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- 6, 9-13, and 15-23 are pending and subject to this Office Action. This is the First Action on the merits of the claims. 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. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1-3, 9, 11-13, 15-20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" (a)(1) as being FILLIN "Insert either—clearly anticipated—or—anticipated—with an explanation at the end of the paragraph." \d "[ 3 ]" anticipated by Garcia Garcia , et al ( US20200359676A1 ) . Regarding claim 1 , Gracia Garcia teaches a sheet type aerosol generating article comprising : at least two aerosol generating sheets each comprising aerosol generating material; and an inductively heatable susceptor; wherein the inductively heatable susceptor is positioned between the aerosol generating sheets and each of the aerosol generating sheets has an exposed surface. [0005] The susceptor taught by Gracia Garcia is considered to read on the support of the instant claim. Gracia Garcia teaches that the article, to include both the aerosol generating material and the susceptor (support) can be perforated. ([0017], [0052], [0107]) Regarding claims 2 and 3 , Gracia Garcia teaches that the aerosol generating sheets may be adhered to the inductively heatable susceptor by an adhesive.[0013] The aerosol generating material is disclosed to be adhered to the susceptor/ support on both the top, first surface, and the bottom, second surface, of the susceptor sheet. (Fig 1) Regarding claim 9 , Garcia Garcia teaches the perforations extend through the aerosol generating material to facilitate airflow through the aerosol generating article during use. [0017] The use of a perforation that allows air to flow into and subsequently through the article is considered to read on the opening through the aerosol generating material of the consumable. Regarding claim 11 , as discussed in claim 1, Garcia teaches that the perforation in the aerosol generating article can extend through the aerosol generating sheet and the susceptor/support. ([0017], [0052], [0107]) Regarding claim 12 , Garcia Garcia teaches that the perforation extend fully through the aerosol generating material [0017] and as such is considered to read on the limitation that the perforations extend at least partially through an aerosol-generating material. Regarding claim 13 , Garcia Garcia teaches that the support/susceptor can comprise a metal foil. [0079] Regarding claim 15 , Garcia Garcia provides an example of the metal foil being aluminium foil. [0079] Regarding claim 16 , Garcia Garcia teaches that the aerosol generating material is attached to a susceptor/support that is used to heat the aerosol generating article. [0003] Regarding claim 17 , Garcia Garcia teaches that the susceptor may comprise a plurality of strips of susceptor material. [0019] The prior art teaches that the inductively heatable susceptor can comprises a plurality of strips positioned in an adhesive layer between the first and second aerosol generating sheets. ([0081], Fig 4) Regarding claims 18 and 19 , Garcia Garcia teaches that the perforation of the substrate and the susceptor/ support would occur after the aerosol generating material is attached to the susceptor support material. [0107] The perforations in the aerosol generating article would form discrete portions of aerosol generating material that is located between the openings that are the perforations.(Fig.3) As such, when the aerosol generating substrate is completed the susceptor /support material would be solid and impermeable beneath the discrete portions of the aerosol generating material. Regarding claim 20 , as discussed in claim 1, Garcia Garcia teaches the perforations extend through the aerosol generating material and the susceptor material. [0017] The use of perforations that extend through the aerosol generating material and the susceptor to facilitate airflow through the aerosol generating article during use [0017] is considered to read on the open end extending through the susceptor/ impermeable material. 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. Claims FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 4 -6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Garcia Garcia , et al (US20200359676A1) as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 2 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Mironov, et al (US20170318862A1) . Regarding claims 4 and 5 , Garcia Garcia discloses an embodiment where the aerosol generating material has openings that separate portions of the aerosol generating material on the susceptor material. (Fig 3, [0061] [0079] ) However, Garcia does not explicitly teach the aerosol generating material would be a discrete portions of material on the susceptor/ support. Mironov, directed to the design of aerosol generating article with a support, teaches an aerosol generating article that is comprised of a base layer (support) and an aerosol generating material that can be attached to the surface of the base layer.([0005], [0016]) Mironov teaches that the aerosol forming substrate can comprise a plurality of aerosol-forming substrates arranged separately on the base layer. [0023] Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Garcia Garcia by having a substrate with discrete portions of aerosol generating material on the susceptor material as taught by Mironov because both Garcia Garcia and Mironov are directed to heated aerosol generating articles, Mironov teaches this allows the aerosol generating article to comprise two or more different aerosol forming substrates [0023], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way. Regarding claim 6 , a modified Garcia Garcia teaches that the discrete portions of the aerosol generating material would have one aerosol generating material is on one side of the susceptor/support material and a second aerosol generating material is on the opposite side of the susceptor/support material. This would allow the perforations to extend through both the first and the second aerosol generating material as well as the susceptor/ support material. Claims 10, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Garcia Garcia , et al (US20200359676A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Kabirat (WO2021105473A1) . Regarding claim 10 , Garcia Garcia teaches that the perforation/ opening that extends through the article and fails to teach that the perforation would only extend through the aerosol generating material Kabirat , directed to the design of an article for use in a non-combustible aerosol provision system, teaches an aerosol generating article that is comprised of a support element with a cavity that holds an aerosol generating material. (p12 ln 1-3, Fig 7) The prior art teaches that the aerosol generating material may include one or more perforations that do not extend through the support material and only through the aerosol generating material. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Garcia Garcia by having the perforations that extend only through the aerosol generating material as taught by Kabirat because both Garcia Garcia and Kabirat are directed to aerosol generating articles for heating, Kabirat teaches contact between the support material and the aerosol generating material can improve heating efficiency (p12 ln 26 - 28 ), and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way . Regarding claim 21 , Garcia Garcia teaches that the perforation/ opening that extends through the article and fails to teach that the perforation would only extend through the aerosol generating material Kabirat , directed to the design of an article for use in a non-combustible aerosol provision system, teaches an aerosol generating article that is comprised of a support element with a cavity that holds an aerosol generating material. (p12 ln 1-3, Fig 7) The prior art teaches that the aerosol generating material may include one or more perforations that do not extend through the support material and only through the aerosol generating material. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Garcia Garcia by having the perforations that extend only through the aerosol generating material as taught by Kabirat because both Garcia Garcia and Kabirat are directed to aerosol generating articles for heating, Kabirat teaches contact between the support material and the aerosol generating material can improve heating efficiency (p12 ln 26 - 28 ), and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way . Regarding claim 23 , Garcia Garcia teaches that the perforations are used to control and optimize the air permeability of the aerosol generating article. [0017] Garcia Garcia is silent with respect to the positions of one or more perforations being determined by the position of the aerosol generating material. Kabirat teaches the perforations maybe of any appropriate size and number, advantageously disposed substantially centrally on the portion(s) of amorphous solid material, or may comprise a plurality of perforations disposed in an array across the portion(s) of amorphous solid material. (p12 ln 17-20) Kabirat teaches that the location of the perforation can be taken into account so that the perforations are located in a desired position, such as the center of the aerosol generating material. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Garcia Garcia by having the perforations located in a specific location based on the aerosol generating material as taught by Kabirat because both Garcia Garcia and Kabirat are directed to aerosol generating articles for heating, Kabirat teaches this allows the aerosol generating material to remain in contact with the substrate improving heating (p12 ln 10-15 and ln 25-29), and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar products in the same way . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT VIRGINIA R BIEGER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1014 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th: 7:30-4:30 . 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 Phillip Louie can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /V.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755