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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-13, 15-16, 18, and 21-24 are currently pending and are subject to this office action. Claims 1 and 3-6 are amended. Claims 22-24 are withdrawn. Claims 2, 14, 17, and 19-20 are canceled. This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 11/04/2025.
Response to Amendments
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 11/04/2025 containing amendments and remarks to the drawings and specification.
In response to Applicant’s amendments filed 11/04/2025 , the Examiner withdraws the objection to the drawings for including reference characters not mentioned in the description.
In response to Applicant’s amendments filed 11/04/2025 , the Examiner withdraws the objection to the specification for minor informalities.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 9-12, filed 11/04/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 1 to include a limitation that was not previously presented, specifically, “wherein the first part and the second part are relatively moveable about a pivot between the unaccommodated state and the accommodated state”. The Applicant argues that Bruton does not pivot between accommodated and unaccommodated states in which the volume changes and the first and second parts of Bruton are in the same position in both accommodated and unaccommodated states. Additionally, that combining Bruton and Batista is not obvious and would not arrive at the claimed invention when combined.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bruton explicitly discloses that the body (Fig. 1A: #104) and the lid (Fig. 1A: #106) are mounted for relative pivotable movement about a pivot axis. The pivotable movement is between a housing closed position and a housing open position in which the user can place aerosolizable material in a heating channel (Pg. 7, Lines 20-24). In the housing open position, the heating channel is accessible by the user to receive or remove an aerosolizable material. In the housing closed position, the heating channel either comprises an aerosolizable material or is empty. Therefore, both of the positions correspond to unaccommodated and accommodated states, as required by the claim.
Further, Bruton’s securing mechanism does not prevent pivotable movement, it secures the body (Fig. 1A: #104) and the lid (Fig. 1A: #103) in the housing closed position (Pg. 12, Lines 17-21). The body and the lid have already been pivotably moved into the closed position while the securing mechanism is being used, and it does not stop the open position of the housing. Furthermore, claim 1 does not recite limitations concerning airflow or operability of the device during movement between each state, as mentioned by the Applicant on page 11. The securing mechanism simply secures the parts after pivoting has occurred and can be released before being pivoted to an open housing position.
Additionally, Batista already discloses a device having a movable top cover relative to a main body for accommodating an aerosol-generating article. Bruton teaches that such relative movement may be achieved using a pivot mechanism. Substituting one known movement mechanism for another in a device performing the same function would have provides predictable results (MPEP(I)(B)) serves as a predictable use of prior art. Bruton further teaches that the pivotable movement may be implemented using a hinge, which is also a well-known alternative in the art.
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, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista (WO 2020148834 A1, as cited in IDS dated 02/06/2023) and further in view of Bruton (WO 2019238708 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
355
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
490
368
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 1, Batista, directed to an aerosol-generating device, teaches (i) an aerosol generating device in Figure 6 (Pg. 2, Line 7). (ii) The aerosol generating device comprises a heater (Fig. 5: #22) for producing inhalable aerosol (Pg. 4, Line 7). (iii) The device comprises locking means for holding a top cover of the device (Pg. 6, Lines 7-11), meeting the claim limitation of a first coupling
mechanism. (iv) The locking action takes place between the main body (Fig. 5: #10) and the top cover (Fig. 5: #12, Pg. 17, Lines 35-36), meeting the claim limitation of a first part and a second part moveably restrained with respect to each other by the first coupling mechanism. (v) The device comprises a cavity (Fig. 5: #16), that is made by the top cover moving relative to the main body (Pg. 17, Lines 9-12) where an aerosol generating article (Fig. 5: #50) is inserted into the cavity.
Batista further (vi) teaches the top cover (Fig. 5: #12) in a second position, relative to the main
body (Fig. 5: #10) without the aerosol generating material inserted. The top cover is retracted towards
the main body and held by the locking means (Pg. 18, Lines 23-25) meeting the claim limitation of
wherein the first part and the second part together occupy a first volume when the aerosol provision device is arranged in an unaccommodated state. (vii) Figure 5 shows the top cover (Fig. 5: #12) in a first
position, relative to the main body (Fig. 5: #10), wherein an aerosol generating article (Fig. 5: #50) is
inserted into the cavity (Fig. 5: #16). The top cover (Fig. 5: #12) and the main body (Fig. 5: #10) now
taking up more space than when the aerosol generating article was not inserted, meeting the claim
limitation of when the accommodation zone accommodates the article in an accommodated state of the aerosol provision device, the first part and the second part of the aerosol provision device together with the article occupy a second volume that is greater than the first volume. Batista teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however Batista is silent to:
Wherein the first part and the second part are relatively moveable about a pivot between the unaccommodated state and the accommodated state
PNG
media_image3.png
341
316
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bruton, directed to a device for heating and providing aerosolizable material, teaches a body (Fig. 1A: #104), meeting the claim limitation of a first part and a lid (Fig. 1A: #106), meeting the claim limitation of a second part. The body (Fig. 1A: #104) and the lid (Fig. 1A: #106) are mounted for relative pivotable movement about a pivot axis to bring the housing in a closed or opened position (Pg. 7, Lines 20-21). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the closed and opened positions of the housing would correspond to unaccommodated and accommodated states because both the open and closed positions of the housing allows for holding or absence of an aerosolizable article.
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 and second part of Batista to be relatively moveable about a pivot between the unaccommodated state and the accommodated state because both Batista and Bruton are directed to first and second parts that are movable relative to each other and decrease risks of burning. Bruton teaches a body and lid mounted for relative pivotable movement about a pivot axis to bring the housing in a closed or opened position (Pg. 7, Lines 20-21) and this merely involves simple substitution of one known movement mechanism for another to obtain predictable results.
With regard to Claim 3, modified Batista teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Batista is silent to:
Wherein the pivot is substantially parallel to a direction of a major dimension of the aerosol provision device
PNG
media_image3.png
341
316
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bruton teaches wherein the pivot axis (Fig. 1A: #116) is substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the device to bring the housing in a closed or opened position (Pg. 7, Lines 27).
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 pivot of Batista to be substantially parallel to a direction of a major dimension of the aerosol provision device because both Batista and Bruton are directed to first and second parts that are generally used to cover the rest of the device. Bruton teaches a pivot axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the device to bring the housing in a closed or opened position (Pg. 7, Lines 20-21) and this merely involves applying a known movement technique to a known first and second part of an aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 5, modified Batista teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Batista is silent to:
A hinge, wherein the hinge comprises the pivot
PNG
media_image3.png
341
316
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bruton teaches wherein the two parts, the body (Fig. 1a: #104) and the lid (Fig. 1a: #106), are mounted for relative pivotable movement to each other via a hinge mechanism (Pg. 7, Lines 28-29).
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 include a hinge, wherein the hinge comprises the pivot because both Batista and Bruton are directed to moveable first and second parts that are generally used to cover aerosol generating material. Bruton teaches two parts that are mounted via a hinge mechanism for relative pivotable movement (Pg. 7, Lines 28-29) and this merely involves the use of a known hinge feature to improve similar aerosol generating devices in the same way.
PNG
media_image2.png
490
368
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 7, Batista teaches wherein a top cover (Fig. 6: #12) is retracted towards the main body (Fig. 6: #10) and held by locking means (Pg. 20, Lines 3-5), in a second position, relating to a closed position, while the aerosol generating article is not accommodated in the cavity (Fig. 6: #16).
With regard to Claim 8, Batista teaches wherein the locking action of the locking means is between the top cover and the main body (Pg. 18, Lines 24-28)). A person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that since pressing of the top cover can also deactivate the locking means (Pg. 18, Lines 24-25), the main body would comprise the locking means to create the separation. One would be motivated to apply the locking means with the main body to control the position and security of the top cover relative to the main body.
With regard to Claim 9, modified Batista teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Batista is silent to:
Wherein the first coupling mechanism is configured to moveably restrain the article when the article is accommodated by the accommodation zone when the provision device is in the accommodated state
PNG
media_image3.png
341
316
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
266
237
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bruton teaches a pressing member (Fig. 3: #302), relating to a first coupling mechanism, in the lid (Fig. 1a: #106) which presses loose aerosolizable material (Fig. 3: #202, #204) into the elongate heating channel (Fig. 1a: #108) of the body (Fig. 1a: #108, Pg. 11, Lines 30-32) to ensure that loose aerosolizable material comes into close contact with large proportion of a heating arrangement (Fig. 3: #120, Pg. 11, Lines 19-22).
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 coupling mechanism of modified Batista to be configured to moveably restrain the article when the article is accommodated by the accommodation zone when the provision device is in the accommodated state because both Batista and Bruton are directed to moveable first and second parts that are joined, holding an aerosolizable material. Bruton teaches a pressing member which presses loose aerosolizable material into an elongate heating channel to ensure that loose aerosolizable material comes into close contact with large proportion of a heating arrangement (Pg. 11, Lines 19-22) and this merely involves the use of a known hinge feature to improve similar aerosol generating devices in the same way.
PNG
media_image1.png
508
355
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 10, Batista teaches wherein the aerosol generating article (Fig. 5: #50) is inserted into the cavity (Fig. 5: #16) of the top cover (Fig. 5: #12, Pg. 19-20, Lines 35-2). The aerosol generating article may be removed by using a releasing means (Pg. 12, Lines 8-9).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
355
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 11, Batista teaches a heater (Fig. 5: #22), relating to the claimed first portion of the aerosol provision device, mounted on the top cover (Fig. 5: #12). The heater penetrates into the middle of the aerosol generating article (Fig. 5: #50), relating to the claimed first portion of the article (Pg. 18, Lines 32-34).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
355
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 12, Batista teaches wherein the aerosol generating article (Fig. 5: #50) is inserted into the cavity (Fig. 5: #16), relating to the claimed second portion of the aerosol provision device that receives the heater (Fig. 5: #22), inside the top cover (Fig. 5: #12, Pg. 18, Lines 32-33).
With regard to Claim 15, Batista teaches wherein when the aerosol generating article (Fig. 5: #50) can be inserted into the cavity (Fig. 5: #16) of the device, the device can be operated an aerosol can be produced (Pg. 19-20, Lines 35-2). Modified Batista teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Batista is silent to:
Wherein the accommodation zone is located in a central region of the aerosol provision system
PNG
media_image3.png
341
316
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
266
237
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bruton teaches wherein a heating channel (Fig. 1a: #108), comprising loose aerosolizable material (Fig. 3: #202, #204), is located centrally relative to the device (Fig. 1a: #100) when in the closed position, to heat the loose aerosolizable material (Pg. 8, Lines 9-12) and generate a flow of aerosol to the centered mouthpiece (Fig. 1a: #122) for inhalation by a user (Pg. 6, Lines 27-28).
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 the accommodation zone is located in a central region of the aerosol provision system because both Batista and Bruton are directed to moveable first and second parts that are joined, holding an aerosolizable material. Bruton teaches a heating channel located centrally relative to the device to heat loose aerosolizable material (Pg. 8, Lines 9-12) and generate a flow of aerosol to the centered mouthpiece for inhalation by a user (Pg. 6, Lines 27-28) and this merely involves applying a known positioning technique to a known aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
PNG
media_image2.png
490
368
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 16, Batista teaches wherein the cavity (Fig. 6: #16) is located longitudinally relative to the length of the device.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista (WO 2020148834 A1, as cited in IDS dated 02/06/2023) and Bruton (WO 2019238708 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fallon (US 20190098930 A1)
With regard to Claim 4, Batista teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however Batista is silent to:
PNG
media_image5.png
200
440
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fallon, directed to an apparatus for heating aerosol generating material, teaches a lid section (Fig. 2: #9) that is arranged to pivot with respect to a heater support section (Fig. 2: #7), about a hinge arrangement [0056]. Figure 1 shows where the pivot is parallel to a width of the device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the pivot direction of Fallon to Batista so that a user can bring the lid section closer to the heating surface of a heater [0010].
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 pivot of Batista to be substantially parallel to a direction of a minor dimension of the aerosol provision device because both Batista and Fallon are directed to first and second parts that cover a heating portion of the device. Fallon teaches a pivot parallel to a width of the device so that a user can bring the lid section closer to the heating surface of a heater [0010] and this merely involves applying a known movement technique to a known first and second part of an aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista (WO 2020148834 A1, as cited in IDS dated 02/06/2023) and Bruton (WO 2019238708 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bouchuiguir (WO 2020225101 A1)
With regard to Claim 6, modified Batista teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Batista is silent to:
A flexible member, wherein the flexible member comprises the pivot
Bouchuiguir, directed to an aerosol delivery system, teaches a resilient element that uses a linear compression spring which pivots around a second end of the resilient element (Pg. 20, Lines 10-12). A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to include the elastic element of Bouchuiguir with the pivot of Batista to resist part of the movement between the positions of the two parts from moving to an open position when in a closed position and vice versa (Pg. 4, Lines 1-9).
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 pivot of modified Batista to wherein a flexible member comprises the pivot because both Batista and Bouchuiguir are directed to two parts that perform an open and closing action in aerosol generation devices. Bouchuiguir teaches a resilient member that uses a spring which pivots to resist part of the movement between the positions of the two parts from moving to an open position when in a closed position and vice versa (Pg. 4, Lines 1-9) and this merely involves applying a known flexible component with a pivot to a known aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista (WO 2020148834 A1, as cited in IDS dated 02/06/2023) and Bruton (WO 2019238708 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (CN 110720667 A, hereinafter citations referring to English language equivalent US 20210112852 A1)
With regard to Claim 13, modified Batista teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Batista is silent to:
Wherein the aerosol provision device is substantially annular
PNG
media_image6.png
428
325
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Chen, directed to an aerosol generating product, device, and system teaches an annular shaped aerosol-generating system (Fig. 6: #10). The aerosol generating article (Fig. 6: #100) is disposed in the accommodating cavity (Fig. 6: #204). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the annular shape of Chen to the device of Batista to match the shape of the aerosol generating article.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to modify the device of modified Batista to be substantially annular because both Batista and Chen are directed to aerosol generating articles being received in ring-shaped cavities. Chen teaches an annular shaped aerosol-generating system to properly retain the aerosol generating article and this merely involves the use of a known device shape to improve similar aerosol generating devices in the same way.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista (WO 2020148834 A1, as cited in IDS dated 02/06/2023) and Bruton (WO 2019238708 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reevell (US 20190166909 A1)
With regard to Claim 18, modified Batista teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Batista is silent to:
Wherein the accommodation zone is relative in size
Wherein the size of the accommodation zone is dependent on a relative position of the first part and the second part
PNG
media_image7.png
203
357
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
215
408
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Reevell, directed to an aerosol generating device with securing means, teaches (i) a cavity (Fig. 1E: #116) for receiving an aerosol-generating article (Fig. 1E: #10) with moveable walls (Fig. 1E: #114) that define the cavity (Fig. 1E: #116, [0082]). (ii) The first and second moveable walls (Fig. 1E: #114) on the side of the cavity (Fig. 1E: #116) define the cavity and changes in size seen between Figure 1D and Figure 1E. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the relative positioning of the first and second moveable walls with respect to the cavity of Reevell to Batista to avoid difficulty for the user and reduce the risk of damage to the aerosol-generating article when it is inserted into the aerosol-generating device [0003].
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 accommodation zone of modified Batista to be variable in size and wherein the size of the accommodation zone is dependent on a relative position of the first part and the second part because both Batista and Reevell are dedicated to first and second parts of a device that define a cavity for receiving an article generating substrate. Reevell teaches a cavity that changes in size relative to the position of first and second moveable walls to reduce the risk of damage to the aerosol-generating article when it is inserted into the aerosol-generating device [0003] and this merely involves applying a known size changing cavity to a known aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista (WO 2020148834 A1, as cited in IDS dated 02/06/2023) and \ Bruton (WO 2019238708 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (US 20190223503 A1)
With regard to Claim 21, modified Batista teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Batista is silent to:
Wherein the first part and the second part are detachable from each other
Liu, directed to an electronic cigarette, teaches a top cover that is detachably connected with a bottom cover [0083]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the detached feature of Liu to Batista to be able to replace internal elements of the device [0019].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to modify the first and second part of modified Batista to be detachable from each other because both Batista and Liu are directed to two-part devices that reduce risk of leakage and burned tastes or smells in aerosol generating devices. Liu teaches a top cover detachably connected with a bottom cover to be able to replace internal elements of the device and this merely involves applying a known detachment method to a first and second part of a known aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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