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
Claims 1-10 and 18 are amended. Claims 11-16 and 18-27 are withdrawn. Claim 17 is cancelled. Claims 7-9 are objected to. Claims 1-10 are presently examined.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 9/17/2025 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the objections to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of 9/17/2025 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 10, the claim is directed to the statutory category of invention of a manufacture based on its recitation of an aerosol generating apparatus. The claim then goes on to recite the abstract ideas of determining and comparing, and those ideas can be performed by the human mind. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III A. Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis is met. Turning to Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Although the claim does recite the structural limitations of an aerosol generating apparatus having a chamber that receives an article and a sensor arrangement and that the device’s production of aerosol is controlled based on the sensed data, this amounts to merely tying the abstract idea to a particular field of invention since the claim does not specifically set forth how use of the abstract idea improves the operation of the aerosol generating device. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Turning to Step 2B, the claim recites the additional elements of an aerosol generating apparatus comprising a chamber configured to receive an article comprising an aerosolizable medium, a sensor arrangement configured to detect a first marker arrangement on the article and a second marker arrangement on the article, and a controller. However, these features are considered to be well understood, routine and/or conventional activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(d). The prior art indicates that:
Day (US 9,152,829) teaches a drug delivery device (figure 2, reference numeral 200) having an inner wall (figure 2, reference numeral 214), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a cavity, and a reservoir identification system (figure 2, reference numeral 203) having two electronic sensors disposed on the inner wall (column 9, lines 38-53, figure 2, reference numerals 204a, 204b).
Fernando (US 9,468,234) teaches a smoking system having a housing (figure 2a, reference numeral 103), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an apparatus, that has a cavity that receives a smoking article (column 9, lines 55-67, column 10, lines 1-3, figure 2a, reference numeral 111), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a chamber. A detector is located on the side of cavity that detects various lines on the smoking article (column 11, lines 1-18, figure 2a, reference numeral 203), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a sensor arrangement. The smoking article is a cigarette having generally circular lines that are printed (column 13, lines 42-49, figure 2d, reference numeral 215), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of a first marker arrangement. An additional generally circular line is also provided on the cigarette and is designed to change during the heating involved in the smoking experience to indicate that the cigarette has been smoked (column 13, lines 29-41, figure 2d, reference numeral 217), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second marker arrangement. The detector operates to identify the cigarette using the generally circular lines 215 and whether the cigarette has been smoked using the circular line 217 (column 13, lines 50-64), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of a plurality of comparison values.
Rogan (US 2020/0281254) teaches an inhaler having a housing ([0033], figure 3c, reference numeral 4) that defines a cavity (figure 3c, reference numeral 12) into which a consumable is inserted ([0035], figure 3c, reference numeral 32). The inhaler comprises an optical reader that reads indicial on the consumables ([0057], figure 3b, reference numeral 80), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a sensor arrangement. The indicia are in the form of a first indicia (figure 4c, reference numeral 68a) and a second indicia ([0051], figure 4c, reference numeral 68b).
The claim is therefore not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Regarding claims 2-4, the claims recite further comparison steps that do not make any additional contributions to patent eligibility.
Regarding claim 6, Fernando teaches that the indicator is located on the outside of the cigarette when the cigarette is inserted into the cavity (figure 2a), and Rogan teaches that the indicia are on the side of the cigarette (figure 4c) that is parallel to the cavity when inserted (figure 3b), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of parallel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 or 35 U.S.C. 101 (pre-AIA ) set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Day (US 9,152,829) teaches a drug delivery device (figure 2, reference numeral 200) having an inner wall (figure 2, reference numeral 214), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a cavity, and a reservoir identification system (figure 2, reference numeral 203) having two electronic sensors disposed on the inner wall (column 9, lines 38-53, figure 2, reference numerals 204a, 204b). However, although Day teaches that a decoding circuit of the device functions by comparing two input values (column 12, lines 30-38), it is not clear that these comparison values are in fact directly derived from the results of the sensing.
Fernando (US 9,468,234) teaches a smoking system having a housing (figure 2a, reference numeral 103), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an apparatus, that has a cavity that receives a smoking article (column 9, lines 55-67, column 10, lines 1-3, figure 2a, reference numeral 111), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a chamber. A detector is located on the side of cavity that detects various lines on the smoking article (column 11, lines 1-18, figure 2a, reference numeral 203), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a sensor arrangement. The smoking article is a cigarette having generally circular lines that are printed (column 13, lines 42-49, figure 2d, reference numeral 215), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of a first marker arrangement. An additional generally circular line is also provided on the cigarette and is designed to change during the heating involved in the smoking experience to indicate that the cigarette has been smoked (column 13, lines 29-41, figure 2d, reference numeral 217), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second marker arrangement. The detector operates to identify the cigarette using the generally circular lines 215 and whether the cigarette has been smoked using the circular line 217 (column 13, lines 50-64), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of a plurality of comparison values. The identification of the article and determination of smoked status are considered to meet the claim limitation of determining data. However, Fernando does not teach or suggest comparing the results of detecting the lines 215 to the results of detecting the lines 217.
Rogan (US 2020/0281254) teaches an inhaler having a housing ([0033], figure 3c, reference numeral 4) that defines a cavity (figure 3c, reference numeral 12) into which a consumable is inserted ([0035], figure 3c, reference numeral 32). The inhaler comprises an optical reader that reads indicial on the consumables ([0057], figure 3b, reference numeral 80), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a sensor arrangement. The indicia are in the form of a first indicia (figure 4c, reference numeral 68a) and a second indicia ([0051], figure 4c, reference numeral 68b). However, Rogan does not teach or suggest comparing the results obtained by sensing the first and second indicia to each other.
The prior art does not teach or suggest an aerosol generating apparatus having first and second sensors that obtain data from first and second markers on an article and determine comparison values by comparing the results of data obtained from the first and second markers to each other.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims tie the abstract idea to the operation of a physical device, however, the mere applying of an abstract idea to a specific technical field does not by itself render a claim patent eligible. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Although applicant states that changes in the mass, temperature, composition, and volume of the aerosol result from the control process, none of these features are claimed, nor do the claims set forth how the sensing process results in changes in the aerosol properties.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755