DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s elections and amendments. Claims 1-28 are cancelled. Claim 29 is amended. Claims 31-45 are withdrawn. Claims 29-30 and 46-72 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 31-45 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-28 cancelled as being drawn to a nonelected body and the limitations thereof incorporated into the aerosol provision system claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 4, 2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In the written description on page 20 the body which had been numeral 4 is now referred to as numeral 2 (which is the cartridge). This error is repeated on at least page 21. Applicant is required to review the specification for any further mismatch of numerals.
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 29-30 and 46-72 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.
In claim 29, applicant recites “a cartridge” in line 4 and “a cartridge” again in line 14. It is unclear if this is the same cartridge or a new cartridge. For purposes of compact prosecution and for examination it is presumed that there is only one cartridge and all following references should be to “the cartridge”.
Claims 30 and 46-72 are rejected insomuch as they depend on claim 29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 29-30, 46, and 52-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Illidge (US 2022/0202075).
Regarding claim 29, Illidge discloses a smoking system comprising a housing, an air inlet, a plenum chamber, and airflow received into the body and chamber (abstract). As shown in at least Fig. 22, air flows into the body through inlets a622 and then through device and plenum chamber a524 (this is the plenum) and then into the tank a552 (cartridge) and through the vaporizer inlet a572 (i.e. air inlet of a cartridge). The body is connected to a new, replacement consumable (¶11). Illidge discloses a body (Figs. 22, main body a620, ¶187-¶188), for the aerosol provision system for generating an aerosol from an aerosolizable material, the body comprising: a receptacle (Fig. 22, a cavity of the corresponding shape in the main body ¶162) for releasably receiving a cartridge (Fig. 22, consumable a550, ¶183). Illidge discloses that the consumable with an engaged state (Fig. 17) and a disengaged state (Fig. 18). Illidge discloses that the cartridge configured to contain aerosolizable material for aerosolizing into the aerosol (Fig. 19, e-liquid ad60, ¶183). Illidge further discloses the receptacle including: at least one receptacle wall (Fig. 22 shows receptacle walls bounding the receiving portion for the cartridge). Illidge further discloses a cartridge Fig. 22, consumable a550, ¶183) configured to contain aerosolizable material for aerosolizing into the aerosol. Illidge discloses wherein each air inlet extends through the at least one receptacle wall. In Fig. 22, the air inlet a622 extends through the receptacle wall. Illidge discloses a plenum chamber (Fig. 22, plenum chamber a524, ¶188); wherein the receptacle is configured for allowing the cartridge to engage against a portion of the plenum chamber when the receptacle is releasably receiving the cartridge, for then allowing a flow of air to pass from outside of the receptacle, through the at least one air inlet, into the receptacle, and then into the plenum chamber (¶188). Illidge discloses that air flows into the air inlet of the main body, into an upstream end of the plenum chamber and then into the air inlet of the consumable. Illidge further discloses wherein the aerosol provision system is configured for allowing the flow of air to pass from the plenum chamber into an air inlet of the cartridge, when the cartridge is engaged against the portion of the plenum chamber (¶188).
Regarding claim 30, Illidge discloses the aerosol provision system according to claim 29. Illidge further discloses wherein each air inlet of the receptacle is configured, when the receptacle is receiving the cartridge, to extend through a wall of the receptacle about a length direction which is not parallel to a length direction of the air inlet from the cartridge (as shown in Fig. 22).
Regarding claim 46, Illidge discloses the aerosol provision system according to claim 29. Illidge further discloses wherein the plenum chamber comprises a plurality of inlet orifices for allowing a flow of air to pass from the at least one air inlet into the plenum chamber; wherein the plurality of inlet orifices comprises a first inlet orifice on a first side of the plenum chamber, and comprises a second inlet orifice on a second side of the plenum chamber; wherein the first side of the plenum chamber is located opposite the second side of the plenum chamber. Illidge discloses that two airflow paths are defined in the main body and reach the plenum chamber on opposite sides (Fig. 21, air flow path a527, ¶0183). The upper portion of the airflow paths are considered to define first and second inlet orifices.
Regarding claim 52, Illidge teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 29. Further, the portion of the outer housing surround the plenum chamber of Illidge is considered to meet the claim limitation of surrounding wall.
Regarding claim 53, Illidge discloses the aerosol provision system according to claim 52. Illidge further discloses that the surrounding wall is resilient. Given that the device of Illidge is able to hold a form and receive a cartridge and then be reused (¶11) the device walls are considered to be resilient.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 54-58, 64, 68-70, and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Illidge (US 2022/0202075).
Regarding claim 54, Illidge discloses the aerosol provision system according to claim 29. Illidge is silent as to the dimension of the wall of the plenum chamber. However, Illidge teaches some dimensions with respect to rectangular tubes (Fig. 3, ¶220). Visually and given the relative dimensions of the rest of the device, it is reasonable that the width of the surrounding wall of the device is no more than 5 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Illidge to have width of the surrounding wall of the device is no more than 5 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Illidge would not operate differently with the claimed values and since the drawings and recitations of other dimensions are within the reasonable range recited, Illidge would function appropriately with the claimed values. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the width claimed, indicating simply that the value “may” be within the claimed ranges (Instant application ¶171).
Regarding claim 55, Illidge discloses the aerosol provision system according to claim 52. Illidge teaches multiple embodiments with sidewall that are adjacent to an upstream end and contain the main body air inlet (¶23). In another embodiment, the air inlet is in a sidewall of the main body (Fig. 22, ¶188). In yet another embodiment, the air inlet is formed between the wall and the cartridge and the plenum chamber is at the bottom of the device (Fig. 19). This prevents a line-of-sight between the two side inlets and the interior of the plenum. Illidge further teaches that air inlets can be located at different locations such as axially offset (¶189) and that these locations has an influence on particle size (¶190). A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously rearrange the parts, air inlet location with respect to air plenum because doing so would influence particle size (¶190).
Regarding claim 56, Illidge discloses the aerosol provision system according to claim 29. Illidge discloses that the main body has a distal end made from a wall ([0189], figure 21, reference numeral a532), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first end with a first wall located at it. The side wall of the main body is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second receptacle wall (figure 21). The main body air inlet is located in a sidewall of the housing adjacent to an upstream end of the plenum chamber [0023], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of each air inlet extending through the at least one second receptacle wall. The end of the main body into which the consumable is inserted is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second end.
Regarding claim 57, modified Illidge teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 56. Illidge does not disclose the air inlet being located closer to the distal end of the main body along the side wall than the point at which the cartridge is received.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to locate the air inlet closer to the distal end of the main body along the side wall than the point at which the cartridge is received. One would have been motivated to do so since there is not evidence that the specific location of the air inlet is critical so long as it is upstream of the plenum chamber. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 58, modified Illidge teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 56. Illidge does not disclose the air inlet being located in a plane that intersects the plenum chamber.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to locate the air inlet such that it is in a plane that also intersects the plenum chamber. One would have been motivated to do so since there is no evidence that the specific location of the air inlet is critical so long as it is upstream of the plenum chamber. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 64, Illidge discloses the aerosol provision system according to claim 29. Illidge does not explicitly disclose the consumable having a non-circular cross section.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the consumable have a non circular cross section. One would have been motivated to do so since there is no evidence that the specific shape of the consumable is critical. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding claim 68, Illidge discloses the aerosol provision system according to claim 29. The open area immediately above the air inlet of Illidge is considered to meet the claim limitation of an entrance chamber (figure 21). The internal of the plenum chamber is a main chamber.
Regarding claim 69, modified Illidge teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 68. The recitation of additional entrance chambers is considered to be a duplication of parts. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04, VI, Part B. In this case, the instant application splits the sides of the entrance chamber (Fig. 7E, 206A and 206B). Illidge also has two sides (See Fig. 24, the device is split in two along line b101 with entrances on both sides of the divide) that can be referred to in an analogous ways as a first and second entrance chamber.
Regarding claim 70, Illidge discloses the aerosol provision system according to claim 29. Illidge teaches the plenum chamber is configured to be covered by, and/or at least partly defined by, the cartridge when the cartridge is engaging the portion of the plenum chamber. As shown in Fig. 22, the plenum chamber is covered at least at the top by the cartridge containing the e-liquid.
Regarding claim 72, Illidge discloses the aerosol provision system according to claim 29. Illidge discloses that an electrical connection between the main body and the consumable is formed by electrical contacts on the main body ([0185], figure 21, reference numeral a526), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of at least one electrode for supplying electrical power to the cartridge.
Claims 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Illidge (US 2022/0202075) in view of Lin (US 10,226,075).
Regarding claim 47, Illidge discloses the aerosol provision system according to claim 29. Illidge further teaches wherein the receptacle comprises an air-flow receiving orifice for allowing a flow of air to pass from the receptacle to an air-flow detection sensor; wherein the air-flow receiving orifice is located more proximal to the first inlet orifice than the air-flow receiving orifice is located to the second inlet orifice, for allowing a flow of air passing through the first inlet orifice to also pass over the air-flow receiving orifice.
Illidge additionally discloses that the main body comprises a puff sensor that detects inhalation so that a controller activates the device [0055]. Illidge does not explicitly disclose (a) the puff sensor located closer to the first inlet orifice than the second inlet orifice and (b) the puff sensor having an air flow receiving orifice.
Regarding (a), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the puff sensor closer to the first inlet orifice. One would have been motivated to do so since there is no evidence of record that the specific location of the puff sensor is critical. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding (b), Lin teaches an electronic cigarette (column 3, lines 27-31) having an air sensor (figure 3, reference numeral 4) that is mounted in an air sensor holder (column 3, lines 32-36, figure 3, reference numeral 5). The holder has a through hole (figure 9, reference numeral 52), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an air flow receiving orifice. Lin additionally teaches that this sensor allows the heating element to be activated when a user inhales on the cigarette (column 3, liens 37-52).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sensor of Illidge for the sensor of Lin. One would have been motivated to do so since Illidge and Lin both teach sensors that activate a smoking article by detecting airflow. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP § 2143, B.
Regarding claim 48, modified Illidge teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 47. Illidge further teaches wherein the air-flow receiving orifice is located on a same side, or half, of the plenum chamber as the at least one air inlet.
Illidge additionally discloses that the air inlet is located on the upstream side of the plenum chamber (figure 21). Modified Illidge does not explicitly disclose the through hole being located upstream of the plenum chamber.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the puff sensor upstream of the plenum chamber. One would have been motivated to do so since there is no evidence of record that the specific location of the puff sensor is critical. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Claims 49-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Illidge (US 2022/0202075) in view of Lin (US 10,226,075) as applied to claim 47 above, and further in view of Potter (US 2021/0274846).
Regarding claim 49, modified Illidge teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 47. Illidge does not disclose the body further comprises an aerosolizable material directing portion for directing aerosolizable material away from the air-flow receiving orifice when the cartridge is releasably received by the receptacle.
Potter teaches a primary airflow path having a sump that retains liquid that leaks from a wick or associated components and travels upstream along the airflow path under the influence of gravity ([0036], figure 8, reference numeral 179). The sump traps the liquid to prevent from flowing further down the airflow channel [0036]. The walls of the sump are considered to meet the claim limitation of a physical barrier.
It would therefore have been obvious to position a sump on the planar portion defining the bottom of the plenum chamber of modified Illidge. One would have been motivated to do so since Potter teaches that positioning a pump below a wick traps liquid that leaks from a wick and prevents it from travelling further up a primary airflow channel.
Regarding claim 50, modified Illidge teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 49. POTTER is further considered to teach, in combination with Illidge, wherein the plenum chamber comprises the aerosolizable material directing portion because the walls of the sump of modified Illidge are considered to be part of the plenum chamber since they are located at the bottom of the plenum chamber.
Regarding claim 51, modified Illidge teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 49. POTTER is further considered to teach, in combination with Illidge, wherein the aerosolizable material directing portion comprises a basin, wherein the air-flow receiving orifice is located outside of the basin because Potter teaches that the sump is in the form of a basin (figure 8).
Claims 59-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Illidge (US 2022/0202075) in view of Thorens (US 9,420,829).
Regarding claim 59, Illidge discloses the aerosol provision system according to claim 29. Illidge additionally discloses that the main body air inlet is located in a sidewall of the housing adjacent to an upstream end of the plenum chamber [0023]. Illidge does not disclose multiple air inlets that do not have parallel air flows.
Thorens teaches a smoking system having an air inlet that is part of the air flow route (abstract) made up of three air inlets that are spaced around the housing (column 10, lines 3-9). It is evident that not all of the air flow paths through the inlets can be parallel when three or more inlets are present.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide several air inlets spaced around the housing Illidge such that they are not parallel. One would have been motivated to do so since Thorens teaches that side wall air inlets can be spaced around the housing. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See MPEP § 2143, C.
Regarding claims 60-61, modified Illidge teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 59. Modified Illidge does not teach the axial separation of the air inlets.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the air inlets of modified Illidge at the claimed axial spacing. One would have been motivated to do so since Thorens does not teach that the specific axial position of the air inlets is critical. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 62, modified Illidge teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 59. Modified Illidge does not teach the entrances to the air inlets being chamfered.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the entrances to the air inlets be chamfered. One would have been motivated to do so since there is no evidence that the specific shape of the openings of the air inlets is critical. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding claim 63, modified Illidge teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 52. Modified Illidge does not teach the entrances to the air inlets being chamfered.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the entrances to the air inlets be chamfered. One would have been motivated to do so since there is no evidence that the specific shape of the openings of the air inlets is critical. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Claims 65-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Illidge (US 2022/0202075) in view of Holroyd (US 2020/0114095 A1).
Regarding claims 65, Illidge discloses the aerosol provision system according to claim 29. Illidge does not disclose a receptacle cross section with six sides.
Holroyd teaches an inhaler device with a consumable cartridge in a casing (abstract). Holroyd teaches that the cross-section of the cartridge and thus the cartridge chamber is not limited to a cylindrical shape but that it can be hexagonal (six sided) (¶55). Holroyd teaches that non-circular cross sections are advantageous as the shape can create air channels (¶55).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Illidge to provide a receptacle with a six sided cross section as taught in Holroyd. A person of ordinary skill in the art would obviously modify the shape of the cross section. Doing so would be advantageous to the heating and air flow in the device (Holroyd ¶55).
Regarding claims 66, modified Illidge teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 65. Illidge does not disclose a receptacle cross section details on which sides are parallel to one another and the lengths of the sides.
However, Holroyd teaches that non-circular cross sections are advantageous as discussed below. There is not limitation given in Holroyd as to the shape of the cross section or that there is symmetry to such a cross section. Therefore, the shape of the non-circular cross section would be optimized with predictable results. it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the cross sectional shape of the cartridge receptacle to improve heating and airflow as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05.II.A). Further the courts have held changes in proportion or shape to be prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Regarding claim 67, modified Illidge teaches the aerosol provision system according to claim 65. Illidge does not disclose the third side and/or fourth side comprises the at least one air inlet.
Illidge discloses that the sides of the receptacle comprise air inlets (Figure 19, air inlet 176, ¶172).
Holroyd teaches that the shape of the cartridge chamber is modified such that air flow from the air inlets 22 passes through the chamber whereby a channeled passage is advantageous (¶55).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the teachings of both Illidge and Holroyd to provide the third side and/or fourth side comprises the at least one air inlet. A person of ordinary skill in the art would arrange the air inlets on the sides of the wall to provide advantaged air flow with predictable results (Holroyd ¶55).
Claim 71 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Illidge (US 2022/0202075) in view of Reevell (US 2022/0361574).
Regarding claim 71, Illidge discloses the aerosol provision system according to claim 29. Illidge does not explicitly disclose an outer chamber.
Reevell teaches a heating chamber for an aerosol generation device (abstract) that is surrounded by an insulating member [0067] comprising a double walled metal tube having a vacuum contained between the walls [0068]. It is evident that the vacuum must be in a sealed chamber since it would otherwise not have a space to form, and that the metal tube supports the cartridge since it is part of the housing ([0108], figure 5A, reference numeral 146).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 29-30 and 46-72 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 and the accompanying written description of U.S. Patent No. 17/445,050 (PG Pub US 20230045836 A1 relied upon for citations). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications relate to an aerosol provision system with a cartridge and a main body. The inclusion of a plenum chamber and air flow pathways is recited in dependent claims. As initially filed claims 1-9 are in fact identical in each application. Further the specifications are substantially identical such that any further limitations positively recited in the instant application 18/683,280 are rendered obvious in light of the specification as filed of 17/445,050.
Regarding claim 29, ‘050 discloses an aerosol provision system (claim 24) comprising a body (claim 1), for the aerosol provision system for generating an aerosol from an aerosolizable material, the body comprising: a receptacle for releasably receiving a cartridge configured to contain aerosolizable material for aerosolizing into the aerosol, the receptacle including: at least one receptacle wall; at least one air inlet, wherein each air inlet extends through the at least one receptacle wall; and a plenum chamber; wherein the receptacle is configured for allowing the cartridge to engage against a portion of the plenum chamber when the receptacle is releasably receiving the cartridge, for then allowing a flow of air to pass from outside of the receptacle, through the at least one air inlet, into the receptacle, and then into the plenum chamber, the aerosol provision system further comprising a cartridge configured to contain aerosolizable material for aerosolizing into the aerosol, wherein the aerosol provision system is configured for allowing the flow of air to pass from the plenum chamber into an air inlet of the cartridge, when the cartridge is engaged against the portion of the plenum chamber (claim 1).
Regarding claim 30, ‘050 discloses wherein each air inlet of the receptacle is configured, when the receptacle is receiving the cartridge, to extend through a wall of the receptacle about a length direction which is not parallel to a length direction of the air inlet from the cartridge (claim 2).
Regarding claim 46, ‘050 discloses the plenum chamber comprises a plurality of inlet orifices for allowing a flow of air to pass from the at least one air inlet into the plenum chamber; wherein the plurality of inlet orifices comprises a first inlet orifice on a first side of the plenum chamber, and comprises a second inlet orifice on a second side of the plenum chamber; wherein the first side of the plenum chamber is located opposite the second side of the plenum chamber (claim 2).
Regarding claim 47, ‘050 discloses wherein the receptacle comprises an air-flow receiving orifice for allowing a flow of air to pass from the receptacle to an air-flow detection sensor; wherein the air-flow receiving orifice is located more proximal to the first inlet orifice than the air-flow receiving orifice is located to the second inlet orifice, for allowing a flow of air passing through the first inlet orifice to also pass over the air-flow receiving orifice (claim 3).
Regarding claim 48, ‘050 discloses wherein the air-flow receiving orifice is located on a same side, or half, of the plenum chamber as the at least one air inlet (claim 4).
Regarding claim 49, ‘050 discloses wherein the body further comprises an aerosolizable material directing portion for directing aerosolizable material away from the air-flow receiving orifice when the cartridge is releasably received by the receptacle (claim 5).
Regarding claim 50 ‘050 discloses wherein the plenum chamber comprises the aerosolizable material directing portion (claim 6).
Regarding claim 51, ‘050 discloses wherein the aerosolizable material directing portion comprises a basin, wherein the air-flow receiving orifice is located outside of the basin (claim 7).
Regarding claim 52, ‘050 discloses wherein the plenum chamber comprises a surrounding wall, wherein the portion of the plenum chamber comprises the surrounding wall (claim 8).
Regarding claim 53, ‘050 discloses wherein the surrounding wall is resilient (claim 9).
Regarding claim 54, ‘050 discloses wherein the surrounding wall comprises a maximum width which is no more than 5 mm (¶49).
Regarding claim 55, ‘050 discloses wherein the surrounding wall prevents a line-of-sight between each air inlet and an interior of the plenum chamber (Fig. 7E, ¶73).
Regarding claim 56, ‘050 discloses wherein the receptacle comprises: a first end; and a second, open, end for allowing the cartridge to be inserted into the receptacle; wherein the at least one receptacle wall comprises: a first receptacle wall located at the first end of the receptacle; and at least one second receptacle wall extending between the first end and the second end of the receptacle; wherein each air inlet extends through the at least one second receptacle wall (claim 10).
Regarding claim 57, ‘050 discloses wherein each air inlet is located closer to the first end of the receptacle than the air inlet is located to the second end of the receptacle (claim 11).
Regarding claim 58, ‘050 discloses wherein the body further comprises a plane which intersects each of the at least one air inlet and a portion of the plenum chamber (claim 12).
Regarding claim 59, ‘050 discloses wherein the at least one air inlet comprises: a first air inlet defining a first air inlet channel extending about a first direction through a wall of the receptacle; and a second air inlet defining a second air inlet channel extending about a second direction through a wall of the receptacle; wherein the first direction is not parallel to the second direction (claim 13).
Regarding claim 60, ‘050 discloses wherein an angle of separation between the first direction and the second direction is between 50 degrees and 170 degrees (claim 14).
Regarding claim 61, ‘050 discloses wherein the angle of separation between the first direction and the second direction is not 90 degrees (claim 14). The range of claim 61 is within the range recited in claim 14.
Regarding claim 62, ‘050 discloses wherein each air inlet channel comprises a first, entry, end, wherein the first end of each air inlet channel is for receiving a flow of air from outside of the receptacle into the air inlet channel, wherein the first end of each air inlet channel is located on a first chamfered portion of the receptacle (claim 15).
Regarding claim 63, ‘050 discloses wherein the first chamfered portion is located on an outer surface of the receptacle; wherein each air inlet channel comprises a second, exit, end, wherein the second end of each air inlet channel is for allowing the flow of air to pass out from the air inlet channel and into the receptacle, wherein the second end of each air inlet channel is located on a second chamfered portion of the receptacle; wherein the second chamfered portion is located on an inner surface of the receptacle (claim 16).
Regarding claim 64, ‘050 discloses wherein the receptacle comprises a non-circular cross section (claim 17).
Regarding claim 65, ‘050 discloses wherein the receptacle comprises a cross section which comprises: a first side comprising a first end and a second end; a second side comprising a first end and a second end; a third side connected to, and extending in a direction away from, the first end of the first side; a fourth side connected to, and extending in a direction away from, the second end of the first side and also extending in a direction away from the third side; a fifth side connected to the third side and the first end of the second side; and a sixth side connected to the fourth side and the second end of the second side (¶74, ¶113-¶114).
Regarding claim 66, ‘050 discloses wherein the fifth and sixth sides are parallel with each other, and wherein the third and fourth sides are each shorter in length than each of the first, second, fifth, and sixth sides (¶74, Fig. 7E).
Regarding claim 67, ‘050 discloses wherein the third side and/or fourth side comprises the at least one air inlet (¶74, ¶113-¶114).
Regarding claim 67, ‘050 discloses wherein the plenum chamber comprises a main chamber and at least one entrance chamber (claim 18).
Regarding claim 68, ‘050 discloses wherein the at least one entrance chamber comprises a first entrance chamber on a first side of the plenum chamber, and comprises a second entrance chamber on a second side of the plenum chamber; wherein the main chamber is located between the first entrance chamber and the second entrance chamber (claim 19).
Regarding claim 70, ‘050 discloses wherein the plenum chamber is configured to be covered by, and/or at least partly defined by, the cartridge when the cartridge is engaging the portion of the plenum chamber (claim 20).
Regarding claim 71, ‘050 discloses wherein the receptacle further comprises an outer chamber between the at least one air inlet and the plenum chamber, wherein the outer chamber extends around the plenum chamber, and wherein the outer chamber comprises at least one cartridge-supporting portion configured to engage against the cartridge received by the receptacle (claim 21).
Regarding claim 72, ‘050 discloses wherein the receptacle further comprises at least one electrode which is configured, in use, for supplying electrical power to the cartridge received in the receptacle (claim 22).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE L MOORE whose telephone number is (313)446-6537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 9 am to 5 pm.
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.
/STEPHANIE LYNN MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights