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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, “… para. [0095] is not relevant, therefore, to a recycling method using a 'receptacle' into which plural articles are deposited by users of the aerosol provision systems, as set out in independent claims 1 and 6-9.” The Examiner disagrees. Cummings describes, “For example, one or more third-party merchant sites, public spaces, etc. and may be provided with one or more receptacles, e.g., smart receptacles configured to receive used, recyclable packaging materials from users 110 (see para. 121). It appears as though Applicant is arguing the claims more narrowly than recited.
Applicant further argues, “Additionally, the packaging returned is not multiple users, as recited in independent claims 1 and 6-9. In this regard, [0087] of Cummings states that when a user is placing a repeat order, a carrier 130 can then collect any packaging from the user's previous order.” The Examiner notes that the claims do not recite “multiple users” in the way Applicant wishes. It appears that Applicant wishes to distinguish the claims by requiring a plurality of different packaging from a plurality of users, however, the claims are not so limiting. As the claims are currently recited, all that is required is that the packaging from more than one user can be collected. Accordingly, the cited portions of Cummings meet the limitations of the claim.
Applicant further argues user do not do any depositing of packaging. The Examiner disagrees. This has already been addressed by the citation of para. 121 above.
In response to applicant's arguments against the remaining references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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.
Claims 1, 5-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings et al. WO 2023076770 A1 in view of Hodgson WO 2022/263830 A1
As per Claims 1 and 6-9, Cummings teaches
providing a receptacle for receiving at least articles (see para. 95);
receiving, by the receptacle, plural articles deposited therein by users (see para. 95 and 121);
in response to the number of articles received by the receptacle meeting a storage limit (see para. 90 and 95), sending a notification to a recycling centre or to one or more devices associated with the recycling centre to indicate the receptacle has articles for collection (see para. 95); and
sending the articles from the receptacle to the recycling centre (see para. 123).
Cummings does not explicitly teach the recycling of aerosol provision systems. Hodgson describes the recycling of aerosol provision systems (see para. 4 lines 5-10). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Hodgson to provide an economical way to reuse a portion of a widely used device, as suggested by Hodgson.
As per Claims 5 and 13, Cummings in view of Hodgson teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Cummings further teaches sending the notification to a recycling centre or to one or more devices associated with the recycling centre to indicate the receptacle has articles for collection includes sending the notification a recycling centre or to one or more devices associated with the recycling centre in response to the number of integrally formed articles received by the receptacle meeting a storage limit (see para. 14 and 95). Cummings does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Hodgson the articles are integrally formed with an aerosol provision device to form an aerosol provision system (see para. 4 lines 5-10). The motivation is the same as opined above.
Claims 2, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings et al. WO 2023076770 A1 in view of Hodgson WO 2022/263830 A1 in further view of Gallivan U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2003/0026620 A1
As per Claims 2 and 10, Cummings in view of Hodgson teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Cummings does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Gallivan
providing a user of a system a shipping label for adhering to the article prior to the receptacle receiving the article from the user (see para. 35). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time he invention was filed to modify the methods of Cummings and Hodgson to include the teachings of Gallivan to have replaceable components from a certain geographical area returned to a certain recycling center, as taught by Gallivan.
As per Claim 17, Cummings in view of Hodgson teaches the method of claim 2 as described above. Cummings does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Gallivan wherein the shipping label is generated and provided to users of the systems by a printer of the system (see para. 43-49); or wherein a computing device associated with an aerosol provision system generates the shipping label and sends a notification to a user indicating that the user is to print the shipping label and adhere shipping label to the article before placing an article of the aerosol provision system into the receptacle.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings et al. WO 2023076770 A1 in view of Hodgson WO 2022/263830 A1 in further view of Dion U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0167748 A1
As per Claims 3 and 11, Cummings in view of Hodgson teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Cummings does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Dion wherein the receptacle comprises plural bags for receiving the articles, and where in the bags are sealed prior to sending the articles (see para. 49). The motivation is the same as opined above with respect to Gallivan.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings et al. WO 2023076770 A1 in view of Hodgson WO 2022/263830 A1 in further view of Irwin U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0144428 A1
As per Claim 4 and 12, Cummings in view of Hodgson teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Cummings does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Irwin providing a notification to the user in response to the user passing proximate to the receptacle (see para. 169). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was filed to modify the methods of Cummings and Hodgson to include the teachings of Irwin to enable a quicker pickup as suggested by the cited portion of Irwin.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings et al. WO 2023076770 A1 in view of Hodgson WO 2022/263830 A1 in further view of Official Notice
As per Claims 18-19, Cummings in view of Hodgson teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Cummings does not explicitly teach comprising in response to an aerosol provision device and/or a computing device of the aerosol provision system determining that an article has expired: the aerosol provision device and/or computing device providing a notification indicating that the article has expired to a user of the aerosol provision system, the notification prompting a user to place the article in a receptacle. Official Notice is taken that in response to a device and/or a computing device of the system determining that an article has expired: the device and/or computing device providing a notification indicating that the article has expired to a user of the system, the notification prompting a user to place the article in a receptacle was old and well known at the time the invention was filed. The motivation is the same as opined above with respect to Hodgson.
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 TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628