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. 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 s 1-4, 6-7, 9-10 , and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumen (WO 2019234142 A1 cited on an IDS and with reference made to national stage US 20210219612 A1) in view of Rojo-Calderon ( US 20180295885 A1 ) . Claim s 1 and 3-4 : Dumen teaches an aerosol generating device (fig. 1 and [49-51]) comprising: a heating chamber (10) comprising an opening (leftmost opening of 10) arranged to receive an aerosol generating medium (aerosol-generating article); and a heating element (13) for heating the aerosol generating medium (aerosol-generating article), wherein the heating element (13) is fixed with respect to the heating chamber (10), wherein the heating chamber (10) has a base portion (101) that is moveable along a length of the heating chamber (10). Dumen does not explicitly teach that the base portion comprises at least one piercing element configured to pierce the aerosol generating medium received in the heating chamber , an air flow passage extending through the base portion, the air flow passage being configured to supply air to the aerosol generating medium received in the heating chamber , or that the air flow passage extends along a length of the at least one piercing element, and wherein the air flow passage is configured to supply air through the at least one piercing element into the aerosol generating medium received in the heating chamber . Rojo-Calderon teaches a n aerosol generating device (fig. 13 and [151]) comprising two piercing element s (712) configured to pierce an aerosol generating medium (9) received in a heating chamber (703) , wherein air flow passages (the piercing elements are hollow) extend along lengths of the piercing elements and are configured to supply air through the piercing elements into an aerosol generating medium (9) received in the heating chamber (703), such that an air pathway is formed in the aerosol generating medium [151] , thereby facilitating airflow . Rojo-Calderon (fig. 13, #9 is an encased element as in [143]) and Dumen (fig. 4, #4 is a plug element as in [65]) both use a solid, continuous aerosol generating medium to yield expectation to succeed. Piercing Dumen’s plug element as taught by Rojo-Calderon would achieve a similar benefit of facilitating airflow through the aerosol generating medium. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add Rojo-Calderon’s piercing elements to Dumen such that the piercing elements are configured to pierce the aerosol generating medium received in the heating chamber , wherein air flow passages extend along lengths of the piercing elements and are configured to supply air through the piercing elements into the aerosol generating medium received in the heating chamber , because doing so would form an air pathway in the aerosol generating medium, thereby facilitating airflow. Claim 2: modified Dumen teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the base portion (fig. 1 and [49-51], #101) is moveable to adjust the length of ([50], #101 is movable along #10) the heating chamber (10) between the opening (leftmost opening of 10) and the base portion (101) available for receiving the aerosol generating medium (aerosol-generating article). Claim 6: modified Dumen teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 3, further comprising an air flow path (Rojo-Calderon fig. 13 and [148-151], #90 previously incorporated for claim 3) arranged to transport air from an air inlet (702 which is not labelled but forms the upstream end of the air flow path) in the aerosol generating device to the air flow passage extending through the base portion (700) and into the aerosol generating medium (9) received in the heating chamber (703). Claim 7: modified Dumen teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 6, wherein the air inlet (Rojo-Calderon fig. 13 and [148-151], #702 which is not labelled but forms the upstream end of the air flow path) is located on an opposite side of the base portion (700) to the opening of the heating chamber (topmost opening of 703). Claim 9: modified Dumen teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the heating element (fig. 1, #13) extends into the heating chamber (10). Claim 10: modified Dumen teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 9, wherein the heating element (fig. 1, #13) extends through a hole (fig. 7 and [73], #1010) in the base portion (fig. 1, #101) towards the opening (leftmost opening of 10) of the heating chamber (10), and wherein the base portion (101) is moveable along the length of ([50], #101 is movable along #10) the heating chamber (10) with respect to the heating element (13). Claim 12: modified Dumen teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the heating element (fig. 1, #13) is a heating blade [51] configured to be inserted into the aerosol generating medium (aerosol-generating article) received in the heating chamber (10). Claim 13: modified Dumen teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the heating chamber (fig. 1, #10) is tubular (fig. 1-2). Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumen (WO 2019234142 A1 cited on an IDS) in view of Rojo-Calderon (US 20180295885 A1) as applied to claims 3 and 6 in further view of Fernando ( WO 2019003116 A1 ) . Claim s 5 and 8 : modified Dumen teaches t he aerosol generating device of claim s 3 and 6 . Modified Dumen does not explicitly teach that the air is heated prior to being supplied along the air flow passage , or that the air flow path comprises a heating zone for heating the air prior to the air being supplied along the air flow passage and into the aerosol generating medium received in the heating chamber. Fernando teaches an aerosol generating device (fig. 1 and p. 16, lines 17-27, #100) wherein air is heated (lines 23-27) prior to being supplied along an air flow passage (opening which connects 170 to 150), wherein an air flow path (170) comprises a heating zone for heating the air prior to the air being supplied along the air flow passage (opening which connects 170 to 150) and into the aerosol generating medium (150) such that heating is made more efficient and uniform (p. 2, lines 27-32). Fernando ( p. 12, lines 9-10) and Dumen [65] both use solid aerosol generating mediums to yield expectation to succeed. Fernando’s teachings for heating solid precursors apply to Dumen’s solid precursors. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add a heater to Dumen such that the air flow path comprises a heating zone for heating the air prior to the air being supplied along the air flow passage and into the aerosol generating medium, because doing so would make heating more efficient and uniform. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumen (WO 2019234142 A1 cited on an IDS) in view of Rojo-Calderon (US 20180295885 A1) as applied to claim 10 in further view of Reevell ( US 20180132535 A1 ) . Claim 11 : modified Dumen teaches t he aerosol generating device of claim 10, wherein the at least one piercing element (Rojo-Calderon fig. 13 and [151], #712 previously incorporated for claim 1) is located adjacent to the hole ( Dumen fig. 7 and [73], #1010) in the base portion (101). Rojo-Calderon’s piercing elements cannot be added to Dumen at Dumen’s hole, so one of ordinary skill would be motivated to add Rojo-Calderon’s piercing elements near or adjacent to Dumen’s hole. Modified Dumen does not explicitly teach that the at least one piercing element has a corresponding piercing element located on an opposing side of the hole in the base portion. Reevell teaches an aerosol generating device (fig. 3 and [124]) comprising two piercing elements (instances of 34) located on opposite sides of a hole (32), such that the two piercing elements are positioned at distance from the hole in order to not interfere with the hole’s function [132]. Moreover, d uplicating Rojo-Calderon’s piercing element would produce the expected result of two piercing elements to further secure Dumen’s aerosol generating medium and further facilitate airflow . See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B): In re Harza , 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to form two of Rojo-Calderon’s piercing elements on Dumen’s base portion as suggested by Reevell , because doing so would position the piercing elements without interfering with the hole’s function and would otherwise be a patentably indistinct duplication of parts. 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim s 1-2 and 12-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/005755 in view of Dumen ( WO 2019234142 A1 cited on an IDS and with reference made to national stage US 20210219612 A1 ) . Claim 1: ‘755 recites an aerosol generating device (claim 1, aerosol generation system) comprising: a chamber (first chamber portion) comprising an opening arranged to receive an aerosol generating medium (consumable); wherein the chamber has a base portion (base portion) that is moveable along a length of the heating chamber (claim 10), and wherein the base portion (claim 1, base portion) comprises at least one piercing element (piercing elements) configured to pierce the aerosol generating medium (consumable) received in the chamber. ‘755 does not recite a heating element for heating the aerosol generating medium, wherein the heating element is fixed with respect to the heating chamber . Dumen teaches an aerosol generating device (fig. 1 and [49-51]) comprising a heating element (13) for heating an aerosol generating medium (aerosol-generating article), wherein the heating element (13) is fixed with respect to a heating chamber (10), such that a base portion (101) is movable along the length of the heating chamber [50] in order to control the heating element in correspondence with the position of the base portion [66]. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to specify that ‘755’s aerosol generation system generates aerosol by a fixed heating element, because doing so would enable control of the heating element in correspondence with the movable base portion. Claim 2 : modified ‘755 teaches t he aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the base portion (claim 1, base portion) is moveable to adjust the length of the heating chamber (claim 10) between the opening and the base portion available for receiving the aerosol generating medium. Claim 12 : modified ‘755 teaches t he aerosol generating device of any preceding claim 1, wherein the heating element ( Dumen fig. 1, #13) is a heating blade [51] configured to be inserted into the aerosol generating medium (aerosol-generating article) received in the heating chamber. Claim 13 : modified ‘755 teaches t he aerosol generating device of any preceding claim 1 . Modified ‘755 does not explicitly teach that the heating chamber is tubular. Specifying the shape of the heating chamber as tubular would be an obvious matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B): In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The courts have held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was an obvious matter of choice absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to make ‘755’s heating chamber tubular, because doing so would be a patentably indistinct change in shape. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Tobey C. Le whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5516 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Thu 8:30-18:30 ET . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael H. Wilson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /TOBEY C LE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1747 /KATHERINE A WILL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747