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
Applicant’s amendments to claims 31, 35, 37 has been acknowledged.
The record is further clarified to note that there is no claim 23 currently pending in this application and no rejection under 35 USC 1129(b) directed to such a claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Reevell nor Kaufman teaches determining an indication of water content of an aerosol-forming substrate based on a capacitance measurement and supplying different power profiles to the heater based on such indication. Applicant further asserts that Kaufman merely identifies an article of smokable material and does not measure properties of the smokable material itself. These arguments are not persuasive.
Reevell teaches that the aerosol-forming substrate comprises a defined water content and that water content is a meaningful physical characteristic of the substrate. Specifically, Reevell explains that homogenized tobacco material includes water within a defined percentage range and expressly identifies water content as part of the composition of the aerosol-forming substrate (Reevell ¶0050–¶0051). Reevell further teaches measuring an electrical load across electrodes when the aerosol-generating article is received within the cavity, wherein the electrical load varies depending on the material positioned between the electrodes (¶0074–¶0075). The electrical load measurement therefore reflects dielectric properties of the aerosol-forming substrate present between the electrodes, which Reevell recognizes as being influenced by substrate composition, including water content. Applicant’s attempt to characterize Reevell’s disclosure of water content as irrelevant is unpersuasive, as Reevell explicitly identifies water content as a defining property of the aerosol-forming substrate and teaches electrical measurements taken across that substrate during device operation.
While Reevell does not explicitly teach selecting among multiple power profiles based on the measured capacitance, Kaufman discloses precisely this concept. Kaufman discloses electrodes forming a capacitor and a sensing circuit configured to detect changes in capacitance when smokable material is present (Kaufman ¶0059–¶0060, ¶0061–¶0067, Fig. 6). Kaufman further discloses interpreting detected capacitance differences to determine material condition and to control heater operation accordingly (¶0061–¶0067). In addition, Kaufman discloses supplying power to a heater in accordance with different predetermined heating patterns or power profiles that vary in rate, timing, or heating cycles depending on sensed conditions (¶0054–¶0055). These heating patterns constitute distinct power profiles selected based on sensor input.
Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Kaufman does not merely identify the presence of an article in a binary manner. Rather, Kaufman discloses using capacitance measurements to distinguish material conditions and adjusting heater operation in response to those measurements. Applicant’s argument improperly narrows the claims by requiring a direct or explicit measurement of water content as a standalone parameter. The claims do not require a moisture sensor or an express calculation of water content. Instead, the claims require that the capacitance measurement indicates whether the water content is within, above, or below a normal operating level. As taught by Reevell and disclosed by Kaufman, capacitance measurements taken across an aerosol-forming substrate inherently reflect material properties that vary with substrate composition, including water content. The claims do not exclude other contributing variables, nor do they require isolating water content as the sole factor affecting capacitance.
Reevell teaches a capacitance-based aerosol-generating device in which electrical measurements are taken across a water-containing aerosol-forming substrate during operation, and Kaufman discloses selecting among different heater power profiles based on capacitance measurements indicative of material condition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kaufman’s disclosed heater-control techniques into Reevell’s capacitance-based aerosol-generating device in order to adjust heater power in response to sensed substrate conditions, including variations associated with water content. Such a modification merely applies known control techniques to a known sensing arrangement and would have yielded predictable results, such as improved heating consistency and avoidance of over- or under-heating.
Applicant’s discussion of improved user experience and perceived temperature consistency reflects advantages that would naturally flow from implementing known capacitance-based control techniques and does not render the claims nonobvious. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection, and claims 31, 35, and 37 remain unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Reevell in view of Kaufman.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 50-63 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/27/2024.
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.
Claim(s) 31-33, 35-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (WO2017051006) citing (US20190261684) as an English translation, and further in view of Kaufman et al. (US 2018/0049469).
Regarding claim 31, 35, and 37, Reevell teaches an aerosol-generating device 100 comprising:
a power supply (battery 114, ¶[0074]);
at least one heater (elongate heater 110, ¶[0074]); and
a cavity configured to receive an aerosol-generating article (cavity 104, ¶[0073]), the aerosol-generating article comprising an aerosol-forming substrate (substrate 200, ¶[0073]), the aerosol-forming substrate being substantially solid (¶[0026], ¶[0034]).
With respect to the electrode/contact structure:
For claim 31, Reevell teaches a first electrode 120 and a second electrode 122 spaced apart so that at least a portion of the aerosol-generating article is received between the electrodes (¶[0074]–[0075]).
For claim 35, Reevell further teaches first and second electrical contacts that engage electrodes of the aerosol-generating article, and that the controller measures an electrical load across these contacts when the article is received within the cavity (¶[0075]: “change in electrical load between the first and second electrode … measured by the controller 112”).
For claim 37, Reevell likewise teaches the article being received between the first and second electrical contacts so that the first and second electrodes of the article contact the respective contacts (¶[0074]–[0075]).
Reevell also teaches a controller (112, ¶[0074]) configured to:
control a supply of power from the power supply to the heater when an aerosol-generating article is received within the cavity (¶[0074]); and
measure an electrical load across the electrodes/contacts when the aerosol-generating article is received within the cavity (¶[0075]).
The measured electrical load in Reevell necessarily reflects changes in the electrical properties of aerosol-forming substrate during use.
Reevell does not explicitly teach controlling heater power according to different power profiles based on a measured capacitance value indicative of substrate water content, as now claimed.
However, Reevell teaches that the water content of the aerosol-forming substrate is a known, relevant, and measurable physical property of the homogenized tobacco material. In particular, Reevell teaches determining the water content of the aerosol-forming substrate using established measurement techniques, such as Karl Fischer titration, after equilibration under controlled humidity conditions (¶[0051]). This teaching establishes that substrate water content is a material condition of interest in aerosol-generating systems and is routinely quantified in the art.
Reevell further teaches an aerosol-generating device including a controller configured to measure an electrical load across electrodes when the aerosol-generating article is received within the cavity (¶[0075]) and to control power supplied to the heater based on detected electrical characteristics of the aerosol-forming substrate (¶¶[0074]–[0075]). Thus, Reevell teaches capacitance-based electrical sensing of the aerosol-forming substrate and heater control responsive to sensed electrical characteristics.
Kaufman, which is in the same field of endeavor as Reevell and the instant application (aerosol-generating devices employing electrical sensing and heater control), discloses using capacitance measurements to recognize material properties of a smokable substrate and to control heater operation accordingly. Specifically, Kaufman discloses electrodes (12) forming a capacitor, with capacitance measured by sensor circuitry (15, 13, 16, 20–24) (¶¶[0061]–[0062]). Kaufman further discloses that changes in capacitance occur depending on whether smokable material is present between the electrodes and based on the properties of that material (¶¶[0063]–[0066]; Fig. 6).
Kaufman additionally discloses that capacitance information is used by the controller to determine heater operation, including selecting among different predetermined heating patterns or power profiles (¶¶[0054], [0055], [0061]–[0067]). For example, Kaufman discloses that the apparatus may follow a first heating pattern when a first type of smokable material is recognized and a second, different heating pattern when a second type of smokable material is recognized (¶[0054]), and that such heating patterns may differ in rate of heat delivery, timing of heating cycles, and portions of the material heated (¶[0054]), i.e., distinct power profiles. Kaufman further discloses that recognition of the smokable material is based on capacitance measurements, which the controller uses to decide heating control (¶¶[0061]–[0067]).
In view of Reevell’s teaching that water content of the aerosol-forming substrate is a relevant and measurable substrate property (¶[0051]), and Kaufman’s disclosure of capacitance-based recognition of material properties and selection of different heater power profiles based on those capacitance measurements (¶¶[0054], [0055], [0061]–[0067]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reevell’s capacitance-based aerosol-generating device to control heater power using different power profiles depending on capacitance measurements indicative of substrate water content.
Such a modification would have involved the predictable use of known electrical sensing techniques to account for known substrate conditions, yielding predictable results, including improved heater control responsive to variations in substrate moisture and prevention of under- or over-heating.
Accordingly, claims 31, 35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell in view of Kaufman.
Regarding claim 32 and 36, Reevell teaches wherein at least of the first electrode and the second electrode forms part of the elongate heater (the first electrode forms part of the at least one heater ¶[0016]),
Regarding claim 33, Reevell teaches wherein the at least one heater comprises an elongate heater configured for insertion into the aerosol-generating article when the aerosol-generating article is received within the cavity (at least one heater comprises an elongate heater arranged for insertion into an aerosol-generating article when an aerosol-generating article is received within the cavity ¶[0016]), wherein the first electrode forms part of the elongated heater, wherein the second electrode is disposed on an inner surface of the cavity (first electrode preferably forms part of the elongate heater, and the second electrode is preferably provided on an inner surface of the cavity [0014]).
Regarding claim 38-40, Reevell (¶[0075]) teaches a controller configured to terminate supply of electrical current to the heater when the measured electrical load reaches a predetermined level indicative of depletion of volatile compounds. As discussed in ¶[0009] and ¶[0044], the electrical load may include a capacitive load, i.e., a capacitance measurement. Thus, Reevell teaches preventing the supply of power from the power supply to the at least one heater when a capacitance measurement is below a predetermined threshold, as required by claims 38–40.
Regarding claim 41-43, Reevell teaches an aerosol-generating device comprising a cavity for receiving an aerosol-generating article, at least one heater, electrodes, and a controller configured to monitor electrical load (¶[0067]–[0072]).
Reevell teaches that the controller monitors the electrical load between electrodes 28 and 30 and terminates power supply when the measured electrical load reaches a predetermined threshold indicative of volatile compound depletion (¶[0071]–[0072]).
As noted in ¶[0009] and ¶[0044], the electrical load may include a capacitive load.
Thus, Reevell teaches measurement of capacitance/load during heating and control of heater power based on the measurements.
Reevell does not explicitly teach the controller being configured to measure capacitance before supplying power to the heater.
However, Kaufman disclose that capacitance is measured by applying an excitation signal to electrodes before heating begins to establish a baseline and detect whether a smokable material article is present (¶[0061]–[0063]).
Kaufman further discloses that the capacitance difference is used to determine whether an appropriate article is present (¶[0066]–[0067]) and that the apparatus may select a heating/power profile based on the detected article (¶[0054]–[0055]).
Accordingly, Kaufman teaches measuring capacitance prior to power-up of the heater and controlling subsequent power delivery accordingly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reevell’s device to include Kaufman’s teaching of performing a pre-power capacitance measurement. Such a modification would have predictably improved Reevell’s system by:
Ensuring an aerosol-generating article is correctly inserted before heating begins (safety and operability) and allowing selection of an appropriate heating profile prior to heating, improving efficiency and consistency of aerosol formation.
This combination represents the predictable use of known techniques in the same field of endeavor (electrically heated aerosol-generating systems) and would merely improve Reevell’s control sequence with Kaufman’s pre-power measurement strategy. See MPEP § 2141 and KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claims 44-46, as set forth in the rejection of claims 31, 35, and 37, Reevell teaches an aerosol-generating device including a cavity, heater, electrodes, and a controller configured to measure an electrical load (including capacitance, ¶[0009], [0044]) during heating and to terminate or adjust power based on the measurement (¶[0071]–[0072]).
Reevell does not explicitly disclose that the controller is configured to measure capacitance periodically at intervals and adjust the power at such intervals.
However, Kaufman discloses that capacitance is measured repeatedly by applying excitation signals to electrodes, both before and during operation, and that such measurements are used to select and adjust heater power (¶[0061]–[0063]; ¶[0066]–[0067]). Kaufman therefore discloses periodic capacitance measurement and corresponding power adjustment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Reevell to incorporate Kaufman’s teaching of periodic capacitance measurement and adjustment, in order to improve the accuracy and responsiveness of heater control. Such modification would yield predictable results by ensuring the heater adapts to substrate conditions throughout the heating cycle.
Therefore, claims 44–46 are rendered obvious by Reevell in view of Kaufman.
Regarding claim 47-49, Reevell teaches an aerosol-generating device with electrodes, a cavity, a heater, and a controller configured to measure capacitance/electrical load during heating cycles (¶[0009], ¶[0071]–[0072]).
Reevell is silent as to detecting a puff and triggering capacitance measurement in response to puff detection.
However, Kaufman teaches that an aerosol-generating device may comprise a puff-actuated sensor (¶[0062]) and that the capacitive sensor 15 and control circuitry 7 may be configured to measure capacitance in response to puff detection. Thus, Kaufman discloses the recited “means for detecting a puff” and the controller being “further configured to measure the capacitance when a puff is detected.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Kaufman’s puff detection into Reevell’s capacitance-based heating system to synchronize capacitance measurements and heater operation with user inhalation, thereby improving responsiveness and conserving power between puffs.
Therefore, claims 47–49 are unpatentable over Reevell in view of Kaufman.
Claim(s) 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (WO2017051006) citing (US20190261684) as an English translation and Kaufman et al. (US 2018/0049469) as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Plojoux et al. (US 2015/0013696).
Regarding claim 34, Reevell is silent to the device comprising a tubular extractor configured to extract the aerosol-generating article from the cavity, the extractor being arranged in the cavity and movable in the cavity relative to the elongated heater and wherein the second electrode forms part of the extractor.
However, Plojoux discloses an aerosol-generating device extractor for removing a smoking article from the device (Plojoux, Abstract; ¶[0110]). Plojoux discloses an extractor that includes a sliding receptacle configured to receive the smoking article and a sleeve configured to receive the sliding receptacle, wherein the sliding receptacle is slidable between positions to facilitate removal of the smoking article from the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Reevell to incorporate the extractor of Plojoux for the predictable benefit of facilitating removal of the aerosol-generating article, thereby minimizing breakage of the article during extraction, as expressly taught by Plojoux (¶[0110]). Incorporating the extractor of Plojoux into Reevell’s device would have been a simple substitution of one known extractor mechanism for another, yielding predictable results consistent with MPEP § 2143 and KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
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 JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached on (571) 270-3882. 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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747