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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-13 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/20/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/12/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered but are moot because the anticipation rejection over Reevell has been withdrawn. Reevell is no longer relied upon as the primary reference. A new ground of rejection is made using Acconcia et al. (US 2021/0298360 A1) as the primary reference, in view of Reevell.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Acconcia et al. (US 2021/0298360 A1) in view of Reevell (US 2018/0214645 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Acconcia teaches a non-combustible aerosol provision device for generating an aerosol from aerosol-generating material comprised in a consumable (aerosol-generating device configured to heat aerosol-forming substrate of an aerosol-generating article to generate an inhalable aerosol, ¶ [0052]), the non-combustible aerosol provision device comprising a receptacle for receiving the consumable (heating chamber 18, ¶ [0077]), and an adaptor configured to adapt the non-combustible aerosol provision device (adapter element 24 having a cavity for receiving an aerosol-generating article and enabling use of a different aerosol-generating article in heating chamber 18, ¶ [0081]), wherein the adaptor is at a proximal end of the device (adapter element inserted only into a first part of the heating chamber as seen from the article-receiving opening, with stopper 32 preventing further insertion, ¶ [0023]).
Acconcia does not expressly teach the adaptor configured to adapt the non-combustible aerosol provision device by varying an effective length of the receptacle such that each of a plurality of consumables of different lengths, which are individually receivable in the receptacle, when received in the receptacle for use, protrude from the non-combustible aerosol provision device by substantially equal amounts.
Reevell teaches consumables having different axial lengths that are individually receivable within receiving chamber 3 (¶ [0147]). Reevell further teaches bottom wall 34 having first recess 35 and second recess 36 arranged in a staggered manner, with recess 36 forming a recess within recess 35, thereby providing different axial seating depths within the receiving chamber (¶ [0154]). Reevell teaches that the different axial seating positions compensate for the dimensions of the respective consumables such that their proximal ends are positioned at substantially the same level relative to the outlet opening of the receiving chamber (¶ [0147]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the cavity of Acconcia’s proximal adapter element with different axial seating depths as taught by Reevell, thereby varying the effective length of the receptacle according to the length of the consumable received, because Reevell teaches that providing different axial seating depths permits consumables having different axial lengths to be accommodated while maintaining their proximal ends at substantially the same position relative to the receiving opening, thereby predictably providing substantially equal protrusion from the device.
Claim(s) 2, 6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acconcia et al. (US 2021/0298360 A1) in view of Reevell (US 2018/0214645 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dumen (US 2021/0219612).
Regarding claim 2, Acconcia in view of Reevell teaches the device of claim 1 as set forth above.
Acconcia in view of Reevell does not expressly teach the adaptor being configurable to adopt a first operating configuration or a second operating configuration with respect to the housing, wherein the effective length of the receptacle in the first configuration is less than the effective length of the receptacle in the second configuration.
Dumen teaches a movable cavity bottom (cavity bottom 101) positioned within a receptacle (cavity 10), the cavity bottom being movable along the longitudinal axis of the cavity [0050].
Dumen further teaches the cavity bottom being positionable in a retracted position and an extended position [0052], the positions defining different distances between the cavity bottom and heating blade 13 [0053]. Movement between the retracted and extended positions varies the effective length of the receptacle to accommodate aerosol-forming substrates of different lengths [0053].
Dumen is in the same field of endeavor as modified Acconcia, namely aerosol-generating devices configured to receive aerosol-forming substrates, and reasonably pertains to the problem addressed by Reevell of positioning substrates of different lengths within a device receptacle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further configure the adaptor arrangement of Acconcia as modified by Reevell to be selectively positionable between first and second operating configurations as taught by Dumen, thereby providing respective first and second effective receptacle lengths, with the first length being less than the second length, to provide selectable cavity depths for accommodating aerosol-generating articles of different lengths.
Regarding claim 6, Acconcia in view of Reevell and Dumen teaches the device of claim 2 as set forth above.
Dumen further teaches the adaptor is configured to transition between the first operating configuration and the second operating configuration by sliding relative to the housing (movable cavity bottom 101 movable longitudinally along cavity 10 between selected positions, ¶ [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the proximal adaptor of Acconcia as modified by Reevell to slide longitudinally relative to the housing between the first and second operating configurations as taught by Dumen, because Dumen teaches longitudinal sliding as a known mechanism for selectively changing the effective length of an aerosol-generating cavity, thereby predictably permitting the adaptor to transition between different receptacle-length configurations.
Regarding claim 9, Acconcia in view of Reevell and Dumen teaches the device of claim 2 as set forth above. Acconcia further teaches the adaptor is configured to be installed at a proximal end of the non-combustible aerosol provision device, wherein the adaptor is removable from the proximal end of the device (adapter element 24 is selectively inserted into and removed from heating chamber 18 to permit use of different aerosol-generating articles, ¶ [0068]), in the first operating configuration, the adaptor is not installed at the proximal end (aerosol-generating articles 34 of the first type are used without adapter element 24, ¶ [0088]), and in the second operating configuration, the adaptor is installed at the proximal end (aerosol-generating articles 34 of the second type are used with adapter element 24 inserted into heating chamber 18, ¶ [0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the adaptor of the modified Acconcia device to be selectively removable such that the device operates in a first configuration without the adaptor and a second configuration with the adaptor installed, as expressly taught by Acconcia, to permit the same aerosol-generating device to accommodate different aerosol-generating articles.
Regarding claim 10, Acconcia in view of Reevell and Dumen teaches the device of claim 9 as set forth above. Acconcia further teaches the adaptor is dimensioned and positioned relative to the receptacle when installed at the proximal end such that the adaptor defines a centrally aligned insertion opening into the receptacle (adapter element 24 having a longitudinally extending cylindrical cavity for receiving an aerosol-generating article and positioned within heating chamber 18, ¶ [0018]; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Acconcia in view of Reevell and Dumen teaches the device of claim 2 as set forth above.
Dumen further teaches a heating arrangement comprising two or more heating portions for providing heat substantially to respective portions of the receptacle (heating areas 26, 27, 28, and 29 arranged along heating blade 13, ¶ [0066]), wherein the heating portions available for heating depend upon the selected longitudinal position of movable cavity bottom 101 (¶ [0070]). Thus, different positions of the cavity bottom permit selective activation of heating portions corresponding to the portion of the cavity occupied by the aerosol-forming substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further configure the movable adaptor of Acconcia as modified by Reevell to selectively activate an additional heating portion when the adaptor is in the second operating configuration, as taught by Dumen, because Dumen teaches coordinating the longitudinal position of the movable cavity-bottom structure with selective activation of heating portions so that heating is provided along the portion of the receptacle occupied by the aerosol-forming substrate.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acconcia et al. (US 2021/0298360 A1) in view of Reevell (US 2018/0214645 A1) and Dumen (US 2021/0219612 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Reevell (US 2021/0145057 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Acconcia in view of Reevell and Dumen teaches the device of claim 2 as set forth above.
The combination does not expressly teach the adaptor being pivotably attached to the proximal end of the non-combustible aerosol provision device and transitioning between the first operating configuration and the second operating configuration by pivoting relative to the housing.
Reevell ’057 teaches a capture element (140) disposed within the cavity of the device housing (110) and positioned proximally within the cavity adjacent the open end of the device ([0028]). The capture element retains the aerosol generating article within the cavity and interfaces with the article during operation ([0021]). The capture element is rotatable within the cavity relative to the housing ([0023]). The capture element is coupled to a shaft (145) and rotation element (160) such that rotation of the shaft causes rotation of the capture element relative to the device housing ([0024]). The capture element may be rotated by actuation of a user button (122) coupled to the rotation element ([0032]). The capture element therefore rotates relative to the housing between different operational positions as the device is used ([0053]).
Rotation of the capture element relative to the housing constitutes pivoting of the adaptor relative to the housing under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Acconcia in view of Dumen, as already modified, to incorporate the rotational adaptor structure disclosed by Reevell ‘057 so that the adaptor may pivot relative to the housing and transition between operating configurations. Applying a known technique to a known device to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious when the technique is recognized as workable for that purpose. See MPEP § 2143 I(D).
Such modification would allow the adaptor structure to rotate relative to the housing to reposition the aerosol generating article during operation and thereby expose different portions of the article to the heating element in a controlled manner as taught by Reevell ‘057 ([0032]). This improves control of heating and enables indexing of the aerosol generating article during use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4-5 and 7-8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record, including Reevell, Dumen, and Reevell-2, fail to teach and or suggest the limitation of claim 4 requiring an adaptor comprising both a first opening and a second opening, where:
the first opening is aligned with the receptacle in a first operating configuration,
the second opening is aligned with the receptacle in a second operating configuration, and
the second opening commences at a greater distance from the receptacle toward the proximal end than the first opening.
In particular, the prior art devices accommodate aerosol generating articles of differing lengths by adjusting the position of internal components such as a cavity bottom or capture element, rather than by providing multiple adaptor openings positioned at different distances from the receptacle that selectively align with the receptacle depending on the operating configuration of the adaptor.
Claim 5, which depends from claim 4 and further limits the configuration of the first and second openings relative to the receptacle, is allowable for at least the same reasons.
The prior art of record, including Reevell and Dumen fails to teach or suggest the limitation recited in claim 7 requiring an adaptor comprising an insertion opening aligned with the receptacle, wherein the insertion opening is positioned closer to the receptacle in the first operating configuration than in the second operating configuration.
Reevell teaches an aerosol-generating device including an adaptor configured to accommodate aerosol-generating articles of different lengths by providing different operating configurations. However, Reevell does not teach or suggest an insertion opening whose position relative to the receptacle changes between operating configurations.
Dumen discloses an aerosol-generating device having a movable cavity bottom that can slide relative to a heating element in order to accommodate aerosol-forming substrates of different lengths (e.g., [0005], [0007], [0056], [0070]). However, Dumen does not disclose or suggest an adaptor having an insertion opening whose position relative to the receptacle changes between operating configurations.
Furthermore, even if Reevell were modified in view of Dumen, the resulting combination would merely provide a device having movable internal components to accommodate substrates of different lengths. Such a modification would not result in an adaptor having an insertion opening that is positioned closer to the receptacle in one operating configuration than another, as required by claim 7.
Accordingly, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed positional relationship between the insertion opening and the receptacle. Claim 8 is allowable because it depends from claim 7 and includes additional limitations not taught or suggested by the prior art of record.
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 JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at (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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights