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 Objections Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites the limitation: “an insulating base element” in line 4, but then recites “the base element” in line 5. It is reasonably clear that the omission of “insulating” was inadvertent. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: gripping portion in claims 1 and 17, and support portions in claim 11. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Here these terms are interpreted according to the broadest support in the Specification: “Gripping portions” are interpreted as protrusions that project from an inner surface of the accommodating portion, (Specification [0008]). “Support portions” are interpreted as protrusions formed by embossing, (Specification [0028]). If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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) 1-2, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2016/0360794 A1) . Regarding claim 1 -2 , Li discloses: A flavor inhaler, ([0004]), comprising: an accommodating portion that includes an opening formed at one end and accommodates at least a part of a flavor generating article via the opening, ([0004] disclosing a heating chamber that is arranged at one end of a housing and is configured for receiving at least one part of a cigarette), the accommodating portion including contact portions that pressurize a part of the accommodated flavor generating article in an axial direction of the accommodating portion and a separated portion that is separated from the accommodated flavor generating article, ([0017]-[0018] describing the heating chamber as an ellipse, with two elliptical arcs joined by two parallel straight lines and the interior of the chamber where the heating pieces are located having a maximum distance that is less than the external diameter of the cigarette , thus describing a configuration where the cigarette is compressed between the heating pieces when inserted, reasonably understood to anticipate contact portions that pressurize (exert pressure on) the cigarette, Fig 4 depicting a separated portion from the cigarette in the elliptical arc areas of the heating chamber) ; a heating portion that is disposed in the axial direction of the accommodating portion and heats the flavor generating article accommodated in the accommodating portion , ([0018] heating pieces) ; and gripping portions that grip the flavor generating article accommodated in the accommodating portion , ([0018] disclosing an embodiment where the curved heating surface may include a plurality of protrusions, which anticipate the limitation as interpreted under 35 USC 112(f)) , wherein the accommodating portion has a heating region that overlaps the heating portion , and a non-heating region other than the heating region in a section perpendicularly intersecting the axial direction of the accommodating portion, and the gripping portions are provided at the contact portions and in the heating region , ([0018]) . Regarding claim 10 , Li discloses the flavor inhaler according to claim 1. Li further discloses: the heating portion has a heat generating element that generates heat, ([0018] two heating pieces), and an insulating base element that supports the heat generating element, ([0022] a heat insulation layer arranged between the housing and the heating pieces understood to anticipate this limitation based on the disclosure in the specification see [0067] last 5 lines), the heat generating element and the base element form, in the heating region, a heat generating region where the heat generating element is disposed, ([0018] the heating pieces disposed on two opposite inner walls) and a non-heat generating region, which is adjacent to the heat generating region on the side of the opening, ([0018] the surfaces comprising the curved elliptical arcs), the heating generating element being not disposed in the non-heat generating region, and the gripping portions are provided in the non-heat generating region, ([0018] disclosing an embodiment where the curved heating surface may include a plurality of protrusions). 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) 3-9 and 11-1 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2016/0360794 A1) as applied to claim 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. (US 2022/0338540 A1) . Regarding claim 3, and 5-7 , Li discloses the flavor inhaler of claim 2. Li discloses the heating surface may include a plurality of toothed protrusions, ([0018]). Li does not depict or disclose the form (size/shape/extent of protrusion) , orientation , or specific placement of the toothed protrusions . One of ordinary skill in the art is understood to know that a protrusion from the surface would further compress the cigarette, holding it more securely, and the function is further implied from the description “toothed”, understood to be referencing the function of biting into the cigarette to enhance the friction fit of the cigarette inserted into the device. Yoon teaches a method of heating an aerosol generating article by using an aerosol generating device, ([0003]), and is thus within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Yoon teaches a heating element having a cylindrical shape, ([0 147 ] Fig 13 ref 700 ), Yoon teaches that protrusions may be provided on a surface by the technique of embossing, ([0149]). Yoon discloses the protrusions may be spaced apart from each other, ([0099]), and although they may be regularly arranged, they may also be spaced apart from each other at irregular distances, ([0100]), where the expected function of the protrusions is to physically maintain the aerosol generating article inside the accommodating space, ([0101]). Many different arrangements of protrusions are taught, and these are not considered limiting by Yoon, ([0126]-[0127 ] Fig 10A-10J) , reasonably suggesting that one of ordinary skill in the art could position protrusions inside the accommodating space, sizing and orienting them as desired to achieve the desired level of friction and compression between the aerosol generating article and the accommodating portion to reliable restrict the movement of the aerosol generating article to the extent desired . It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Li according to the teachings of Yoon, with the ordinary skill in the art, and have arrived at the claimed positioning, sizing, orientation, and configurations as required by the claims. These claims are considered to embody various species of the protrusions. Many of them are mutually exclusive variations of each other. All of them are considered obvious variants in light of the ordinary skill in the art and the cited references. The arrangement of protrusion within the accommodating portion is considered to be the mere combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, MPEP 2143 I. Examples of Rationales (A). The prior art included each prior art element, with Li disclosing most of the elements and Yoon filling in the missing elements regarding the scope of protrusion arrangements, and explicitly informing one of ordinary skill in the art the purpose of the protrusions. The further modifications of sizing, positioning, orientation, and other configurations of the protrusions are considered well within the ordinary skill in the art, MPEP Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale IV. A Changes in Size, B. Changes in Shape, VI. C. Rearrangement of Parts. The claimed orientations are understood to balance the frictional and compressional forces against the cigarette held in the accommodating portion. This is no more than routine design optimization, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have been more than capable. In every case the protrusions work the same way, applying a compression/friction force against the cigarette, based on the characteristics of the protrusion. Locating protrusions anywhere within the accommodating portion would have been obvious, given the teachings of the prior art and ordinary skill . Regarding claim 4 and 8 , modified Li discloses the flavor inhaler of claim 3. Li discloses the contact portions are planes, ([0017]-[0018] describing the heating chamber as an ellipse, with two elliptical arcs joined by two parallel straight lines and the interior of the chamber where the heating pieces are located having a maximum distance that is less than the external diameter of the cigarette, these parallel straight lines forming contact portions that meet the limitation of planes). As in the rejection above, the particular claimed arrangement of the protrusions is considered obvious. Regarding claim 9 , Li discloses the flavor inhaler of claim 2. Modified Li renders the claimed configuration of the protrusions obvious. Yoon teaches that protrusions may be provided on a surface by the technique of embossing, ([0149]). It would be further obvious to form the protrusions of modified Li according to the technique of Yoon because this is merely the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, MPEP 2143 I. Examples of Rationales, (C). Here modified Li comprises the base device, including the obvious configuration of protrusions. Yoon teaches a comparable device, where the protrusions are made by embossing. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known embossment technique in the same way to modified Li and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claims 11-17 , Li discloses the flavor inhaler of claim 1, and claim 3, including various configurations of protrusions to restrict the movement of the cigarette inside the accommodating portion. Although the Applicant has labeled the protrusions differently, protrusions that are gripping portions and support protrusions, it is understood that the function is the same, and regardless of the particular nomenclature, and these support protrusions are also obvious for the same reasons as claim 3 above. The interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) requires that the support protrusions be made by embossing, which as discussed in the rejection of claim 9 is also obvious. Because the arrangement, configuration, and method of producing the various protrusions claimed are considered obvious based on the applied references and ordinary skill in the art, with the applied legal rationales, these claims are all found obvious. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2016/0360794 A1) and Yoon et al. (US 2022/0338540 A1) as applied to claim 3, and in further view of Hwang et al. (US 2021/0000180 A1) . Regarding claim 18 , Li discloses the flavor inhaler of claim 1. Modified Li discloses the flavor inhaler of claim 3, rendering obvious various configurations of protrusions including their positioning within the accommodating portion as obvious. Neither Li nor Yoon disclose or teach a flavor generating article with a filling portion filled with a smokeable article (understood to be a smokeable material) and a hollow tubular portion provided continuously (understood to be directly adjacent to the filling portion, where the gripping portions (protrusions) are provided in the accommodating portion such that when the aerosol generating article is inserted into the aerosol generating device, the protrusions grip the article in the vicinity of a boundary between the filling portion and the tubular portion, as interpreted in light of the present Specification ([0085] rendering the relative terminology “in the vicinity of a boundary” reasonably clear). Hwang teaches a cigarette with a tobacco portion, for use with an aerosol generating device, ([0025]-[0026]), and is thus within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Hwang teaches the aerosol generating device for the cigarette may have a tube type heating element, plate t y pe heating element, and other types of heating elements, to heat the inside or outside of the cigarette, and include a plurality of heaters arranged outside the cigarette, ([0046] -[0047] ), reasonably suggesting that the cigarette taught by Hwang would work with a variety of aerosol generating devices and heater configurations. Hwang teaches a cigarette that is similar to a general combustive style cigarette, ([0057]), with a tobacco rod that may entirely inserted into the aerosol generating device, or with only a portion of the tobacco rod inserted, and the cigarette may also comprise a filter, ([0058]). The filter rod may include a plurality of segments, including a first segment ref 321 configured to cool an aerosol, ([0062]). The first segment ref 321 may include a cellulose acetate filter, that is a tube shaped structure including a hollow therein, ([0071]). Hwang suggests that this segment may provide a cooling effect for the aerosol, and that it may prevent migration of tobacco material when inserting the cigarette into the heater, explicitly disclosing that this advantage is present when the heater is inserted into the cigarette). First, as in the rejections above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify and arrange the protrusions to restrict the movement of the cigarette in the accommodating portion. I t would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to have further modified the smoking system of modified Li according to the teachings of Hwang, and incorporated the cigarette of Hwang for use with the modified flavor inhaler of Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found using the cigarette of Hwang instead of the cigarette of Li to be obvious on the basis of simple substitution, MPEP 2143 I. Examples of Rationales (B). Modified Li differs from the claimed device only by the substitution of the cigarette of Hwang for the cigarette of Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been familiar with the structures comprising the cigarette of Hwang, and their function. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily substituted the cigarette of Hwang for the cigarette of Li, and the result would have been predictable, a workable smoking article that could be heated to produce an aerosol in the device of Li. 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