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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s arguments concern claim amendments that are addressed in the rejections below (e.g. elastic member, etc).
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) 1-3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as 103 as being unpatentable over Sayed et al. (US 20220183357 A1) in view of Tanaka (US 20210015151A1).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 6-9, Sayed et al disclose a an aerosol generating device (100) including a housing (102) including a hole (104) for accommodating an aerosol-generating article and a guide (202) separated from the hole (104), and a lid/cover (108a) that moves between a first position ( open position ) and a second position ( closed position ) along the guide (202) in order to open and close the hole (104) [0019], wherein when the cover (108) is located in the first position, the hole (104) is opened, and when the lid/cover (108) is located in the second position, the hole (108) is closed (see, [0038], [0067-0080] and figures 9A-9E below).
PNG
media_image1.png
664
455
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The spring of Sayed et al. biases the lid towards the open position when the lid is in or near the open position or toward the closed position when it is in or near the closed position ([0004], [0075-0078], see also claim 1). The spring moves the cover by elastic force before a threshold position between the first and second portion. Pivot points are used as a first and second maintain portions.
Sayed et al. disclose a spring (i.e. elastic member) has a wound portion between and end and the other end, but Sayed et al. do not expressly disclose that as the cover moves the movement path of the wound portion forms a curve.
However, it is known in the art that other types of springs are readily available. For instance, Tanaka discloses a smoking device with a lids and a guide member along with a torsion spring. The spring applies tension and is illustrated in three different position and that winding forms a curve through the illustrated movement path (see figure 6, element 60a, 60b, and 60c, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
416
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the spring of Tanaka in place of the spring of Sayed et al. because it is well known in the art to replace one element of the same type for the same purpose. Replacing one known spring biasing a moving lid with another known spring biasing a moving lid would have been obvious and would have had predictable results.
The guide of Sayed (202) comprises a protrusion (as illustrated) on a surface of the housing. Portion 204 on the bottom of the lid (108b) goes under the protrusion while the top of the lid (108a) goes on top of the protrusion creating a groove where the protrusion from the housing is inserted (see figures 6-8).
PNG
media_image3.png
638
579
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
599
587
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the guide (202) is separated from the hole in a first direction and extends in a second direction across the first direction and a remaining part of the guide is located in a second region not corresponding to the hole.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayed et al. (US 20220183357 A1) and Tanaka (US 20210015151A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Newman et al. (US 20050172976 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Sayed et al. do not disclose an air inlet apart from the guide or located at a circumference of the hole. However, Newman et al. disclose a similar smoking device that heats a aerosol generating article which is inserted into a hole and contains an air inlet port around the circumference of the hole (see figure 6, element 1200 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
381
606
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the air inlet port of Newman et al. to provide air for the smoking device of Sayed et al. so that users could draw air through the device during use. The air inlet located at the top of the hole would also have been protected by the lid of Newman et al. The combination would have been predictable and within the level of skill.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayed et al. (US 20220183357 A1) and Tanaka (US 20210015151A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bellusci et al. (US 20210007396 A1).
Regarding claims 10-12, Sayed et al. disclose a heater configured to heat the aerosol generating article, a battery to power the heater, and a controller such as a processor and memory to control the power supplied to the heater [0045-0046]. Sayed et al. do not disclose that the processor is configured to control power supplied from the battery to the heater based on whether or not the cover opens the hole.
However, Bellusci et al. disclose a similar cover for a similar aerosol generating device. The device of Bellusci et al. contains a detector that provides, “a signal to the controller 18 indicative of whether the cover element 42 is in the closed position or the open position.” [0104]. The controller will not supply power to the heater if the cover is closed because it is assumed that an aerosol generating article is not in the heating cavity [0105]. If the cover is open, the controller may supply power to the heater [0106].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a sensor as disclosed in the invention of Bellusci et al. to detect whether the cover of Sayed et al. is in the open and closed position so that the controller can determine whether or not to provide power to the heating system as described by Bellusci et al.
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 MICHAEL J FELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4805. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Thursday-Friday 7:00-4:30, Wednesday 7:00-1:00.
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.
/Michael J Felton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights