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Claims 12-18, 22-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 without traverse in the reply filed on 04/03/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 04/03/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hubbard et al. (US 2019/0183177 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hubbard teaches an aerosol provision device comprising:
a mouthpiece (mouth-end cap 56 having a mouth-end opening through which aerosol exits the housing) (Hubbard ¶ [0072]);
one or more first aerosol generating regions located a first distance d1 from the mouthpiece (flavorant-infused material 62 disposed in annular second aerosol delivery pathway 60 of housing 50, where air enters through second air inlets 64, interacts with flavor beads/particles 62, and produces a second aerosol; the flavorant-infused material 62 is positioned a first distance d1 from mouth-end cap 56) (Hubbard ¶ [0072]);
one or more second aerosol generating regions located a second distance d2 from the mouthpiece (atomizer 52 positioned upstream of housing 50 and spaced from mouth-end cap 56, where atomizer 52 produces a first aerosol from an aerosol precursor composition) (Hubbard ¶ [0072]);
wherein d2 > d1 (atomizer 52 is positioned farther upstream from mouth-end cap 56 than flavorant-infused material 62, such that the distance from mouth-end cap 56 to atomizer 52 is greater than the distance from mouth-end cap 56 to flavorant-infused material 62) (Hubbard ¶ [0072]);
one or more first aerosol transmission channels arranged to communicate aerosol generated from the one or more first aerosol generating regions to the mouthpiece (annular second aerosol delivery pathway 60 communicates aerosol generated from flavorant-infused material 62 toward mouth-end cap 56) (Hubbard ¶ [0072]);
wherein the one or more first aerosol transmission channels have a first cross-sectional or other profile (second aerosol delivery pathway 60 is an annular space defined in housing 50) (Hubbard ¶ [0072]);
one or more second aerosol transmission channels arranged to communicate aerosol generated from the one or more second aerosol generating regions to the mouthpiece (central passage 54 communicates aerosol generated from atomizer 52 toward mouth-end cap 56) (Hubbard ¶ [0072]); and
wherein the one or more second aerosol transmission channels have a second cross-sectional or other profile, and wherein the second cross-sectional or other profile is different from the first cross-sectional or other profile (central passage 54 has a central passage profile, while second aerosol delivery pathway 60 has an annular profile around central passage 54, thereby providing different profiles) (Hubbard ¶ [0072]).
Regarding claim 9, Hubbard teaches the aerosol provision device of claim 1, wherein the one or more first aerosol transmission channels are separate from the one or more second aerosol transmission channels (annular second aerosol delivery pathway 60 communicates aerosol generated from flavorant-infused material 62 toward mouth-end cap 56, while central passage 54 separately communicates aerosol generated from atomizer 52 toward mouth-end cap 56) (Hubbard ¶ [0072]).
Regarding claim 10, Hubbard teaches the aerosol provision device of claim 1, further comprising one or more heating elements for heating the one or more aerosol generating regions (atomizer 52 includes a heating element for heating aerosol precursor composition to produce aerosol, and atomizer 52 corresponds to the claimed second aerosol generating region) (Hubbard ¶ [0072]).
Regarding claim 11, Hubbard teaches the aerosol provision device of claim 10, wherein the one or more heating elements comprise one or more resistive or inductive heating elements (the atomizer may comprise an electrical resistance heating element or an inductive heating element) (Hubbard ¶ [0004]).
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 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbard et al. (US 2019/0183177 A1) in view of Taurino et al. (US 2021/0289840 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hubbard teaches the aerosol provision device of claim 1, including the one or more first aerosol transmission channels having a first cross-sectional or other profile (annular second aerosol delivery pathway 60) and the one or more second aerosol transmission channels having a second cross-sectional or other profile different from the first cross-sectional or other profile (central passage 54) (Hubbard ¶ [0072]).
Hubbard does not expressly teach wherein the first cross-sectional or other profile is larger than the second cross-sectional or other profile.
Taurino teaches that different sized airflow paths can fine tune resistance-to-draw and tune or adjust the ratio of each component, such as nicotine and acid, in the vapor (Taurino ¶ [0014]).
Taurino also teaches that widths of first and second compartments may vary along respective first and second airflow paths to reduce or mitigate effects on volumetric airflow (Taurino ¶ [0015]), including first and second compartments 110, 120 having respective first and second airflow paths 217, 227 and respective varying widths 115, 125 (Taurino ¶ [0140]).
Taurino is in the same field of endeavor as Hubbard because both are directed to aerosol-generating devices/cartridges having separate airflow paths for delivering vapor constituents to a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make one of Hubbard’s airflow channels, including annular second aerosol delivery pathway 60, variable in size relative to central passage 54 such that the first cross-sectional or other profile is larger than the second cross-sectional or other profile, as taught by Taurino, in order to fine tune resistance-to-draw and adjust the delivered ratio of aerosol-to-flavorant in Hubbard’s vapor. The modification merely applies Taurino’s known airflow-path tuning to Hubbard’s already-existing separate aerosol and flavorant pathways to obtain a desired aerosol-to-flavorant ratio while preserving Hubbard’s principle of operation.
Regarding claim 3, Hubbard teaches the aerosol provision device of claim 1, including the one or more first aerosol transmission channels (annular second aerosol delivery pathway 60 communicating aerosol generated from flavorant-infused material 62 toward mouth-end cap 56) and the one or more second aerosol transmission channels (central passage 54 communicating aerosol generated from atomizer 52 toward mouth-end cap 56) (Hubbard ¶ [0072]).
Hubbard does not expressly teach wherein the effective airpath volume of the one or more first aerosol transmission channels is approximately equal to the effective airpath volume of the one or more second aerosol transmission channels.
Taurino teaches controlling and balancing concentrations by varying volumetric airflow through first and second compartments relative to each other (Taurino ¶ [0005]). Taurino further teaches that varying the width of a compartment along an airflow path can reduce or mitigate effects on volumetric airflow (Taurino ¶ [0013]). Taurino further teaches first and second airflow paths 217, 227 and varying widths 115, 125 associated with first and second compartments 110, 120 (Taurino ¶ [0140]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dimension Hubbard’s existing annular second aerosol delivery pathway 60 and central passage 54 such that the effective airpath volume of the annular second aerosol delivery pathway 60 is approximately equal to the effective airpath volume of central passage 54, as taught by Taurino, in order to control and balance volumetric airflow and aerosol delivery through Hubbard’s separate aerosol delivery pathways before the aerosols mix in mixing space 70 and exit through mouth-end cap 56. The modification merely dimensions Hubbard’s existing aerosol pathways and does not change Hubbard’s principle of operation.
Regarding claim 4, Hubbard teaches the aerosol provision device of claim 1, including the one or more first aerosol transmission channels having a first cross-sectional or other profile (annular second aerosol delivery pathway 60) and the one or more second aerosol transmission channels having a second cross-sectional or other profile different from the first cross-sectional or other profile (central passage 54) (Hubbard ¶ [0072]).
Hubbard further teaches that aerosol generated from flavorant-infused material 62 and aerosol generated from atomizer 52 are delivered toward mouth-end cap 56 and may mix in mixing space 70 before exiting the device (Hubbard ¶ [0072]).
Hubbard does not expressly teach wherein the cross-sectional or other profiles of the one or more first aerosol transmission channels and the one or more second aerosol transmission channels are configured such that the amount of aerosol provided from the one or more first aerosol generating regions and the one or more second aerosol generating regions are substantially equal.
Taurino teaches controlling and balancing concentrations by varying volumetric airflow through first and second compartments relative to each other (Taurino ¶ [0005]). Taurino further teaches that varying compartment width along an airflow path can reduce or mitigate effects on volumetric airflow (Taurino ¶ [0013]). Taurino also teaches that balancing nicotine vapor and acid vapor may improve reaction efficiency and consistency, and reduce delivery of unreacted nicotine or acid vapor (Taurino ¶ [0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dimension Hubbard’s existing annular second aerosol delivery pathway 60 and central passage 54 such that the aerosol amounts from flavorant-infused material 62 and atomizer 52 are substantially equal, as taught by Taurino, in order to control and balance volumetric airflow and aerosol delivery from Hubbard’s separate aerosol delivery pathways before the aerosols mix in mixing space 70 and exit through mouth-end cap 56. The modification merely adjusts the relative cross-sectional/profile dimensions of Hubbard’s existing aerosol pathways to control aerosol delivery and does not change Hubbard’s principle of operation.
Regarding claim 5, Hubbard teaches the aerosol provision device of claim 1, including the one or more first aerosol transmission channels having a first cross-sectional or other profile (annular second aerosol delivery pathway 60) and the one or more second aerosol transmission channels having a second cross-sectional or other profile different from the first cross-sectional or other profile (central passage 54) (Hubbard ¶ [0072]).
Hubbard does not expressly teach wherein the second cross-sectional or other profile is larger than the first cross-sectional or other profile.
Taurino teaches that a width of a first compartment may vary along a first airflow path and a width of a second compartment may vary along a second airflow path to reduce or mitigate effects on volumetric airflow (Taurino ¶ [0015]). Taurino further teaches first and second compartments 110, 120 having respective first and second airflow paths 217, 227 and respective first and second varying widths 115, 125 (Taurino ¶ [0140]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dimension Hubbard’s existing central passage 54 such that the second cross-sectional or other profile is larger than the first cross-sectional or other profile of annular second aerosol delivery pathway 60, as taught by Taurino, in order to control and balance volumetric airflow and aerosol delivery through Hubbard’s separate aerosol delivery pathways. The modification merely sizes Hubbard’s already-existing central passage 54 relative to its already-existing annular pathway 60 and does not change Hubbard’s principle of operation.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbard et al. (US 2019/0183177 A1) in view of Thorens et al. (US 2011/0094523 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hubbard teaches the aerosol provision device of claim 1, including the one or more first aerosol transmission channels having a first cross-sectional or other profile (annular second aerosol delivery pathway 60) and the one or more second aerosol transmission channels having a second cross-sectional or other profile different from the first cross-sectional or other profile (central passage 54) (Hubbard ¶ [0072]).
Hubbard further teaches that aerosol generated from flavorant-infused material 62 and aerosol generated from atomizer 52 are delivered toward mouth-end cap 56 and may mix in mixing space 70 before exiting the device (Hubbard ¶ [0072]).
Hubbard does not expressly teach wherein the cross-sectional or other profiles of the one or more first aerosol transmission channels and the one or more second aerosol transmission channels are configured such that the speed of delivery of aerosol from the one or more first aerosol generating regions and the one or more second aerosol generating regions to the mouthpiece are substantially equal.
Thorens teaches controlling the speed of airflow by varying the cross-sectional area of the airflow route, including that airflow through a constricted section increases in speed and airflow through a wider section decreases in speed (Thorens ¶ [0031]).
Thorens is in the same field of endeavor as Hubbard because both references are directed to smoking/aerosol systems that generate and deliver aerosol to a user through airflow passages.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dimension Hubbard’s existing annular second aerosol delivery pathway 60 and central passage 54 such that the speed of aerosol delivery from flavorant-infused material 62 and atomizer 52 is substantially equal, as taught by Thorens, in order to control and balance airflow speed through Hubbard’s separate aerosol delivery pathways before the aerosols mix in mixing space 70 and exit through mouth-end cap 56. The modification merely adjusts the relative cross-sectional/profile dimensions of Hubbard’s existing aerosol pathways to control delivery speed and does not change Hubbard’s principle of operation.
Claim 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubbard et al. (US 2019/0183177 A1) in view of Batista et al. (US 2022/0175043 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hubbard teaches the aerosol provision device of claim 1, including the one or more first aerosol transmission channels (annular second aerosol delivery pathway 60 communicating aerosol generated from flavorant-infused material 62 toward mouth-end cap 56) and the one or more second aerosol transmission channels (central passage 54 communicating aerosol generated from atomizer 52 toward mouth-end cap 56), wherein the first and second aerosol transmission channels have different cross-sectional or other profiles (Hubbard ¶ [0072]).
Hubbard does not expressly teach wherein the aerosol provision device comprises a central aerosol transmission channel, wherein the one or more first aerosol transmission channels and the one or more second aerosol transmission channels are formed within the central aerosol transmission channel.
Batista teaches that the aerosol flow path of a mouthpiece may include a plurality of channels, and that the channels may be tubular channels coaxially arranged within the mouthpiece (Batista ¶ [0011]). Batista further teaches that the mouthpiece may comprise a central channel and at least two tubular channels coaxially arranged with respect to the central channel and in fluid communication with the central channel (Batista ¶ [0017]). Batista further teaches that the mouthpiece includes central channel 22 and coaxially arranged intermediate tubular channel 23 and outer tubular channel 24, which guide aerosol through the mouthpiece toward outlet end 14 (Batista ¶ [0052]).
Batista is in the same field of endeavor as Hubbard because both references are directed to aerosol-generating articles/devices having mouthpiece airflow paths for delivering aerosol to a user.
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 Hubbard’s aerosol transmission structure such that the first and second aerosol transmission channels are formed within a central aerosol transmission channel, as taught by Batista, by using coaxially arranged tubular aerosol-flow channels in the mouthpiece. The motivation would have been to manage aerosol flow from the aerosol-generation regions toward the outlet of the mouthpiece and provide a multi-channel aerosol flow path for guiding aerosol through the mouthpiece. The modification merely applies Batista’s known multi-channel mouthpiece flow-path arrangement to Hubbard’s existing aerosol delivery pathways and does not change Hubbard’s principle of operation.
Regarding claim 8, Hubbard in view of Batista teaches the aerosol provision device of claim 7, including a central aerosol transmission channel having first and second aerosol transmission channels formed therein, as set forth above with respect to claim 7 (Hubbard ¶ [0072]; Batista ¶ [0052]).
Hubbard does not expressly teach wherein the central aerosol transmission channel has a cross-sectional or other profile which tapers.
Batista teaches central channel 22 extends from inlet end 12 toward outlet end 14 and radially diverges along the direction of aerosol flow, thereby providing a central aerosol transmission channel having a tapered cross-sectional profile (Batista ¶ [0052]).
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 Hubbard’s central aerosol transmission channel to have a cross-sectional profile that widens in the direction of aerosol flow, as taught by Batista, in order to guide aerosol flow through the mouthpiece and manage aerosol delivery toward the outlet. The modification merely applies Batista’s known mouthpiece flow-path arrangement to Hubbard’s existing aerosol delivery structure and does not change Hubbard’s principle of operation.
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