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. 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. Claim(s) 17- 19 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Pasquine et al. (US 3,490,461) . Regarding claim 17 , Pasquine discloses: An aerosol-generating article for generating an inhalable aerosol upon heating , ([ c ol 4 lines 15-20] Fig 1) , the aerosol-generating article having a proximal end and a distal end and comprising: a first aerosol-generating substrate located between the distal end and the proximal end of the aerosol-generating article , (Fig 1 ref 14 tobacco cylinder) ; a first air inlet configured to admit air into the aerosol-generating article , (Fig 1 the distal end of ref 14 comprises an axial inlet) ; a second aerosol-generating substrate located between the first aerosol- generating substrate and the proximal end of the aerosol-generating article , ([col2-3 lines 71-4]) ; a second air inlet configured to admit air into the aerosol-generating article , ([col 5 lines 2-4] Fig 1 ref 28) ; a first airflow pathway extending from the first air inlet through the first aerosol generating substrate towards the proximal end of the aerosol-generating article , (Fig 1) ; and a second airflow pathway extending from the second air inlet through the second aerosol-generating substrate towards the proximal end of the aerosol-generating article , (Fig 1) , wherein the first airflow pathway and the second airflow pathway are isolated from one another , ([col 2 lines 33-38]) . Regarding claim 18 , Pasquine discloses: The aerosol-generating article according to claim 17, wherein the first air inlet is further configured to admit air into the aerosol-generating article in an axial direction , (Fig 1 depicts the first air inlet is in an axial direction) . Regarding claim 19 , Pasquine discloses: The aerosol-generating article according to claim 17, wherein the second air inlet is further configured to admit air into the aerosol-generating article in a radial direction , (Fig 1 depicts the second inlet is in a radial direction) . Regarding claim 29 , Pasquine discloses: The aerosol-generating article according to claim 17, wherein a composition of the first aerosol-generating substrate , ([col 4 line 16] a cylinder of tobacco) is different from a composition of the second aerosol-generating substrate , ([col 3 lines 1-2] suggesting menthol) . Regarding claim 30 , Pasquine discloses: The aerosol-generating article according to claim 17, wherein one or both of the first aerosol-generating substrate comprises tobacco material , ([col 4 line 16]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. Claim(s) 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasquine et al. (US 3,490,461) . Regarding claim 20 , Pasquine discloses: The aerosol-generating article according to claim 19 . Pasquine discloses that the second aerosol generating substrate is provided in an outer axial airflow channel and Pasquine does not limit the amount of the second aerosol generating substrate so provided, ([col 2-3 lines 72-4]). Pasquine does not explicitly disclose that an axial airflow channel is provided in the second aerosol-generating substrate provided within the outer axial airflow channel . It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Pasquine to provide the maximum amount of second aerosol generating substrate possible, to achieve the greatest amount of aerosol flavoring possible. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that filling the outer axial airflow channel with the second aerosol generating substrate, and incorporating a small airflow channel through the substrate, would provide the most amount of second aerosol generating substrate possible, while still allowing air to flow through the outer axial airflow channel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have believed doing so would be successful, because structurally all the required elements of the aerosol generating article would still be present, and thus had a reasonable belief that the modification would be successful. Regarding claim 21 , modified Pasquine discloses: The aerosol-generating article according to claim 20, wherein the first airflow pathway extends through the axial airflow channel provided in the second aerosol- generating substrate , (Fig 1 depicting a first airflow pathway extending through the center of the surrounding axial airflow channel) . Regarding claim 22 , modified Pasquine discloses: The aerosol-generating article according to claim 20, further comprising a first hollow tubular element located between the first aerosol- generating substrate and the second aerosol-generating substrate, wherein the first hollow tubular element comprises an axial airflow channel and an air-impermeable wall , ([col 2 lines 33-38] Fig 1 depicting a first hollow tubular element, comprising an axial airflow channel, where the tube wall is air impenetrable) Regarding claim 23 , modified Pasquine discloses: The aerosol-generating article according to claim 22, wherein the first airflow pathway extends through the axial airflow channel of the first hollow tubular element , (Fig 1 depicting a first airflow pathway extending through the center of the first hollow tubular element) . Claim(s) 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasquine et al. (US 3,490,461) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Holford (US 2023/0337725 A1) . Regarding claim 24 , Pasquine discloses: The aerosol-generating article according to claim 17, disclosing a hollow tubular element, wherein the hollow tubular element comprises an inner axial airflow channel and an outer axial airflow channel , and extends to the proximal end of the aerosol generating article. Pasquine discloses that the second aerosol generating substrate is provided in an outer axial airflow channel and Pasquine does not limit the amount of the second aerosol generating substrate so provided, ([col 2-3 lines 72-4]). Holford teaches a component for use in a non-combustible provision system, ([0004]), and is thus within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Holford teaches a similar arrangement of an inner tube contained in an outer tube, where there are separate axial flow channels provided in the inner tube and between the outer tube and the inner tube, ([0076]-[0081]). Holford discloses that the outer channel may contain a fibrous material, ([0106]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filingdate of the claimed invention, to have modified Pasquine to provide the maximum amount of second aerosol generating substrate possible, to achieve the greatest amount of aerosol flavoring possible. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that filling the outer axial airflow channel with the second aerosol generating substrate, and incorporating a small airflow channel through the substrate, would provide the most amount of second aerosol generating substrate possible, while still allowing air to flow through the outer axial airflow channel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have believed doing so would be successful, because structurally all the required elements of the aerosol generating article would still be present, and thus had a reasonable belief that the modification would be successful. It would be obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Pasquine , and provide a second hollow tubular element comprising an inner and outer tube and with porous material in the outer tube to contain the second substrate in the aerosol generating article, until it is aerosolized. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the possibility that the second aerosol generating substrate may move towards the proximate end if no impediment is provided to contain the second aerosol generating substrate. Holford teaches that putting a porous filter material in the outer tube will not impair the functioning of the article. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably believed that placing a second hollow tubular element configured with a porous medium would aid in containing the second aerosol generating substrate, and believed this improvement would be successful. Regarding claim 25 , modified Pasquine discloses: The aerosol-generating article according to claim 24, wherein the first airflow pathway extends through the inner axial channel of the second hollow tubular element and the second airflow pathway extends through the outer axial airflow channel of the second hollow tubular element , (the modification of claim 24 comprises a second hollow tubular element where the pathways of the first tubular element are extended, meeting these limitations) . Regarding claim 26 -27 , modified Pasquine discloses: The aerosol-generating article according to claim 17 . Modified Pasquine discloses the aerosol generating article of claim 25 above. Pasquine does not disclose a mixing chamber located between the second aerosol-generating substrate and the proximal end of the aerosol-generating article, wherein the first airflow pathway extends from the first air inlet through the first aerosol-generating substrate to the mixing chamber and the second airflow pathway extends from the second air inlet through the second aerosol-generating substrate to the mixing chamber. Holford teaches a mixing chamber located between the second aerosol-generating substrate and the proximal end of the aerosol-generating article, wherein the first airflow pathway extends from the first air inlet through the first aerosol-generating substrate to the mixing chamber and the second airflow pathway extends from the second air inlet through the second aerosol-generating substrate to the mixing chamber , ([0097] Fig 1c) for the disclosed advantage of enhancing visible aerosol formation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Pasquine to include the mixing chamber of Holford, to enhance the visible aerosol formation, according to the aesthetic desired by some smokers. Extending the outer tube beyond the inner tube would have been within the ordinary skill in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that doing so would have successfully provided the mixing chamber at the proximal end of the aerosol generating article. Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasquine et al. (US 3,490,461) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Mclaughlin et al. (US 2020/0113227 A1) . Regarding claim 28 , Pasquine discloses: The aerosol-generating article according to claim 17 . Pasquine does not disclose an air-permeable plug of porous material located at the distal end of the aerosol-generating article. Mclaughlin teaches a tobacco containing consumable article for use in aerosol generating devices, ([0014]), and thus is within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Mclaughlin teaches providing a distal filter portion upstream of the tobacco derived portion, ([0014]). The filter portion is provided as a physical barrier to contain the tobacco derived portion and help maintain the overall structural integrity of the tobacco article, while allowing desired air to pass through,, ([0048]). The filter portions are typicall composed of materials such as cellulose acetate, ([0051] reasonably understood to meet the limitation of an air permeable plug pf porous material located as required by the claim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Pasquine to have a distal end filter according to the teachings of McLaughlin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefits of placing an air permeable plug at the distal end of the aerosol generating substrate of Pasquine to aid in containing the substrate as well as providing enhanced structural integrity for the article. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been capable of attaching such an air permeable plug to the substrate rod, and believed that the modification would have successfully provided the expected benefits while remaining serviceable as an aerosol generating article. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DANIEL E VAKILI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5171 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael H. Wilson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3882 . 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. /D.E.V./ Examiner, Art Unit 1747 /Michael H. Wilson/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747