected that the thermal conductivity would apply for any operating temperature of the device, and would thus be expected to be relevant at 280 C. The Examiner notes that Lyubomirskiy teaches that the thermal insulation conductivity is generally in a range of 0.004-0.005 W/mK ([0060]), indicating that the conductivity is expected to fluctuate within but not significantly exceed that range. Lyubomirskiy further teaches that the heating temperature may vary ([0069], [0082], [0123]). It would be expected that the device would still operate with the described conductivity throughout the full range of operating temperatures.
Applicant's arguments filed, see page 10, filed 09/08/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 31 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Lyubomirskiy does not provide a comparison of conductivities of the insulating material at 20 C and 280 C as required by the claim.
The Examiner agrees that Lyubomirskiy does not explicitly provide this comparison but maintains that Lyubomirskiy teaches the claim limitation.
Lyubomirskiy teaches that the thermal insulation conductivity is in a range of 0.004-0.005 W/mK ([0060]), which would indicate that at most, the conductivity would vary by a maximum of less than 40% between these two limits, regardless of specific temperature differences. This appropriately teaches the claimed temperature-dependent relationship.
Applicant's arguments filed, see page 10, filed 09/08/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 32-33 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Cashmore and David teach porous materials used for different purposes and thus are not appropriately applied to teach the claimed microporous insulating material pore size.
The Examiner disagrees.
Cashmore is merely used to teach that within the art a pore is considered microporous when it has a pore size of less than 2nm. Davis is merely provided as further evidence that this would be a reasonable pore size in a porous ceramic material. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the micropore of Hon may similarly sized. The Examiner emphasizes that the materials of Cashmore and/or Davis are not directly applied to Hon, rather Cashmore and Davis are used to demonstrate what one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize to be true of Hon.
The following is a modified rejection based on Applicant’s amendments.
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 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 16-21, 24-25 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding (US 20200345959 A1) in view of Hon (US 20220218042 A1) and Thorsen (US 20220183374 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Ding teaches a heater assembly for an aerosol-generating device (flue-curing device; [0052]), comprising:
a heating chamber (heating pipe 4; [0052]) configured to heat an aerosol-forming substrate (cigarette); and
a heater casing (thermal insulating barrels 62; [0023], [0057]) arranged around the heating chamber (Fig. 1), wherein the heater casing is arranged radially distanced from the heating chamber ([0058]), wherein the heater casing comprises an air-tight space (first and second insulated space 63, 64; [0058]), and wherein the air-tight space comprises an insulating material (insulating barrel 61; [0057]).
Ding does not explicitly teach (I) that the insulating material is microporous or (II) the thickness of the insulating material.
Regarding (I), Hon, directed to a heater assembly for an aerosol generating device (combustion device 11; [0051]) comprising a heating chamber (combustion chamber 114, 514; [0051], [0070]) configured to heat an aerosol generating substrate (tobacco 1211, 5211; [0054], [0057], [0071]) and a heater casing (housing 10, 50; [0047], [0066]) arranged radially distanced from the heating chamber (Figs. 1, 10), wherein the heater casing comprises an air-tight space, and wherein the air-tight space comprises an insulating material (insulating later 13, 53; [0048], [0068]), teaches that an insulating material may be microporous ceramic ([0048]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ding by using a microporous ceramic as the insulating material as taught by Hon because both Ding and Hon are directed to heater assemblies comprising porous insulation material, Hon teaches that microporous ceramic is an art-recognized insulation material, and this involves substituting one alternative insulation material for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding (II), Thorsen, directed to a heater assembly (heating assembly; [0015], [0083]) for an aerosol-generating device (aerosol provision device 100; [0072]), comprising a heating chamber (formed by susceptor 132; [0084]) and a heater casing (outer cover 102; [0073]) arranged around and radially distanced (via air gap 202; [0109]) from the heating chamber (see Fig. 6) wherein the heating casing comprises an air-gap (air gap 208; [0111]), wherein the air-gap comprises an insulating material (insulating member 128; [0089]), teaches that a thickness may be adjusted relative to the air gap size to optimize the robustness of the insulting member against the heating of the insulating member ([0034]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the microporous insulating material, such as to comprise a volume of at least 30 percent of the air-tight space, because Thorsen teaches that the relative volume taken up by the insulating material is a result effective variable, one with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize this variable in order to improve efficiency and robustness of the device, and because it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
Regarding claim 17, Ding teaches a first connecting wall (fixing bracket 71; [0057]) connecting the heating chamber and the heater casing, and a second connecting wall (fixing bracket 72; [0057]) connecting the heating chamber and the heater casing, wherein the air-tight space 64 is defined between the heating chamber, the heater casing, and the first and the second connecting walls (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Ding teaches that the air-tight space 63, 64 is at least partly filled with the microporous insulating material 61 (Fig. 1 depicts that insulating material 61 is disposed within the air-tight spaces 63, 64. Thus, the air-tight space is at least partially filled with the insulating material).
Regarding claim 19, Ding teaches that the air-tight space 63, 64 is only least partly filled with the microporous insulating material 61 (Fig. 1 depicts that insulating material 61 is disposed within the air-tight spaces 63, 64 but does not fill the entire space. Thus, the air-tight space is only least partially filled with the insulating material).
Regarding claim 20, Ding teaches that the air-tight space further comprises at least one air gap (second insulated space 64).
Regarding claim 21, Ding teaches that the microporous insulating material 61 is sandwiched in a radial direction between two air gaps (first and second insulated spaces 63, 64; [0058]; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Ding teaches that the microporous insulating material has an elongate extension (Fig. 1 depicts that microporous insulating material 61 extends along the heating chamber as an elongate extension).
Regarding claim 25, Ding teaches that the microporous insulating material extends parallel to a longitudinal axis of the heating chamber (Fig. 1 depicts that microporous insulating material 61 extends along and parallel to the elongate heating chamber longitudinal axis).
Regarding claim 28, Ding teaches a heating element (heat generating assembly 5; [0052]).
Regarding claim 29, Ding teaches that the heating element 5 is arranged at least partly around the heating chamber ([0052], Fig. 1), and wherein the microporous insulating material has a longitudinal extension that is the same or larger than a longitudinal extension of the heating element (Fig. 1).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding and Hon as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Hupkes et al. (US 20230165309 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Ding does not teach that the microporous insulating material is formed from at least a first insulating element comprising at least one first connection element and a second insulating element comprising at least one second connection element, and wherein the first and the second connection elements are configured as matching connection elements.
Hupkes, directed to a heater assembly (heater arrangement 1; [0039]) for an aerosol generating device (aerosol generating device 100; [0039]), comprising a heating chamber (tubular heating chamber 10; [0039]), a heater casing (rigid surround 40; [0039], [0045]) comprising an air-tight space, teaches that a heater casing component may be provided as a first insulating element (casing part 41; Figs. 1A, 3C) comprising at least one first connection element (connection features 43; Figs. 5C-5E, 6E) and a second insulating element (casing part 42) comprising at least one second connection element (connection features 43), and wherein the first and the second connection elements are configured as matching connection elements (Figs. 5C-5E, 6E; [0049], [0062]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ding by providing the heater casing, including the microporous insulating material as two elements, each comprising a matching connection element as taught by Hupkes because both Ding and Hupkes are directed to heater assemblies comprising insulative casings, Hupkes teaches that a casing around a tubular chamber may be provided as two matching parts, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would allow for easier device assembly, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 23, Hupkes teaches that the first and the second connection elements are configured as male and female connection elements (Fig. 6E).
Regarding claim 26, Ding does not explicitly teach a distance between the heating chamber and the heater casing.
Hupkes, directed to a heater assembly (heater arrangement 1; [0039]) for an aerosol generating device (aerosol generating device 100; [0039]), comprising a heating chamber (tubular heating chamber 10; [0039]), a heater casing (rigid surround 40; [0039], [0045]) comprising an air-tight space, teaches that a distance between the heating chamber and the heater casing is between 1.5 millimeters and 7 millimeters ([0045] teaches a distance of 2-4mm, which anticipates the claimed range).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ding by applying the spacing of elements such that the distance between the heating chamber and the heater casing is between 1.5 millimeters and 7 millimeters as taught by Hupkes because both Ding and Hupkes are directed to heater assemblies comprising heater casings, Ding is silent to the precise spacing between the casing and the heating chamber and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable spacing arrangement, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Furthermore, the rearrangement of parts, such as adjusting the spacing between elements, is considered prima facie obvious when the operation of the device is not modified.
Regarding claim 26, Hupkes teaches that a distance between the heating chamber and the heater casing is about 3.1 millimeters ([0045] teaches a range of 2-4mm. The claimed range overlaps with the range taught by the prior art and is therefore prima facie obvious.
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding and Hon as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lyubomirskiy et al. (US 20150181934 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Hon does not explicitly teach that the microporous insulating material has a thermal conductivity of below 0.05 W/m-K at a temperature of 280 degrees Celsius.
Lyubomirskiy, directed to a heater assembly for an aerosol generating device (apparatus 1; [0051]), comprising a heating chamber (heating chamber 4; [0053]) and a heater casing (thermal insulation 11; [0059]) comprising an air-tight space (internal region 13; [0060]) comprising a porous insulating material ([0060]), teaches that the thermal conductivity of a porous insulating material is below 0.05 W/mK ([0060] teaches a range of 0.004-0.005 W/mK, which anticipates the claimed range. While Lyubomirskiy does not specify that this thermal conductivity is at 280C, it would be expected that the thermal conductivity would apply for any operating temperature of the device, and thus would be expected to be relevant at 280C).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the insulating material of Hon, and thus modified Ding, to have a thermal conductivity below 0.05 W/mK as taught by Lyubomirskiy because both Hon and Lyubomirskiy are directed to heater assemblies comprising insulating heater casings, Hon is silent to a thermal conductivity of the porous insulating material and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable porous insulation conductivity, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 31, Lyubomirskiy teaches that the thermal conductivity of an insulating material is 0.004-0.005 W/mK ([0060]). While Lyubomirskiy does not explicitly teach that the thermal conductivity of the microporous insulating material increases by a maximum of 40 percent at a temperature of 280 degrees Celsius compared to a thermal conductivity of the microporous insulating material at 20 degrees Celsius, one having ordinary skill in the art would expect that the thermal conductivity range would apply to all stages of the devices operation, including during heating. Thus, one having ordinary skill would expect that the microporous insulating material increases by a maximum of 0.001 W/mK, which is 40 percent at a temperature of 280 degrees Celsius compared to a thermal conductivity of the microporous insulating material at 20 degrees Celsius.
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding and Hon as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Cashmore et al. (US 20090038632 A1) and Davis et al. (US 20170188626 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Hon does not explicitly teach that the microporous insulating material has a pore size of below 100 nanometers.
Cashmore, directed to smoking articles ([0001]), states that within the art, micropores are known to have a pore size of less than 2nm.
Davis, directed to a heater assembly (atomizer 20; [0110]) for an aerosol generating device (aerosol generating device 100; [0038], [0069]), teaches that the use of porous ceramic having pore size of below 100nm is known in the art ([0098]).
Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the microporous insulation material of Hon, and thus modified Ding, would similarly have a pore size of below 2 nanometers as taught by Cashmore and further evidenced by Davis, and would thus anticipate the claimed range of below 100nm.
Regarding claim 32, Hon does not explicitly teach that the microporous insulating material has a pore size of below 2 nanometers.
Cashmore, directed to smoking articles ([0001]), states that within the art, micropores are known to have a pore size of less than 2nm.
Davis, directed to a heater assembly (atomizer 20; [0110]) for an aerosol generating device (aerosol generating device 100; [0038], [0069]), teaches that the use of porous ceramic having pore size of below 2nm is known in the art ([0098]).
Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the microporous insulation material of Hon, and thus modified Ding, would similarly have a pore size of below 2 nanometers as taught by Cashmore and further evidenced by Davis.
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 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 Charlotte Davison whose telephone number is (703)756-5484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Philip Louie can be reached at 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.
/C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights