Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/591,739

HEAT-NOT-BURN CARTRIDGE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Feb 29, 2024
Priority
Jul 27, 2023 — CN 202310937475.2
Examiner
CEFARATTI, JOSEPH ARTHUR
Art Unit
1749
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Luxshare Precision Industry Company Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 0% of cases
0%
Career Allowance Rate
0 granted / 0 resolved
-65.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
8
Total Applications
across all art units
This examiner has no resolved cases yet (career too new); statute-level performance unavailable. The Grant Probability card shows Tech Center averages instead.

Office Action

§103 §112
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0013] recites; “…from the slot bottom of the each flow slot to the notch of the each flow slot”, and should read, “…from the slot bottom of Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 6; “…from the slot bottom of the each flow slot to the notch of the each flow slot”, recited in lines 2-3, should read, “…from the slot bottom of . 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. Regarding claim 6; the limitation "the plurality of flow slots”, recited in line 2, lacks sufficient antecedent basis rendering claim 6 indefinite. “a plurality of flow slots” is introduced in claim 2, line 1, not in claim 1, from which claim 6 depends. For examination purposes, claim 6 will be interpreted as, “The heat-not-burn cartridge according to claim 2 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. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WEN (CN112021654A) in view of DIMMIC (CN114901090A). Regarding claim 1; WEN teaches; A heat-not-burn cartridge (“..technical solution is:…heat-not-burn cigarette…”— [16.]) , comprising: a tandem assembly comprising a plug portion (Figures 1/5, ‘sealing member’— 5), a smoke generating portion, a cooling portion (“…the integrated heating and non-combustion cigarette further includes a cooling section, which is located between the smoke generating section…”—[53.]), and a filter portion that sequentially abut against one another in a first direction (Figure 1, ‘filter section’— 2, sequentially abuts against the plug, smoke generating portion, and cooling portion in a first direction) ,wherein the cooling portion comprises a cooling cylinder and a throttle plate (Figures 3/4, and [42.]— "… the hollow tube body 3 has a cylindrical shape and…is provided with a partition 31…” ), an outer wall of the cooling cylinder is formed with a flow slot, the flow slot penetrates to both ends of the cooling cylinder in an axial direction of the cooling cylinder (see Modified Portion of Figure 3 below), the throttle plate is disposed in an inner channel of the cooling cylinder, and the throttle plate is formed with a flow hole (Figure 4, ‘partition’— 31 is disposed in an inner channel of ‘hollow tube body’— 3, and is formed with a flow hole (‘through hole’— 311)); and a paper sleeve sleeving outside the filter portion (Figure 1 and [40.]— "The packaging tube 1 is a cardboard tube…”). Modified Portion of Figure 3 PNG media_image1.png 404 320 media_image1.png Greyscale WEN does not teach; a metal sleeve sleeving outside the plug portion, the smoke generating portion, and the cooling portion; and the paper sleeve sleeving outside part of the metal sleeve. DIMMIC, does however, teach a metal sleeve sleeving outside the plug portion, the smoke generating portion, and the cooling portion (Figure 1 and [155.]— “…the wrap 10 includes aluminum foil…”); and the paper sleeve sleeving outside part of the metal sleeve (Figure 1, ‘tipping paper’— 5 sleeves outside part of the metal sleeve (10)). WEN and DIMMIC are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of non-combustible aerosolizing devices. It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heat-not-burn cartridge, comprising: a tandem assembly comprising a plug portion, a smoke generating portion, a cooling portion, and a filter portion that sequentially abut against one another in a first direction, wherein the cooling portion comprises a cooling cylinder and a throttle plate, an outer wall of the cooling cylinder is formed with a flow slot, the flow slot penetrates to both ends of the cooling cylinder in an axial direction of the cooling cylinder, the throttle plate is disposed in an inner channel of the cooling cylinder, and the throttle plate is formed with a flow hole; and a paper sleeve sleeving outside the filter portion, as taught by WEN, by adding a metal sleeve sleeving outside the plug portion, the smoke generating portion, and the cooling portion and the paper sleeve sleeving outside part of the metal sleeve, as taught by DIMMIC, for the explicit motivation DIMMIC recites; “Aluminum foil has been found to be particularly effective in enhancing aerosol formation…”—[155.] and for enhancing other heat transfer properties of the device. Regarding claim 2; WEN in view of DIMMIC, as shown above, teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. WEN further teaches; the outer wall of the cooling cylinder (Figures 1/3/4, reference 3) is uniformly formed with a plurality of flow slots in a circumferential direction of the cooling cylinder (see Modified Portion of Figure 3 directly below). Modified Portion of Figure 3 PNG media_image2.png 497 438 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 3; WEN in view of DIMMIC, teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. WEN further teaches; the outer wall of the cooling cylinder is provided with a plurality of ribs, and each of the plurality of flow slots is formed between two adjacent ribs of the plurality of ribs (see Modified Portion of Figure 3 directly above). Regarding claim 4; WEN in view of DIMMIC, teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. WEN further teaches; each of the plurality of ribs extends linearly in the first direction (Figures 3/4 and [42.]— “…the outer surface of the hollow tube body 3 is provided with a number of strip-shaped protrusions 34 evenly spaced along its length…”). Regarding claim 5; WEN in view of DIMMIC, teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. WEN further teaches; each of the plurality of ribs spirals around an axis of the cooling cylinder (see Modified Portion of Figure 3 directly below). Modified Portion of Figure 3 PNG media_image3.png 417 348 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 6; WEN in view of DIMMIC, teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. WEN further teaches; a width of each flow slot of the plurality of flow slots gradually increases from a slot bottom of each flow slot to a notch of each flow slot (Figure 3 and [45.]— "…the strip-shaped protrusion 34 includes a top flat surface 341, and a left concave curved surface 342 and a right concave curved surface 343 located on both sides of the top flat surface 341…”). A skilled artisan, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that the right and left concave surfaces of adjacent ribs form flow slots with a width that gradually increases from a slot bottom of each flow slot to a notch of each flow slot. Regarding claim 7; WEN in view of DIMMIC, teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. WEN further teaches; the throttle plate is located at a midpoint of the cooling cylinder in the axial direction of the cooling cylinder (Figure 4, reference character 31 is located at a midpoint of the cooling cylinder (3) in the axial direction of the cooling cylinder). Regarding claim 8; WEN in view of DIMMIC, teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. DIMMIC further teaches; an axial length of the metal sleeve is equal to a sum of a length of the plug portion, a length of the smoke generating portion, and a length of the cooling portion (Figure 1, reference character 10 extends the length of the entire device). It would therefore be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the feature that an axial length of the metal sleeve is equal to a sum of a length of the plug portion, a length of the smoke generating portion, and a length of the cooling portion, as taught by DIMMIC, to the device outlined by WEN in view of DIMMIC, as in claim 1, for the explicit motivation DIMMIC recites; for enhancing other heat transfer properties of the device. Regarding claim 9, WEN in view of DIMMIC, teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. WEN further teaches; an axial length of the paper sleeve is equal to a sum of a length of the filter portion and a length of the cooling portion (Figures 1/2, the paper sleeve (1) extends over the device including a length of the filter portion and a length of the cooling portion.) Regarding claims 10-18; WEN in view of DIMMIC, teaches all of the limitations of claims 1-9. DIMMIC further teaches; a diameter of the filter portion is equal to an outer diameter of the metal sleeve, and the filter portion abuts against an end of the metal sleeve (Figure 1, shows a junction at 2a wherein an outer diameter of the metal sleeve is equal to a diameter of various components). A skilled artisan, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that the limitations taught by WEN in view of DIMMIC, as in claims 1-9, would contain a filter portion. In conjunction with the teaching of DIMMIC, wherein an outer diameter of the metal sleeve is equal to a diameter of various components, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the feature that a diameter of the filter portion is equal to an outer diameter of the metal sleeve, and the filter portion abuts against an end of the metal sleeve, as taught by DIMMIC, to the device taught by WEN in view of DIMMIC, as in claims 1-9, for the explicit motivation DIMMIC recites; to, “…provide a wrap with suitable structural integrity and heat transfer properties…”— [155.]. CONCLUSION Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A CEFARATTI whose telephone number is (571)270-0482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5pm. 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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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. /JOSEPH ARTHUR CEFARATTI/Examiner, Art Unit 1749 /KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 29, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112 (current)

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
Grant Probability
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 0 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month