Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/655,346

AEROSOL PROVISION SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 17, 2022
Examiner
KESSIE, JENNIFER A
Art Unit
1747
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Nicoventures Trading Limited
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
193 granted / 303 resolved
-1.3% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
59 currently pending
Career history
362
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.0%
-37.0% vs TC avg
§103
52.0%
+12.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
§112
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 303 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/06/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 02/06/2026 with respect to claims 1 and 20 have been considered but are moot. Claims 1 and 20 have been amended, and the present rejection constitutes a new ground of rejection based on Amorde (US 2019/0380388) as the primary reference. The present rejection does not rely on the reference or teachings specifically challenged in Applicant’s prior arguments. Accordingly, the arguments do not address the current grounds of rejection. Claim Objections Claim 28 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being incomplete because it depends from a cancelled claim 15. See MPEP § 608.01(n). For the purpose of this Office Action said claim has been treated as if depending from claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1-8, 13-14, 17, 20-22, 26 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amorde et al. (US 2019/0380388). Regarding claim 1 and 20: An aerosol provision system for generating an aerosol Amorde teaches a vaporizer device 100 configured to generate aerosol (¶ [0027]; ¶ [0040]). A feedback portion Amorde teaches a user interface (UI 500) that provides visual information regarding operation of the vaporizer device (¶ [0107]). Providing a first visual feedback comprising a first symbol Amorde teaches a temperature icon 510 and temperature icon 515 displayed on UI 500, the icons constituting visual symbols representing temperature settings (¶ [0108]). Providing a second visual feedback comprising a second symbol, the second symbol different from the first symbol Amorde teaches session size display 525 and status bar 540 as additional visual symbols distinct from the temperature icons (¶ [0115]; ¶ [0109]). These are different visual symbols from the temperature icon 510/515 (¶ [0108]). The aerosol provision system configured for allowing the user to toggle between: (i) a first mode of operation in which the second visual feedback is configured to be provided Amorde teaches that when a session is initiated, UI 500 transitions to a session progress state in which status bar 540 is displayed (¶ [0117]). In this operational state, the session progress symbol is provided. (ii) a second mode of operation in which the first visual feedback is configured to be provided Amorde teaches that prior to session initiation, UI 500 presents selectable temperature icons 510/515 for user adjustment (¶ [0114]; ¶ [0108]). In this operational state, the temperature symbol is provided. User toggle between modes Amorde teaches that the user may move between collapsed and expanded states of UI 500 and may initiate a session, thereby transitioning between operational states that determine which visual symbols are displayed (¶ [0114]; ¶ [0117]). Claim 20 recites a method of providing feedback in an aerosol provision system. Amorde teaches performing the method steps of providing visual feedback via a display, providing a first symbol corresponding to a first selected operating configuration, providing a second symbol corresponding to a second selected operating configuration, and toggling between the configurations via the user interface (¶ [0090]; ¶ [0087]; ¶ [0007]). Because Amorde discloses an aerosol provision system having a feedback portion that provides first and second different visual symbols and allows user selection between operational states in which different visual symbols are provided, Amorde discloses each and every limitation of claim 1 and 20. Accordingly, claim 1 is anticipated by Amorde under 35 U.S.C. §102. Regarding claim 2: Wherein a type of the first feedback is different from a type of the second feedback Amorde teaches temperature icons 510/515 representing selectable temperature settings (¶ [0108]). These icons are symbolic indicators of temperature selection. Amorde further teaches status bar 540 representing session progress (¶ [0109]; ¶ [0117]). The temperature icon constitutes one type of feedback (symbolic temperature selection), whereas the status bar constitutes a different type of feedback (progress indication). Thus, Amorde teaches different types of feedback as required. Accordingly, claim 2 is anticipated by Amorde. Regarding claim 3: Wherein a level of the first feedback is different from a level of the second feedback Amorde teaches that different temperature levels are represented visually via icons 510/515 (¶ [0108]), and that session progress is represented via status bar 540, which changes as the session progresses (¶ [0109]; ¶ [0117]). Because the visual representation varies depending on selected temperature and session progress, Amorde teaches different visual levels corresponding to different operational states. Accordingly, claim 3 is anticipated by Amorde. Regarding claim 4: Wherein the level of the first feedback is greater than the level of the second feedback. Amorde teaches that visual characteristics vary depending on selected temperature level, including distinctions between lower and higher levels (¶ [0087]). Higher temperature settings correspond to visually distinct and more intense representations. Thus, Amorde teaches different feedback levels, including higher versus lower levels. Accordingly, claim 4 is anticipated by Amorde. Regarding claims 5 and 21: Claim 5 recites: wherein allowing at least one of the first feedback or the second feedback to be customized. Claim 21 recites: using a feedback customization interface to customize at least one of the first feedback or the second feedback. Amorde teaches that the user may select temperature settings via UI 500 ([0114]) and may select session size via dropdown menu 520 ([0115]). Selection of temperature changes the temperature symbol displayed ([0087]), and selection of session size changes the session size symbol displayed ([0090]). Because user selection alters the visual feedback provided, Amorde teaches that the aerosol provision system is configured to allow at least one of the first feedback or the second feedback to be customized and a feedback customization interface to customize at least one of the first feedback or the second feedback. Accordingly, claims 5 and 21 are anticipated by Amorde. Regarding claim 6: Claim 6 recites: wherein allowing at least one of a level of the first feedback or a level of the second feedback to be customized. Amorde teaches that different temperature levels are selectable by the user ([0087]). Amorde further teaches that each selected temperature level corresponds to a different visual representation ([0087]). Because the selected temperature level determines the visual feedback provided, and the user selects the temperature level, Amorde teaches allowing at least one of the level of the feedback to be customized. Accordingly, claim 6 is anticipated by Amorde. Regarding claim 7: Claim 7 recites: wherein allowing at least one of a type of the first feedback or a type of the second feedback to be customized. Amorde teaches that user selection of temperature results in different visual indicators representing different temperature settings ([0087]). Amorde further teaches that selection of session size results in a different visual symbol being displayed ([0090]). Because user selection changes the type of visual feedback presented (e.g., temperature icon versus session size symbol), Amorde teaches allowing at least one of the type of the first feedback or the type of the second feedback to be customized. Accordingly, claim 7 is anticipated by Amorde. Regarding claims 8 and 22: Claim 8 recites: wherein the display is configured to display a feedback customization interface for allowing at least one of the first feedback or the second feedback to be customized. Claim 22 recites: using the feedback customization interface on the display to customize at least one of the first feedback or the second feedback. Amorde teaches displaying a user interface (UI 500) on a display associated with the aerosol provision system ([0107]). Amorde further teaches that the interface allows the user to select temperature settings ([0087]) and session size settings ([0090]). Because the displayed interface allows user selection that changes the visual feedback presented, Amorde teaches a display configured to display a feedback customization interface allowing at least one of the feedbacks to be customized. Amorde teaches that the user interacts with the displayed interface to select temperature or session parameters ([0107]). Amorde further teaches that these selections modify the visual feedback provided ([0087], [0090]). Thus, Amorde teaches using the feedback customization interface on the display to customize at least one of the feedbacks. Accordingly, claims 8 and 22 are anticipated by Amorde. Regarding claims 13 and 17: Amorde teaches that the temperature icon 515 displayed on the user interface changes color based on the selected temperature (¶ [0108]). Amorde further teaches that shades of red represent a higher temperature and shades of blue represent a lower temperature (¶ [0108]). The temperature icon emitting red light constitutes generating light of a first color, where the first color is red as recited in claim 13. The temperature icon emitting blue light constitutes generating light of a second color, where the second color is blue as recited in claim 17. Regarding claim 26: Claim 26 recites: wherein the first feedback is provided more prominently than the second feedback. Amorde teaches that selected temperature levels are visually distinguished from other levels ([0087]). Amorde further teaches that the active state is visually represented by a distinct indicator on the interface ([0108]). Because the selected feedback is visually distinguished relative to non-selected feedback, Amorde teaches providing one feedback more prominently than another. Accordingly, claim 26 is anticipated by Amorde. Regarding claim 27: Amorde teaches that the aerosol provision system includes a user interface (UI 500) through which session size and temperature are selected (¶ [0107]). Amorde further teaches that the UI 500 displays selectable icons and session information (¶ [0108]). Therefore, Amorde teaches the aerosol provision system comprising a user interface. Accordingly, claim 27 is anticipated by Amorde. Regarding claim 28: Claim 28 recites: wherein the user interface is configured for allowing the user to toggle the aerosol provision system: (i) into the second mode of operation from the first mode of operation; and/or (ii) into the first mode of operation from the second mode of operation. Amorde teaches that the user may expand and collapse the UI 500 between different operational states (¶ [0114]). Amorde further teaches that the user may select session size and temperature to initiate and control a vaporizer session, and may move between collapsed and expanded states (¶ [0114]). Allowing the user to switch between operational states via the user interface constitutes toggling between modes of operation. Accordingly, claim 28 is anticipated by Amorde. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 9, 14 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amorde et al. (US 2019/0380388) as applied to claim 1 and 20 above, and further in view of Hawes et al. (US 2017/0258136). Regarding claim 9 and 24-25: Amorde teaches an aerosol provision system including a feedback customization interface displayed on a user interface for customizing system parameters (¶ [0107]; ¶ [0114]; ¶ [0115]). However, Amorde does not expressly teach that the feedback customization interface comprises an identifier of the aerosol provision system, nor that such identifier remains in the same location for different modes of operation. Hawes teaches that a vaporizer device includes device identification information associated with the device (¶ [0073]). Hawes further teaches that such identification information is used in connection with system operations and user interface interactions (¶ [0113]). Hawes additionally teaches that identification information may be presented in connection with the user interface for device management and control (¶ [0156]). Hawes is analogous art because it is directed to aerosol/vaporizer devices having user interfaces and device identification features, which is the same field of endeavor as Amorde. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feedback customization interface of Amorde to include the device identification information taught by Hawes in order to allow a user to identify the aerosol provision system being customized, particularly where multiple devices may be associated with a user account. The modification represents a predictable use of known user interface identification features to improve device identification and management. Because Hawes teaches presenting identification information in connection with the user interface, and Amorde teaches maintaining UI elements across different operational states (e.g., collapsed and expanded views), it would have further been obvious to maintain the identifier in a consistent display location across first and second modes of operation as a matter of routine user interface design to promote clarity and continuity. Accordingly, claims 9, 24, and 25 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Amorde in view of Hawes. Regarding claim 14: Amorde teaches an aerosol provision system including visual feedback provided to a user through display elements and visual indicators (¶ [0108]; ¶ [0109]; ¶ [0110]). However, Amorde does not expressly teach that the light indicator display comprises one or more LEDs. Hawes teaches that the aerosol device includes one or more light sources for providing visual indications (¶ [0146]). Hawes further teaches that the light sources may comprise light-emitting diodes (LEDs) (¶ [0147]). Hawes additionally teaches that such LEDs may be used to provide different visual indications of device operation (¶ [0150]; ¶ [0151]). Hawes is analogous art because it is directed to aerosol/vaporizer devices providing visual feedback through device light sources, which is the same field of endeavor as Amorde. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the visual light indicator display of Amorde using one or more LEDs as taught by Hawes, the modification being a predictable use of a known light source to provide visual feedback in an aerosol device. Accordingly, claim 14 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Amorde in view of Hawes. Conclusion 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 /Christopher M Rodd/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 17, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 18, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jan 26, 2024
Response Filed
Apr 09, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Jul 15, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 13, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 02, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
May 09, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 02, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 31, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 06, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 09, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599161
METHOD OF MAKING AEROSOL-FORMING SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599160
LIPID-CONTAINING ORAL COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593871
AEROSOL-GENERATING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12575602
AEROSOL GENERATING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569004
AEROSOL DELIVERY DEVICE WITH SEPARABLE HEAT SOURCE AND SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+25.2%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 303 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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