DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Batista teaches that the vaporized liquid aerosol-generating substrate passes by the tubular element 300 after vaporization, as it follows the airflow path through the hollow core of tubular element 300. Thus, the vaporized liquid aerosol-generating substrate never enters "into" the reservoir of tubular element 300 where flavourant is allegedly retained.”
The Examiner disagrees. The passageway of Batista is located inside of the of the second reservoir 300. The Examiner maintains that when vaporized aerosolizable material passes through the passageway located inside of the second reservoir, this reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the material being delivered “into” the second reservoir.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 12, 17, 20, 23, 25-26, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Batista (US 2017/0049154).
Regarding claim 1, Batista teaches a consumable part 600 for use in an aerosol provision system [Fig. 3 and 6], wherein the consumable part comprises: a first reservoir 100 for containing aerosolizable material [0057]; a second reservoir 300 for containing flavoring material [0064]; and an aerosolizable material transport element 102 for receiving the aerosolizable material from the first reservoir [0057, 0060], wherein the aerosolizable material transport element 102 at least partly separates the first reservoir 100 from the second reservoir 300 [Fig. 3 and 6], and wherein the aerosolizable material transport element is configured to deliver vaporised aerosolizable material into the second reservoir [0075-0076].
Regarding claim 12, Batista teaches the consumable part comprises a first end 604, and a second end 606 opposite the first end, wherein the first reservoir 100 is located closer to the first end than the second end, and wherein the second reservoir 300 is located closer to the second end than the first end [Fig. 6].
Regarding claim 17, Batista teaches the first reservoir and the second reservoir are located within a housing 602 of the consumable part [Fig. 6].
Regarding claim 20, Batista teaches the consumable part is cylindrical [Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 23, Batista teaches the second reservoir 300 contains the flavoring material [0064].
Regarding claims 25-26, Batista as applied with respect to claim 1 teaches the consumable part according to claim 1. Batista teaches an aerosol provision system comprising the consumable part and a device which is configured to releasably engage with the consumable part [0022], wherein the device comprises a vaporizer for generating a vapor from the aerosolizable material in the aerosolizable material transport element, wherein the vaporizer comprises a heating element [0042].
Regarding claim 31, Batista teaches the device further comprises a mouthpiece for receiving vaporized aerosolizable material located in the second reservoir [0038, 0076].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2-3 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Reevell (US 2017/0196268).
Regarding claim 2-3, Batista does not teach the consumable part comprises a first access port for allowing access to the first reservoir. Reevell teaches an aerosol-generating system comprising a valve to enable refilling of the liquid storage portion [0144]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a valve (first access port) with the consumable part of Batista to enable refilling of the first reservoir.
Regarding claims 13-14, Batista does not teach the consumable part comprises an access port. Reevell teaches an aerosol-generating system comprising a valve to enable refilling of the liquid storage portion [0144]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include two valves (access ports) with the consumable part of Batista, one for each reservoir, to enable refilling of either reservoir. Given the location of the reservoirs of Batista with respect to the consumable part, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the first end to be an appropriate location for the first access port and the second end to be an appropriate location for the second access port.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Collett (US 2014/0060554).
Batista teaches the transport element may be a capillary wick comprising woven fibers [0021, 0060] but does not teach a mesh. Collett teaches an electronic smoking article wherein a capillary wick comprises a woven fibers in the form of a mesh [0124]. As it is prima facie obvious to substitute art recognized equivalents known for the same purpose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a mesh for the transport element of Batista to achieve predictable results.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alelov (US 2012/0048266).
Batista teaches the housing is made of plastic [0040] but does not teach paper. Alelov teaches an inhalation device wherein the housing is made of plastic or paper [0020]. As it is prima facie obvious to substitute art recognized equivalents known for the same purpose, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use paper for the housing of Batista to achieve predictable results.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Griffin (US 2023/0000156).
Batista is silent to the capacity of the reservoirs. Griffin teaches a vaporizer wherein the capacity of each reservoir is 1 ml [0111]. As this is a conventional capacity known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use 1 ml for the capacity of each reservoir to achieve predictable results, e.g. storing an appropriate amount of fluid for use.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Tony (US 2018/0206553).
Batista does not teach the consumable part comprises a second access port for allowing access to the second reservoir, wherein at least a portion of the mouthpiece is configured to be inserted, through the second access port, into the second reservoir for allowing vaporized aerosolizable material located in the second reservoir to pass through into the mouthpiece. However, this configuration is known in the art as taught by Tony [0097] and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply to the consumable part of Batista for the benefit of the consumable part being sealed prior to connection of the mouthpiece.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 28-30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 18, there is no teaching or reasonable suggestion in the prior art to modify the consumable part of Batista as applied to claim 17 above such that the aerosolizable material transport element is molded as part of the housing.
Regarding claims 28-30, there is no teaching or reasonable suggestion in the prior art to modify system of Batista as applied to claim 25 above such that the consumable part comprises a first access port for allowing access to the first reservoir, wherein the vaporizer defines a probe which is configured to be inserted, through the first access port, into the first reservoir for generating the vapor from the aerosolizable material in the aerosolizable material transport element.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights