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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 3-15 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 15 is newly added. This office action is in response to Applicant’s request for continued examination filed on 05/20/2026.
Response to Amendments
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 05/20/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 4-7, filed 05/20/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 1 to include a limitation that was not previously presented, specifically, “a heating chamber which is tubular arranged to receive a rod of aerosol substrate ”. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Batista (WO 2019138045 A1).
The following are modified rejections based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista (WO 2019138045 A1), and further in view of Liu (US 20150351457 A1, as cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023).
PNG
media_image1.png
245
433
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
279
272
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 1, Batista, directed to an aerosol-generating device, teaches (i) a device comprising a housing (Fig. 1: #12). (ii) The device comprises an annular heating element (Fig. 1: #40), which is tubular, and arranged to receive and heat a rod of aerosol-forming substrate (Fig. 1: #102, Pg. 20, Lines 8-9). (iii) An air flow passage (Fig. 1: #50) extends between an air inlet (Fig. 1: #52) of the device and through the aerosol-forming substrate (Fig. 1: #102), as seen by the arrows extending into the cavity (Fig. 3a: #22) in Figure 3a (Pg. 23, Lines 1-4). Batista teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however Batista is silent to:
Wherein the first airflow passage comprises a valve having an aperture
Wherein a size of the aperture is adjustable to alter airflow through the first airflow passages
Liu, directed to an electronic cigarette, teaches (i) a pressure regulating valve unit arranged in an airflow path with an intake hole [0009], that becomes opened under suction [0035], meeting the claim limitation of wherein the first airflow passage comprises a valve having an aperture. (ii) The pressure regulating valve unit is configured to adjust a flow rate of the outside air flowing into the electronic cigarette [0034] by opening or closing the valve unit [0035]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the first airflow passage of Batista with the valve of Liu to regulate airflow through the device and improve the taste of smoke delivered to a user [0004].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first airflow passage of Batista to comprise a valve having an aperture and wherein a size of the aperture is adjustable to alter airflow through the first airflow passages because both Batista and Liu are directed to providing an efficient flow of air to a user. Liu teaches a regulating valve unit to regulate airflow through the device and improve the taste of smoke delivered to a user [0004] and this merely involves applying a known airflow control technique to a known passage ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 8, modified Batista teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Batista is silent to:
Wherein the valve is located at the first air inlet
PNG
media_image3.png
370
262
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Liu teaches wherein the pressure regulating valve unit (Fig. 3: #400) comprises an inlet, for external air, on an open end defined at the bottom of a sealing part (Fig. 3: #426) of the pressure regulating valve unit [0046] to adjust the rate of air flowing into the airflow path from outside [0006].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the valve of modified Batista to wherein the valve is located to a user because both Liu and Batista are directed to providing an efficient flow of air to a user. Liu teaches an inlet located on an open end at the bottom of the valve unit to adjust the rate of air flowing into the airflow path from outside [0006] and this merely involves applying a known placement technique to a known aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
PNG
media_image4.png
586
315
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
355
342
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 9, Batista teaches wherein the air inlet (Fig. 2b: #52) provided at an opening for a cavity (Fig. 2b: #22), meant for receiving an aerosol-forming substrate (Fig. 1: #102).
With regard to Claim 10, Batista teaches wherein the air flow passage (Fig. 2b: #50) is arranged to transport air from the air inlet (Fig. 2b: #52) through to the air outlet (Fig. 2b: #54) and air conduit (Fig. 2b: #56, Pg. 23, Lines 1-4), wherein the air flow passage (Fig. 2b: #50) is arranged within the annular heating element (Fig. 1: #40, Pg. 21, Lines 27-30).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista (WO 2019138045 A1) and Liu (US 20150351457 A1, as cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Propheter-Hinckley (US 20190003333 A1).
With regard to Claim 3, Batista teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Batista is silent to:
Wherein the valve is configured such that the aperture is always at least partially open
Propheter-Hinckley, directed to a thermally driven spring valve, teaches where in various embodiments a thermally driven spring valve disposed in an air gas path may be at least partially open or at least partially closed [0031]. A person of ordinary skill in the would be motivated to modify the valve of modified Batista to be partially opened or partially closed for selectivity of a greater or reduced flow rate of air through the gas path [0031], meeting the claim limitation of wherein the valve is configured such that the aperture is always at least partially open.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the valve of modified Batista to wherein the valve is configured such that the aperture is always at least partially open because both Batista and Propheter-Hinckley are directed to providing efficient and smooth airflow. Propheter-Hinckley teaches a thermally driven spring valve that may be at least partially open or partially closed to allow for a greater or reduced flow rate of air through the gas path [0031] and this merely involves the use of a known actuation technique to improve similar valves in the same way.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista (WO 2019138045 A1) and Liu (US 20150351457 A1, as cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wu (CN 104964041 A, hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation),
With regard to Claim 4, modified Batista teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Wu is silent to:
Wherein the valve is configured such that the aperture closes below a threshold temperature
Wu, directed to a temperature control automatic valve, teaches wherein when a second gap is zero, a second cavity is not connected to a third cavity, and the temperature-controlled automatic valve is closed [0013]. When the second gap is zero, a memory elastic element is affected by a specific deformation temperature [0012] and a sliding block moves in a first direction driven by the memory elastic element to cover an opening [0008]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the valve of modified Batista to close based on a threshold temperature to better adjust the flow rate of the temperature-controlled automatic valve [0038], meeting the claim limitation of wherein the valve is configured such that the aperture closes below a threshold temperature.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the valve of modified Batista to wherein the valve is configured such that the aperture closes below a threshold temperature because both Batista and Wu are directed to providing an even and controlled amount of air through a device. Wu teaches a wherein a temperature-controlled automatic valve is closed based on reaching a deformation temperature to better adjust the flow rate of the temperature-controlled automatic [0038] and this merely involves applying a known temperature threshold technique to a similar valve ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 15, modified Batista teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Batista is silent to:
Wherein the valve is configured to adjust the size of the aperture as a function of temperature
Wu, directed to a temperature control automatic valve, teaches a temperature-controlled automatic valve with a plurality of sub-valves [0008], where each sub-valve has a temperature at which it deforms [0009]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that deformation of a valve component would change the spacing that defines the airflow path, therefore changing the size of the aperture formed by the airflow path and would be motivated to modify the aperture of modified Batista with similar deformation techniques based on temperature to offer a simple structure and higher reliability when it comes to controlling flow rate [0018].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the valve of modified Batista to be configured to adjust the size of the aperture as a function of temperature because both Batista and Wu are directed to controlling rate of flow. Wu teaches a plurality of sub-valves with deformation temperatures to offer a simple structure and higher reliability when it comes to controlling flow rate [0018] and this merely involves applying a known size altering technique to a similar valve ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 5, 6, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista (WO 2019138045 A1) and Liu (US 20150351457 A1, as cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ruider (DE 102018207582 A1, hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation)
With regard to Claim 5, modified Liu teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Liu is silent to:
Wherein the valve comprises a shape memory alloy in which the aperture is located
The shape memory alloy being configured to change shape as a function of temperature to adjust the size of the aperture
Ruider, directed to a valve regulating mass flow, (i) teaches a valve, wherein an aperture is located [0016], comprising an actuating spring made of shape memory alloy [0011], meeting the claim limitation of wherein the valve comprises a shape memory alloy in which the aperture is located. (ii) The shape memory alloy can be used to form or deform the position of an actuating spring based on temperature [0013], which forms or deform the orifice [0011]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the valve of modified Batista with the shape memory alloy of Ruider to help provide a similar function of controlling the rate of flow in the device [0013-0014], meeting the claim limitation of the shape memory alloy being configured to change shape as a function of temperature to adjust the size of the aperture.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the valve of modified Batista to comprise a shape memory alloy in which the aperture is located, being configured to change shape as a function of temperature to adjust the size of the aperture because both Batista and Ruider are directed to controlling airflow for an efficient output. Ruider teaches a valve, wherein the valve orifice comprising an actuating spring made of shape memory alloy to form or deform the position of the actuating spring based on temperature to control flow [0013] and this merely involves the use of a known material to improve similar valves in the same way.
With regard to Claim 6, modified Batista teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Batista is silent to:
Wherein the valve comprises a flexible rim surrounding the shape memory alloy
The flexible rim being configured to expand or contract to accommodate the change in shape of the memory alloy
PNG
media_image6.png
327
369
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Ruider teaches (i) wherein the valve comprises an adaptive valve orifice (Fig. 6: #1) comprising an actuating spring made of shape memory alloy [0011], meeting the claim limitation of wherein the valve comprises a flexible rim surrounding the shape memory alloy. (ii) The cross-sectional area of the valve orifice can be adjusted based on a flow medium activating a change in the shape memory alloy [0015], meeting the claim limitation of the flexible rim being configured to expand or contract to accommodate the change in shape of the memory alloy. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the valve of modified Batista with the valve orifice of Ruider to regulate or control the mass flow of the medium as a function of a temperature of the flow [0006].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the valve of modified Batista to comprise a flexible rim surrounding the shape memory alloy, configured to expand or contract to accommodate the change in shape of the memory alloy because both Batista and Ruider are directed to controlling airflow for an efficient output. Ruider teaches a shape memory alloy with a surrounding valve orifice, of a valve, that adapts with the shape of the shape memory alloy to regulate or control the mass flow of the medium as a function of a temperature of the flow [0006] and this merely involves applying a known outer structure to a known valve with a shape memory alloy ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 7, modified Batista teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Batista is silent to:
Wherein the aperture is circular
Wherein a radius of the aperture is adjustable to alter the airflow through the first airflow passage
PNG
media_image7.png
341
365
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Ruider teaches wherein (i) the aperture (Fig. 1: #1) is circular in shape. (ii) The aperture may have a large spring diameter or a small spring diameter [0010], based on temperature, to have high or low mass flow [0013-0014]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that an increase or decrease in diameter would directly correlate to an increase or decrease in radius of the aperture, since diameter is determined by radius. One would be motivated to modify the aperture of modified Batista with the adjustable characteristics of Ruider to regulate or control the mass flow as a function of a temperature of the flow [0006], meeting the claim limitation of wherein a radius of the aperture is adjustable to alter the airflow through the first airflow passage.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aperture of modified Batista to wherein a radius of the aperture is adjustable to alter the airflow through the first airflow passage because both Batista and Ruider are directed to controlling airflow for an efficient output. Ruider teaches an aperture that changes from large and small diameters based on temperature to regulate or control the mass flow of the medium as a function of a temperature of the flow [0006] and this merely involves applying a known size adjustable technique to a known aperture of a valve ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 13, modified Batista teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Batista is silent to:
An actuator, wherein the size of the aperture is adjustable by the actuator
Ruider teaches wherein the valve may have an actuating spring that changes size at a predetermined temperature [0013]. The actuating spring can support the aperture [0018] and correspond to the size of the aperture [0011]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the aperture of modified Batista to include the actuating spring of Ruider to serve as a temperature sensor and/or convert energy to motion [0015], in regards to the aperture, to adjust rate of flow.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the aperture of modified Batista to wherein the size of the aperture is adjustable by an actuator because both Batista and Ruider are directed to controlling airflow for an efficient output. Ruider teaches an actuating spring that corresponds to the size of the aperture to Ruider to serve as a temperature sensor and/or convert energy to motion [0015] and this merely involves the use of a known actuating technique to improve similar valves in the same way.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista (WO 2019138045 A1) and Liu (US 20150351457 A1, as cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Atkins (US 20200022417 A1).
With regard to Claim 11, modified Batista teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Batista is silent to:
Wherein the first airflow passage is arranged to transport air from the first air inlet in the housing through the aerosol generating device to mix with aerosol emerging from the heating chamber
Atkins, directed to a vaporizer device, teaches a secondary inlet that includes airflow that does not pass through the heater or vaporization chamber and, instead, merges with the airflow containing aerosol that has already passed through the vaporization chamber [0132]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the airflow technique of Atkins to the first airflow passage and first air inlet of modified Batista to allow for a greater flow rate before the airflow reaches the user [0133].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first airflow passage and first air inlet of modified Batista to wherein the first airflow passage is arranged to transport air from the first air inlet in the housing through the aerosol generating device to mix with aerosol emerging from the heating chamber because both Batista and Atkins are directed to aerosol generating device comprising inlets to bring external air into the device. Atkins teaches an air inlet that does not pass through a vaporization chamber before merging with airflow that did go through the vaporization chamber to allow for a greater flow rate before the airflow reaches the user [0133] and this merely involves the use of a known airflow merging technique to improve a similar aerosol generating device in the same way.
With regard to Claim 12, modified Batista teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Batista is silent to:
A second air flow passage arranged to transport air from a second air inlet in the housing to the heating chamber
Atkins teaches first and secondary inlets and airflow passageways, wherein air enters the device through the first inlet, through an airflow passageway, then through a heater [0132]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would art would be motivated to apply the function of the first air inlet and passageway of Atkins to the second inlet and passageway of modified Batista to effectively trigger a pressure sensor to activate a heating element and generate aerosol [0062, 0066].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of modified Batista to wherein a second air flow passage is arranged to transport air from a second air inlet in the housing to the heating chamber because both Batista and Atkins are directed to aerosol generating device comprising inlets to bring external air into the device. Atkins teaches an air inlet, of two air inlets, that brings external air into the device and through the heater for vaporization to effectively trigger a pressure sensor to activate a heating element and generate aerosol [0062, 0066] and this merely involves applying a known inlet technique to a similar aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista (WO 2019138045 A1), Liu (US 20150351457 A1, as cited in IDS dated 04/06/2023), and Ruider (DE 102018207582 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 13, and further in view of Sebastian (US 20180206552 A1).
With regard to Claim 14, modified Batista teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Batista is silent to:
Wherein the actuator comprises one of: a magnetic actuator; an electrical actuator; or an electro-mechanical actuator
Sebastian, directed to an aerosol delivery device, teaches an actuator that is configured to be heated with electrical current [0069]. The actuator is configured to change shape in response to the heat produced to displace an aerosol precursor composition toward an atomizer [0066], meeting the claim limitation of wherein the actuator comprises one of: a magnetic actuator; an electrical actuator; or an electro-mechanical actuator. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the type of actuator of modified Batista to include the electro-mechanical characteristics of the actuator of Sebastian because it offers an effective way of blocking flow from the reservoir to an atomizer [0067], similar to the path of airflow to a heating chamber in the claimed invention.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the type of actuator of modified Batista to be a magnetic actuator, electrical actuator, or an electro-mechanical actuator because both Batista and Sebastian are directed to regulating flow to improve user consumption. Sebastian teaches an actuator that moves and changes shape based on electrical current it receives from a power source to block flow from the reservoir to an atomizer [0067] and this merely involves applying a known actuation type to a known actuator ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWATOSIN O DIYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 am - 6 pm.
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, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. 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.
/O.O.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights