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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 03/16/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 15, 18-21 and 23-28 are pending. Claims 23-27 are withdrawn. Claims 2, 3, 5, 11-14, 16, 17, 22 and 29 are cancelled.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: aerosol provision device in claims 1 and 28, engagement mechanism in claim 7, and attachment mechanism in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Based on a review of the specification, an aerosol provision device is interpreted to include a cylindrical heating chamber into which a rod shaped consumable is inserted to produce aerosol, or equivalents thereof; and an attachment mechanism is interpreted to include a protrusion for engaging with a first slot or cut-out in an aerosol provision device, or equivalents thereof; and an engagement mechanism is interpreted to includes lugs, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 15, 21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0037895 to Reevell (“Reevell”) in view of JP S4310849 to Ishida (“Ishida”).
Regarding claim 1, Reevell teaches a cleaning tool for an aerosol provision device (abstract, para [0001], note Figs. 1, 2 and 3A - 3D, note aerosol generation device ref. 34) comprising: a housing (ref. 20); a resiliently biased cap (ref. 22, via spring ref. 24) provided within the housing, wherein the resiliently biased cap is translatable between a first position and a second position (position in Fig. 1 compared to Fig. 2); and at least one brush (ref. 10 and 16, plurality of prongs, or wires, extend from the support, thus comprising a brush as an object made of short, stiff hairs, bristles, or wires set in a block, or support) coupled to the resiliently biased cap.
Reevell discloses a tool wherein the or each brush comprises a support and a plurality of bristles extending from each support (Fig. 3, ref. 16 and 10, respectively), but does not explicitly teach the tool wherein the or each brush comprises a support and a plurality of bristles extending from each support; and wherein the support is formed from at least two strands of wire which are twisted together to secure the plurality of bristles in position. However, brushes comprising a support and a plurality of bristles extending from each support; and wherein the support is formed from at least two strands of wire which are twisted together to secure the plurality of bristles in position, were known in the art as effective for cleaning (see, e.g., Ishida at, inter alia, Fig. 1), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Reevell tool as was known wherein the or each brush comprises a support and a plurality of bristles extending from each support; and wherein the support is formed from at least two strands of wire which are twisted together to secure the plurality of bristles in position, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it was known as effective for cleaning.
Regarding claim 4, Reevell/Ishida disclose a tool wherein the plurality of bristles extend radially from each support (Ishada, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Reevell/Ishida does not explicitly teach the tool wherein the at least one brush comprises a plurality of brushes. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Reevell/Ishida tool wherein the at least one brush comprises a plurality of brushes, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance cleaning and save time. It is noted that duplication of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 15, Reevell/Ishida discloses a tool wherein the housing defines a cavity which houses at least a portion of the at least one brush when the resiliently biased cap is in the first position (Reevel, Figs. 1 and 4), but does not explicitly teach the tool wherein the cavity is dimensioned to receive, in use, an outer wall of a heating chamber of an aerosol provision device. Initially it is noted that the recited heating chamber and its outer wall are not affirmatively claimed and are not interpreted to be requires structural features of the claimed tool.
Further, the Reevell/Ishida tool includes the claimed structural features and appears to be substantially identical to the claimed tool and capable of being operated in the manner recited. Whether or not the Reevell/Ishida tool can be operated in the recited manner will depend upon, inter alia, the size of the cavity being sufficiently large and the size of the recited outer wall being sufficiently small. As previously mentioned, the outer wall is not interpreted to be a required structural feature of the claimed tool, such that it may be considered to be very small in comparison to the cavity. Further, changes in size/dimension are prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 21, Reevell/Ishida discloses a tool intended for use with an aerosol provision device comprising a heater element (Reevell, abstract); wherein the at least one brush comprises a support from which a plurality of bristles extend (Fig. 3, ref. 16 and 10, respectively); and the housing comprises a longitudinal axis (Reevell, note Fig. 2, ref. 20), but does not explicitly teach the tool wherein the at least one brush comprises two of brushes, and wherein each of the supports are spaced in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis by a distance greater than a maximum width of the heater element in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. Initially, it is noted that the recited aerosol provision device and heater element are not affirmatively claimed and are not interpreted to be required structural features of the claimed tool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Reevell/Ishida tool wherein the at least one brush comprises two of brushes, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance cleaning and save time. Further, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to rearrange the placement of the brush supports in a variety of locations, including wherein each of the supports are spaced in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis by a distance greater than a maximum width of a heater element in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to find the best cleaning results. It is noted that duplication of partis is prima facie obvious, as is rearrangement of parts. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) and (C).
Regarding claim 28, Reevell/Ishida discloses an aerosol provision system comprising: an aerosol provision device (Reevel, Fig. 3, ref. 34, para [0043]) configured to produce aerosol from an aerosol generating article; and a cleaning tool according to claim 1 (as discussed for claim 1).
Claims 1, 4, 6, 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,863,288 to Aversa (“Aversa”) in view of JP S4310849 to Ishida (“Ishida”).
Regarding claim 1, Aversa teaches a cleaning tool (abstract, note Fig. 4) comprising: a housing (ref. 10, col. 1, line 64 – col. 2, line 8); a resiliently biased cap (ref. 18, by means of spring ref. 15, col. 2, lines 9-17) provided within the housing, wherein the resiliently biased cap is translatable between a first position and a second position (spring ref. 15 moves axially to allow brush ref. 16 to emerge from housing ref. 10); and at least one brush (ref. 16 and 17, col. 2, lines 9-17) coupled to the resiliently biased cap.
Aversa discloses a tool wherein the or each brush comprises a support and a plurality of bristles extending from each support (Fig. 4, ref. 17 and 16, respectively), but does not explicitly teach the tool wherein the or each brush comprises a support and a plurality of bristles extending from each support; and wherein the support is formed from at least two strands of wire which are twisted together to secure the plurality of bristles in position. However, brushes comprising a support and a plurality of bristles extending from each support; and wherein the support is formed from at least two strands of wire which are twisted together to secure the plurality of bristles in position, were known in the art as effective for cleaning (see, e.g., Ishida at, inter alia, Fig. 1), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Aversa tool as was known wherein the or each brush comprises a support and a plurality of bristles extending from each support; and wherein the support is formed from at least two strands of wire which are twisted together to secure the plurality of bristles in position, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it was known as effective for cleaning.
Aversa/Ishida does not explicitly teach the tool being operated in a manner wherein it cleans an aerosol provision device. However, the Aversa/Ishida tool includes the claimed structural features and appears to be substantially identical to the claimed tool and capable of being operated in the manner recited.
Regarding claim 4, Aversa/Ishida disclose a tool wherein the plurality of bristles extend radially from each support (Ishada, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Aversa/Ishida does not explicitly teach the tool wherein the at least one brush comprises a plurality of brushes. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Aversa/Ishida tool wherein the at least one brush comprises a plurality of brushes, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance cleaning and save time. It is noted that duplication of parts is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 15, Aversa/Ishida discloses a tool wherein the housing defines a cavity which houses at least a portion of the at least one brush when the resiliently biased cap is in the first position (Aversa, Fig. 4), but does not explicitly teach the tool wherein the cavity is dimensioned to receive, in use, an outer wall of a heating chamber of an aerosol provision device. Initially it is noted that the recited heating chamber and its outer wall are not affirmatively claimed and are not interpreted to be requires structural features of the claimed tool.
Further, the Aversa/Ishida tool includes the claimed structural features and appears to be substantially identical to the claimed tool and capable of being operated in the manner recited. Whether or not the Aversa tool can be operated in the recited manner will depend upon, inter alia, the size of the cavity being sufficiently large and the size of the recited outer wall being sufficiently small. As previously mentioned, the outer wall is not interpreted to be a required structural feature of the claimed tool, such that it may be considered to be very small in comparison to the cavity. Further, changes in size/dimension are prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 21, Aversa/Ishida discloses a tool which appears to be fully capable of use with an aerosol provision device (as discussed in claim 1), including an aerosol provision device comprising a heater element; and wherein the at least one brush comprises a support from which a plurality of bristles extend (Aversa, Fig. 4, ref. 17 and 16); and the housing comprises a longitudinal axis (note Aversa, Fig. 4, ref. 10, col), but does not explicitly teach the tool wherein the at least one brush comprises two of brushes, and wherein each of the supports are spaced in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis by a distance greater than a maximum width of the heater element in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis. Initially, it is noted that the recited aerosol provision device and heater element are not affirmatively claimed and are not interpreted to be required structural features of the claimed tool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Aversa/Ishida tool wherein the at least one brush comprises two of brushes, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance cleaning and save time. Further, the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to rearrange the placement of the brush supports in a variety of locations, including wherein each of the supports are spaced in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis by a distance greater than a maximum width of a heater element in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to find the best cleaning results. It is noted that duplication of partis is prima facie obvious, as is rearrangement of parts. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) and (C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (and claim 7 is rejected for lack of written description, and claim 10 is objected to on other grounds), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (and properly amended to cure the written description and other objection issues).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art references are: US 2021/0037895 to Reevell and 3,863,288 to Aversa. The prior art references of record, taken alone or in combination, do not anticipate or suggest fairly the limitations of: wherein the housing comprises an engagement mechanism for engaging with an aerosol provision device, the engagement mechanism enabling the cleaning tool to be rotated relative to the aerosol provision device (as in claim 7), wherein the housing comprises an attachment mechanism for securing the cleaning tool to one or more slots or cut-outs provided in an aerosol provision device (as in claim 8), or wherein the housing comprises a longitudinal axis, and wherein the at least one brush is configured to rotate around the longitudinal axis as the resiliently biased cap translates between the first and second positions (as in claim 18), in combination with the other structural elements as instantly recited. Upon further search no other prior art has been located at the date of this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the phrases “aerosol provision device”, “engagement mechanism”, and “attachment mechanism” should not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) means-plus-function since, it is alleged, the skilled artisan would understand, in view of the specification, the meaning of these phrases (remarks, para bridging pages 6-7). However, arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. MPEP 2145.
Applicant further argues that the rejection of claim 7 under 35 USC 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement is improper (remarks, page 7, para beginning “The Office asserts”). First, applicant again argues that the phrase “engagement mechanism” should not be interpreted under means-plus-function as discussed above (remarks, page 7, para beginning “First”). For the reason discussed above, this is again not persuasive.
Second, applicant argues that the specification does provide sufficient written description (remarks, page 7, para beginning “However”). This argument is persuasive, and the rejection of claim 7 under 35 USC 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 02/17/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 GOLIGHTLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10 am - 7 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, 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.
/ERIC W GOLIGHTLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights