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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 June 2026 has been entered.
Status
This office action is in response to the Arguments dated 23 June 2026. As directed by applicant, only claim 1 is amended and no further claims are cancelled or added. Thus, claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14 are pending. This is a Non-Final Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “ wherein modifying the amount of power includes determining and modifying the first amount of power from a first look-up table for a first target TPM density and a second look-up table for a second target TPM density that is different from the first target TPM density.” The specification does not describe where the first amount of power is modified by reference to a first look-up table for a first target TPM density AND is modified by reference to a second look-up table for a second target TPM density that is different from the first target TPM density. The specification just indicates modifying an amount of power from a look-up table for a target TPM density, and if there were another target TPM density, then another table would perhaps be referenced, but the specification does not disclose that one amount of power may be modified by reference to two look-up tables for two target TPM densities.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein modifying the amount of power includes determining and modifying the first amount of power from a first look-up table for a first target TPM density and a second look-up table for a second target TPM density that is different from the first target TPM density”. It is unclear how the first amount of power is modified by the second lookup table for a second target TPM, whether the first and second look-up tables together inform the modifying of the first amount of power, which seems from the simple read of the claim, or whether the amount of power is modified “from a first look-up table for a first target TPM density and [is further modified from] a second look-up table for a second target TPM density that is different from the first target TPM density. For purposes of examination, the claim is understood according to the latter understanding.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first amount of power”" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this is understood to mean -a first amount of power-.
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.
[Examiner’s Note:
Claims 1- 3, 5-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickens (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0135401) in view of Bowen et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0157524 and Zhao (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/ 0140020).
Regarding claim 1, Dickens discloses a method of controlling a production of a total particulate matter (TPM) in an aerosol-generating device [the “amount…of vapor generated,” Par. 0038, also referred to variously as the “cumulative vapor output,” Par. 0060 or “cumulative output,” Fig. 7, in the “electronic vapour provision system”], the method comprising:
determining a flow rate of a gas through the aerosol-generating device [“Measure air flow rate of inhalation,” Step 620, Fig. 6; also referred to as A(t), Par. 0063],
adjusting the production of the total particulate matter (TPM) by the aerosol- generating device in response to the flow rate [“Determine amount of aerosol to match puff volume amount,” Step 640, Fig. 6, where the amount of aerosol adjusts the production of TPM because the cumulative vapor output depends on the vapor output for each puff; see Pars. 0063-0064; par. 38, temperature measurement is also taken, as density of air is dependent on temperature/power “this measured temperature can be incorporated into the determination of airflow”] and a target TPM density [the desired vapor output rate V(t), and quality, given that density of air is temperature dependent ¶38] such that the adjusting is performed between 5 times a second and 1000 times a second [“For example, with reference to FIG. 7, we can see that the time responsiveness of the system is a small fraction of 1 s, typically less than 0.5 seconds, or less than 0.3 seconds, or less than 0.1 seconds,” Par. 0070, i.e., the adjusting is between 2 and 10 times a second, which overlaps with the claimed range]“the desired relationship between the airflow rate and the vapor output rate V(t), as represented by the function F3,” Par. 0064, par. 38 further describing the ability to achieve a desired “quality” of the air flow. Bowen also teaches target TPM density to achieve, below],
Dickens does not explicitly disclose wherein “the determining of the flow rate being performed with a sampling time period between 1 millisecond and 200 milliseconds” nor “maintains a produced TPM density within a range of the target TPM density” nor wherein “the adjusting including determining and modifying an amount of power to be used by the aerosol-generating device based on one or more look-up tables, each of the one or more look-up tables including a plurality of air flow ranges corresponding to separate power values usable to determine the amount of power to generate the target TPM density based on the determined flow rate of the gas through the aerosol-generating device
wherein modifying the amount of power includes determining and modifying the first amount of power from a first look-up table for a first target TPM density and a second look-up table for a second target TPM density that is different from the first target TPM density.”
Regarding the determining the flow rate being performed with a sampling time period, Dickens does disclose, as set forth above, adjusting the output of the system, in response to the flow rate, in periods of time ranging from 0.1-0.5 s, or 100-500 ms. In order to adjust the output at this rate in response to the change in airflow in a given puff [see Par. 0070], the airflow rate must also be sampled in appropriate time periods [because if, for example, the time period were 1 second, the response time would have to be greater than one second; the response time must be at least the airflow sampling time period]. Furthermore, Dickens notes that the intention is that “the linkage between puff volume and vapor output is readily apparent to the user, who is therefore able to learn quickly how to exploit this functionality of the device,” [Par. 0070], i.e. changes in airflow must “quickly” result in changes in vapor production, in order to achieve the desired effect. Thus, the flow rate sampling time period is a result-effective variable because it determines, in part, the response time of the system, which is recognized by Dickens as resulting in the desired effect. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Dickens by having the sampling time period be between 1-200 ms in order to meet the disclosed teachings of adjusting the vapor flow according to the described limitations.
And while Dickens teaches all the limitations above, he still does not teach that the device “maintains a produced TPM density within a range of the target TPM density” nor wherein “the adjusting including determining and modifying an amount of power to be used by the aerosol-generating device based on one or more look-up tables, each of the one or more look-up tables including a plurality of air flow ranges corresponding to separate power values usable to determine the amount of power to generate the target TPM density based on the determined flow rate of the gas through the aerosol-generating device, wherein modifying the amount of power includes determining and modifying the first amount of power from a first look-up table for a first target TPM density and a second look-up table for a second target TPM density that is different from the first target TPM density.”
Regarding wherein the TPM density is maintained within a range of the target TPM density, Dickens does teach that the quality of the flow can be adjusted based on airflow and temperature, as noted above, and Bowen teaches the adjusting is performed to maintain a produced TPM density within a range of the target TPM density [Pars. 0122, 0133-0135, using the Vaporized Mass Predictor, VMP unit is adjustable by the user” ¶131 and 133, and the accuracy of the measured TPOM vaporized from a VMP unit is within” a certain percentage “of a predicted value”; e.g. at least from para. 122, within 17% or 15% or 11% or from ¶0135, “In certain embodiments, the accuracy of the measured TPM vaporized from a VMP unit is at least ±25% of a predicted value. In certain embodiments, the accuracy of the measured TPM vaporized from a VMP unit is at least ±20% of a predicted value. In certain embodiments, the accuracy of the measured TPM vaporized from a VMP unit is at least ±15% of a predicted value. In certain embodiments, the accuracy of the measured TPM vaporized from a VMP unit is at least ±10% of a predicted value. In certain embodiments, the accuracy of the measured TPM vaporized from a VMP unit is at least ±5% of a predicted value.” And in ¶¶0141, 0147, adjustments can be made to maintain within the desired range; and in ¶163, the timer can measure up to within .05 seconds of a “puff”, which means it is taking a measurement within the claimed parameters and ¶¶106,107 indicates some time intervals of dosing that would also meet the requirements of the claim for measurements or adjustments which deliver vaporizable material via heating]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Dickens by maintaining the TPM density within a range of the target as taught by Bowen because this helps ensure that the target amount is produced, and the adjustment of Bowen is “in real time” (¶141) which seems almost instantaneous, though the time response of the microprocessor to the data is not specified, but with the teachings of Dickens (and even Bowen measurements), having the response be within the claimed milliseconds may be achieved in order to achieve essentially smooth adjustment and control.
And while Dickens in view of Bowen teaches all the limitations above, it still does not teach wherein “the adjusting including determining and modifying an amount of power to be used by the aerosol-generating device based on one or more look-up tables, each of the one or more look-up tables including a plurality of air flow ranges corresponding to separate power values usable to determine the amount of power to generate the target TPM density based on the determined flow rate of the gas through the aerosol-generating device, wherein modifying the amount of power includes determining and modifying the first amount of power from a first look-up table for a first target TPM density and a second look-up table for a second target TPM density that is different from the first target TPM density.”
Regarding the look-up tables, it is noted that Dickens teaches look-up tables to determine the flow rate (from the pressure drop of the cigarette puff), but not to teach look-up tables with for adjusting power values for various air flow levels usable to determine the power to generate the target TPM density, as claimed, and rather teaches that the “microprocessor” determines the electric power based on the flow-levels (Dickens, ¶0049), but Dickens does not describe exactly how the microprocessor itself determines the power. Zhao, though, teaches wherein “the adjusting including determining and modifying an amount of power to be used by the aerosol-generating device based on one or more look-up tables, each of the one or more look-up tables including a plurality of air flow ranges corresponding to separate power values usable to determine the amount of power to generate the target TPM density based on the determined flow rate of the gas through the aerosol-generating device.” (Zhao, ¶0028, “the mapping table between the gas flow quantity and the atomizing quantity may be replaced with a mapping table between the gas flow quantity and the output power of the power supply 122. The control unit 14 may find a corresponding output power in the mapping table between the gas flow quantity and the output power of the power supply according the gas flow quantity detected by the detecting unit 13, and adjust the output power of the power supply 122 to the corresponding output power so as to adjust the atomizing quantity of the atomize”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dickens in view of Bowen, with the teachings of Zhao, to have the electric power values associated with puff intensity/flow rate be in a look-up table in order to quickly adjust and control the delivery of the atomized fluid to the user in order to be able to control the e-cigarette experience, and this would be a method for Dickens microprocessor to control the heating, to look to look-up table, which is otherwise not described, as noted above.
And while Dickens in view of Bowen and Zhao teaches all the limitations above, it still does not teach explicitly “wherein modifying the amount of power includes determining and modifying the first amount of power from a first look-up table for a first target TPM density and a second look-up table for a second target TPM density that is different from the first target TPM density.” However, Zhao already teaches adjusting power from a first look-up table (which would be at a first target TPM), and Bowen already teaches the ability to adjust the TPM density, which is essentially comparable to the vaporized mass predictor (VMP) which is user adjustable and describes how much material will be vaporized (over time or puff or period, Bowen ¶¶134-136, and this allows for an improved user experience by precise control in dosage of a vaporizable material (e.g., nicotine, cannabinoid). Thus, having the ability to adjust the VMP or TPM density, in order to have a different experience, either getting more vaporizable material with each puff, or less, would be desirable depending on the mood or desires or situation of a user (perhaps the user is about to enter a class, and would like a few intense puffs before putting the cigarette away), and this would merely be a duplication of parts (see MPEP §2144.04(VI)), to have a further experience in the manner already taught by the references, to have a look-up table modify the experience according to the desired TPM density. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dickens in view of Bowen and Zhao with further teachings of Bowen and Zhao, to determine and modify the first amount of power from a first look-up table for a first target TPM density and a second look-up table for a second target TPM density that is different from the first target TPM density, so that a user may adjust his or her experience with the same cigarette via a user interface, to have a different or further experience, either getting more vaporizable material with each puff, or less, would be desirable depending on the mood or desires or situation of a user.
Regarding claim 2, Dickens in view of Bowen and Zhao teaches the all the limitations of claim 1, above, but further fails to teach whether target TPM density is selected prior to the determining of flow rate and the adjusting of the production. However, Bowen further teaches selecting a target TPM density before detecting a puff or adjusting of the production [“the VMP is user adjustable, so that the vaporizer device will vaporize a target amount of material in a plurality of puffs. In certain embodiments, the VMP is user adjustable, so that the vaporizer device will vaporize a target amount of material in a single puff. In some variations, the VMP is user adjustable so that the device can be disable for a period of time after the target amount of material has been vaporized. The VMP may be user adjustable so that the device can engage an alert after a target amount of material has been vaporized,” Par. 0134; furthermore, the target may be “preset” as in Par. 0136]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Dickens by setting the target TPM density prior to determining the flow rate [how Dickens detects puffs] or adjusting of the production, as claimed, because this allows the user to have a predetermined target after which point, for example, they may be alerted or the device shut off when the target has been reached [Bowen Par. 0134], which encourages smoking cessation.
Regarding claim 3, Dickens in view of Bowen and Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches wherein the adjusting includes increasing the production of the TPM in response to an increase in the flow rate and decreasing the production of the TPM in response to a decrease in the flow rate [see the equation in Par. 0063, which shows their proportionality between vapor production and flow rate, as well as Fig. 7 which illustrates TPM (Dickens, here, cumulative vapor output) production aligning with cumulative (puff) volume].
Regarding claim 5, Dickens in view of Bowen and Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and it further teaches wherein range is within 20% of the target TPM density [Bowen, Par. 0135, from the combination above]
Regarding claim 6, Dickens in view of Bowen and Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches the adjusting includes determining an amount of power to be used by the aerosol-generating device as a function of at least the flow rate [Dickens, “The control unit controls the power supplied to the vaporizer based on a cumulative airflow for this inhalation by the user, wherein the cumulative airflow is determined based on the measurements of airflow rate by the sensor,” Par. 0065].
Regarding claim 7, Dickens in view of Bowen and Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 6, as above, and further teaches the amount of power to be used increases in response to the flow rate being greater than or equal to a flow threshold [Dickens, Fig. 7 step 610/par. 0039: when the flow rate exceeds the threshold defined as the ‘start’ of the puff, the amount of power is increased from zero].
Regarding claim 8, Dickens in view of Bowen and Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 6, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the amount of power to be used increases proportionally in response to the flow rate [Dickens, see Pars. 0061-0062 which describe how power rises and falls with flow rate; Par. 0063, the correspondence between airflow and vapor output being proportional; and Par. 0064 which discloses the power being determined based on the airflow].
Regarding claim 9, Dickens in view of Bowen and Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not further teach a method wherein adjusting in response to a type of an aerosol-producing substrate used by the aerosol generating device. However, Bowen further teaches the adjusting is further in response to a type of an aerosol- producing substrate used by the aerosol- generating device [Bowen, pars. 0139, 0141]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Dickens by adjusting in response to a type of an aerosol-producing substrate as taught by Dickens because different compounds [e.g. nicotine, cannabis, medication] may require vastly different target TPM densities.
Regarding claim 10, Dickens in view of Bowen and Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein the adjusting is further in response to a target TPM density associated with a type of an aerosol-producing substrate for the aerosol generating device. However, Bowen further teaches the adjusting is further based on the target TPM density being associated with a type of an aerosol-producing substrate for the aerosol- generating device [Bowen, pars. 0136-0137 and par. 0180]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Dickens by adjusting in response to a type of an aerosol-producing substrate as taught by Dickens because different compounds [e.g. nicotine, cannabis, medication] may require vastly different target TPM densities which should then be taken into account when performing the adjusting.
Regarding claim 11, Dickens in view of Bowen and Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach the method further comprising: selecting one of a plurality of target TPM densities as the target TPM density. However, Bowen further teaches selecting one of a plurality of different TPM densities as the target TPM density [Bowen, pars. 0136-0137 disclose a variety of different TPM values, which result in different TPM densities as in par 0134]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Dickens by selecting one of a plurality of different TPM densities as the target TPM density, as taught by Bowen, in order to allow the user to select the amount of TPM they would prefer based on their goal or situation [Par. 0136].
Regarding claim 12, Dickens in view of Bowen and Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the production of the TPM involves an aerosol-producing substrate including a nicotine-containing material [Dickens, Par. 0017].
Regarding claim 14, Dickens in view of Bowen and Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the adjusting includes modifying an amount of power to be used by the aerosol-generating device based on look-up tables corresponding to selectable target TPM density levels, each look-up table of the look-up tables including different power values correlated to same air flow ranges. But while Zhao just teaches the power levels for the different flow and puff levels, Bowen also teaches the TPM density associated with the different puff level for the target TPM (Bowen ¶0129, fig. 9A, for instance). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Dickens in view of Bowen and Zhao with a further teaching of Bowen, to have the device adjusted by look up tables also associated with target TPM density levels, in order to quickly know exactly how much substance is being inhaled and derived from the aerosol substance, to either keep track of the substance being inhaled over a long period of time, or how much substance is left within the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the references do not teach "wherein modifying the amount of power includes determining and modifying the first amount of power from a first look-up table for a first target TPM density and a second look-up table for a second target TPM density that is different from the first target TPM density" as amended. Applicant argues that the references, and specifically Zhao (which is used to teach the correspondence in the first place) does not teach or suggest a mapping table including a plurality of air flow ranges corresponding to separate power values, much less a first look-up table for a first target TPM density and a second look-up table for a second target TPM density, each table having different values (Remarks, p. 6). However, in light of the teachings above, as noted, to further the experience of a user, in changing the desired TPM density, it would be obvious to have a further mapping table, á la a duplication of parts (see MPEP §2144.04 (VI)), so that a user may adjust his or her experience with the same cigarette via a user interface, to have a different or further experience, either getting more vaporizable material with each puff, or less, would be desirable depending on the mood or desires or situation of a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see previously filed forms PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-55695569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights