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 Claims
Applicant’s amendments and remarks in the reply field 3/31/2026 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 11-17, 19, 20, 22-24, 28, and 30 are pending. The rejections of claims 6 and 11 under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
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 1, 8, 9, 11, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by AN et al. (WO 2021/182720).
Regarding Claim 1: AN teaches a cleaning tool for an aerosol provision device, the cleaning tool comprising: a cleaning head comprising a loop support and a plurality of bristles (element 120) extending from the loop support (see abstract and Fig. 2B), and a loop housing (Fig. 2A, element 103) wherein the loop support extends from the loop housing, and wherein the loop housing is arranged and adapted to engage with or contact a proximal surface of an aerosol provision device (pg. 7, [57]).
Regarding Claims 8, 9, and 11: AN further teaches that the loop support comprises a first portion (Fig. 2B, vertical portions) in a first plane wherein the first portion comprises two portions which are spaced apart from each other and a second portion (horizontal portion) connects the two portion of the first portion and is angled away from the first plane.
Regarding Claim 28: AN teaches a method of cleaning an aerosol provision device comprising:
attaching a cleaning tool as claimed in claim 1 (see above) to an aerosol provision device such that the cleaning tool and the aerosol provision device share a longitudinal axis [57]; and
rotating the cleaning tool relative to the aerosol provision device about the longitudinal axis by at least a partial rotation [54]; and/or translating the cleaning tool relative to the aerosol provision device axially along the longitudinal axis in at least one direction.
Regarding Claim 30: AN teaches an aerosol provision system comprising: an aerosol provision device configured to produce aerosol from an aerosol generating article; and a cleaning tool according to claim 1 (see abstract, Fig. 4, and claim 1 above).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AN et al. (WO 2021/182720) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PENG et al. (CN 211794881).
Regarding Claim 6: AN teaches the elements of Claim 1, as discussed above. AN further teaches the loop support comprises a first section (vertical section as seen in Fig. 2B) proximal to the loop housing and a second section (horizontal section) distal from the loop housing, wherein the bristles extending from the first section of the plurality of bristles extend from the loop support by a first distance and the bristles extending from the second section of the plurality of bristles extend from the loop support by a second distance. AN does not teach that the second distance is greater than the first distance. However, PENG teaches a similar cleaning device for an aerosol generating device comprising a loop support and a plurality of bristles, wherein bristles extending from a second section of the loop support are longer than bristles extending from a first section of the loop support (see Fig. 1) for the purpose of enhancing the cleaning effect and preventing damage to the internal components (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool of AN with different bristle lengths in order to enhance the cleaning effect and reduce damage to the internal components, as taught by PENG.
Claims 12, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AN et al. (WO 2021/182720) as applied above.
Regarding Claim 12: AN teaches the elements of Claim 11 as discussed above. AN teaches wherein the two portions of the first portion are parallel and are spaced apart from each other in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of a heating element of an aerosol provision device by a distance and wherein the second portion connecting the two parallel portions is angled or otherwise bent (see Fig. 2B). AN does not expressly disclose that the parallel portions are spaced by a distance greater than a maximum width of the heating element and that the second portion does not contact the heating element in use of engagement of the cleaning tool with an aerosol device. However, it is noted that these features of the apparatus structure are in relation to an article which is not positively recited and of which dimensions could vary. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, the inclusion of the article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115). It is further noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 13: AN teaches the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. AN further teaches wherein, in use or engagement of the cleaning tool with an aerosol provision device, the loop support is inserted into the aerosol provision device which contains a heating element (see abstract). AN does not expressly disclose the loop support is arranged to surround but not contact a heating element of the aerosol provision device. However, it is noted that this requirement of the apparatus structure is in relation to an article which is not positively recited and of which dimensions could vary. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, the inclusion of the article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115). It is further noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 19: AN teaches the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. AN further teaches the cleaning tool comprises a scraper tool (Fig. 2B, element 110), wherein the scraper tool comprises a scraper (element 110a), and wherein, when not in use or engagement with an aerosol provision device, the scraper tool is arranged and adapted to engage with the cleaning head so as to secure the scraper tool to the cleaning head so as to secure the scraper tool to the cleaning head (see Fig. 2B). AN does not expressly disclose the scraper tool is detachable from the cleaning head. However, making the cap detachable for purposes of replacing or cleaning would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2144.04 (V)(C).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AN et al. (WO 2021/182720) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of TONG (CN 207479044, machine translation referenced herein).
Regarding Claims 14 and 15: AN teaches the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. AN does not expressly teach that the cleaning tool comprises an outer housing defining cavity which houses the loop support and dimensioned to receive, in use, an outer wall of a heating chamber or housing of an aerosol provision device. However, TONG teaches a similar cleaning device comprising a cylindrical outer housing (Fig. 4, element 10) defining a cylindrical cavity which houses a cleaning brush (Fig. 2, element 14) and which is dimensioned to receive, in use, a housing of an aerosol provision device (see Fig. 4) in order to prevent scattering of the debris particles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool of AN with an outer housing to house the loop support in order to contain the cleaning brush and removed debris during cleaning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, and 24 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: The reviewed prior art does not anticipate or fairly suggest the cleaning tool having all the features as set forth in the aforementioned claims. The closest prior art of record is that of PENG and AN as discussed above.
AN and PENG both teach a cleaning tool for an aerosol provision device, the tool comprising a cleaning head comprising a loop support and a plurality of bristles extending from the loop support. Neither reference discloses an outer housing comprising a cleaning mode engagement mechanism for engaging with an aerosol provision device, and enabling the cleaning tool to be rotated relative to the aerosol provision device, as required by Claim 16. The cited prior art do not anticipate or fairly suggest the outer housing comprises an attachment mechanism for securing the cleaning tool to one or more slots of cut-outs provided in an aerosol provision device, as required by Claim 17.
AN teaches a scraper tool as discussed above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the scraper tool comprises a scraper housing, and wherein the scraper comprises a straight shaft with a scraper tip, and a flexible layer surrounding a portion of the straight shaft, as required by Claims 20, 22, and 23.
Neither references discloses or fairly suggests the cleaning tool further comprises a silicone support plug as required by Claim 24.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the cited references do not teach or suggest that the loop housing is arranged and adapted to engage with or contact a proximal surface of an aerosol device. An teaches the loop support is within a loop housing (element 103), and teaches that the bristles supported on the loop are inserted into the aerosol device for cleaning [57]. The loop portion is attached to the housing, as seen from Fig. 2B. In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitation, the surface of the bottom portion of the housing can be said to be arranged and adapted to contact a proximal surface of the aerosol provision device, at least when the brush is inserted into the aerosol generating device. As presented, the claimed limitation does not require additional structure to permit the contact of the housing and aerosol generating device. Thus, the structure of the housing disclosed by AN reads on the claimed structure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights