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 1-19 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16, in the reply filed on 7/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7/21/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1 should recite “from an aerosol-generating material”.
Claim 1, line 4 should recite “containing the aerosol-generating material”.
Claim 1, line 6, should recite “portion of the article received”.
Claim 16, lines 1-2, wherein the heating element is upstanding”.
Further, there are several instances of additional spaces throughout the claims and should be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the elongate rib extends discontinuously in only a circumferential direction”. However, it is unclear how the rib would extend discontinuously only in a circumferential direction. The elongate rib forms a helical path per claims 2-3, of which claim 8 depends on. Therefore, the discontinuity would be angled per the helical path, making the rib extend discontinuously in both a circumferential direction and a longitudinal direction. This embodiment is shown in fig. 9 of the Applicant’s drawings which also shows the rib extending discontinuously in both a circumferential direction and a longitudinal direction.
For purposes of examination, so long as the prior art teaches an elongate rib extending discontinuously in only a circumferential direction and a longitudinal direction then it will meet the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "plurality of elongate ribs" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination claim 15 will be considered to exclude this limitation.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, 11-12, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US2020/0154765).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an aerosol generating device ([0155], fig. 16) for generating an aerosol from aerosol-generating material (cigarette 7, [0156]) comprising:
a receptacle (casing 710, [0156], fig. 16) comprising a peripheral wall (inner wall surface of the path 20, fig. 16) defining a heating zone for receiving at least a portion of an article containing aerosol-generating material (path 20 to accommodate the cigarette 7, [0162]);
an elongate rib protruding into the heating zone (plurality of protrusions 725, [0163]), the elongate rib comprising an article locating face (to face the outer surface 7s of the cigarette 7, [0160]) arranged to space at least a portion of an article received in the heating zone from the peripheral wall to provide an airflow path between the article and the peripheral wall (space shown in fig. 26 between outer surface 7s and inner surface of path 20);
wherein the elongate rib extends at least partially circumferentially about the peripheral wall (protrusions 725 are arranged in a circumferential direction, [0160], fig. 16).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses wherein the elongate rib forms an at least partially helical path around the peripheral wall of the receptacle (the protrusions are inclined in a circumferential direction, [0161], fig. 16).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses wherein the elongate rib is a plurality of elongate ribs (plurality of protrusions 725, [0161], fig. 16).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses a heating element configured to heat the article (heater 30 that extends through the through hole 22 and is connected to the casing, [0080]).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses wherein the receptacle comprises the heating element (as the heater 30 is coupled to the casing 210 [0108], and thus would similarly be coupled to the casing 710 of fig. 16).
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses wherein the heating element comprises a material configured to heat under application of an electric current therethrough ([0083]).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses wherein the heating element is upstanding in the receptacle (as the heater extends through the through hole 22, [0080]).
Claim(s) 1, 11, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hijma (US2024/0081413).
Regarding claim 1, Hijma discloses:
an aerosol generating device for generating an aerosol from aerosol-generating material (10, fig. 1, [0058]) comprising:
a receptacle (main housing 12) comprising a peripheral wall defining a heating zone (inner surface 36 of heating chamber 18) for receiving at least a portion of an article containing aerosol-generating material (aerosol generating article 100, [0058], fig. 1);
an elongate rib protruding into the heating zone (susceptor 442 provided within the heating chamber, [0102], fig. 20) the elongate rib comprising an article locating face arranged to space at least a portion of an article received in the heating zone from the peripheral wall (susceptor sticks 443a and 443b that hold article 100 by friction, [0104]) to provide an airflow path between the article and the peripheral wall (as there are gaps in susceptor 442 as shown in fig. 20, and thus there would be space for an airflow path between the article 100 and the inner surface of the heating chamber);
wherein the elongate rib extends at least partially circumferentially about the peripheral wall (projections 444 that have a cylindrical shape, [0103]).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, Hijma discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1 comprising a heating element configured to heat the article (susceptors 442 that transfer heat by conduction to the aerosol generating article, [0104]), and thus forms part of the heating element as recited in claim 15.
Regarding claim 13, Hijma discloses wherein the heating element comprises a material heatable by penetration with a magnetic field (the susceptors are inductively heated by an electromagnetic field, [0058]).
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) 3-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US2020/0154765).
Regarding claim 3, Lee only shows part of the helical path the protrusions 725 make (see annotated fig. 17 below) and therefore it is unclear whether the elongate rib forms a complete helical path around the peripheral wall of the receptacle in contact with the article.
PNG
media_image1.png
684
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 17 version 1
However, Lee further teaches each of the plurality of protrusions 725 is inclined with respect to the length direction of the cigarette 7…the embodiment is not limited by the direction in which each of the plurality of protrusions extends ([0161]). Less inclination of the protrusions would lead to a tighter helical turn, such as forming a complete helical path around the peripheral wall.
Further, Lee teaches in other embodiments protrusions extending in a curved manner through the length of the entire passage ([0133]), and so it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the protrusions 725 may also be arranged in a similar manner.
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the elongate rib of Lee to be less inclined and thus forming a complete helical path around the peripheral wall as this merely involves choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success.
Regarding claim 4, Lee further teaches wherein the elongate rib comprises a discontinuity (see space between adjacent protrusions 725 that are part of the same helical path, and thus part of the elongate rib).
Regarding claim 5, Lee only shows part of the helical path the protrusions 725 make (see annotated fig. 17 above) and therefore it is unclear whether the elongate rib comprises at least two turns of a helical path.
However, Lee further teaches each of the plurality of protrusions 725 is inclined with respect to the length direction of the cigarette 7…the embodiment is not limited by the direction in which each of the plurality of protrusions extends ([0161]). Less inclination of the protrusions would lead to a tighter helical turn, such as forming at least two turns of a helical path.
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the elongate rib of Lee to be less inclined and thus comprising at least two turns of a helical path, as this merely involves choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success.
As fig. 17 of Lee shows a discontinuity between each individual protrusion 725, modified Lee having at least two turns of a helical path would further teach wherein each turn comprises a discontinuity.
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee further teaches wherein each of the at least two discontinuities of the at least two turns of the elongate rib are at the same circumferential angular position on the peripheral wall of the receptacle (see annotated fig. 17 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
684
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 17 version 2
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee further teaches wherein each of the at least two discontinuities of the at least two turns of the elongate rib are at different circumferential angular position on the peripheral wall of the receptacle (see annotated fig. 17 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
684
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 17 version 3
Regarding claim 8, wherein the elongate rib extends discontinuously in only a circumferential direction around the peripheral wall of the receptacle (see fig. 17).
Regarding claim 10, Lee does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the receptacle and the elongate rib are integrally formed. However, the use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicole A Szumigalski whose telephone number is (703)756-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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.
/N.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights