DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-15 and 17-18 in the reply filed on 8/11/2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-4, 6-10, 13-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plojoux (US 2015/0013696) in view of Desnerck (WO 2019/238812)
Regarding claims 1-4, Plojoux teaches an aerosol provision device comprising: a device housing 113 [Fig. 1; 0090] defining a device chamber [region surrounding heating element 115 in Fig. 3]; a heating element 115 protruding into the device chamber from an end 117 of the device chamber [0090; Fig. 3]; a receptacle 105 defining a heating chamber arranged to receive at least a portion of a consumable 201 comprising aerosolizable material 2-3 [0089, 0091; Fig. 1 and 2A]; and wherein the receptacle is at least partially removably disposed within the device chamber [0095]. The receptacle comprises a face (base) and the heating element 115 is arranged to protrude through the base into the heating chamber and the base comprises an aperture through which the heating element extends [Fig. 1; 0033, 0036, 0037].
Plojoux does not teach a contact feature arranged to make sliding contact with the heating element during removal of the receptacle from the device chamber. Desnerck teaches an aerosol-generating device wherein an opening through which a heating element extends is configured as a narrow slit that enables movement of the heating element and may scrape off residues of aerosol-generating substrate from the heating element during movement of the heating element [page 3, lines 21-33]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the aperture through which the heating element extends in the device of Plojoux to be a narrow slit that enables movement of the heating element and may scrape off residues of aerosol-generating substrate from the heating element during movement of the heating element, i.e. a contact feature arranged to make sliding contact with the heating element during removal of the receptacle from the device chamber, the base forms the contact feature and the contact feature is defined by at least part of a side of the aperture, for the benefit of cleaning the heating element.
Regarding claim 6, Plojoux teaches the base locates at the end of the device chamber [Fig. 1].
Regarding claim 7, Plojoux teaches the receptacle 105 further comprises a wall [side wall along location of 105 arrow in Fig 1] projecting from the base to define the heating chamber that encircles the heating element 115 protruding into the heating chamber.
Regarding claim 8, Plojoux teaches the receptacle comprises a flange 107 (lip) configured to protrude from the device chamber [Fig. 1].
Regarding claim 9, Plojoux teaches the receptacle is removably secured in the device chamber [0125].
Regarding claim 10, Desnerck teaches the heating element is retractable from the device chamber as part of the mechanism for scraping off residues of aerosol-generating substrate from the heating element [page 3, lines 21-33], which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to the device of Plojoux for the same reasons with respect to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 13-15, Plojoux teaches the heating element is pin-shaped or blade-shaped [0123]. Thus, in modified Plojoux, the sides of the aperture are sized and shaped to make sliding contact with the substantially blade-shaped heating element.
Regarding claim 17, Plojoux teaches the aerosol provision device is a non-combustible aerosol provision device [0008, 0031].
Regarding claim 18, Plojoux teaches the aerosol provision device is configured to heat non-liquid aerosolisable material [0050].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plojoux and Desnerck as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Murray (US 2022/0022537).
Modified Plojoux does not teach the base comprises a resilient member. Murray teaches a smoking substitute apparatus wherein a resilient member performs a scraping function [1243]. As modified Plojoux as applied above teaches the base performs a scraping function, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the base of modified Plojoux to comprise a resilient member as suggested by Murray to achieve the same, predictable result of scraping off residues from the heating element.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plojoux and Desnerck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taurino (US 2021/0251286).
Plojoux teaches the heating element comprises an inductive heating element [0025] but does not disclose further details. Mironov teaches an aerosol-generating system wherein an inductive heating element comprises a susceptor which is heatable by penetration with a varying magnetic field and an inductor coil extending around the susceptor, wherein the inductor coil is configured to generate the varying magnetic field [0075-0076]. As this is a conventional arrangement for an inductive heating element known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use for the inductive heating element of modified Plojoux to achieve predictable results, i.e. inductive heating of the aerosolizable material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755