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 Election/Restrictions Claims 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/12/2026. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 01/12/2026 is acknowledged. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 contains markups , “ to those ” , from a prior amendment in the last line of the claim. The markups including the text should be removed. Appropriate correction is required. 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) 1-5, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Reevell (US 2018/0214645 A1) . Regarding claim 1 , Reevell discloses: A non-combustible aerosol provision device for generating an aerosol from an aerosol-generating material, ([0005]), the non-combustible aerosol provision device comprising: a chamber for receiving a consumable comprising aerosol-generating material to enable the non-combustible aerosol provision device to generate an aerosol from the aerosol-generating material. ([0005] a receiving chamber), wherein the chamber is configured to accommodate, one at a time, a first consumable comprising aerosol-generating material at a first axial position in the chamber and a second consumable comprising aerosol-generating material having different dimensions than dimensions of the first consumable at a second axial position in the chamber, ([0005] the chamber is configured for receiving a first type of consumable and a second type of consumable, one at a time, [0145]-[0146] Fig 8-9 describing and depicting an embodiment where a bottom wall of the chamber is provided with a stepped arrangement including a recess, such that a wider consumable rests against the step and is external to the recess, and the narrower consumable is inserted into the recess), disclosing a chamber configured to accommodate a first and second consumable having different dimensions at different axial positions in the chamber, where the recess of the embodiment depicted by Fig 8 is at a different axial position within the chamber than the step upon which the wider consumable would rest . Regarding claim 2 , Reevell discloses the non-combustible aerosol provision device according to claim 1. Reevell discloses wherein the chamber is configured to accommodate the first consumable having a first width at the first axial position in the chamber and the second consumable having a second width at the second axial position in the chamber, wherein the first consumable width is less than the second consumable width , ([0145]-[0146] Fig 8-9). Regarding claim 3 , Reevell discloses the non-combustible aerosol provision device according to claim 2. Reevell discloses wherein the chamber comprises a first section and a second section, and wherein the second section has a width smaller than a width of the first section, ([0145]-[0146] Fig 8-9), the recess defining a second section having a width smaller than the first section comprising the stepped area surrounding the recess and the areas above the recess. Regarding claim 4 , Reevell discloses the non-combustible aerosol provision device according to claim 3. Reevell discloses wherein the first section and the second section are tubular sections arranged end to end to form the chamber, and wherein the non-combustible aerosol provision device comprises an opening at a proximal end of the first section configured to allow the insertion of the first consumable and the second consumable into at least the first section, ([0145]-[0146] Fig 8-9). Regarding claim 5 , Reevell discloses the non-combustible aerosol provision device according to claim 4 . Reevell discloses wherein the proximal end of the second section defines a stop to be abutted by a distal end of the second consumable to prevent the second consumable entering the second section and thereby to position the second consumable at the second axial position in the chamber, ([0145]-[0146] Fig 8-9) the stepped area around the recess forming a stop to be abutted by a distal end of the second consumable, resulting in the claimed positioning . Regarding claim 8-9 , Reevell discloses the non-combustible aerosol provision device according to claim 2. Reevell discloses a first distal stop for positioning a distal end of the first consumable and a second distal stop for positioning a distal end of the second consumable, the first distal stop and the second distal stop being located at different axial positions in the chamber, ([0145]-[0146] Fig 8-9), the stepped area around the recess forming a second stop for positioning a distal end of the second consumable, the recess forming a first distal stop for positioning the distal end of the first consumable, these distal stops being located at different axial positions in the chamber, the recess being located deeper into the chamber along the axis of the chamber than the stepped area. 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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (US 2018/0214645 A1) , as applied to claim s 1 and 3 above, and in further view of Farine et al. (US 201 7 /00 27234 A1) . Regarding claim 6-7 , Reevell discloses the non-combustible aerosol provision device according to claim 3. Reevell discloses that the device may be configured to use different heaters for different types of detected consumables received in the receiving chamber, where the different heaters may be provided in the device, ([0080] and discloses that the device may comprise a detection system that detects the consumable type received in the chamber, and tailors and optimizes the heating process to the specific type of consumable, ([0079]) , reasonably disclosing controlling each heater may be controlled independently . Reevell does not explicitly disclose a first heating arrangement arranged to heat the first section, and a second heating arrangement arranged to heat the second section. Farine teaches aerosol generating devices configured to heat an aerosol generating substrate with a n electrical heater([0004]-([0008]), and is thus within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Farine teaches that the heating element may comprise both an external heating element and an internal heating element, and where the internal heating element may take the form of a heating blade or one or more h e ating need les that are configured to run through the center of the aerosol forming substrate, ([0032]), and the external heating element may take any suitable form, where Farine teaches a variety of non-limiting forms for an external heater that would roughly conform to the perimeter of the heating chamber to form a heating tube external to the consumable. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reevell according to the teachings of Farine . This is considered the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness I. Examples of Rationales, (D). Here Reevell discloses a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Farine teaches a technique where the device includes both a heater type that heats a substrate internally and a heater type that heats the substrate externally. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using both types of heaters would have yielded predictable results, providing a dual heater system that would more uniformly heat inserted consumables inserted into the device. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a pin type probe heater extending from the bottom of the recess would heat a consumable inserted into the recess, where an external heater would not because the step configuration within the cavity would require that an external tube heater would end at the step. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of adapting Reevell which discloses optimizing the heating process to the type of consumable inserted into the chamber, to control each heater independently such that the probe heater provides heat to the first section and the external heater provides heat to the second section, controlling each heater independently to optimize the heating process for each type of consumable inserted into the cavity. Regarding claim 15 , Reevell discloses the the non-combustible aerosol provision device according to claim 1. Reevell discloses that the device may be configured to use different heaters for different types of detected consumables received in the receiving chamber, where the different heaters may be provided in the device, ([0080] ) and discloses that the device may comprise a detection system that detects the consumable type received in the chamber, and tailors and optimizes the heating process to the specific type of consumable, ([0079]), reasonably disclosing controlling each heater may be controlled independently. Reevel does not explicitly disclose the device comprises a heater which is inserted into the consumable when the consumable is fully inserted into the chamber. Farine teaches aerosol generating devices configured to heat an aerosol generating substrate with am electrical heater([0004]-([0008]), and is thus within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Farine teaches that the heating element may comprise both an external heating element and an internal heating element, and where the internal heating element may take the form of a heating blade or one or more h e ating need les that are configured to run through the center of the aerosol forming substrate, ([0032]), and the external heating element may take any suitable form, where Farine teaches a variety of non-limiting forms for an external heater that would roughly conform to the perimeter of the heating chamber to form a heating tube external to the consumable. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Reevell according to the teachings of Farine . This is considered the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, MPEP 2143 Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness I. Examples of Rationales, (D). Here Reevell discloses a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement. Farine teaches a technique where the device includes both a heater type that heats a substrate internally and a heater type that heats the substrate externally. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using both types of heaters would have yielded predictable results, providing a dual heater system that would more uniformly heat inserted consumables inserted into the device. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a pin type probe heater extending from the bottom of the recess would heat a consumable inserted into the recess, and the heater would be inserted into the consumable when seated in the recess. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (US 2018/0214645 A1) and Farine et al. (US 2017/0027234 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Thorsen et al. (US 20 1 9 /0 150508 A1) . Regarding claim 10 , Reevell discloses the non-combustible aerosol provision device according to claim 9. Reevell does not disclose that the recess comprises a gripping arrangement which is biased to grip the distal end of the first consumable when the distal end of the first consumable is accommodated in the recess. Thorsen teaches a heating type aerosol generating device, ([000 5 ]), and is thus within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Thorsen teaches that an aerosol generating device may comprise a heating chamber, and that the heating chamber may comprise a plurality of small lobes or ridges around the inner surface of the chamber to grip the consumable in order to correctly position and retain the consumable, ([0047]). Thorsen teaches this arrangement located proximal to the opening where the consumable is inserted rather than in a recess near the distal end of the device, within a recess. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to modify Reevell with the gripping structures of Thorsen. This is considered combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, MPEP 2143 I. (A). Here the prior art included both the device of Reevell and the gripping arrangement of Thorsen, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination each element would merely perform the same function as it does separately. Although in Thorsen the gripping arrangement is located in the proximal end of the device, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to rearrange the gripping lobes within the recess, because it would be obvious that the narrower consumable may be looser within the device, and arranging the lobes at the proximal end of the device would interfere with insertion of the wider consumables, rearrangement of parts for this purpose being considered an obvious under MPEP 2144.04 VI C. Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (US 2018/0214645 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Batista et al. (US 2022/0295894 A1) . Regarding claim 11 -14 , Reevell discloses the non-combustible aerosol provision device according to claim 1. Reevell discloses that the device may be configured to use different heaters for different types of detected consumables received in the receiving chamber, where the different heaters may be provided in the device, ([0080]). Batista teaches an aerosol generating device for generating an inhalable vapor, ([0002]), and is thus within the inventor’s field of inventor . Batista teaches an induction heating arrangement that heats with improved efficiency, ([0003]). Batista teaches an arrangement of multiple susceptors that are configured to be flexible, which adapt to the shape of the aerosol generating article, ([0008]-[0009]). The susceptor arrangement may be such that each susceptor is concave, such that the individual surfaces of the susceptors form a circular shape within the cavity, curve inwards towards the center axis of the cavity, and adapt to the outer surface of an aerosol generating article after insertion of the aerosol generating article into the cavity, ([0012]), where the susceptors are attached to an elastic suspension spring that enables a radial movement of the susceptors , ([0014]) , and where the spring is attached to a thermally insulating element in the form of a tube, ([0111] Fig 5A -C ref 22 ) 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 Reeve l l with a tubular susceptor arrangement of Batista, to accommodate different diameter consumables within the aerosol generating device and provide efficient heating of those consumables. This is considered the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, MPEP 2143 I. (A). Reevell and Batista disclose each claimed element, the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination each element would perform the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the result of the combination would be predictable. Here, Reevell discloses that the consumable widths in the device will vary between a narrower width and a wider width. Batista teaches the susceptor elements may be flexible, with an inward bend to conform to the outer shape of a consumable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of such a design, and been capable of adapting the flexibility of the susceptors in a tubular configuration to bend to shape of both the narrower and wider consumable of Reevell , rendering obvious the tubular heater limitation of claim 11, the heating tube is a susceptor element to be inductively heated of claim 12, the requirement that the heat transfer elements protrude radially inwardly from a thermally insulated walls of a heating tube to engage consumables having different diameters of claim 13, and where the heat transfer elements are flexible elements configured to flex to engage consumables having different diameters of claim 14. 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 /MELVIN C. MAYES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759