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 without traverse of 1-8 in the reply filed on 03/05/2026 is acknowledged. Claims FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected FILLIN "Enter the appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT inventions , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on FILLIN "Enter mail date of the reply." \* MERGEFORMAT 03/05/2026 . 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) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either --clearly anticipated-- or--anticipated-- with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 2 ]" anticipated by FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon" \d "[ 3 ]" Yamada et al. (US20200338284) . Regarding claim 1 , Yamada teaches an aerosol generating device (inhaler device 100A ) comprising: an air path (aerosol flow path 121 as indicated by arrow 124 ) including an aerosol generating region (atomizing part 118 ¶ [0099]) ; a porous element (flavor source 128 ) downstream of the aerosol generating region located in the air path (fig. 1B ; ¶ [0098], [0107] ) ; a sensor 112 for determining a change in a characteristic at least one pressure or direction of airflow in the air path ( The sensor 112 may include a pressure sensor that detects fluctuation in pressure in the air intake channel 120 and / or the aerosol flow path 121 or a flow sensor that detects a flow rate in the air intake channel 120 and / or the aerosol flow path 121 ¶ [0103]) with respect to the limitation “ to indicate a change in a characteristic of the porous element ”, Yamada teaches that detected variables, including airflow parameters, are used to determine whether a predefined condition relating to an element of the device is satisfied, where the element includes the flavor source disposed in the airflow path, and wherein the condition corresponds to a change in capacity or residual amount of the element ( ¶¶ [00116], [1030]). The capacity or residual amount of the flavor source constitutes a characteristic of the porous element. Accordingly, the airflow parameter determined by the sensor is used to indicate a change in a characteristic of the porous element. To the extent the claim language “to indicate a change in a characteristic of the porous element” is interpreted as functional language, such language does not impose structural limitation on the claimed device, as the claim does not require any specific structural modification of the sensor beyond determing airflow paraments. Regarding claim 2 , Yamada teaches wherein the sensor is arranged to determine the change in at least one of the following characteristics: pressure of the airflow in the air path (( The sensor 112 may include a pressure sensor that detects fluctuation in pressure in the air intake channel 120 and / or the aerosol flow path 121 or a flow sensor that detects a flow rate in the air intake channel 120 and/or the aerosol flow path 121 ¶ [0103]) ; temperature of the airflow in the air path; humidity of the airflow in the air path; density of vapor in the air path; change in content of the airflow in the air path; or direction of the airflow of the air path. Regarding limitation of claim 3 ,” a controller arranged to receive a signal relating to the determination of the sensor of the change in the characteristic of the airflow in the air path ” , Yamada t e aches a controller configured to receive signals from a sensor that detects airflow parameters such as pressure or flow rate in the air path ( ¶¶ [0114], [0132]). The controller uses the detected airflow parameter to determine whether a predefined condition is defined. “ wherein the controller is arranged to prevent activation of the aerosol generating device in response to a predetermined value of the determination of the sensor ” Yamada teaches that the controller determines whe ther a detected airflow parameter meets a predefined condition or threshold ( ¶¶ [0130], [0132]). When the condition is satisfied, the controller prohibits energization of the atomizing part, thereby stopping generation of aerosol ¶ [0137]). The preventing energization of the atomizing part corresponds to preventing activation of aerosol generating device in response to a predetermined value of the sensor determination. Regarding the additional limitation of claim 4 : “ wherein the porous element is arranged to become less porous over time of use” Yamada teaches: a tobacco flavor source (porous element) disposed in the airflow path (¶¶ [0106]–[0107]) heated aerosol generation at the atomizing part (¶ [0099]) air and aerosol flowing through the tobacco flavor source during use (¶¶ [0099]–[0100]) Accordingly, Yamada teaches that the same material (tobacco porous element) is subjected to the same conditions (heated and/or moisture-containing airflow during use). Applicant’s specification confirms that tobacco exposed to hot and/or wet airflow degrades over time, resulting in reduced porosity (Spec., p. 4–5). Therefore: same material plus same operating conditions equals same result, namely the porous tobacco element becomes less porous over time of use. Accordingly, the porous element of Yamada is inherently arranged to become less porous over time of use. To the extent the claim recites functional language, such language does not impose a structural limitation beyond the porous tobacco element already taught by Yamada. Regarding claim 7 , Yamada teaches wherein the porous element comprises a flavorant ([0107]). Regarding claim 8 , Yamada teaches wherein the flavorant is at least one of menthol, fruit, tobacco, or blends thereof ([0107]). 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) FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Yamada et al. (US20200338284) . Regarding claim 5 , Yamada teaches: the porous element comprises a plurality of channels for airflow, as Yamada teaches a porous tobacco flavor source through which air and aerosol pass, and such porous material is reasonably understood to include multiple airflow paths/channels (¶¶ [0099]–[0100], [0106]–[0107]). Yamada does not teach: wherein a majority of the plurality of channels close over time of use. However, Yamada teaches a porous tobacco element through which heated aerosol and airflow pass during use (¶¶ [0099]–[0100], [0106]–[0107]). It is well understood that porous materials subjected to heated and/or moisture-containing airflow undergo accumulation of constituents and structural changes over time, resulting in a reduction of available flow paths within the material. As use continues, an increasing number of channels become obstructed while the total number of channels remains fixed, such that the number of closed channels increases relative to the number of open channels. This represents the application of a known behavior of porous materials under known operating conditions (heated aerosol flow) to the device of Yamada, yielding the predictable result of progressive channel closure over time of use (MPEP § 2143). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a majority of the plurality of channels close over a time of use, as continued exposure of the porous tobacco element of Yamada to heated and/or moisture-containing airflow would result in accumulation of constituents and structural changes that reduce available flow paths over time. Such modification represents the application of a known behavior of porous materials under known operating conditions to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP § 2143). One would have been motivated to make such modification in order to account for and accommodate expected changes in airflow through the porous element during use, thereby maintaining predictable operation of the device. Claim(s) FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Yamada et al. (US20200338284). as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 1 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Bodaghi (US 6,488,801) . Regarding claim 6 , Yamada teaches: the porous element comprises a plurality of channels for airflow, as Yamada teaches a porous tobacco flavor source through which air and aerosol pass, and such porous material is reasonably understood to include multiple airflow paths/channels (¶¶ [0099]–[0100], [0106]–[0107]). Yamada does not explicitly teach: that a majority of the plurality of channels of the porous element are arranged to close when subjected to airflow at about 40°C to about 120°C for a predetermined period of time. Bodaghi teaches: a porous fibrous material having a plurality of pores/channels for fluid flow, that pore size corresponds to permeability (col. 14, lines 1–5) hat the material shrinks under a temperature differential, resulting in: reduction in pore size restriction or elimination of fluid flow through the pores (col. 13, lines 40–55) that such pore reduction occurs at elevated temperatures, including temperatures in the range of approximately 25–110°C or higher (col. 19, lines 40–65) Bodaghi is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it relates to behavior of porous materials under thermal conditions affecting fluid flow. The present claims likewise concern airflow through a porous element subjected to temperature. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably consulted Bodaghi for its teachings regarding temperature-dependent changes in porous structures. See MPEP §2141.01(a). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a porous material as taught by Bodaghi for the porous element of Yamada, since Bodaghi teaches that such porous materials exhibit temperature-dependent pore size reduction when subjected to elevated temperatures, including temperatures overlapping the claimed range of about 40°C to about 120°C, resulting in restricted or eliminated flow through the pores. Such modification represents the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, as the porous element of Yamada is exposed to heated airflow, and Bodaghi teaches the known effect of temperature on porous materials, namely shrinkage resulting in reduced pore size and restricted flow at elevated temperatures. Furthermore, the temperature-dependent pore size reduction taught by Bodaghi occurs as a function of exposure to temperature, such that the reduction in pore size necessarily takes place over a period of time under the applied thermal conditions, thereby meeting the claimed requirement of a predetermined period of time. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7739 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm . 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. /JENNIFER A KESSIE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1747 /Michael H. Wilson/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747