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 1-8, 10-11, 13-17, and 21-23 are pending and are subject to this office action. Claims 1 and 21 are amended.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed on 03/18/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 21 to specify that the heating element is a susceptor. Therefore, the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9-10, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pg. 9, Applicant argues that Lee does not discloses all the features required by amended claim 1. The Examiner disagrees. Lee discloses an aerosol provision device (Fig. 8, Fig. 9, [0110-0117]) comprising all of the elements required by claim 1, as detailed in the updated rejection below. The Examiner notes that the Applicant has not specifically pointed out which limitations Lee fails to disclose. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
The rejections below are maintained and modified based on Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-6, 8, 10, 13-14, 16-17, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) for being anticipated by Lee (US 20200154765 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an aerosol provision device (Fig. 8, Fig. 9, [0113-0114]) comprising:
A heating chamber (cavity defined by path 20) for receiving a cigarette (7, Fig. 8, [0114]),
A heating element (heater 30) for heating the cigarette (7) received in the heating chamber (20, Fig. 8, [0114]),
A base (bottom wall 29) at one end of the heating chamber (20) and defining a floor of the heating chamber (20, Fig. 8, Fig. 9, [0115]), and;
A spacer (bottom protrusions 226) that creates a space between the cigarette (7) and the base (bottom wall 29, Fig. 8, Fig. 9, [0116]).
The bottom protrusions (226) form a recess in the base (bottom wall 29), the recess extending from the upper surface of the bottom protrusions (226) formed in the floor (29) of the heating chamber (20, Fig. 8, [0110-0117]).
PNG
media_image1.png
690
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to the limitation, “a recess for collecting fluid received in the heating chamber”, Lee does not explicitly disclose the recess in the base is used for collecting fluid. However, the recessed space in the base (29) would be capable of collecting at least some fluid received in the heating chamber (20, Fig 8) and therefore reads on the limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the spacer (bottom protrusions 226) is a protrusion protruding into the heating chamber (path 20, Fig. 8, [0116-0117]).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses the spacer comprises a plurality of protrusions (bottom protrusions 226, Fig. 8, Fig. 9, [0116-0117]).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses the plurality of protrusions (bottom protrusions 226) are distributed around the heating chamber (20, Fig. 8, Fig. 9, [0116-0117]).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the protrusions (226) extend from the base (bottom wall 29, Fig. 8, Fig. 9, [0116-0117]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses protrusions (225) on the inner wall of the heating chamber (20) that protrude into the heating chamber (20) and are spaced from the base (29, Fig. 8, Fig. 9, [0120]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the inner wall protrusions (225) would be capable of spacing the cigarette (7) from the base when the cigarette (7) is partially inserted into the chamber (20, Fig. 8, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the heating element (heater 30) upstands from the base (bottom wall 29, Fig. 8, Fig. 9, [0118]).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses a receptable (casing 210) which defines the heating chamber (cavity defined by path 20), where the base (bottom wall 29) is part of the receptable (210, Fig. 8, Fig. 9, [0114-0115]).
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses the receptacle (casing 210) defines an air passage (25p extending from end 20f to 20r) to provide airflow to the heating chamber (20, Fig. 8, Fig. 9, [0104, 0115-0116, 0121]).
The rejections of claims 14, 16, and 17 are made in reference to the below annotated Fig. 8.
PNG
media_image2.png
793
745
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses an air outlet into the heating chamber (20) where the air outlet is defined in the base (29), as illustrated in the annotated Fig. 8 above.
The specification discloses the gap (G) between the inner wall (231b) of the receptacle (230) and the base (233) defines the air outlet (251, Fig. 4B, pg. 15). However, claims 10, and 13-14 do not require the receptacle is a separate component from the heating chamber. Claim 14 merely requires an air outlet into the heating chamber defined in the base. Therefore, the bottom end of the air passage (25p) is considered to meet the claim limitation of air outlet.
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses an air outlet into the heating chamber (20) where the air outlet at least partially disposed between the base (29) and article locating face of the spacer (225), as illustrated in the annotated Fig. 8 above.
The specification discloses the gap (G) between the inner wall (231b) of the receptacle (230) and the base (233) defines the air outlet (251, Fig. 4B, pg. 15). However, claims 10, 13-14 do not require the receptacle is a separate component from the heating chamber. Claim 14 merely requires an air outlet into the heating chamber defined in the base. Therefore, the bottom end of the air passage (25p) is considered to meet the claim limitation of air outlet.
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses air is supplied to the bottom surface (7d) of the cigarette (7) through the space between the base (29) and the bottom protrusions (226, Fig. 8, [0121]) which is in a radial direction relative to the longitudinal axis of the receptacle (210). Therefore, the air outlet provided at the distal end of the air passage is arranged to introduce airflow into the heating chamber in a radial direction.
Regarding claim 22, Lee discloses an opening (21) at the proximal end of the heating chamber (20) and the base (29) is at the distal end of the heating chamber (20), where the heating chamber (20) has a uniform cross section along the length of a receptable (casing 210) defining the heating chamber (20, Fig. 8, [0116-0117]).
Regarding claim 23, The bottom protrusions (226) form a well in the base (bottom wall 29, Fig. 8, [0110-0117]).
In regards to the limitation, “a well configured to collect liquid collated in the heating chamber”, Lee does not explicitly disclose the well is used for collecting fluid. However, the well in the base (29) would be capable of collecting at least some fluid received in the heating chamber (20, Fig 8).
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.
Claims 7, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200154765 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses an embodiment where the spacer (protrusions 726) forms a shoulder into the heating chamber (20, Fig. 16, [0159, 0162]).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses an embodiment comprising a device housing (outer container 13, Fig. 2, [0070-0073]). The housing (13) is depicted as a separate component from the receptable (12) which reasonably suggests the receptable (12) is removable from the device housing (13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the embodiments disclosed by Lee by applying the housing (outer container 13, Fig. 2) to the aerosol generating device disclosed in Fig. 8 to arrive at a device comprising a receptacle removable from the device housing.
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses an embodiment where the air outlet defined by the bottom end of the air passage (20r) is non symmetrical about the longitudinal axis of the heating chamber (20) as the gap between spacer (protrusions 725) and the base (29) varies along the circumferential direction of the heating chamber (20, Fig. 16, Fig. 17, [0160]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200154765 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Park (US 20230346032 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Lee discloses the heating element may be a resistive heater ([0179]).
Lee does not explicitly disclose the heating element is a susceptor.
However, Park, directed to an aerosol generating device (100, Fig. 1), discloses:
A heating element in the form of a susceptor (110) and an inductor coil (130) for generating a varying magnetic field to heat the susceptor (110, Fig. 1, [0048, 0058, 0062])
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee by substituting the resistive heating arrangement with an inductive heating arrangement comprising a susceptor and inductor coil as taught by Park because both Lee and Park are directed to aerosol generating devices, Lee teaches a resistive heating arrangement and Park teaches an inductive heating arrangement, and this involves substituting one known heating arrangement for another in a similar device to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MORGAN FAITH DEZENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-0155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-430pm 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.
/M.F.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights