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
Claims 9, 1 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on 04/27/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1- in the reply filed on 04/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that US 2020/0154765 allegedly does not teach or suggest an aerosol generation device in which a maximum height of each protrusion measured according to an axis perpendicular to the receptacle axis is between 2% and 15% of a diameter of the receptacle. This is not found persuasive because Applicant has amended claim 1 by removing previously-recited limitations and adding a new dimensional limitation directed to the maximum height of the protrusion relative to the receptacle diameter. The lack of unity requirement was based on the common technical feature of a receptacle having protrusions extending from an internal surface into the receptacle path to contact the article, form flow passages, and compress a portion of the airflow path when the article is inserted. As set forth in the restriction requirement, US 2020/0154765 teaches protrusions protruding from the inner surface into path 20 to contact the cigarette, protrusions forming flow passages between the path and cigarette (¶ [0091]), and protrusions arranged to form airflow passages between adjacent protrusions (¶ [0095]). The newly added dimensional .
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1,2-8 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0154765), and further in view of Ruscio (US 2022/0225674).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an aerosol generation device (casing 710) configured to operate with a replaceable article (cigarette 7) (¶ [0156], Fig. 16):
a receptacle (path 20) extending along a receptacle axis, defining a receptacle internal surface (inner wall surface 20r), and configured to receive the replaceable article in a space delimited by the receptacle internal surface (¶ [0156], Fig. 16);
a heating system (heater 30) configured to heat the replaceable article when the replaceable article is received in the receptacle (¶ [0080]);
wherein the receptacle internal surface comprises at least one protrusion (725) protruding from the receptacle internal surface and configured to reduce a cross-sectional area of the receptacle (¶ [0160], Fig. 16);
each protrusion (725) defining a protrusion surface adjacent to the receptacle internal surface and forming an angle with the receptacle internal surface greater than 100° along the entire protrusion in an airflow direction, wherein Lee teaches protrusions 725 that are inclined relative to the length direction of cigarette 7 (¶ [0161]). As shown in Fig. 16, each protrusion 725 includes a ramp-shaped surface extending in the airflow direction from inner wall surface 20r to the apex of the protrusion. The angle formed between the ramp-shaped surface and inner wall surface 20r is obtuse along the entire protrusion and approaches 180°, thereby exceeding the claimed angle of 100° (¶ [0161], Fig. 16).
Lee does not expressly teach wherein a maximum height of each of the at least one protrusion measured according to an axis perpendicular to the receptacle axis is between 2% and 15% of a diameter of the receptacle.
Ruscio teaches wherein a maximum height of each of the at least one protrusion measured according to an axis perpendicular to the receptacle axis is between 2% and 15% of a diameter of the receptacle.
Specifically, Ruscio teaches a receptacle (receiving chamber 1) having a receptacle axis (center axis 201) and a substantially circular cross-section having a diameter of about 15 mm (Ruscio ¶ [0092]; Figs. 1, 5–6). Ruscio further teaches protrusions (first and second protrusions 10, 17) extending inwardly from the receptacle internal surface (inner surface 16) and having a height of 0.4 mm to 0.5 mm measured in a radial direction toward center axis 201 (Ruscio ¶ [0094]; Figs. 5–6).
Ruscio expressly teaches that, for a cylindrical receiving chamber, radial distances toward the center axis are measured in a direction perpendicular to the center axis (Ruscio ¶ [0015]). Thus, Ruscio’s expressly taught protrusion heights correspond to approximately 2.67% to 3.33% of the 15 mm diameter of receiving chamber 1, which falls within the claimed range of between 2% and 15% of the receptacle diameter.
Lee and Ruscio are both directed to aerosol-generating devices configured to receive a rod-shaped aerosol-generating article within a receptacle having inwardly extending protrusions that contact and support the received article. Lee teaches protrusions 725 positioned within path 20 to face and support cigarette 7. Ruscio teaches article-contacting protrusions 10, 17 dimensioned with a radial height of 0.4 mm to 0.5 mm in a receiving chamber having a diameter of about 15 mm, wherein the protrusions retain the article while reducing contact with the receiving chamber and providing airflow passages (Ruscio ¶¶ [0091], [0094], [0096]; Figs. 5–6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Lee’s protrusions (725) with a maximum height measured perpendicular to the receptacle axis relative to the diameter of path 20 as taught by Ruscio’s protrusions (10, 17) and receiving chamber (1), in order to provide protrusions dimensioned to contact and retain the replaceable article while maintaining airflow passages and reduced contact with the receptacle internal surface.
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Ruscio teaches the aerosol generation device of claim 1, as set forth above. Referring to claim 1, Ruscio teaches protrusions having a maximum height measured according to an axis perpendicular to the receptacle axis that corresponds to approximately 2.67% to 3.33% of the diameter of the receptacle. Accordingly, Ruscio teaches wherein the maximum height of each of the at least one protrusion measured according to an axis perpendicular to the receptacle axis is between 2% and 10% of the diameter of the receptacle, as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Ruscio teaches the aerosol generation device of claim 1, as set forth above. Lee does not teach wherein a maximum length of each of the at least one protrusion measured according to the receptacle axis is between 5% and 75% of a length of the receptacle measured according to the receptacle axis.
Ruscio teaches a receptacle (receiving chamber 1) having a length of 25 mm to 28 mm measured according to the receptacle axis (center axis 201) (Ruscio ¶ [0090]; Fig. 5). Ruscio further teaches an article-engaging projection within the receptacle (end stop 14) having a length measured according to the receptacle axis (height dimension in the direction of center axis 201) of, for example, 1.4 mm (Ruscio ¶ [0099]; Fig. 5). Thus, Ruscio teaches an axial length of the article-engaging projection corresponding to approximately 5% to 5.6% of the axial length of the receptacle, which falls within the claimed range of between 5% and 75% of a length of the receptacle measured according to the receptacle axis.
Lee and Ruscio are both directed to aerosol generation devices having a receptacle configured to receive an aerosol-generating article and internal projecting structures configured to engage the received article. Lee teaches protrusions 725 extending into path 20 to engage cigarette 7. Ruscio teaches end stops 14 projecting within receiving chamber 1 to engage article 2 and limit insertion depth of article 2 (Ruscio ¶ [0098]; Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Lee’s protrusions (725) with a maximum length measured according to the receptacle axis as taught by Ruscio’s article-engaging end stops (14), in order to provide internal projections dimensioned to engage and position the received article within the receptacle.
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches wherein each protrusion (725) forms an ascending portion (ramped surface extending from inner wall surface 20r), a top portion (apex of protrusion 725), and a descending portion (opposing surface extending from the apex toward inner wall surface 20r); the ascending portion extends from the receptacle internal surface (inner wall surface 20r) until the top portion (apex of protrusion 725) and the descending portion extends from the top portion (apex of protrusion 725) until the receptacle internal surface (inner wall surface 20r) (¶ [0161], Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 5, Lee does not expressly teach that the ascending portion is symmetric to the descending portion with respect to the top portion of protrusion 725 relied upon in the rejection of claim 4. Specifically, the protrusion 725 of Fig. 16 includes an inclined ramp-like profile that does not clearly depict symmetry about the apex of the protrusion (¶ [0161], Fig. 16). However, Lee teaches an alternative embodiment including protrusions 625 having an oval or streamlined shape extending in the length direction of the aerosol-generating article (¶ [0152], Fig. 15). The protrusions 625 include opposing sides that are substantially symmetric with respect to the apex of the protrusion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify protrusion 725 of Fig. 16 to have the symmetric profile taught by protrusion 625 of Fig. 15 because Lee teaches both protrusion configurations for engaging and positioning the aerosol-generating article within the receptacle. The modification merely substitutes one known protrusion shape taught by Lee for another known protrusion shape taught by Lee to obtain the predictable result of retaining and positioning the aerosol-generating article within the receptacle (¶ [0152]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches wherein the ascending portion (ramped surface of protrusion 725 extending from inner wall surface 20r to the apex of protrusion 725) defines transversal dimensions increasing from the receptacle internal surface (20r) until the top portion (apex of protrusion 725), and the descending portion (opposing surface of protrusion 725 extending from the apex toward inner wall surface 20r) defines transversal dimensions decreasing from the top portion until the receptacle internal surface (20r), as shown by the tapered profile of protrusion 725 in Fig. 16 (¶ [0161], Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches wherein a shape of each of the at least one protrusion (725) is an asymmetric chamfer, as shown in Fig. 16, where protrusion 725 includes an inclined ramp surface and an opposing steeper surface, thereby forming an asymmetric chamfer profile (¶ [0161], Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches wherein the at least one protrusion comprises a plurality of protrusions (725) arranged on the receptacle internal surface (20r) axially according to the receptacle axis (protrusions 725 arranged at multiple positions along the length of path 20) and circumferentially (protrusions 725 arranged on opposing sides of receptacle internal surface 20r) (¶ [0160], Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 16, Lee in view of Ruscio teaches the aerosol generation device of claim 1, as set forth above. Ruscio further teaches wherein the maximum height of each of the at least one protrusion measured according to an axis perpendicular to the receptacle axis is between 5% and 10% of the diameter of the receptacle. Specifically, Ruscio teaches that the height of the protrusions is preferably 0.4 mm to 0.8 mm measured toward the center axis, i.e., perpendicular to the receptacle axis (Ruscio ¶¶ [0015], [0051]), and teaches a receiving chamber having a diameter of about 15 mm (Ruscio ¶ [0088]). A protrusion height of 0.8 mm is approximately 5.33% of the 15 mm diameter of the receiving chamber, thereby falling within the claimed range of between 5% and 10% of the diameter of the receptacle.
Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Ruscio teaches the aerosol generation device of claim 1, as set forth above. Lee does not expressly teach wherein a maximum length of each of the at least one protrusion measured according to the receptacle axis is between 10% and 65% of a length of the receptacle measured according to the receptacle axis.
Ruscio teaches a receptacle (receiving chamber 1) having an axial length of 25 mm to 28 mm measured according to the receptacle axis (center axis 201) (Ruscio ¶ [0090]; Fig. 5). Ruscio further teaches article-engaging projections within the receptacle (end stops 14) having a maximum length measured according to the receptacle axis (height dimension in the direction of center axis 201) of up to 3 mm (Ruscio ¶ [0099]; Fig. 5). Thus, Ruscio teaches an axial length of the article-engaging projections corresponding to approximately 10.7% to 12% of the axial length of receiving chamber 1, which falls within the claimed range of between 10% and 65% of a length of the receptacle measured according to the receptacle axis.
Lee and Ruscio are both directed to aerosol generation devices having a receptacle configured to receive an aerosol-generating article and internal projecting structures configured to engage the received article. Lee teaches protrusions 725 extending into path 20 to engage cigarette 7. Ruscio teaches end stops 14 projecting within receiving chamber 1 to engage article 2 and limit insertion depth of article 2 (Ruscio ¶ [0098]; Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Lee’s protrusions (725) with a maximum length measured according to the receptacle axis as taught by Ruscio’s article-engaging end stops (14), in order to provide internal projections dimensioned to engage and position the received article within the receptacle.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0154765) and Ruscio (US 2022/0225674) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mikayama et al. (US 2022/0192262).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches the aerosol generation device of claim 1, including protrusions (725) arranged in path 20 of casing 710 and facing the outer surface 7s of cigarette 7 (Lee ¶ [0160]; Figs. 16–17).
Lee does not teach each of the at least one protrusion is moveable according to the receptacle axis.
Mikayama teaches each of the at least one protrusion is moveable according to the receptacle axis (piston 18). Specifically, Mikayama teaches a protrusion (piston 18) extending into receiving region 12 and configured to engage aerosol-generating article 14. Piston 18 extends from locking element 20 into receiving region 12 and into female cavity 16 of article 14 to retain the article within receiving region 12 (Mikayama ¶ [0089]; Figs. 1–2). Mikayama further teaches that piston 18 is movable between a retracted position and an extended position relative to receiving region 12 (Mikayama ¶ [0091]; Figs. 1–2). Thus, Mikayama teaches each of the at least one protrusion is moveable according to the receptacle axis (piston 18 movable relative to receiving region 12).
Lee and Mikayama are both directed to aerosol-generating devices configured to receive an aerosol-generating article. Further, Lee’s protrusions (725) and Mikayama’s piston (18) are both protruding structures configured to engage the received aerosol-generating article within the receiving region.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s protrusions (725) to be movable as taught by Mikayama (piston 18) in order to selectively engage and retain the aerosol-generating article during use and release the aerosol-generating article for removal after use.
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches the aerosol generation device of claim 1, including protrusions (725) arranged in path 20 of casing 710 and facing the outer surface 7s of cigarette 7 (¶ [0160]; Figs. 16–17).
Lee does not teach:
each of the at least one protrusion is moveable according to an axis perpendicular to the receptacle axis between an engaged position and a disengaged position;
when the replaceable article is received in the receptacle, the replaceable article being freely moveable within the receptacle according to the receptacle axis when each of the at least one protrusion is in the disengaged position; and
being locked in the receptacle when each of the at least one protrusion is in the engaged position.
Mikayama teaches:
each of the at least one protrusion (piston 18 of locking element 20);
is moveable according to an axis perpendicular to the receptacle axis (piston 18 is laterally movable, where the lateral direction is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of receiving region 12) (¶ [0057]; Figs. 1–2);
between an engaged position and a disengaged position (extended position of piston 18 into female cavity 16 = engaged position; retracted position of piston 18 = disengaged position) (¶ [0091]; Figs. 1–2);
wherein, when the replaceable article is received in the receptacle (aerosol-generating article 14 received in receiving region 12) (¶ [0088]);
the replaceable article (aerosol-generating article 14) being freely moveable within the receptacle (movable within receiving region 12) according to the receptacle axis (along the longitudinal axis of receiving region 12) when each of the at least one protrusion (piston 18) is in the disengaged position (retracted position of piston 18) (¶ [0091]; Figs. 1 and 4);
and being locked in the receptacle (aerosol-generating article 14 securely held in receiving region 12) when each of the at least one protrusion (piston 18) is in the engaged position (extended position of piston 18 extending into female cavity 16) (¶ [0093]; Figs. 2 and 5).
Lee and Mikayama are both directed to aerosol-generating devices configured to receive an aerosol-generating article. Further, Lee’s protrusions (725) and Mikayama’s piston (18) are both protruding structures configured to engage and retain the received aerosol-generating article within the receiving region.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s protrusions (725) to move between engaged and disengaged positions as taught by Mikayama (piston 18) in order to selectively lock the aerosol-generating article within the receptacle during use and release the aerosol-generating article for insertion and removal when desired.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0154765) and Ruscio (US 2022/0225674) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fleischhauer et al. (US 5,591,368).
Regarding claim 14, Lee does not teach a heating system comprising one or several heating elements extending along at least a part of the receptacle internal surface and a contact surface of each of the at least one protrusion.
Fleischhauer teaches heating elements (heater blades 120) extending within the receptacle cavity (CR) along the article-receiving region and contacting the smoking article along their longitudinal extent, such that the portion of the smoking article underlying and contacting the heater blades is heated (heater blades 120 including blade legs 116A and 116B) (Fleischhauer, col. 14, ll. 21–35; Fig. 3).
Lee and Fleischhauer are both directed to electrically heated smoking article systems configured to receive a rod-shaped smoking article within a receptacle and transfer heat to the smoking article during use. Further, Lee’s protrusions (725) and Fleischhauer’s heater blades (120) are both structures positioned within the article-receiving cavity and configured to engage the received smoking article.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s protrusions (725) such that heating elements extend along the contact surfaces of the protrusions as taught by Fleischhauer (heater blades 120) in order to increase thermal contact with the smoking article and provide more uniform heat transfer to the smoking article during use.
Accordingly, the combination of Lee and Fleischhauer teaches a heating system comprising one or several heating elements extending along at least a part of the receptacle internal surface and a contact surface of each of the at least one protrusion, as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at (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
Prosecution Insights