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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Bellinger does not disclose determining that the capsule is not valid in response to determining that a sharp gradient is present in a heating characteristic waveform.
This argument is not persuasive.
The present rejection of amended claim 1 is no longer based on Bellinger alone. Rather, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Bellinger in view of Barbaric.
Bellinger teaches determining whether a sharp gradient (i.e., deviation in rate of change or slope of resistance during preheat) is present in a heating characteristic waveform (¶¶ [0040]–[0042], Figs. 4–5).
Barbaric teaches determining whether a capsule is valid and disabling operation of the device when the capsule is determined to be invalid (¶¶ [0005]–[0007], [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to treat the abnormal heating condition detected by Bellinger (e.g., rapid deviation in resistance behavior indicative of improper or depleted fluid conditions) as a condition indicating capsule invalidity, as taught by Barbaric, in order to prevent improper or unsafe operation of the aerosol-generating device. Such a modification represents the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. See MPEP § 2143.
Accordingly, Applicant’s argument directed solely to whether Bellinger alone discloses capsule invalidity does not address the rejection as currently presented.
Applicant’s argument directed to the rejection under 35 USC § 101 of claims 1-5, 8-12 18-25 and 29 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the pending claims are not directed to a mental process because the “human mind alone cannot record heating characteristic waveforms” and therefore cannot perform the claimed determinations. This argument is not persuasive.
The claims recite, in substance, recording heating characteristic waveforms, determining whether a sharp gradient is present in a waveform, and determining whether a capsule is not valid based on the presence of the sharp gradient. These limitations are directed to collecting data, analyzing the data, and making a determination based on the analysis, which constitutes a mental process, even when performed by a controller.
Applicant’s argument improperly relies on details from the specification regarding real-time measurement and hardware implementation. However, the claims do not recite any particular sensor structure, waveform generation mechanism, or technological improvement in how the waveforms are obtained or processed. The claims merely recite the result of recording and analyzing information, rather than a specific technical solution for performing those steps. As such, the claims encompass embodiments that can be practically performed by a human using pen and paper or mental observation, or by a generic controller automating such mental steps.
Applicant further argues that automating the analysis using a controller removes the claims from the mental process category. This argument is not persuasive because use of a generic controller to automate abstract mental steps does not render the claims patent-eligible, as previously explained in the Office Action.
Accordingly, the claims remain directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
Applicant asserts that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because power is terminated to the heater in response to determining that the capsule is not valid, thereby improving safety.
This argument is not persuasive. The limitation of terminating power is a result-oriented action that merely applies the abstract determination, rather than a technological improvement to the functioning of the controller or the aerosol-generating device itself. The claims do not recite any unconventional power control technique, hardware configuration, or control logic beyond performing the abstract determination and acting on the result.
The asserted benefits of preventing device operation with an invalid or counterfeit capsule are intended uses and advantages, which do not amount to a practical application that integrates the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Terminating power in response to an abstract determination constitutes insignificant post-solution activity that does not meaningfully limit the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and remain ineligible under Step 2A, Prong Two.
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.
Claim 1-5, 8, 9–11, 18–20, 21–23, 24–25, and 29–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One: The Claim Recites a Judicial Exception
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of analyzing information and making a determination, specifically:
recording one or more heating characteristic waveforms,
determining whether a sharp gradient is present in a heating characteristic waveform, and
determining that a capsule is not valid based on the presence of the sharp gradient.
These steps collectively amount to evaluating measured data and making a decision based on that evaluation, which is a mental process that can be performed by a human using observation, calculation, or pen and paper, or by a generic computer performing the same analysis. The mere use of a controller or computer to perform these determinations does not remove the claim from the realm of abstract ideas. (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The Judicial Exception Is Not Integrated into a Practical Application
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Although claim 1 includes steps of applying power during a preheat interval and recording heating characteristic waveforms, these steps merely collect data for the purpose of making the abstract determination that the capsule is not valid.
The claim does not recite any technical improvement to the operation of the aerosol-generating device, nor does it specify a particular manner in which the determination that the capsule is not valid improves heater control, device safety, or aerosol generation beyond the abstract decision itself. The determination that the capsule is not valid is the end result of the claim and is not tied to a specific technical solution or improved device functionality.
As such, the claim merely uses the aerosol-generating device as a tool to perform the abstract idea, rather than applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way. (MPEP § 2106.04(d)).
Step 2B: The Claim Does Not Recite Significantly More Than the Judicial Exception
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements—such as the capsule, heater, memory, controller, and application of power during a preheat interval—are well-understood, routine, and conventional components of aerosol-generating devices.
These elements merely provide a generic technological environment in which the abstract idea of determining capsule validity based on waveform analysis is performed. They do not impose any meaningful limitation on the abstract idea or add a specific inventive concept that transforms the claim into patent-eligible subject matter. (MPEP §§ 2106.05(d), 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Because claim 1 recites a judicial exception and does not integrate that exception into a practical application, nor include additional elements amounting to significantly more, claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent Claims
Claims 2 and 3 recite terminating or enabling power to the heater based on the determination of capsule validity (i.e., based on determining that the capsule is not valid / valid). These limitations merely recite generic post-determination actions that amount to applying the result of the abstract idea in the same field of use (controlling an aerosol-generating device) and do not add a particular technical solution or otherwise integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claims 4, 5, 8, 9–11, 18–20, 21–23, 24–25, and 29–30 further recite additional waveform types, thresholds, comparisons, envelopes, fault determinations, timing/threshold ranges, airflow waveform recording/correction, and percentage-change criteria. These limitations merely refine the data collection and analysis used to reach the abstract determination regarding capsule validity (and related determinations such as gradients/faults) and therefore continue to recite the abstract idea at a higher level of detail rather than integrating it into a practical application. The claims remain directed to evaluating information and making determinations, with the recited device context serving only as a field-of-use environment. (MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the dependent claims likewise fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application for the same reasons as claim 1 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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) 1-5, 8, 9–11, 18–20, 21–23, 24–25, and 29–30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellinger (US 2015/0359263), and further in view of Barbaric et al. (US 2020/0085105).
Regarding claim 1, Bellinger teaches a non-combustible aerosol-generating device (electronic vaporizer 100) comprising:
a capsule including an aerosol-forming substrate (fluid 138 comprising propylene glycol, glycerin, water, nicotine, and flavorings) and a heater (heating element 132) configured to heat the aerosol-forming substrate to produce an aerosol (¶¶ [0027]–[0029]);
a memory 124 storing computer-readable instructions, wherein the memory may be an EEPROM (¶ [0031]);
a controller (processor 122) configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to cause the non-combustible aerosol-generating device to apply power to the heater during a preheat interval, determine an operating temperature of the heating element based on measured resistance and a reference resistance, compare the operating temperature to a temperature setting, and output a signal to reduce power supplied to the heating element when the operating temperature exceeds the temperature setting (¶¶ [0030]–[0036], [0061]);
the preheat interval occurring until an initial preheat temperature is reached, wherein the temperature setting is a preheat temperature (¶¶ [0047]–[0049], [0062]);
recording, during at least a portion of the preheat interval, one or more heating characteristic waveforms resulting from application of power to the heater during the preheat interval, wherein the controller applies constant wattage to the heating element and measures resistance and rate of change of resistance over time (¶¶ [0040]–[0042], FIGS. 4–5);
determining whether a sharp gradient is present in a first heating characteristic waveform among the one or more heating characteristic waveforms, wherein the controller determines whether the measured rate of change of coil resistance deviates from a previous rate of change, corresponding to a deviation in slope of the heating characteristic waveform (¶¶ [0040]–[0041]).
However, Bellinger does not teach determining whether the capsule is valid based on one or more of the heating characteristic waveforms, as an express capsule validity determination. While Bellinger teaches stopping power to the heating element when a change in slope is not detected and the heating element is determined to be starved for fluid (¶ [0040]).
While Bellinger teaches stopping power to the heating element when an abnormal heating condition is detected, such as when the heating element is determined to be starved for fluid (¶ [0040]), Bellinger does not expressly characterize this determination as a determination of whether the capsule is valid or invalid.
Barbaric is in the same field of endeavor as Bellinger, as Barbaric is directed to aerosol-generating devices employing capsules or cartridges and controller-based enablement or disablement of heater operation based on capsule conditions (¶¶ [0001]–[0003]). Barbaric discloses determining whether a capsule or cartridge is valid or authentic and enabling or disabling heater operation based on that determination, including preventing operation of the device when the capsule is determined to be invalid (¶¶ [0005]–[0007], [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bellinger to incorporate Barbaric’s known capsule-validation control framework, such that heater operation is enabled or disabled based on a determination relating to the condition of the capsule. In Bellinger, abnormal heating behavior such as fluid starvation (¶ [0040]) inherently reflects a capsule condition (e.g., depleted or improperly functioning liquid supply). Applying Barbaric’s enable/disable logic to such a detected capsule condition would have represented a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, consistent with MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 2, Bellinger teaches stopping application of power to the heating element when an abnormal heating condition is detected, such as when a change in slope is not detected and the heating element is determined to be starved for fluid (¶ [0040]).
Bellinger, however, does not expressly characterize this condition as a determination that the capsule is not valid.
Barbaric discloses determining whether a capsule is valid and disabling heater operation when the capsule is determined to be invalid (¶¶ [0005]–[0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to terminate power to the heater in response to a determination that the capsule is not valid, as disclosed by Barbaric, consistent with MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 3, Bellinger teaches continuing application of power to the heating element and normal aerosol generation when acceptable heating conditions are detected, including when the measured rate of change of coil resistance does not indicate an abnormal condition during preheat (¶¶ [0040]–[0041]). Bellinger, however, does not expressly characterize such continued operation as being enabled in response to a determination that the capsule is valid.
Barbaric discloses determining whether a capsule is authentic or valid and permitting heater operation only when the capsule is determined to be valid, while preventing activation of heater control circuitry when the capsule is invalid (¶¶ [0005]–[0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to permit aerosol generation in the device taught by Bellinger only after determining that the capsule is valid, as disclosed by Barbaric, consistent with MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 4, Bellinger teaches that the one or more heating characteristic waveforms include a resistance characteristic waveform and a temperature characteristic waveform, as Bellinger measures coil resistance over time and determines heater temperature based on resistance during application of power (¶¶ [0040]–[0042], [0061]). As discussed with respect to claim 1, Bellinger is combined with Barbaric for the capsule validity determination, and claim 4 is unpatentable for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 5, Bellinger teaches that the resistance characteristic waveform indicates changes in resistance of the heater over time, as Bellinger measures coil resistance and the rate of change of coil resistance during application of power (¶¶ [0040]–[0041]). Bellinger further teaches that the applied power waveform indicates a level of power applied to the heater over time by applying constant wattage to the heating element and monitoring heater operation, and that the temperature characteristic waveform indicates heater temperature over time based on resistance-based temperature sensing (¶¶ [0030]–[0036], [0040]–[0042], [0061]). As discussed with respect to claim 1, Bellinger is combined with Barbaric, and claim 5 is unpatentable for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 8, Bellinger teaches that the first heating characteristic waveform is a resistance characteristic waveform, as Bellinger measures coil resistance and the rate of change of coil resistance during application of power to evaluate heating behavior (¶¶ [0040]–[0041], FIGS. 4–5). As discussed with respect to claim 1, Bellinger is combined with Barbaric, and claim 8 is unpatentable for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 9, Bellinger teaches determining whether a sharp gradient is present in a resistance characteristic waveform based on a change in resistance of the heater over time, as Bellinger measures coil resistance and the rate of change of coil resistance during application of power and detects deviations in the slope of resistance over a time interval (¶¶ [0040]–[0041]). As discussed with respect to claim 1, Bellinger is combined with Barbaric for the capsule validity determination, and therefore claim 9 is unpatentable for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, Bellinger teaches determining whether a sharp gradient is present by quantifying changes in coil resistance over a time interval and comparing the measured rate of change to a prior or expected rate of change to identify a deviation in slope, which corresponds to comparing a resistance change against a threshold value (¶¶ [0040]–[0041]). As discussed with respect to claim 1, Bellinger is properly combined with Barbaric, and claim 10 is unpatentable for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11, Bellinger teaches determining that a sharp gradient is present when the measured change in resistance exceeds an expected or prior rate of change, i.e., when a deviation in the slope of the resistance characteristic waveform is detected (¶¶ [0040]–[0041]). As discussed with respect to claim 1, Bellinger is combined with Barbaric, and claim 11 is unpatentable for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, the claim defines a “valid capsule” as at least one of an authentic capsule, a capsule that has not been damaged prior to insertion, or a capsule including aerosol-forming substrate that is not depleted. Bellinger does not teach defining a valid capsule in terms of authentication, damage status, or depletion status. Barbaric discloses determining whether a capsule is authentic and using capsule validity as a gating condition for device operation (¶¶[0005]–[0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define a valid capsule to include authenticity, physical integrity, and non-depletion, as recited, in view of the combined teachings of Bellinger and Barbaric, consistent with MPEP §2143.
Regarding claim 19, Bellinger teaches monitoring heating characteristic waveforms including a resistance characteristic waveform and detecting abnormal heating behavior based on deviations from expected resistance behavior over time, including the presence of sharp gradients (¶¶[0040]–[0042]).
However, Bellinger does not characterize such determinations as a capsule validity determination.
Barbaric discloses determining whether a capsule is valid and using capsule validity as a controller-level gating condition for device operation, without limiting capsule validity to any particular sensing mechanism (¶¶[0005]–[0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine capsule validity based on monitored heating behavior relative to expected operating bounds and sharp gradient detection, as recited, in view of the combined teachings of Bellinger and Barbaric, consistent with MPEP §2143.
Regarding claim 20, Bellinger teaches monitoring heating characteristic waveforms including a resistance characteristic waveform and identifying abnormal heating behavior when measured resistance behavior deviates from expected behavior over time, including when a sharp gradient in resistance is detected or when heating behavior indicates an abnormal condition (¶¶ [0040]–[0042]).
However, Bellinger does not teach determining that a capsule is not valid in response to one or more heating characteristic waveforms being outside bounds of corresponding expected heating characteristic envelopes or in response to a sharp gradient being present, as an express capsule validity determination.
Barbaric discloses determining that a capsule is not valid and preventing or inhibiting device operation in response to such capsule validity determinations, without limiting the validity determination to any particular sensing mechanism (¶¶ [0005]–[0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine that a capsule is not valid based on detected abnormal heating behavior, including waveform behavior outside expected bounds or the presence of sharp gradients, as recited, in view of the combined teachings of Bellinger and Barbaric, consistent with MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claims 21–23, Bellinger teaches supplying maximum available power to a heater during an initial heating phase and monitoring applied power and heater conditions over time. Specifically, Bellinger teaches applying full power to the heating element during a preheating stage and subsequently reducing applied power once a temperature or resistance threshold indicative of boiling or proper heating is reached (¶¶ [0047]–[0049]; FIG. 9). The applied power supplied to the heater over time inherently defines an applied power waveform, and the duration of full-power application corresponds to a length of time that maximum available power is applied (¶¶ [0043], [0047]–[0049]).
Bellinger further teaches determining when the applied power has fallen below the maximum available power and when the preheat interval has ended, as the controller transitions from supplying maximum power to a regulated or reduced-power control mode once the heater reaches a target temperature or resistance condition (¶¶ [0047]–[0049]; FIG. 9). Bellinger also teaches determining that a fault or abnormal condition has occurred based on monitored heating behavior, including when expected changes in resistance slope are not detected or when heating behavior indicates fluid starvation, prompting cessation or modification of power delivery (¶¶ [0040]–[0042]).
Accordingly, Bellinger teaches each of the additional limitations recited in claims 21–23. As claims 21–23 depend from claim 1, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bellinger in view of Barbaric, claims 21–23 are likewise unpatentable for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 24, Bellinger teaches that the controller detects user inhalation/airflow during at least a portion of a preheat interval. In particular, Bellinger teaches that the device detects user inhalation during preheat based on an amount of power required to maintain operating temperature at the preheat temperature (¶¶ [0061]–[0062]). Bellinger further teaches monitoring heating behavior during preheat, including measuring heater resistance and controlling heater power based on measured operating conditions (¶¶ [0040]–[0042], [0049]). Thus, Bellinger teaches obtaining time-varying airflow-related information during preheat (i.e., an airflow waveform) and obtaining one or more heating characteristic waveforms during preheat (¶¶ [0061]–[0062], [0040]–[0042], [0049]).
However, Bellinger does not expressly teach “correct[ing] the one or more heating characteristic waveforms based on the recorded airflow waveform,” nor expressly teaching determining capsule validity specifically based on corrected heating characteristic waveforms.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to correct/compensate heating characteristic waveforms using the recorded airflow waveform during preheat, because Bellinger already teaches that inhalation/airflow affects the power required to maintain the preheat temperature and therefore affects the observed heating behavior during preheat (¶¶ [0061]–[0062]). Using airflow information to compensate heating characteristic waveforms is a predictable signal-processing refinement to reduce airflow-induced variation and improve the accuracy of downstream determinations based on heating behavior, consistent with MPEP § 2143 and MPEP § 2144.
As claim 24 depends from claim 1, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bellinger in view of Barbaric, claim 24 is likewise unpatentable for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 25, Bellinger teaches a non-combustible aerosol-generating device wherein the controller is configured to execute computer-readable instructions to correct heating behavior using computational techniques. Specifically, Bellinger teaches measuring heater resistance, calculating heater temperature from the resistance using calibration data, and adjusting applied power to the heater when the measured temperature exceeds a safe threshold (¶¶ [0036], [0040], [0049]). These operations necessarily involve computational processing of heating characteristic data to compensate for variations in heater behavior and operating conditions.
Bellinger further teaches modifying heater control signals based on calculated temperature and resistance values in order to regulate heating and maintain safe operation (¶¶ [0040]–[0042], [0049]). Such modification constitutes computational correction of heating characteristic waveforms, as the controller processes measured heating data and alters heater control signals accordingly.
Although Bellinger does not expressly use the terms “masking” or “computational correction,” the claimed correction of one or more heating characteristic waveforms by masking or computational correction does not impose a structural limitation on the claimed device and merely recites functional processing of heating data. Bellinger’s disclosure of calculating temperature from resistance measurements and adjusting heater power based on those calculations meets the claimed correction by computational correction (¶¶ [0036], [0040], [0049]).
As claim 25 depends from claim 24, and claim 24 depends from claim 1, which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bellinger in view of Barbaric, claim 25 is likewise unpatentable for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claim 29,
Claim 29 further recites determining whether a sharp negative gradient is present in a first heating characteristic waveform and determining a heater fault based at least in part on whether the sharp negative gradient is present.
Bellinger teaches monitoring heater resistance as a function of time and evaluating resistance behavior to determine whether the heater is operating normally or exhibiting abnormal conditions. In particular, Bellinger discloses measuring heater resistance during operation, calculating resistance-based heater characteristics over time, and evaluating changes in resistance behavior to identify abnormal heating conditions (¶¶ [0038]–[0041], FIG. 5).
Bellinger further teaches identifying heater faults when the observed resistance behavior deviates from expected resistance trends, including when changes in resistance slope indicate improper heating behavior or heater malfunction, and using such determinations to modify or terminate heater operation (¶¶ [0040]–[0042]). A sharp negative gradient in a resistance-based heating characteristic waveform corresponds to an abrupt decrease in resistance over time and represents such a deviation from expected resistance behavior during normal heating.
Accordingly, Bellinger teaches determining a heater fault based at least in part on detecting an abrupt change in resistance behavior within a heating characteristic waveform, as recited in claim 29 (¶¶ [0038]–[0042], FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 30,
Claim 30 further recites determining whether the sharp gradient is present based on a comparison between a percentage change in resistance and a percentage change threshold value, wherein the threshold value is 3%.
Bellinger teaches evaluating quantified resistance changes over time and determining abnormal heater behavior by comparing measured resistance behavior against expected or acceptable resistance behavior (¶¶ [0038]–[0042], FIG. 5). In particular, Bellinger discloses measuring heater resistance as a function of time and identifying abnormal operating conditions when the observed resistance behavior deviates from expected resistance trends, including deviations in resistance slope indicative of improper heating or fault conditions (¶¶ [0040]–[0042]).
Although Bellinger does not expressly recite a numerical percentage threshold, Bellinger’s resistance-based fault detection relies on distinguishing normal resistance variation from abnormal resistance change using predetermined criteria applied to measured resistance changes (¶¶ [0038]–[0042], FIG. 5).
Selecting a specific percentage change threshold, such as 3%, to determine whether a sharp resistance gradient is present constitutes routine optimization of a result-effective variable used to classify resistance behavior as normal or fault-indicative and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05(A).
Conclusion
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
/Christopher M Rodd/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766