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 .
International Search Report
JT INT SA (WO 2020/104490 A1), PHILIP MORRIS PROD (WO 2013/076098 A2), PHILIP MORRIS PRODUCTS (WO 2020/148334 A1), PHILIP MORRIS PROD (WO 96/39879 A1) and CHINA TOBACCO YUNNAN IND CO LTD (EP 3782493 A1) were cited as “X” and/or “Y” references in the International Search Report for International Application PCT/EP2022/061966 to which the instant application claims priority
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Plevnik et al (WO 2020/104490 A1).
Referring to Figs. 8A-8D, Plevnik et al it discloses an aerosol-generating device 100 (Abs; p 18, lines 32-33) comprising:
a heating chamber 120 arranged to receive a consumable 200 (p 19, lines 25-31);
a heater (heating element; p 20, lines 1-3) in the form of a protrusion 110 (p 19, lines 1-2 and 34), the heater configured to heat the consumable in order to release an inhalable vapor, or aerosol (p 19, lines 31-33); and
a gripping element (130/133) configured to grip and remove (eject) the consumable from the heating chamber (p 19, lines 12-17; p 20, lines 3-12).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Plevnik et al.
The disclosure of Plevnik et al is used as above. In other embodiments, Plevnik et al discloses heaters 121 provided around the heating chamber 120 (p 13, lines 3-32, Fig. 1E), which corresponds to a stationary heater extending over a wall of the heating chamber. In still another example, the heater 121 can be the protrusion 110 or, in an alternative, comprises heating elements placed on the inside walls of the portion of the sleeve 146 that defines the heating chamber (p 18, lines 1-4 and 10-14, Figs. 7), which also corresponds to a stationary heater extending over a wall of the heating chamber. From the disclosure of Plevnik et al, disposing a stationary heater extending over a wall of the heating chamber would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a functionally equivalent option.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-13 and 15 are 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Plevnik et al is the nearest prior art. Plevnik et al fails to disclose or suggest an aerosol-generation device comprising the features as claimed. The prior art fails to disclose or provide motivation to alter the device of Plevnik et al to obtain the claimed device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS R CORDRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-8244. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM (EST).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/DENNIS R CORDRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748