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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 19-27) in the reply filed on 02/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that:
There is no disclosure or suggestion in Freelander of at least Applicant's claim feature of" ... a first opening at the first end of the cavity and a second opening at the second end of the cavity" (emphasis added), as recited in Applicant's claim 19. And further, even if the Examiner were correct that there could somehow be considered a first opening and a second opening in this 'cavity" of Freelander (which Applicant does not concede), Freelander describes that "[t]he conveyor belt control may restrict movement of the conveyor belt 212 to only one direction". Freelander, [0049] (emphasis added). Therefore, Freelander also would not be considered to disclose the following feature recited in Applicant's claim 19: “... wherein the aerosol-generating article is configured to be inserted into the cavity through each of the first opening and the second opening", because the inhalable substances of the conveyor belt may only enter on one side of this "cavity".
This is found persuasive because: Freelander discloses the use of a plurality of doors 102, 104, conveyor 212, and middle structure 106. While the plurality of doors may be considered first and second openings for the insertion of the conveyor which contains aerosol-generating material into a space defined as a cavity. The claim requires the cavity to comprise a first opening at a first end and second opening at a second end; wherein the aerosol-generating article is configured to be inserted into the cavity through each of the first opening and the second opening. However, Freelander’s middle structure 106 houses other components and is not hollow. That is, the spaces which define cavities in Freelander’s device are not unitary, as disclosed in FIG. 1B and detailed in paragraphs [0022] – [0023]. Thus, Freelander, does not teach or reasonably suggest forming the device to have the structure of “a cavity configured to receive an aerosol-generating article, wherein the cavity comprises a first end and a second end; a first opening at the first end of the cavity and a second opening at the second end of the cavity, wherein the aerosol-generating article is configured to be inserted into the cavity through each of the first opening and the second opening”.
The restriction requirement mailed 12/15/2025 is therefore withdrawn. Claims 19-41 are currently pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/12/2026, 01/21/2026, 11/06/2023 and 08/14/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claim 36 limitations of “a third airflow pathway extending in the longitudinal direction; and a third aerosol-forming substrate positioned within the third airflow pathway” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the indicia circumscribes a portion of the outer wrapper" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The is asked to clarify the scope of the claimed invention without the introduction of new matter.
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 19-21, 24, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilat et al. (US 2020/0196665 A1), in view of Feuerstein et al. (US 2023/0189883 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Bilat discloses an aerosol-generating system to include an aerosol-generating device 100:
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First opening)][AltContent: textbox (First end)][AltContent: textbox (Second end)][AltContent: textbox (Second opening)]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein during use an aerosol-generating article 10 is inserted into a cavity 114, see Figures 1-2, [0100] – (corresponds to a cavity configured to receive an aerosol-generating article). The cavity is configured to have a first end and a second end; a first opening at the first end of the cavity and a second opening at the second end of the cavity. With regards to “the aerosol-generating article is configured to be inserted into the cavity through each of the first opening and the second opening”: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) afforded the examiner. It is considered, one of ordinary skill would insert the aerosol-generating article through either openings 120 and/or 116 thereinto the first and/or second opening thereinto the cavity 114. Bilat does not restrict or provide particular details to its recited insertion technique. Therefore, as a matter of routine experimentation, based on at least Figure 2, one would easily envision the having “the aerosol-generating article is configured to be inserted into the cavity through each of the first opening and the second opening”; where doing so allows for simple placement of the aerosol-generating article into the cavity.
Bilat does not explicitly disclose the use of an actuator arranged to move the aerosol-generating article through the cavity.
Feuerstein discloses an aerosol generation device. The device to include a loader 14 - (construed as an actuator) for moving a consumable 2 – (construed as an aerosol-generating article) within a channel 12 – (construed as a cavity), see at least Fig. 1A. Feuerstein discloses such an arrangement allows for movement of the consumable from a consumable port to a heating chamber, see at least [0054]. That is, the loader/actuator is arranged to move the consumable/aerosol-generating article through the channel/cavity.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aerosol-generating system of Bilat to use of an actuator arranged to move the aerosol-generating article through the cavity, as taught by Feuerstein to allows for controlled movement of the aerosol-generating article throughout the cavity as suggested by Feuerstein.
Regarding claims 20-21, while modified Bilat discloses the loader 14/actuator engages the aerosol-generating article and has a handle 15 which engages the loader; it does not explicitly disclose the loader/handle/actuator comprises a wheel arranged to engage an outer surface of the aerosol-generating article when the aerosol-generating article is received within the cavity.
Modified Bilat discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed wheel shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Bilat’s loader/handle structure to be shaped as a wheel; and the wheel is arranged so that a user may manually rotate the wheel to move the aerosol-generating article through the cavity, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. Further, one would have been motivated to select the wheel shape of loader/handle for the purpose of moving the consumable throughout the cavity of the device, where the handle has a different tactile feel, see MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 24, modified Bilat discloses the use of an electric heater; a power supply; and a controller that is configured to control/permit/prevent/halt supply of electrical power to include the electric heater – (construed as a controller configured to supply power from the power supply to the electric heater), see Bilat [0057], [0069].
Regarding claim 28, modified Bilat discloses further discloses an aerosol-generating system which uses the aerosol-generating article, see Bilat [0102]; and comprises at least one aerosol-forming substrate, see Bilat [0095].
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilat et al. (US 2020/0196665 A1), in view of Feuerstein et al. (US 2023/0189883 A1) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Reevell (US 20210145057 A1, of record as WO 2019/016740 A1).
Regarding claims 22-23, modified Bilat does not explicitly disclose the use of an electric motor configured to drive the wheel to move the aerosol-generating article through the cavity or a user interface configured to provide user control of the electric motor.
Reevell discloses an aerosol generating device. The device is configured to use a capture element which physically retains the aerosol generating article in the cavity after insertion, see [0021]. That is, Reevell’s capture element functions as Bilat’s loader/handle. The aerosol generating device further includes a motor for rotation and advancement of the capture element in the cavity of the housing, the device may comprise a user activatable button that may reverse the motor to reset the capture element for use with a fresh aerosol generating article, see [0031]. That is, the motor is suitable for driving the loader/handle/wheel to move the aerosol-generating article through the cavity and be controlled through a user interface configured to provide user control of the electric motor.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the loader/handle/wheel of modified Bilat to use an electric motor configured to drive the wheel to move the aerosol-generating article through the cavity and a user interface configured to provide user control of the electric motor, as reasonably suggested by Reevell to provide the device with a means for resetting the loader/handle/wheel for use with a fresh aerosol generating article.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilat et al. (US 2020/0196665 A1), in view of Feuerstein et al. (US 2023/0189883 A1), as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Reevell (US 20210145057 A1, of record as WO 2019/016740 A1), in view of Freelander (US 2017/0245550 A1 – of record).
Regarding claim 25, While modified Bilat discloses the use of a loader/handle as an actuator which engages an outer surface of an aerosol-generating article when the aerosol-generating article is received within a cavity and a controller; it does not explicitly disclose use of an electric motor to drive the loader/handle (shaped as a wheel), or the controller being configured to supply power from the power supply to the electric motor.
As previously discussed, it is considered modified Bilat loader/handle has the orientation and functionality of the claimed wheel, see the rejection of claim 20.
Reevell discloses an aerosol generating device. The device is configured to use a capture element which physically retains the aerosol generating article in the cavity after insertion, see [0021]. That is, Reevell’s capture element functions as Bilat’s loader/handle. The aerosol generating device further includes a motor for rotation and advancement of the capture element in the cavity of the housing, see [0031]. That is, one of ordinary skill would readily consider use of a motor for driving the loader/handle/wheel to move the aerosol-generating article through the cavity. This being beneficial for allowing for a user activatable button that may reverse the motor to reset the capture element for use with a fresh aerosol generating article, see [0031].
Freelander discloses a system and method for controlling a vaporizer device. The system is configured use a processor – (construed as a controller) to control an electric motor for moving a conveyor having an inhalable substance – (construed as an aerosol-generating material) disposed thereon through a cavity of an aerosol-generating device, see at least [0026], [0051]. That is, one of ordinary skill would readily consider use of a controller being configured to supply power from the power supply to the electric motor. This being beneficial for allowing the conveyor belt control to restrict the amount of movement so that an unvaporized portion of the aerosol-generating material is always properly placed adjacent to a heating unit for optimal vaporization, see [0049].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wheeled shaped loader/handle and power supply of modified Bilat to use an electric motor to drive the loader/handle (shaped as a wheel) as reasonably suggested by Reevell; and use a controller being configured to supply power from the power supply to the electric motor, as reasonably suggested by Freelander to provide modified Bilat’s device with the aforementioned benefits.
Regarding claims 26-27, as previously discussed, modified Bilat discloses use of a processor/controller to control an electric motor. This includes an indexing scheme where the conveyor movement is controlled to place the aerosol-generating material adjacent the heating unit for vaporization, see Freelander [0051].
Freelander further discloses the processor controls the heating temperature at which the heater vaporizes the material, see [0025]. This includes activating the heating unit for a predetermined period of time, see [0029]; and controlled such that the processor determines a predetermined temperature and generates an activate first or second temperature command that commands the heating unit to vaporize the inhalable substance at the predetermined temperature, see claim 20; and where the aerosol-generating material.
It is considered such a predetermined temperature scheme is functional as a first and second heating cycle which is activated when the user inhales (hit) a first time and subsequent times. That is, on the first hit the processor controls the “supply power from the power supply to the electric heater for the duration of a first heating cycle to heat a first portion of the aerosol-generating article”; and on a subsequent hit the processor controls the “supply power from the power supply to the electric heater for the duration of a second heating cycle to heat a second portion of the aerosol-generating article”; wherein during the hits the processor controls “supply power from the power supply to the electric motor to move the aerosol-generating device through the cavity; and simultaneously supply power from the power supply to the electric heater and the electric motor to heat the aerosol-generating article as the aerosol-generating article is moved through the cavity”. This being beneficial for allowing for complete flavor or desired ingredient extraction, see [0065].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Bilat’s aerosol-generating system and controller as claimed and reasonably suggested by Freelander to provide the aerosol-generating device with a means for extracting a maximum amount of flavor from the inhalable material.
Claims 35, 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvetrini (US 2016/0286862 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Silvetrini discloses an aerosol-generating system to include an aerosol-generating device 4 – (construed as an aerosol-generating article). The device is configured to have:
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Longitudinal direction)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First airflow pathway)][AltContent: textbox (Second airflow pathway)]
PNG
media_image2.png
229
431
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A first end and a second end, wherein the aerosol-generating article defines a longitudinal direction extending between the first end and the second end; a first airflow pathway extending in the longitudinal direction; a second airflow pathway extending in the longitudinal direction; a nicotine source 6 – (construed as a first aerosol-forming substrate) positioned within the first airflow pathway; and a nicotine source 8 – (construed as a second aerosol-forming substrate) positioned within the second airflow pathway.
Silvetrini does not explicitly disclose the second aerosol-forming substrate overlaps only part of the first aerosol-forming substrate in the longitudinal direction.
However, Silvetrini discloses the nicotine source may comprise sorption elements of the same or different size, shape and composition, see [0125] - [0126]. One of ordinary skill would as a matter of routine experimentation form nicotine source 8 to be shorter than the opposing nicotine source 6 (i.e. smaller along the longitudinal plane) which would configure the second aerosol-forming substrate as having a partial overlap with the first aerosol-forming substrate in the longitudinal direction. This being done to enhance to allow a desired amount of nicotine to be sorbed on the sorption element, see [0121], [0126].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nicotine sources 6, 8 of Silvetrini where the nicotine source 8 is smaller with respect to the longitudinal direction of the device than the nicotine source 6 to thereby form the second aerosol-forming substrate which overlaps only part of the first aerosol-forming substrate in the longitudinal direction; which allows for a desired amount of nicotine to be produced.
Regarding claim 38, Silvetrini discloses the nicotine source may comprise a sorption element and nicotine sorbed on the sorption element; and the sorption element is a substantially cylindrical plug, see [0099], [0112], Figure 4b – (construed as a plug element defining the first airflow pathway and the second airflow pathway).
Claims 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvetrini (US 2016/0286862 A1), as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20200007475 A – of record).
Regarding claims 36-37, While Silvetrini discloses the nicotine source may comprise sorption elements of the same or different size, shape and composition; it does not explicitly disclose a third airflow pathway extending in the longitudinal direction; and a third aerosol-forming substrate positioned within the third airflow pathway, wherein the third aerosol-forming substrate overlaps only part of the first aerosol-forming substrate in the longitudinal direction; or the second aerosol-forming substrate does not overlap the third aerosol-forming substrate in the longitudinal direction, and wherein the first aerosol-forming substrate comprises a portion that does not overlap the second aerosol-forming substrate or the third aerosol-forming substrate.
Kim discloses a cartridge for a smoking material. The cartridge is configured to have a segmented housings 12, 14 where the compartment thereof 124, 126, 144, 146 may have different source materials disposed within, see at least [0038] – [0039]. This includes having overlapping the regions to adjust the amount of aerosol generated, see [0013], [0055] – [0061]. This being beneficial for controlling the amount of aerosol produced.
As previously discussed, Silvetrini discloses the nicotine source may comprise sorption elements of the same or different size, shape and composition, see [0125] - [0126]. This being done to enhance to allow a desired amount of nicotine to be sorbed on the sorption element, see [0121], [0126].
Therefore, it is considered, one looking to enhance Silvetrini’s aerosol-generating system being configurable for having a plurality of nicotine source of different sizes; would appreciate Kim’s disclosure of having aerosol-generating material cartridges, wherein the compartments have regions which overlap. That is, one would size the nicotine sources and compartments in any desirable ratios to influence the amount of nicotine produced.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Silvetrini’s aerosol generating system as claimed since: Kim reasonably suggests having overlapping aerosol-generating material compartments allow for controlling the amount of aerosol generated. It being considered, the claimed:
“third airflow pathway extending in the longitudinal direction; and a third aerosol-forming substrate positioned within the third airflow pathway, wherein the third aerosol-forming substrate overlaps only part of the first aerosol-forming substrate in the longitudinal direction; or the second aerosol-forming substrate does not overlap the third aerosol-forming substrate in the longitudinal direction, and wherein the first aerosol-forming substrate comprises a portion that does not overlap the second aerosol-forming substrate or the third aerosol-forming substrate”
Would be formed through routine experimentation and would predictably allow for controlling of a desired amount of nicotine generated as suggested by the prior art.
Claims 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvetrini (US 2016/0286862 A1), as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of at least one of Reevell (WO 2019/197413 A1), or Mironov et al. (US 2015/0296882 A1).
Regarding claims 39-40, Silvetrini does not explicitly disclose the use of an outer wrapper and indicia.
Reevell discloses a heated aerosol-generating article. The article is configured to use a rod of aerosol-generating substrate and an outer wrapper. The outer wrapper is wrapped around at least a portion of the rod of aerosol-generating substrate and at least a portion of an outer surface of the wrapper comprises a plurality of thermal indicators 100, 101, 102, 103 – (construed as indicia), see abstract, the figures – (corresponds to an outer wrapper; and a plurality of indicia on an outer surface of the outer wrapper, the plurality of indicia being spaced apart from each other in the longitudinal direction).
The thermal indicator/indicia may circumscribe and cover the entirety of the surface area of rod of aerosol-generating substrate, see page 7 lines 33-34 – (construed as each of the indicia circumscribes a portion of the outer wrapper). As to “a spacing in the longitudinal direction between adjacent indicia is between 5 mm and 10 mm”: Reevell discloses the thermal indicator/indicia has a length of 1 mm to 20 mm and extends along the length of the aerosol-generating article at least 20%, see page 8 lines 29-31. It being readily seen that for 2 horizontally adjacent thermal indicators having a length of 1 mm and which are centered to cover a 20 mm long aerosol-generating article, the spacing between each thermal indicator would be 6 mm – (corresponds to and overlaps a spacing in the longitudinal direction between adjacent indicia is between 5 mm and 10 mm).
Mironov discloses smoking article. The article is configured to use indicia to communicate information to the user to include forming the indicia as different types, see [0031] – (construed as each of the indicia comprises at least one of a different size, a different shape, a different color, and a different motif). This being beneficial for conveying messages as suggested by Mironov [0031].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aerosol-generating article of Sivetrini to have an outer wrapper; and a plurality of indicia on an outer surface of the outer wrapper, the plurality of indicia being spaced apart from each other in the longitudinal direction; and wherein each of the indicia circumscribes a portion of the outer wrapper; and wherein a spacing in the longitudinal direction between adjacent indicia is between 5 mm and 10 mm as taught by Reevell; and have each of the indicia comprises a different type as taught by Mironov to provide the aerosol-generating article with the aforementioned benefits.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilat et al. (US 2020/0196665 A1), in view of Feuerstein et al. (US 2023/0189883 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Silvetrini (US 2016/0286862 A1).
Regarding claim 41, modified Bilat does not explicitly disclose the claimed second airflow pathway, second aerosol-forming substrate, or overlapping scheme.
Silvetrini discloses an aerosol-generating system to include an aerosol-generating device 4 – (construed as an aerosol-generating article). The device is configured to have:
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Longitudinal direction)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First airflow pathway)][AltContent: textbox (Second airflow pathway)]
PNG
media_image2.png
229
431
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A first end and a second end, wherein the aerosol-generating article defines a longitudinal direction extending between the first end and the second end; a first airflow pathway extending in the longitudinal direction; a second airflow pathway extending in the longitudinal direction; a nicotine source 6 – (construed as a first aerosol-forming substrate) positioned within the first airflow pathway; and a nicotine source 8 – (construed as a second aerosol-forming substrate) positioned within the second airflow pathway.
Silvetrini further discloses the nicotine source may comprise sorption elements of the same or different size, shape and composition, see [0125] - [0126]. That is, one of ordinary skill would as a matter of routine experimentation form nicotine source 8 to be shorter than the opposing nicotine source 6 (i.e. smaller along the longitudinal plane) which would configure the second aerosol-forming substrate as having a partial overlap with the first aerosol-forming substrate in the longitudinal direction. This being done to enhance to allow a desired amount of nicotine to be sorbed on the sorption element, see [0121], [0126].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aerosol-generating sources of modified Bilat such that one aerosol-generating/nicotine source is smaller with respect to the longitudinal direction of the device than the other aerosol-generating/nicotine source to as reasonably suggested by Silvetrini to thereby form a second aerosol-forming substrate which overlaps only part of the first aerosol-forming substrate in the longitudinal direction; which allows for a desired amount of nicotine to be produced.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-34 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:
Bilat et al. (US 2020/0196665 A1) discloses the use of an electric heater; a power supply; and a controller that is configured to control/permit/prevent/halt supply of electrical power to include the electric heater.
Feuerstein et al. (US 2023/0189883 A1) discloses an aerosol generation device. The device to include a loader for moving a consumable within a channel.
However, the references do not teach or suggest forming the aerosol-generating system wherein the at least one aerosol-forming substrate has a total length extending in the first longitudinal direction; wherein the cavity defines a second longitudinal direction extending between the first and the second ends of the cavity, wherein the electric heater defines a heating zone between a first end of the electric heater and a second end of the electric heater, wherein the heating zone has a length extending in the second longitudinal direction, and wherein the total length of the at least one aerosol-forming substrate is greater than the length of the heating zone.
The claims are therefore considered to be patentably distinguished from the prior art of record. The prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, does not render obvious the limitations of claim 29 and are allowable for the same reasons above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Katelyn Whatley can be reached on 5712705545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights