Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 18/709,371

AEROSOL GENERATING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
May 10, 2024
Priority
Nov 25, 2021 — RE 10-2021-0164163 +1 more
Examiner
DYE, ROBERT C
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
KT&G Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
10m
Est. Remaining
75%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allowance Rate
511 granted / 806 resolved
+3.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+11.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
846
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
56.7%
+16.7% vs TC avg
§102
14.0%
-26.0% vs TC avg
§112
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 806 resolved cases

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: The specification contains inconsistencies between whether the temperature coefficient of resistance of the bridge is lower than or larger than the temperature coefficient of resistance of the heater assembly (for example, see [7,70] vs [65-66]; Examiner notes that there may be other instances). 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. Claims 1-10 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. Claim 1 recites "a temperature coefficient of resistance of the bridge is lower than a temperature coefficient of resistance of the heater assembly." While the claim appears clear on its face, the claim is indefinite when read in light of the specification. Paragraphs [65-66] of the specification recite: The heater assembly 130 may be made of a material having a lower temperature coefficient of resistance than that of the bridge 150. The heating pattern 133 may be made of a material having a lower temperature coefficient of resistance than that of the connection pattern 152 of the bridge 150. For example, the heating pattern 133 may be Constantan with a temperature coefficient of resistance of 0.000008, which can converge to zero, and the bridge 150 may be nickel with a temperature coefficient of resistance of 0.006 or copper with a temperature coefficient of resistance of 0.00386. The material of the heating pattern 133 and the connection pattern 153 of the bridge 150 are not limited to the above description. The lower the temperature coefficient of resistance, the higher the heat transfer efficiency, thereby reducing loss of available power. In addition, as the temperature coefficient of resistance is lower, the rate of increase in temperature of a heating element to which power is applied may be increased. This paragraph describes the heating pattern as made of a material having a temperature coefficient of resistance that is lower than that of the bridge material to obtain the advantageous effects. On the other hand, paragraphs [7] and [70] recite the claim limitation of the bridge TCR being lower. The inconsistencies and conflicts between the specification and claims render claims 1-10 unclear. A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. See MPEP 2173.03. For the purpose of examination, the claims are examined as written. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 20210015154) in view of Yan (CN 111772245, with English machine translation). Regarding claim 1, Jeong discloses an aerosol generating device ([0034]) comprising: a body comprising an insertion space (see hollow insertion space for cigarette Fig. 3); a heater assembly having thermal conductivity and configured to heat the insertion space (see heater 111); a first board installed at the body (circuit board 140, [0063]); and a bridge electrically connecting the heater assembly and the first board (see leads 111d, [0063]). Jeong is silent regarding the temperature coefficient of resistance of the bridge and heater; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the bridge with lower TCR than the heater since Yan, similarly directed towards aerosol generating devices, teaches configuring the heater such that the lead wires connected the heating portion have a lower TCR than that of the heater to enable the device to accurately measure a change in resistance of the heating element and obtain a measurement of the heating body temperature (abstract; also see pg 6, paragraphs 4+). Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 20210015154) in view of Yan (CN 111772245, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeong-2 (KR 102330300, with English machine translation). Regarding claim 2, Jeong discloses a cylindrical inner space where the heater comprises a flexible first layer and a flexible second layer (see layers 111c, may be polyimide; [0062], Fig. 6). A heating pattern 111b is disposed between the layers and connected to the bridge ([0063]). Jeong does not disclose an inner pipe defining the insertion space which the flexible layers surround; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the device with an inner pipe as claimed since Jeong-2 discloses providing a thermally conductive cylindrical substrate inwards of the heating element to provide strength to the insertion space and to effectively transfer heat generated by the heating pattern to the cigarette ([0068-0070]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 3-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: The prior art of record fails to further teach or suggest the bridge comprises a second board extending between the heater assembly and the first board and a connection pattern is printed on the second board and has a lower TCR than the heating pattern. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C DYE whose telephone number is (571)270-7059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST. 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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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. /ROBERT C DYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 10, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12703204
TIRE
1y 7m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12690612
AEROSOL-GENERATING DEVICE
2y 10m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12686234
STUDDED WINTER TIRE
2y 2m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12686236
STUDDED TYRE HAVING GROOVES
2y 2m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12673521
CAR TYRE
2y 1m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

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
63%
Grant Probability
75%
With Interview (+11.3%)
3y 1m (~10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 806 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