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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 29 June 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 29 June 2026:
Claims 1-14 are pending
Claims 1 and 5 are amended
Claims 12-14 are new
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to the claims filed 29 June 2026 have been acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 29 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
On Pages 5-6 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant has amended Claim 1 to further recite a new limitation wherein the sliding engagement between the sliding block and the cover causes the sliding block to translate transverse to a direction of travel of the cover as the cover moves between the closed and open positions. Applicant argues that neither Wei or Guan discloses the transversal movement as their disclosed cover rotates relative to the device and sliding block.
Examiner agrees with the Applicant’s arguments and therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gong (Publication No. CN208768968U).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 5-7 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gong (Publication No. CN208768968U, see provided English translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Gong discloses an aerosol generation device (Abstract; Portable smoker), comprising:
an aerosol generation chamber (Tobacco bowl mounting slot 7) configured to receive and heat an aerosol-forming substrate (i.e., tobacco) to generate aerosol (i.e., smoke) (Fig. 2; Abstract; [0015]; the slot receives a bowl component which contains tobacco; heat is delivered to the bowl when it is properly in the slot and therefore the slot is considered equivalent to the aerosol generation chamber);
a cover (Door 11) which can be moved into a first position (i.e., closed position) that closes (i.e., covering) the aerosol generation chamber (7) (see Figs. 2-3; [0015]; the door slides downwards to push and cover the tobacco bowl inside the mounting slot; considered equivalent to a first closed position);
and in a second position (i.e., open position) that at least partially exposes or opens the aerosol generation chamber (7) (see Figs. 2-3; [0015]; the door slides open to push the tobacco bowl outside of the mounting slot which is no longer covered by the door and therefore is considered to be in an opened state);
and an ejection mechanism having a lever (10) and a sliding block (Tobacco bowl 4) slidingly engaged with the cover (11) (Figs. 2-3; [0015]; the lever is slidingly engaged with the housing and the tobacco bowl; the tobacco bowl is pushed by the lever’s motion and therefore is considered equivalent to a sliding block);
the lever is at least partially engaged with the cover (11) so as to eject at least a portion of the substrate (i.e., tobacco) out of the aerosol generation chamber (7) when the cover (11) is in the second (i.e., open) position (Figs. 3-4; [0015]; the lever is engaged with the tobacco bowl and lever components; Gong notes that the extension of the bowl makes cleaning tobacco residue easier which implies that the tobacco substrate is ejected when the bowl is extended);
the sliding engagement between the sliding block (4) and the cover (11) causes the sliding block (4) to translate transverse to a direction of travel of the cover (11) as the cover moves between the closed and open positions (see Figs. 2-3; [0015]; the cover slides which operates the lever to also push/slide the tobacco bowl block; the direction of the protruding sliding bowl block is shown to be perpendicular/transverse to the sliding direction of door cover);
wherein the ejection mechanism is configured to be in an ejected state (i.e., smoking bowl is extended outwards) in which the substrate (i.e., tobacco) protrudes from the aerosol generation chamber (7) (see annotated Fig. 3; [0015]; though the tobacco substrate is not explicitly disclosed, the tobacco bowl implies that there is tobacco in the bowl; the figures appear to indicate this too where a substrate appears to be illustrated to be protruding out of the tobacco bowl);
PNG
media_image1.png
807
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and in a non-ejected state (i.e., tobacco bowl is inserted into slot chamber 7) in which the substrate (i.e., tobacco) is fully contained by the aerosol generation chamber (7) (see Fig. 2; when the tobacco bowl is fully inserted into the bowl slot/aerosol generating chamber slot; the door is shown to completely cover the bowl and slot chamber; this also implies the tobacco substrate within the bowl would be fully contained in the chamber);
and the ejection mechanism translates from the non-ejected state to the ejected state when the cover (11) is moved from the first (i.e., closed) position to the second (i.e., open) position, thereby ejecting the substrate (i.e., tobacco) by rotating the lever (10) about a fixed axis of rotation (see Figs. 2-3; [0015]; the lever is disclosed to be pivotally connected to a rotating shaft on the housing which indicates that there is a rotational movement of the lever about a fixed axis via the rotating shaft).
Regarding Claim 2, Gong further discloses when the cover (11) is moved from the second (i.e., open) position to the first (i.e., closed) position, the lever (10) rotates back to an original position so as to enter the non-ejected state, in which the substrate is fully inserted into the aerosol generation chamber (7) (see Figs. 2-3; [0015]; the lever is operable such that the tobacco bowl sliding block containing the tobacco substrate can be moved in and out of the housing and bowl slot chamber shown in the figures).
Regarding Claim 3, Gong does not explicitly disclose the cover (11) is configured to be in an intermediate (i.e., third) position between the second (i.e., open) position and the first (i.e., closed) position;
the lever (10) does not rotate when the cover (11) is moved from the first (i.e., closed) position to the intermediate position;
and the lever (10) ejects the substrate (i.e., tobacco) by rotating when the cover (11) is moved from the intermediate position to the second (i.e., open) position.
However, it should be noted that Gong discloses that the lever (10) is position in actuation grooves (23/24) on either end of said lever (Figs. 2-3; [0016]). The grooves, in particular the actuation groove 24 located on the cover (11) is spaced such that the lever is not actuated until the cover itself slides completely open so that the lever is outside of the groove (see Figs. 2-3; it can be seen that the lever rotates due to the protrusion on the groove pushing on said lever).
Therefore, one ordinarily skilled in the art would recognize that if the cover is operated such that it only partially slides towards the open position of the cover (see Fig. 4 for open position), then the lever would not be operated as it would still be within the actuating groove (24) until the cover is fully moved to the open position. Thus, it is implied that Gong’s cover has a third intermediate position wherein the cover only partially slides such that the lever does not leave the actuating groove, subsequently leading the substrate to not be ejected.
Regarding Claim 5, Gong further discloses the ejection mechanism further comprises a sliding track (Slot 7), and the sliding block (4) is arranged to slide in the sliding track so as to trigger rotation of the lever (10) (Figs. 2-3; [0015]; the slot 7 is considered an aerosolizing chamber since the sliding block bowl is disposed in the slot to be heated; it is also equivalent to the sliding track as the sliding block bowl also moves/slides along the slot in response to the rotation of the lever).
Regarding Claim 6, Gong further discloses a fixing mechanism (i.e., rotating shaft) is configured to cause the lever (10) to mechanically engage with the sliding block (4) so that the lever rotates when the sliding block slides and vice versa (Figs. 2-3; [0015]; the lever is pivotally connected to a rotating shaft which is considered equivalent to a fixing mechanism; the lever is engaged with both the tobacco bowl block and cover to cause sliding motion to eject the bowl).
Regarding Claim 7, Gong further discloses a protrusion (Actuation groove 24) of the cover (11) is slidingly engaged with an end of the sliding block (4) so that when the cover (11) is moved from the closed position to the open position, or from the open position to the closed position, the lever (10) is pressed down or lifted up, respectively (see Figs. 2-3; [0015]; the actuation groove forms protrusions on either end of the groove; the figures show that when the cover slides, the groove’s protrusions push the lever to move the bowl sliding block).
Regarding Claim 12, Gong further discloses the sliding block (4) is further configured to translate parallel to a direction of travel of the substrate (i.e., tobacco) as the cover (11) moves between the closed and open positions (see Figs. 2-3; the sliding block is a bowl that contains the substrate tobacco wherein the sides of the bowl are parallel with the substrate; the block and bowl moves in the same direction and therefore are considered to be in parallel with each other).
PNG
media_image1.png
807
771
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Gong further discloses the direction of travel of the substrate (i.e., tobacco) is transverse to a longitudinal axis of the aerosol generation device (see Figs. 2-3; the tobacco bowl and tobacco substrate move along the horizontal axis of the device).
Regarding Claim 14, Gong further discloses the direction of travel of the cover (11) is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the aerosol generation device (see Figs. 2-3; the cover is shown to move up and down relative to the longitudinal axis of the device).
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 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (Publication No. CN208768968U, see provided English translation) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Wei (Publication No. US20220202072A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Gong discloses the lever (10) is attached to the side of the sliding block (4) (see Figs. 2-3). Gong does not disclose the lever at least partially defines a bottom surface of the aerosol generation chamber.
However, Wei directed to an aerosol-generating device, discloses a main body (10) comprising a heating chamber (14) for receiving an aerosol-forming substrate which is covered by a mouthpiece (12) (Figs. 2A-C; Abstract). The mouthpiece is connected to a lever (28) which further comprises a piston (30) at least partially defines a bottom surface of the aerosol generation chamber (14) to push and move the substrate upwards to the opening(see Figs. 2A-B; [0093]; the piston is disclosed to extend into the heating generation chamber and positioned at the base/bottom surface); piston is illustrated to define said bottom/base surface of said heating generation chamber). The piston allows the substrate to be ejected via pushing force out of the heating chamber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the lever and heating/aerosolizing chamber slot disclosed by Gong so that the lever has an additional piston component that defines the chamber’s bottom as disclosed by Wei, as both are directed to an aerosol-generating device, where this involves one ordinarily skilled in the art applying a known lever ejection mechanism set-up disclosed by Wei, to another lever ejection mechanism disclosed by Gong, to predictably yield a heating chamber with a piston-defined bottom that is capable of pushing against the sliding block bowl to eject a substrate material).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (Publication No. CN208768968U, see provided English translation) as applied to Claims 5 and 7 above, and further in view of Hanyu (Publication No. US6234813B1).
Regarding Claim 8, Gong does not explicitly disclose parts of the ejection mechanism comprises metal material. However, it should be noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness (see MPEP § 2144.07). For example, Hanyu, directed to an ejection mechanism, discloses the mechanism comprises a sliding ejection rod (i.e., sliding block) that comprises a metal piece.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to select a metal material to construct parts of an ejection mechanism, and reasonably expect that the ejection mechanism will be capable of operating its ejecting components to eject a product.
Regarding Claim 11, Gong does not explicitly disclose the ejection mechanism’s sliding block comprises metal material. However, it should be noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness (see MPEP § 2144.07). For example, Hanyu, directed to an ejection mechanism, discloses the mechanism comprises a sliding ejection rod (i.e., sliding block) that comprises a metal piece.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to select a metal material to construct parts of an ejection mechanism such as the sliding block, and reasonably expect that the ejection mechanism will be capable of operating its ejecting components to eject a product.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong (Publication No. CN208768968U, see provided English translation) as applied to Claim 5 above, and further in view of An (Publication No. US20200245681A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Gong does not disclose the cover or its protrusions to be made of metal material. However, it should be noted that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness (see MPEP § 2144.07). For example, An, directed to an aerosol-generating device, discloses that metal material can be incorporated into a cover [0060].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to select a metal material to construct a cover and its subsequent protrusion parts and reasonably expect that the cover and its protrusions will still be able to operate as a cover for an aerosol-generating device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vu P Pham whose telephone number is (703)756-4515. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (7:30AM-4:00PM EST).
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.
/V.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights