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 Amendment
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 8/19/2025.
Claims 1, 4, and 13 are amended.
Claims 2-3 and 17-20 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-16, and 21-28 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 8/19/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 6-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellinger in view of Bowen, Lord, Bilat, and Peleg and claims 4-5, 13-16, and 21-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellinger in view of Peleg and Bilat have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claims 1 and 4 to include the limitation “wherein connection of the first structure to the second structure is detected based on a change in the output value of the first sensor.” The prior art of record fails to disclose such a limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly cited prior art.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/2025 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments appear substantially similar to the arguments filed 8/22/2024 and 11/22/2024 and reiterates the arguments below. The Examiner also addresses several of Applicant’s new arguments below.
The Applicant notes that claim 1 is directed to an aerosol inhalation device including a first sensor, pressure sensor, second sensor, circuitry, a first structure, a second structure (p. 13). The Applicant then argues that the claim is not solely directed to a mathematical concept, method of organizing human activity, or a mental process because it recites these additional structures (p. 14).
The Examiner agrees that claim 1 is not directed solely to a mental process because of these additional structure. However, Applicant’s argument are unpersuasive because Applicant uses the wrong standard. Step 2A does not ask whether the claim is directed solely to a judicial exception. Specifically, “Step 2A asks: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea?” MPEP 2106.04(II). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry; Prong One asks whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then Prong Two determines if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). Here, nothing in Step 2A requires that the claim be solely directed to a judicial exception. Prong Two makes clear that these additional structures are needed to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application to be patent eligible.
The Applicant argues that the features could not be performed solely in the human mind as it recites, for example, the start of power feed to the load in response to the aerosol generation request (p. 14). The Applicant argues that this is a physical action of physical components and not something that could be done solely by the human mind (p. 14).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial note, Applicant takes this limitation out of context. Specifically, claim 1 recites “wherein the circuitry is configured to calculate the temperature of the load based on the first output value of the first sensor and the second output value of the second sensor, which are obtained in response to connection of the first structure to the second structure, and a third output value of the first sensor which is obtained after a start of power feed to the load in response to the aerosol generation request, wherein the circuitry is configured to calculate the temperature of the load using an equation which is a function of the first output value, the second output value and the third output value.” Here, the abstract idea is using values that have already been obtained by the sensors to calculate the temperature of the load. The third output value is obtained “after start of power feed to the load in response to the aerosol generation request.” This is merely akin to “collecting information” and thus a mental process that can be done solely in the mind of a human. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A).
Applicant argues that the claims do not only contain components from an off the shelf computer, but rather include specific components (p. 14).
The Examiner finds Applicant’s argument unpersuasive because it uses the same wrong standard as discussed above. Here, the specific components are analyzed under Prong Two. Moreover, the claim limitation “circuitry” is a generic computer part because there are no specific structures recited in the claim.
The Applicant argues that the present claims do not preempt all uses of the alleged abstract idea (p. 15).
“While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility.” MPEP 2106.04(I).
Applicant argues that even if the claims are considered to be an abstract idea, which they contest, the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application of the abstract idea (p. 15). Particularly, Applicant argues that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application because the aerosol inhalation device correctly acquires the temperature of the heater and correctly estimates the remaining amount of aerosol source such that the user will have an accurate understanding of the amount of aerosol source and will be able to tell when the aerosol source is getting low and needs replacing (citing [0011]-[0012] of the published application) (p. 15).
The Examiner has noted the Applicant’s argument but finds it unpersuasive. The Examiner notes that Applicant appears to cite to improvements to the technical field of aerosol devices, which is a consideration under both prong two of step 2A and step 2B. The Examiner addresses both aspects of Applicant’s argument in turn.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the aerosol inhalation device correctly acquires the temperature of the heater, this cannot be considered an improvement to the technology. “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” MPEP 2106.05(a). Here, the limitation of “calculate the temperature of the load” alone is considered the abstract idea of a mathematical concept and cannot provide the improvement. In combination with the additional elements encompassing the structure of the aerosol inhalation device simply provide the context to which the abstract idea of calculating is applied, which do not improve the technology in any way.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the aerosol inhalation device correctly estimates the remaining amount of aerosol source such that a user would understand when the aerosol source is getting low and needs replacing also cannot be considered an improvement to the technology. “After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology.” Here, neither claim 1 nor claim 4, alone or in combination with the additional elements, reflect any improvement relating to estimating the remaining amount of aerosol source. Claim 13 requires “us[ing] the first output value of the first sensor and the second output value of the second sensor…to calculate the temperature of the load and judge whether the aerosols source is depleted” comes closer to capturing the improvement. However, “judging whether the aerosol source is depleted” can amount to a mental step by correlating a calculated temperature of the load being higher than a threshold temperature to a depletion of the aerosol source. Since the abstract idea itself cannot be the improvement, claim 13 similarly is not integrated into a practical application.
The Examiner recommends incorporating additional elements regarding the activity after determining there is an aerosol source depletion (see [0129]-[0130] of the instant application, describing inhibiting power to the heater until a flag is cancelled (indicating that the cartridge is exchanged)) to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues that even if the claims are considered to be an abstract idea, which they contest, the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application of the abstract idea (p. 15). The Applicant notes that the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit revised Step 2A to specifically exclude considerations of whether additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity and instead perform such analysis under Step 2B (p. 15-16).
The Examiner has noted the Applicant’s argument but finds it unpersuasive. Never once does the rejection use the words “well-understood,” “routine,” or “conventional” under the step 2A prong two analysis. Here, the Examiner states that the additional structure are “generic parts recited with a high level of generality that do no more than supplying the context to apply the judicial exception to the aerosol inhalation device context” (see p. 16, para. 2, of the Non-final Office Action. Note that p. 16, para. 3 is step 2B of the analysis).
Applicant argues that the claims satisfy two of the exemplary considerations as follows: (a) an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; and (b) an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (p. 16).
The Examiner disagrees because Applicant provides no additional reasoning for the Examiner to consider. Applicant merely concludes that the claims satisfy these two considerations without explaining why. The Applicant does not explain why claim 1 recites a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim or that the claim is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. Moreover, the Examiner contends that claim 1 is more akin to a non-practical application because claim 1 merely links the use of the abstract idea to the particular technological environment or field of use of an “aerosol inhalation device” through recitation of generic parts that would make up an aerosol inhalation device.
Applicant argues that claim 1 provides an inventive concept as it contains a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present (p. 17). The Applicant argues that the “additional features” recite “significantly more” than the alleged abstract idea because the claim includes physical elements of circuitry, a load, an aerosol source, a first sensor, a pressure sensor, an absolute pressure sensor, a second sensor, a first structure, and a second structure which interact with each other (p. 18). The Applicant notes that an inventive concept can be found in non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces (p. 19, citing case law). The Applicant again notes that the present claims operate in a non-conventional and non-generic manner (p. 20).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the rejection, all of Applicant’s ‘additional features’ as well as the claimed arrangement of the ‘additional features’ are well-understood, routine, and conventional because the combination of Bellinger, Bowen, Lord, Billat, Peleg, and Dendy disclose such structures in arranged as claimed. Applicant has failed to explain why the combination of Bellinger, Bowen, and Lord do not disclose these additional features or why the arrangement of these ‘additional features’ are not well-understood, routine, and conventional.
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.
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 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 1 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellinger (US 2015/0359263; of record) in view of Bowen et al. (US 2019/0159519; of record), Lord et al. (US 2016/0242466; of record), Bilat (US 2018/0303161; of record), Peleg et al. (US 2014/0014126; of record), and Dendy et al. (US 2018/0027878).
Regarding claim 1, Bellinger discloses an electronic vaporizer (abstract; “aerosol inhalation device”) comprising:
a current sense (162) and a voltage sense (164) (see Fig. 2; collectively “first sensor”) which are used to calculate resistance and provide resistance feedback to a controller (para. 34; “output a first value associated with an electrical resistance value”) of a coil heater (132; see para. 34) configured to boil a fluid (138; “aerosol source”) deposited near or in contact with the coil heater (para. 28; “heat the aerosol source”) and having a non-trivial positive temperature coefficient of resistance (TCR) such that the heating coil will change electrical resistance in proportion to its temperature (para. 33; see Fig. 8; “correlation between a temperature and the electrical resistance value”);
an accelerometer (“pressure sensor”) in the housing for sensing airflow through an air channel for detecting a user’s request for vapor (para. 36; “configured to detect inhalation by a user as an aerosol generation request”);
a temperature sensor (126; “second sensor”) which is used to measure ambient temperature (para. 44; “output a temperature”);
a power control circuit (145; Fig. 2; see para. 34; “circuitry”) including a controller (120) configured to calculate the temperature of the heating element (para. 43);
an atomizer (130; see Figs. 1, 10-12; “first structure”) including the heating coil (132); and
a housing (109; “second structure”) including the controller (120; see Fig. 9), the accelerometer (para. 36), and the temperature sensor (126; see Fig. 1-2),
wherein the atomizer is removable (Figs. 10-12; para. 20-22; “detachable”),
wherein the controller senses an ambient temperature (“first output value of the first sensor”) and determines a resistance of the heating element (“second output value of the second sensor”) (step 650; [0044]) and stores the temperature-resistance pair in memory (124) (step 660; [0044]-[0045]; “stored in a memory”) obtained in response to a vapor requested command (605; see Fig. 6) and before any power was applied to the heating element (para. 43), and
wherein the controller is configured to calculate the temperature of the heating element in subsequent heating element resistance readings based on the ambient temperature-resistance pair (step 670; Fig. 6; [0036] and [0044]-[0045]) by measuring a heater coil resistance (320; Fig. 3; “third output value of the first sensor”) after applying power at a wattage setting (310; Fig. 3; “after the connection of the first structure to the second structure and a start of power feed to the load”) in response to a user requesting vapor (305; Fig. 3; “in response to the aerosol generation request”).
However, Bellinger is silent as to the pressure sensor including an absolute pressure sensor configured to measure an absolute pressure, the pressure sensor including the second sensor (i.e., Bellinger discloses both a pressure sensor and a second sensor that are separate parts rather than being integrated into a single component), and where the pressure sensor is configured to calibrate the absolute pressure measured by the absolute pressure sensor using the temperature measured by the second sensor, wherein the pressure sensor is configured to detect the inhalation by the user based on the calibrated absolute pressure.
Bowen teaches a vaporizer device (abstract) comprising a sensor (137) which may include one or more sensors such as accelerometers or other motion sensors pressure sensors (e.g., absolute pressure sensors) for detecting user interaction ([0055]), wherein the accurate/absolute pressure sensor (“absolute pressure sensor configured to measure an absolute pressure”) can enable the device to provide other functions such as calculating air velocity and volumetric flow rate which can be used in conjunction with control of the temperature of the heater to provide a consistent aerosol concentration across different puff strengths and allows for corrections for ambient pressure on amounts of airflow ([0081]).
Lord teaches an electronic vapor provision system (abstract) wherein a method is used to detect the start and end of inhalation (Fig. 5) comprising the CPU obtains a pressure reading (510) from the pressure sensor multiple times per second, the pressure sensor and the temperature sensor are provided in a single combined unit (integrated circuit device) to allow the pressure sensor to adjust the pressure reading to a constant temperature value, thereby removing (at least reducing) pressure variations caused by fluctuations in temperature in the pressure readings supplied to the CPU ([0058]; “configured to calibrate the pressure measured by the pressure sensor using the temperature measured by the second sensor”), wherein the readings are specified as absolute or relative differences with respect to the ambient pressure ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Bellinger’s accelerometer for Bowen’s absolute pressure sensor because (a) Bowen suggests the two parts are equivalents known for the same purpose of detecting user interaction (Bowen; [0055]), and (b) such a modification is beneficial because it allows to accurately calculate volumetric flow rate, which when used in conjunction with temperature control, provides a more consistent aerosol concentration across different puff strengths (Bowen; [0081]). See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have combined the absolute pressure sensor and temperature sensor of modified Bellinger into a single combined unit as in Lord modifying the controller to adjust the pressure readings to a constant temperature value as in Lord in order to achieve the predictable result of removing pressure variations caused by fluctuations in temperature in the pressure readings (Lord; [0058]) thus allowing for a more accurate pressure reading.
Moreover, modified Bellinger is silent as to wherein the first output value of the first sensor and the second output value of the second sensor are obtained in response to the connection of the first structure to the second structure. Specifically, Bellinger teaches obtaining the first output value and the second output value, but not in response to the connection of the first structure to the second structure.
Bilat teaches an electrically operated aerosol-generating system configured to detect adverse conditions (abstract) wherein electric circuitry ([0022], [0058]) detects insertion of a cartridge, including the heater, into the device (300; Fig. 9), then the electrical resistance of the heater is measured (310) (“first output value…obtained in response to connection of the first structure to the second structure”) and the measured resistance is compared to a range of expected or acceptable resistances (320) ([0177]).
Moreover, Peleg teaches an electronic cigarette (abstract) comprising a battery assembly and a cartomizer containing a heating element ([0083]) wherein in the case that the battery is rechargeable and the cartomizers are disposable, there is a need to verify the cartomizer coil resistance via calibration ([0083]). Peleg teaches that RcoilT=T0 may be calculated by measuring the ambient temperature with a temperature sensor connected or part of the processor or attached to the battery every time the cartomizer is replaced ([0087]; “second output value…obtained in response to connection of the first structure to the second structure”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combined Bellinger’s step of taking the resistance at ambient temperature measurement with Bilat’s known method of performing the resistance measurement upon detection of insertion of a cartridge and Peleg’s known method of measuring an ambient temperature upon every replacement of the cartridge in order to obtain the predictable result of performing a resistance calibration of the heater at ambient temperature upon insertion of the cartridge because (a) such a modification would further allow the controller to determine if the initial resistance measurement at ambient temperature is within an acceptable or expected range of resistances, and alarm a user of an unauthorized, damaged, or incompatible heater if the initial resistance measurement at ambient temperature is not within the acceptable or expected range or resistances (Bilat; [0177]) and (b) allows for verifying that the cartomizer is accurately made (Peleg; [0084]) and reduces temperature measurement inaccuracies (Peleg; [0082]).
Lastly, modified Bellinger does not explicitly teach wherein connection of the first structure to the second structure is detected based on change in the output value of the first sensor. Specifically, while modified Bellinger discloses detecting the cartridge is inserted (Bilat, step 300), modified Bellinger does not disclose with particularity how such a detection is performed.
Dendy teaches a an electronic vaping device (title) comprising a first section (70) and a second section (72) having a control circuit (200) including a microcontroller (905; [0108]), wherein it is generally well-known that the microcontroller may detect attachment of a cartridge to the battery section (“connection of the first structure to the second structure”) based on a change in resistance (i.e., “change in the output value of the first sensor”) resulting from attachment of the cartridge ([0134]) and transitioning the energy state of the microcontroller based on the detection ([0135]; teaching the microcontroller remains in a hibernate state until a cartridge is attached).
It would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have applied the known step of detecting a change in resistance from the attachment as in Dendy to modified Bellinger’s step of detecting the cartridge is inserted in order to obtain the predictable result of detecting the attachment of a cartridge to the battery section (Dendy; [0134]) such that the controller remains in a hibernate state until a cartridge is attached (Dendy; [0135]). One of ordinary skill would appreciate that the controller remaining in a hibernate state until detection of attachment would allow a user to extend the duration of use during a single charge of the battery.
Regarding claims 6-8, modified Bellinger discloses that the controller is configured to measure the ambient temperature (630; Fig. 6) which is used to calibrate the temperature sensing coil (670; “used in place of”) rather than using a previous ambient temperature calibration (620; “previously acquired second output value of the second sensor”) before applying power at a wattage setting (310) only if a sufficient time has passed such that the heating element is assumed to be cooled to ambient temperature based on the typical use of the electronic vaporizer and a sensor for ambient temperature can reasonably recognize that the heating element is at room temperature after a sufficient time period (para. 43).
Regarding the claim limitation “wherein the control unit is configured to acquire a current second output value of the second sensor, which is used in place of a previously acquired second output value of the second sensor, before start of power feed to the load in response to the aerosol generation request only if:
a condition to judge that a difference between the temperature of the load and the second output value of the second sensor is less than a threshold is satisfied,
a condition to judge that the temperature of the load and the second output value of the second sensor almost equal is satisfied, or
a condition to judge that the temperature of the load and the second output value of the second sensor have a correlation is satisfied”
these limitation have been interpreted as contingent limitations. “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II). Moreover, the instant specification describes that “if the elapsed time is equal to or longer than the predetermined time,…the control unit 106 may regard the output of the temperature sensor (second sensor) 113 as not deviated from the actual temperature of the load…[and] the process advances to step 442 to acquire the current output value of the second sensor, which is used in place of the previously acquired output value of the second sensor (para. 116 of the PGPUB). The instant specification further describes that “[t]his can also be expressed that only when a condition to judge that the difference between the temperature of the load 132 and the output value of the second sensor 113 is less than a threshold is satisfied, the current output value of the second sensor 113, which is used in place of the previously acquired output value of the second sensor 113, is acquired (para. 116 of the PGPUB; emphasis added). According to the instant specification, the conditions of (a) an elapsed time being equal to or longer than a predetermined time and (b) the difference between the temperature of the load and the output value of the second sensor being less than a threshold are the same condition. Therefore, Bellinger’s teaching that the calibration of the ambient temperature-resistance pair occurring after a sufficient time would pass would also occur when the difference between the temperature of the load and the second output value of the second sensor is less than a threshold, when the temperature of the load and the second output value of the sensor is almost equal is satisfied, and the temperature of the load and the second output value of the second sensor have a correlation is satisfied since the temperature of the load and the reading from the temperature sensor are equal to the ambient temperature.
Regarding claim 9, modified Bellinger discloses the controller is configured to measure the ambient temperature (630; Fig. 6) which is used to calibrate the temperature sensing coil (670; “used in place of”) rather than using a previous ambient temperature calibration (620; “previously acquired second output value of the second sensor”) before applying power at a wattage setting (310) only if a sufficient time (“time elapsed”) has passed since a previous activation (610; Fig. 6; “preceding power feed to the load”) such that the heating element is assumed to be cooled to ambient temperature based on the typical use of the electronic vaporizer and a sensor for ambient temperature can reasonably recognize that the heating element is at room temperature after a sufficient time period (para. 43; “predetermined time”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Bellinger discloses that the controller is configured to measure the ambient temperature (630; “acquire the first output value of the first sensor”) and calculate the resistance at ambient temperature (650; “acquire…the second output value of the second sensor”) in response to upon detection of insertion of a cartridge (as modified by Bilat) and wherein the atomizer is removable (para. 20-22) and wherein the power source (100) is electrically connected to a controller (120) which is electrically connected to the current sense and voltage sense (162, 164) and the heating element (132).
Regarding the claim limitation “the second structure has terminals to which terminals of the first structure are connected, the load being arranged on a path connecting the terminals of the first structure,” one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the atomizer has a first pair of terminals and the housing has a second pair of terminals such that the heater is connected on a path connecting the second air of terminals. This is necessary in order to allow electricity from the power source in the housing to flow into the heating element in the atomizer in a circuit.
Regarding the claim limitation “circuitry configured to detect the connection of the first structure to the second structure based on resistance values between the terminals of the second structure,” modified Bellinger discloses that the controller calculates the resistance at ambient temperature in response to detection of insertion of the cartridge. Power from the power source will travel through a first terminal of the housing to the heater and through a second terminal of the housing and back to the power source since the heater and power source are connected via a circuit. This means that the current and voltage sense used to calculate the resistance of the heater coil is measured “between the terminals of the second structure” because the first and second terminals of the housing are connected to the heater.
Regarding claim 11, modified Bellinger discloses an accelerometer (para. 36; “third sensor”) for detecting a user’s request for vapor by sensing airflow through the air channel (para. 36; “detect inhalation by a user”), wherein the controller is configured to measure the ambient temperature (630; “acquire the first output value of the first sensor”) and calculate the resistance at ambient temperature (650; “acquire…the second output value of the second sensor”) before applying power at a wattage setting (310; “start of power feed to the load for aerosol generation”) when the user requests vapor (305; “inhalation is detected by the third sensor”).
Regarding claim 12, modified Bellinger discloses the controller may optionally take several successive measurements such that the temperature rise generated by each measurement pulse can be calculated and subtracted from the measured temperature to calculate the temperature at a heating before any power was applied (para. 43, see also para. 45; “acquire at a plurality of timings the first output value of the first sensor and the second output value of the second sensor”) before applying power at a wattage setting (310; “start of power feed to the load for aerosol generation”).
Claim 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellinger in view of Bowen et al., Lord et al., Bilat, Peleg et al., and Dendy et al. as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Sasaki (US 2011/0313704; of record).
Regarding claims 26-27, modified Bellinger discloses the device as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 6, wherein modified Bellinger discloses the pressure sensor and the temperature sensor are provided in a single combined unit (integrated circuit device) to allow the pressure sensor to adjust the pressure reading to a constant temperature value (Lord; [0058]).
However, modified Bellinger is silent as to the pressure sensor includes a multiplexor.
Sasaki teaches a physical quantity sensor (title) comprising a pressure sensor (10; Fig. 2) comprising a pressure detecting portion (11) and a temperature detecting portion (12), and MUX portion (13) in the form of a multiplexer that receives the respective signals form the pressure detecting portion and the temperature detecting portion, selects one of the signals, and outputs it to a preamp portion ([0021]), such that the pressure sensor uses temperature to perform pressure correction ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a multiplexor and in Sasaki to the pressure sensor of modified Bellinger in order to obtain the predictable result of using temperature to perform a pressure correction (Sasaki; [0031]) with a more accurate temperature correction (Sasaki; [0006]).
Claims 4-5, 13-16, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellinger (US 2015/0359263; of record) in view of Peleg et al. (US 2014/0014126; of record), Bilat (US 2018/0303161; of record), and Dendy et al. (US 2018/0027878).
Regarding claim 4, Bellinger discloses an electronic vaporizer (abstract; “aerosol inhalation device”) comprising:
a current sense (162) and a voltage sense (164) (see Fig. 2; collectively “first sensor”) which are used to calculate resistance and provide resistance feedback to a controller (para. 34; “output a first value associated with an electrical resistance value”) of a coil heater (132; see para. 34) configured to boil a fluid (138; “aerosol source”) deposited near or in contact with the coil heater (para. 28; “heat the aerosol source”) and having a non-trivial positive temperature coefficient of resistance (TCR) such that the heating coil will change electrical resistance in proportion to its temperature (para. 33; see Fig. 8; “correlation between a temperature and the electrical resistance value”);
a temperature sensor (126; “second sensor”) which is used to measure ambient temperature (para. 44; “output a temperature”);
a power control circuit (145; Fig. 2; see para. 34; “circuitry”) including a controller (120) configured to calculate the temperature of the heating element (para. 43);
an atomizer (130; see Figs. 1, 10-12; “first structure”) including the heating coil (132); and
a housing (109; “second structure”) including the controller (120; see Fig. 9), the accelerometer (para. 36), and the temperature sensor (126; see Fig. 1-2),
wherein the atomizer is removable (Figs. 10-12; para. 20-22; “detachable”), and
wherein the temperature sensor is a thermistor (para. 44), and is located adjacent to a battery (110; see Figs. 1-2; “power supply”), and
wherein the atomizer is removable (Figs. 10-12; para. 20-22; “detachable”),
wherein the controller senses an ambient temperature (“first output value of the first sensor”) and determines a resistance of the heating element (“second output value of the second sensor”) (step 650; [0044]) and stores the temperature-resistance pair in memory (124) (step 660; [0044]-[0045]; “stored in a memory”) obtained in response to a vapor requested command (605; see Fig. 6) and before any power was applied to the heating element (para. 43), and
wherein the controller is configured to calculate the temperature of the heating element in subsequent heating element resistance readings based on the ambient temperature-resistance pair (step 670; Fig. 6; [0036] and [0044]-[0045]) by measuring a heater coil resistance (320; Fig. 3; “third output value of the first sensor”) after applying power at a wattage setting (310; Fig. 3; “after the connection of the first structure to the second structure and a start of power feed to the load”) in response to a user requesting vapor (305; Fig. 3; “in response to the aerosol generation request”).
Moreover, Bellinger discloses that the temperature sensor (126) is part of the controller (120; see Fig. 1).
However, Bellinger is silent as the second sensor is configured to detect a temperature of a power supply of the aerosol inhalation device to output a second output value indicating the temperature of the power supply.
Peleg teaches an electronic cigarette (abstract) comprising a temperature sensor ([0087]; “second sensor”) either connected or part of the processor ([0087]; equivalent to Bellinger’s temperature sensor configuration) or attached to the battery ([0087]; alternative embodiment; “configured to detect a temperature of the power supply”), wherein the temperature sensor attached to the battery is used to determine the ambient temperature ([0087]), which is then used, in combination with a coil resistance, to calculate the temperature of the coil (see Equation 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the configuration of the temperature sensor being a part of the processor as in Bellinger for the temperature sensor being attached to the battery as in Peleg because both configurations are equivalents known for the same purpose of making an ambient temperature measurement which is then used to calculate the temperature of the coil (Peleg; [0087]). Substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Moreover, modified Bellinger is silent as to wherein the first output value of the first sensor and the second output value of the second sensor are obtained in response to the connection of the first structure to the second structure. Specifically, Bellinger teaches obtaining the first output value and the second output value, but not in response to the connection of the first structure to the second structure.
Bilat teaches an electrically operated aerosol-generating system configured to detect adverse conditions (abstract) wherein electric circuitry ([0022], [0058]) detects insertion of a cartridge, including the heater, into the device (300; Fig. 9), then the electrical resistance of the heater is measured (310) (“obtained in response to connection of the first structure to the second structure”) and the measured resistance is compared to a range of expected or acceptable resistances (320) ([0177]).
Moreover, Peleg further teaches an electronic cigarette (abstract) comprising a battery assembly and a cartomizer containing a heating element ([0083]) wherein in the case that the battery is rechargeable and the cartomizers are disposable, there is a need to verify the cartomizer coil resistance via calibration ([0083]). Peleg teaches that RcoilT=T0 may be calculated by measuring the ambient temperature with a temperature sensor connected or part of the processor or attached to the battery every time the cartomizer is replaced ([0087]; “second output value…obtained in response to connection of the first structure to the second structure”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combined Bellinger’s step of taking the resistance at ambient temperature measurement with Bilat’s known method of performing the resistance measurement upon detection of insertion of a cartridge and Peleg’s known method of measuring an ambient temperature upon every replacement of the cartridge in order to obtain the predictable result of performing a resistance calibration of the heater at ambient temperature upon insertion of the cartridge because (a) such a modification would further allow the controller to determine if the initial resistance measurement at ambient temperature is within an acceptable or expected range of resistances, and alarm a user of an unauthorized, damaged, or incompatible heater if the initial resistance measurement at ambient temperature is not within the acceptable or expected range or resistances (Bilat; [0177]) and (b) allows for verifying that the cartomizer is accurately made (Peleg; [0084]) and reduces temperature measurement inaccuracies (Peleg; [0082]).
Lastly, modified Bellinger does not explicitly teach wherein connection of the first structure to the second structure is detected based on change in the output value of the first sensor. Specifically, while modified Bellinger discloses detecting the cartridge is inserted (Bilat, step 300), modified Bellinger does not disclose with particularity how such a detection is performed.
Dendy teaches a an electronic vaping device (title) comprising a first section (70) and a second section (72) having a control circuit (200) including a microcontroller (905; [0108]), wherein it is generally well-known that the microcontroller may detect attachment of a cartridge to the battery section (“connection of the first structure to the second structure”) based on a change in resistance (i.e., “change in the output value of the first sensor”) resulting from attachment of the cartridge ([0134]) and transitioning the energy state of the microcontroller based on the detection ([0135]; teaching the microcontroller remains in a hibernate state until a cartridge is attached).
It would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have applied the known step of detecting a change in resistance from the attachment as in Dendy to modified Bellinger’s step of detecting the cartridge is inserted in order to obtain the predictable result of detecting the attachment of a cartridge to the battery section (Dendy; [0134]) such that the controller remains in a hibernate state until a cartridge is attached (Dendy; [0135]). One of ordinary skill would appreciate that the controller remaining in a hibernate state until detection of attachment would allow a user to extend the duration of use during a single charge of the battery.
Regarding claim 5, modified Bellinger discloses the step of measuring ambient temperature (630; Fig. 6) occurs before the step of calculating resistance at the ambient temperature (650; Fig. 6), which occurs before applying power at a wattage setting (310; Fig. 3) in response to a user requesting vapor (305; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, modified Bellinger discloses a previous ambient temperature calibration (620; “first output value of the first sensor and the second output value of the second sensor” at a “first timing”) and a new ambient temperature resistance calibration (see steps 630, 640, 650, and 660; “first output value of the first sensor and the second output value of the second sensor” at a “second timing”) which occur before applying power at a wattage setting (310; “before the start of power feed to the load”) in response a user requesting vapor (305; “aerosol generation request”), the new calibration being in response to vapor being requested (605),
if sufficient time has not passed, meaning the heating element is not assumed to be cooled to ambient temperature (see para. 43; “temperature of the load and the second output value of the second sensor do not have a predetermined relationship”), the controller uses a previous ambient temperature calibration and uses the temperature resistance from that previous calibration (use the first output value of the first sensor and the second output value of the second sensor, which are acquired at the first timing”) to calibrate the temperature sensing for the heating element (“calculate the temperature of the load”) (para. 44), and
if sufficient time has passed, meaning the heating element is assumed to be cooled to ambient temperature (see para. 43; “temperature of the load and the second output value of the second sensor have a predetermined relationship”), the ambient temperature calibration proceeds such that the controller measures ambient temperature (630; “second output value of the second sensor”) and calculates resistance at the ambient temperature (650; “first output value of the first sensor”) which are acquired at the second later timing (see Fig. 6; para. 44).
Moreover, Bellinger discloses that when the fluid reservoir is nearly depleted, the flow rate necessarily falls towards zero and the temperature of the coil will climb significantly, making the last bit of vapor produced unpleasant due to flavorant breakdown ([0004]).
However, modified Bellinger is silent as to judging whether the aerosol source is depleted.
Bilat further teaches the system is configured to compare a resistance (R2), which is the heater resistance ([0139]), with a stored high threshold to determine that there is the adverse condition of dry conditions at the heater ([0146]) indicative of a dry heater element of a dry substrate ([0069], [0135], [0167]), and preventing supply of power to the heater until the heater or aerosol-forming substrate is replaced ([0071]).
It would have been obvious to said skilled artisan to have applied the known method of comparing a resistance of the heater to a high threshold as in Bilat to modified Bellinger’s method in order to obtain the predictable result of determining that the aerosol-forming substrate is dry (Bilat; [0069]) and preventing supply of power until the aerosol-forming substrate is replaced (Bilat; [0071]) in order to solve Bellinger’s problem of overheating and generation of undesirable compounds in the aerosol (Bellinger; [0004]; Bilat; [0059]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Bellinger discloses previous ambient temperature calibration (620) occurs before the new temperature calibration (630, 640, 650, 660).
Regarding claim 15, modified Bellinger discloses that the controller is configured to measure the ambient temperature (630; “acquire the first output value of the first sensor”) and calculate the resistance at ambient temperature (650; “acquire…the second output value of the second sensor”) in response to upon detection of insertion of a cartridge (as modified by Bilat) and wherein the atomizer is removable (para. 20-22) and wherein the power source (100) is electrically connected to a controller (120) which is electrically connected to the current sense and voltage sense (162, 164) and the heating element (132).
Regarding the claim limitation “the second structure has terminals to which terminals of the first structure are connected, the load being arranged on a path connecting the terminals of the first structure,” one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the atomizer has a first pair of terminals and the housing has a second pair of terminals such that the heater is connected on a path connecting the second air of terminals. This is necessary in order to allow electricity from the power source in the housing to flow into the heating element in the atomizer in a circuit.
Regarding the claim limitation “circuitry configured to detect the connection of the first structure to the second structure based on resistance values between the terminals of the second structure,” modified Bellinger discloses that the controller calculates the resistance at ambient temperature in response to detection of insertion of the cartridge. Power from the power source will travel through a first terminal of the housing to the heater and through a second terminal of the housing and back to the power source since the heater and power source are connected via a circuit. This means that the current and voltage sense used to calculate the resistance of the heater coil is measured “between the terminals of the second structure” because the first and second terminals of the housing are connected to the heater.
Regarding claim 16, modified Bellinger discloses an accelerometer (“third sensor”) for sensing airflow through an air channel for detecting a user’s request for vapor (para. 36; “configured to detect inhalation by a user”), wherein the new temperature calibration (630, 640, 650, 660) occurs when the vapor is requested and detected by the accelerometer (605; see para. 36).
Regarding claim 21, modified Bellinger discloses the removable atomizer (para. 20; “first structure includes a cartridge”), and the housing (109; “second structure is a main body”) that includes the memory (124; see Fig. 1-2), and the power supply (110; para. 27).
Regarding claim 22, modified Bellinger discloses the removable atomizer (para. 20; “atomizer”), a mouthpiece (140; “air intake channel”), and an air channel (134; “aerosol channel”).
Regarding claim 23, modified Bellinger discloses the housing (109) includes a display (154; “notifier” and “display”).
Regarding claims 24-25, modified Bellinger discloses an active indicator (1010; “notifier”) such as a tactile vibration (para. 50; “vibrator”).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellinger (in view of Peleg et al., Bilat, and Dendy et al. as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Davis (US 2021/0401061).
Regarding claim 28, modified Bellinger discloses the device as discussed abo