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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 12-15, 18-21, 23, 24, 38 and 47 are pending.
Claims 4, 19-21, 23, 24, 38 and 47 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4, 19-21, 23, 24, 38 and 47 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/19/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Species 1A in the reply filed on 5/19/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I, II, and III together constitute exactly the combination of categories described in 37 CFR 1.475(b)(5), Applicant respectfully submits that unity of invention is present among all three groups, and that the Restriction Requirement should therefore be withdrawn. This is not found persuasive because even though the inventions of the three groups require the same technical feature, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of WO2016016252 (Kontarev). See PCT Rule 13.1 and 13.2.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1-3, 6-9 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kontarev (WO 2016016252, cited in IDS dated 11/7/2025).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Kontarev teaches a component (1) for a delivery system (Fig. 1), the component (1) comprising:
a body (13) formed from a sheet of material (13) (col. 3, lines 23-24); and at least one object (11) held in a space within the body (Fig. 1), wherein the sheet of material (13) comprises a first internal edge at least partially defining a boundary of the space (see annotated Fig. 1, below), wherein the first internal edge is a cut edge of the sheet of material (col. 3, 32-33 and col. 4, lines 7-9).
PNG
media_image1.png
440
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3, 6 and 8, Kontarev teaches that the sheet of material comprises a slit that forms the first internal edge (see annotated Fig. 1, above), wherein the first internal edge is configured to resist the at least one object from moving out of the space and wherein the first internal edge forms a first wall portion (see annotated Fig. 2b, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
236
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Kontarev teaches that the component (1) comprises a first end and a second end (see annotated Fig. 1, above), and the second end is opposite to the first end (see annotated Fig. 1, above), wherein the first internal edge is located between the at least one object (11) and the second end of the component (see annotated Fig. 2b above).
Regarding claims 9 and 12, Kontarev teaches that the sheet of material further comprises a second internal edge at least partially defining a boundary of the space, wherein the second internal edge forms a second wall portion (see annotated Fig. 2b above).
Regarding claim 13, Kontarev teaches at least one further object (Fig. 2c, two objects labeled 11).
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.
Claim(s) 14, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kontarev.
Regarding claims 14, 15 and 18, Kontarev does not expressly teach that the at least one further object is held in a second space within the body, and wherein the sheet of material comprises a third internal edge at least partially defining a boundary of the second space and
further comprises a fourth internal edge at least partially defining the boundary of the second space, and wherein at least one of: the third internal edge forms a third wall portion, or the fourth internal edge forms a fourth wall portion.
However, the courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI B). It would have been obvious to duplicate the first space (7 in the Figures) to create two separate spaces within the body (13) of Kontarev to provide users with the freedom of choice to uniquely design and alter their smoking experience (page 6, lines 21-22) specifically by allowing users to select additives from one space, and not the other space, or to select additives from both spaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANA B KRINKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
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, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. 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.
YANA B. KRINKER
Examiner
Art Unit 1755
/YANA B KRINKER/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights