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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Applicant argues that the BAT reference fails to teach “a liner coupled to the sleeve to provide an inner surface of the sleeve” and further fails to teach that the liner is configured “to disperse heat and control the distribution of temperature across the sleeve.” These arguments are not persuasive because they improperly narrow the scope of the claimed limitations and are not supported by the claim language.
With respect to the limitation “a liner coupled to the sleeve to provide an inner surface of the sleeve”:
Applicant asserts that liner 110 of BAT does not form an inner surface of sleeve 102 because liner 110 is positioned within consumable chamber 108. However, independent claim 1 does not require that the liner be coextensive with, permanently fixed to, or exclusively form the entirety of the sleeve’s inner wall. Rather, the claim broadly requires that the liner be coupled to the sleeve and provide an inner surface of the sleeve.
As shown in BAT Figure 1, liner 110 is disposed between internal components of the apparatus and sleeve 102 and defines an interior boundary adjacent the sleeve. Accordingly, liner 110 provides an inner surface relative to sleeve 102 and satisfies the claimed structural relationship. Applicant’s argument improperly imports additional structural requirements into the claim that are not recited.
With respect to the limitation “to disperse heat and control the distribution of temperature across the sleeve”:
Applicant’s arguments directed to alleged advantages such as avoiding hotspots or improving user comfort are not persuasive because the claim does not recite any specific degree of heat uniformity, reduction of hotspots, or user comfort outcome. The limitation is functional in nature and broadly requires that the liner disperse heat.
BAT expressly teaches that liner 110 comprises a thermally conductive material configured to transfer heat from a heater to the consumable. A thermally conductive liner inherently disperses heat during operation. Therefore, BAT necessarily meets the claimed heat dispersion limitation, regardless of whether BAT describes the function using the same terminology as the claims. Alleged advantages or results not explicitly recited in the claims do not serve to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
For the reasons discussed above, BAT teaches each and every limitation of independent claim 1. Applicant’s arguments rely on unclaimed structural and functional distinctions and are therefore not persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) is maintained.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-24 are 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 03/11/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 9-10, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by British American Tobacco (GB 1719579) hereinafter BAT.
Regarding claim 1, BAT teaches a casing for apparatus for heating aerosolizable material to volatilize at least one component of the aerosolizable material to form an aerosol for inhalation by a user, the casing comprising:
a top panel comprising an opening though which a consumable article containing aerosolizable material can be inserted and removed (annotated fig. 1);
a bottom panel (annotated fig. 1);
a sleeve for surrounding internal components of the apparatus (annotated fig. 1);
and a liner coupled to the sleeve to provide an inner surface of the sleeve (annotated fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
813
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation of “a liner for the sleeve to disperse heat and control the distribution of temperature across the sleeve when the apparatus heats the aerosolizable material”, BAT teaches liner comprises a thermally conductive material configured to transfer heat from a heater in the device to the replaceable consumable. In some examples the liner may be entirely constructed from conductive material (pg. 6 lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 2, BAT teaches wherein the liner 110 positioned against the inner wall of housing 102, thereby forming part of the inner surface of the casing (Fig. 1, pg. 6-7) forms part of an inner surface of the casing.
Regarding claim 4, BAT explicitly teaches that the liner 110 is removable from housing 102, making the sleeve and liner separable components, but they function together to form the heating chamber when assembled (pg. 5 lines 15-25) thus anticipating the limitation of “the sleeve and the liner are separable as individual components that are combinable with each other to form one part”.
Regarding claim 5, BAT teaches that the liner 110 is removably inserted into housing 102 by mechanical fit and is not described as using adhesives (pg. 8 lines 5-15).
Regarding claim 6, BAT shows in annotated fig. 1 housing 102 having an internal cavity/receptacle designed to receive liner 100 which constitutes an accommodating portion (pg. 5-6).
Regarding claim 9-10, BAT expressly teaches that liner 110 may be formed of thermally conductive material such as aluminum (pg. 11 lines 25-27).
Regarding claim 13, BAT discloses liner 310 having a thickness of 10–1000 μm (0.01–1.0 mm) (see BAT, pp. 11–12). This thickness range falls entirely within the claimed requirement of “less than about 1 mm.”
As explained in MPEP § 2131.03, a claimed range is anticipated when the prior art expressly discloses a range that is wholly encompassed by or overlaps with the claimed range. Since BAT discloses liner 310 with thickness values that are all less than about 1 mm, this limitation is met.
Regarding claim 15, BAT teaches liners (210, 310) formed from insulating or thermally conductive materials that regulate heat transfer and distribution. For example, BAT teaches that insulating liners reduce heat transfer to the housing so that the surface remains relatively cool (p. 11, lines 5–15), and that conductive liners spread heat through metallic regions to evenly conduct heat along the consumable (p. 11, line 20 – p. 12, line 5). Both approaches achieve the same functional result as claimed — preventing the formation of localized hot spots on the sleeve.
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.
Claim(s) 3 7-8 14 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over British American Tobacco (GB 1719579) hereinafter BAT as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Batista et al. (US 2017/0181473).
Regarding claim 7 and 25, BAT teaches the aerosol casing structure including a sleeve and liner (see BAT, pp. 5–7, 11–12), but does not disclose that the sleeve is formed of a molded polymer or plastic.
Batista discloses housings for aerosol-generating devices formed of polymeric compounds, including polypropylene, polyethylene, polyamides, polyesters, fluoropolymers, and polyurethane-based materials (¶ [0032]–[0034]). Batista further teaches that such housings can be produced by molding or overmolding (¶ [0031]).
It has been held that the use of known materials in analogous devices is considered an obvious design choice (See MPEP § 2143).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to form BAT’s sleeve as a molded polymer as taught by Batista. One would be motivated to make the modification to achieve the known advantages of polymer housings in aerosol devices, such as lightweight structure, reduced manufacturing cost, ease of molding complex geometries, and suitability for consumer products.
Regarding claim 8, BAT teaches a removable liner (110/210/310) disposed within a sleeve or housing (102) but does not disclose overmolding.
Batista discloses that components of aerosol housings may be overmolded with polymeric materials (see ¶ [0079]), explicitly teaching overmolding in the context of aerosol housings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form BAT’s sleeve as an overmolded part to the liner, as taught by Batista. One would be motivated to make the modification to improve thermal coupling, manufacturing integration, and mechanical stability of the liner-sleeve assembly by using overmolding, a well-known process for combining polymer housings with internal components.
Regarding claim 3, BAT discloses a casing with a removable liner 310 comprising thermally conductive material (e.g., metals, alloys) (BAT, pp. 11–12, Fig. 3). BAT is silent as to the material of the surrounding sleeve.
However, Batista discloses that housings/sleeves of aerosol-generating devices may be formed of polymeric or plastic materials (Batista, ¶¶ [0032]–[0034]), which have significantly lower thermal conductivity than metals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the BAT sleeve from plastic or polymeric material as taught by Batista, in combination with BAT’s conductive liner, because plastic housings are lightweight, moldable, and thermally suitable for containing the aerosol-generating components. This combination would have predictably resulted in a liner with higher thermal conductivity than the sleeve, as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, BAT teaches a casing comprising a removable liner (liner 310) disposed within the housing and having a defined thickness of 10–1000 μm (BAT, p. 11, Fig. 3). BAT, however, is silent regarding the thickness of the surrounding sleeve relative to the liner.
Batista discloses housings for aerosol-generating devices that are formed of polymeric or plastic materials, and further discloses that such housings may be molded or overmolded (Batista, ¶¶ [0030], [0032]–[0034]). As molding processes inherently provide precise and reproducible control over wall dimensions, including wall thickness, Batista teaches that the designer can readily determine and align the thickness of housing walls with other structural elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure BAT’s sleeve and liner to have substantially the same thickness across the cross-section of the casing, as a matter of routine optimization of known manufacturing parameters. Doing so would have predictably simplified molding of the casing, provided structural uniformity between the sleeve and liner, and facilitated consistent thermal performance across the casing.
See MPEP § 2144.05 (Optimization of result-effective variables) and MPEP § 2144.04(VI) (Design choice), which establish that where parameters such as wall thickness are known to affect performance and are controlled in the art, adjusting such parameters to predictable values constitutes obviousness absent unexpected results.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over British American Tobacco (GB 1719579) hereinafter BAT as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sudlow et al (GB2561867) with (US 2021/0100286).
Regarding claim 12, BAT teaches a removable liner positioned within the housing of the aerosol device, the liner having a thickness of 10–1000 μm and being formed from thermally conductive or insulating materials including metal and plastics (BAT, pp. 11–12). While BAT teaches thin liners of sub-millimeter thickness, BAT does not explicitly describe the liner as being in the form of a thin-film, tape, or foil.
Sudlow discloses a conduction element in an aerosol delivery system that *“may comprise a *film of thermally conductive material, such as an aluminum foil … copper foil, gold foil, silver foil, or an alloy comprising any of these metals” (Sudlow, ¶ [0255). Thus, Sudlow expressly teaches the use of films and foils as thin conductive structures in aerosol heating systems.
16. It has been held that substituting one known form of a thin, thermally conductive structure (film/foil) for another known thin liner material would have been an obvious design choice (See MPEP § 2143).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify BAT’s liner to be in the form of a thin-film or foil as taught by Sudlow. One would be motivated to make the modification to improve heat transfer efficiency, material economy, and ease of manufacturing, as Sudlow explains foil/film structures are suitable for thermal conduction in aerosol devices.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 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, Michael H Wilson can be reached on (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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747