Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/056,267

QUASI-RESONANT FLYBACK CONVERTER FOR AN INDUCTION-BASED AEROSOL DELIVERY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Feb 18, 2025
Priority
Dec 08, 2017 — continuation of 10/806,181 +3 more
Examiner
BAKER, LORI LYNN
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
10m
Est. Remaining
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
1321 granted / 1682 resolved
+18.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+6.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
1687
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
60.6%
+20.6% vs TC avg
§102
7.8%
-32.2% vs TC avg
§112
8.0%
-32.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1682 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,264,912. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because when an applicant has received a patent for a species or a more specific embodiment, he/she is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the latter issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the earlier issued patent. A more specific claim “anticipates” the broader claim. In an obviousness-type double patenting analysis where the claim being examined is merely broader than the claim patented before. The patented claim “anticipates” the application claim. Thus, the two claims are not patentably distinct. the subject matter of claim 1 is further disclosed by claim 1 of the ‘912 patent. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,806,181. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because when an applicant has received a patent for a species or a more specific embodiment, he/she is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the latter issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the earlier issued patent. A more specific claim “anticipates” the broader claim. In an obviousness-type double patenting analysis where the claim being examined is merely broader than the claim patented before. The patented claim “anticipates” the application claim. Thus, the two claims are not patentably distinct. ii. The subject matter of claim 1 is further disclosed by claim 1 of the ‘181 patent. Conclusion The prior art made of record (see USPTO Form 892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. More specifically, US Patent 12,310,420 B2 to Sur is directed to the state of the art as a teaching of aerosol delivery device 100 having a body 102 and cartridge 104, heating element, voltage regulator, sensor 212 and power source 214 where the sensor produces a measurement of pressure that converts to an electrical signal and the heating element converts the signal to heat to vaporize components of the aerosol precursor composition. PNG media_image1.png 174 536 media_image1.png Greyscale Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI BAKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 9 am - 6 pm CST. 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, David Angwin can be reached 571-270-3735. 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. /LORI L BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 18, 2025
Application Filed
Jun 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12678370
INFUSION BOWL FOR A SAUNA HEATER
2y 1m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12674336
SYSTEM AND METHOD OF SOLAR HARVESTING FOR AQUATIC DEVICES
2y 6m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12674309
MODULAR BIDET ATTACHMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12674308
CISTERN SYSTEM, APPARATUS AND METHOD
2y 8m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12674310
ROTATIONALLY MOLDED LIGATURE RESISTANT TOILET
2y 4m 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
78%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+6.6%)
2y 3m (~10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1682 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