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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-12 and 15-19 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claims 15-18 are withdrawn. Claim 13 has been cancelled. Claims 1 has been amended.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 3/19/2026 containing
amendments and remarks to the claims.
The objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn due to the claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 3/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 1 to include the limitation of control the at least one output unit to provide a second notification based on an interval between two consecutive detected puffs being shorter than the length of time of the predetermined intervals, whereas previously this was not required. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously applied art and newly found art.
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments made to the claims.
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) 1-6, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron (US 2017/0027229, cited in IDS filed 5/18/2022) in view of Pascal et. al (WO2013/098398, hereinafter ‘Pascal’, cited in IDS filed 5/18/2022), Fernando (US2014/0014125), Hepworth (US2020/0038601), and Raichman (US2018/0104214).
Regarding claim 1, Cameron teaches:
A device (electronic vapor device 100) comprising a battery configured to supply power (power supply 120, [0054]), heater configured to heat aerosol generating material (vaporizer 108, [0063]).
A temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the heater (wherein the heater may also comprise a temperature sensor, [0097]).
At least one output unit (display 1491, figure 14, [0058]) and a controller (processor 1401, [0048]).
Cameron does not appear to explicitly disclose (I) the controller configured to detect a user’s puff by using the temperature sensor, (II) the controller configured to control the at least one output unit to provide a first notification to a user at predetermined intervals that puffing is available, thereby inducing the user to puff at the predetermined intervals, wherein a time length of the predetermined intervals is based on a time required to heat the heater to a predetermined temperature associated with generating an aerosol, and (III) control the at least one output unit to provide a second notification based on an interval between two detected puffs being shorter than the length of time of the predetermined intervals.
In regard to (I), Pascal, directed to an aerosol-generating system, teaches that by detecting changes in the heater element temperature, a user puffs can be detected (Pg. 20, third paragraph).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cameron by configuring the controller to detect a user puffs by changes in temperature of the heating element as taught by Pascal, and thus the controller configured to detect a user’s puff by using the temperature sensor, because Cameron and Pascal are directed to aerosol generation devices with heating element, Pascal teaches that using data from a temperature sensor to determine when a user is puffing a device is known in the art, and this merely involves incorporating a known controller configuration of a temperature sensor of a heater into a similar vaporization device to yield predictable results.
In regard to (II), Hepworth, directed to an aerosol provision system, teaches:
A control function provided by the controller including timing functions such as pre-heating the atomizer heater a predetermined time before activating the airflow generator, so that the atomized payload is being generated as the airflow reaches the atomizer [0078].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cameron by configuring the controller to pre-heat the atomizer for a predetermined time before airflow is generated as taught by Hepworth, and thus pre-heating for a predetermined time before a user puffs, because both Cameron and Hepworth are directed to aerosol-generating devices, Hepworth teaches this allows the atomized payload to be generated as the airflow reaches the atomizer, and this merely involves incorporating a known way to configure a heater (i.e. pre-heating for a predetermined time) to a similar aerosol-generating device to yield predictable results.
Fernando, directed to an electrically heated smoking system, further teaches:
At the end of the pre-heating period, the electronic circuitry may generate a signal to indicate that the pre-heating period mode is complete, and that the user can begin the smoking experience [0089].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cameron by configuring the controller generate a signal to indicate that the pre-heating mode is complete as taught by Fernando, because both modified Cameron and Fernando are directed to aerosol-generating devices with pre-heating periods, Fernando teaches this indicates that the user can begin the smoking experience, and this merely involves incorporating a known way to configure an aerosol-generating device with a pre-heating period to a similar aerosol-generating device to yield predictable results.
As such, modified Cameron teaches the controller configured to control the at least one output unit to provide a first notification (i.e. signal) to a user at predetermined intervals (i.e. when the pre-heating mode is complete) that puffing is available, thereby inducing the user to puff at the predetermined intervals (indicate that the user can begin the smoking experience). As the atomizer is pre-heating for a predetermined time as taught by Hepworth, this defines wherein a time length of the predetermined intervals is based on a time required to heat the heater to a predetermined temperature associated with generating an aerosol.
In regard to (III), Raichman, directed to a vaporizing device, teaches:
The control circuitry is configured to generate an alert in response to sensing that, during inhalation or draw from the vaporizer, the temperature of the plant material is less than a given threshold temperature ([0097]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cameron by configuring the controller to generate an alert during an inhalation or draw from the vaporizer that the temperature of the vaporizable material is less than a given threshold as taught by Raichman, because both Cameron and Raichman are directed to vaporizers for heating an aerosolizable material, Raichman teaches this alerts a user that the temperature is less than a threshold temperature, and this merely involves applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
As Hepworth teaches pre-heating for a predetermined time ([0078]), one of ordinary skill would recognize that the temperature of the aerosolizable material reaches a threshold value temperature when a minimum amount of time of pre-heating has occurred, and thus it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the device of Cameron to generate an alert if a threshold amount of pre-heating time has not been met, as this merely involves choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to configure a controller to alert based on the temperature of the material, with a reasonable expectation for success. The alert would therefore define providing a second notification based on an interval between two detected puffs being shorter than the length of time of the predetermined intervals.
Regarding claim 2, modified Cameron further teaches wherein the controller detects the user’s puff based on a variation in the temperature of the heater by using the temperature sensor (Pascal, as the puff is detected by temporary changes in temperature or in the rate of change of temperature, page 20, third paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, Cameron teaches the device detects a puff by sensing the flow of air (i.e. volume and pressure draw of a puff [0048]), which the applicant teaches defines a flux sensor (see [0077] of the Applicant’s specification) and therefore reads on the controller detecting the user’s puff based on a variation in flux in the device by using the flux sensor.
Regarding claim 4, Cameron further teaches wherein the processor is configured to acquire puff characteristic data corresponding to a result of detecting the user’s puff ([0078]), wherein the data comprises at least one of a puff strength, interval, and number of puffs ([0078]).
Regarding claim 5, Cameron further teaches:
Wherein the controller determines a number of puffs available based on an amount of the aerosol generating material (determining a number of inhalations remaining based on the quantity of the vaporizable material remaining and the average amount of vapor associated with the average inhalation, [0005]).
And modified the number of available puffs (the processor is configured…to utilize the puff data to determine a number of puffs remaining in the eVapor device, [0048]) based on puff characteristic data corresponding to a result of detecting the user’s puff (the puff data from the sensor comprises a length, a duration, a volume and a pressure draw of a puff, [0048]).
Regarding claim 6, Cameron further teaches wherein the processor outputs the modified number of available puffs by using the at least one output unit (wherein the processor determines based on the data the remaining quantity of vapor that can be provided in the device and displaying the information [0052], and wherein the device can indicate how many puffs remain in the device based on the information [0161]).
Regarding claim 10, Cameron teaches wherein the processor counts a number of puffs based on the detecting the user’s puff (wherein the sensor is configured to sense puff data and the processor can be configured to count a number of puffs, [0170]). Cameron fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor outputs a warning signal through the at least one output unit before the number of puffs meets a predetermined number.
Pascal further teaches that an alert may be provided to warn the user that the consumption has reached a desired predetermined dose and warn the user that their consumption of a particular compound has reached a desired limit or predetermined dose (pages 5-6, lines 30-35 and 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Cameron by incorporating the warning of reaching a desired threshold as taught by Pascal, because Cameron and Pascal are directed to aerosol generation, Pascal teaches that warning a user whenever a predetermined threshold of consumption is known in the art and alerts a user that their consumption of a particular compound has reached a desired limit, and this merely involves incorporating a known user notification into a similar device to yield predictable results. As each puff contributes to consumption of a compound, this modification would yield the processor outputting a warning signal through the at least one output unit before the number of puffs meets a predetermined number.
Regarding claim 11, Cameron teaches:
Wherein the controller outputs a warning signal through the at least one output unit (the processor sends a signal causing the display to display the remaining usage in terms of time, [0198]) when a remaining time corresponds to a predetermined time (as this occurs whenever the device is activated, [0195]), wherein the remaining time is defined by a time interval between a current time and an end of an operation limit time (remaining usage in terms of time, [0198]), and interrupts the power supplied to the heater when the current time meets the end of the operation limit time (a determination to limit the usage, the processor can command a gate to cause the device to limit the puff, limit the vaporization, or both, [0199]).
Regarding claim 12, Cameron teaches that one or more sensors can be configured to sense negative environmental conditions and generate/transmit one or more alerts based on the negative environmental condition [0090], which reads on wherein the controller controls the at least one output unit to provide a notification to a user. Cameron further teaches that the one or more sensors can comprise a thermal sensor ([0085]) and the thermal sensor can be configured to detect temperature ([0087]). Therefore it is evident the thermal sensor may detect negative environmental conditions relating to temperature, such as when the temperature is equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature, and thus defined a temperature notification.
Cameron does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the notification provided is when the temperature of the heater is equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature. However, Cameron further teaches that the heater may also comprise a temperature sensor ([0097]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the temperature sensor of the heater to provide a notification to a user when the temperature is equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature, as Cameron teaches other temperature sensor within the same device having this capability for alerting a user to negative conditions, and this merely involves configuring a temperature sensor to operate in a known way to yield predictable results. As this modification is to the temperature sensor of the heater, this would yield providing a notification to a user when the temperature of the heater is equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature.
Claims 7-9, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cameron (US 2017/0027229, cited in IDS filed 5/18/2022) in view of Pascal et. al (WO2013/098398, hereinafter ‘Pascal’, cited in IDS filed 5/18/2022), Fernando (US2014/0014125), Hepworth (US2020/0038601), and Raichman (US2018/0104214) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bowen (US2018/0043114).
Regarding claims 7-9, Cameron teaches:
Wherein the at least one output unit may comprise a vibration motor (wherein alerts can comprise a small vibrating motor to alert the user to one or more sensed conditions ([0090]), a LED lamp (display comprising segments that switch on and off, the segments can be light emitting diodes, and the display provides a digital output to communicate information to the user of the deice, [0158]), and a speaker (the vapor device can comprise an input/output device, such as a speaker, and can communicate with a user ([0058]).
Wherein the processor determines a number of available puffs according to puff characteristic data from a user’s puff ([0161]).
Cameron does not appear to explicitly disclose controlling an output of the vibration motor, LED lamp, or speaker based on the number of available puffs.
However, Bowen, directed to an electronic vaporizer, teaches:
Receiving and/or providing to a user, vaporizer alerts and notifications related to liquid cartridge remaining status—such as a number of usages or inhalations remaining in a cartridge ([0130]). This is additional functionality of a vaporizer ([0130]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Cameron to notify a user the number of inhalations remaining, because Cameron and Bowen are directed to an aerosol generation device, Pascal teaches this is additional functionality of a vaporizer, and this merely involves incorporating a known user notification into a similar device to yield predictable results.
Further, as Cameron teaches known ways to alert a user (i.e. through a vibration motor, LED lamp, and a speaker), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure alerting the user to the number of inhalations remaining of modified Cameron via known alert methods such as a vibration motor, LED lamp, and speaker, as this is merely a known way to alert a user in a similar aerosol generation device to yield the predictable result of alerting a user.
Simply activating the vibration motor, LED lamp, or speaker, to alert a user to a predetermined amount of puffs would read on controlling an output strength of the vibration based on the number of available puffs as recited in claim 7, controlling an emission intensity of the LED lamp based on the number of available puffs as recited in claim 8, and controlling a sound output intensity of the speaker based on the number of available puffs as recited in claim 9.
Regarding claim 19, Cameron further teaches wherein the processor modifies the number of available puffs (the processor can be configured to utilize the puff data to determine a number of puffs remaining in the eVapor device, [0170]) based on measured puff strength (at least one of a length, a duration, a volume, and a pressure draw of a puff, [0170]).
Cameron does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the number of available puffs is based on an estimated remaining battery power.
Bowen, directed to control of an electronic vaporizer, teaches:
User interfaces may be deployed on a digital device and may aid the user in operating the vaporizer. Icons and/or text elements may be provided to allow a user to see information about vaporizer status, such as battery information (charge remaining, vapor draws remaining, time to charge, charging, etc.), see [0123].
As the vapor draws remaining (i.e. number of available puffs) are part of the battery information, it is evident that the number available puffs are based on an estimated remaining battery power.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cameron to have the number of available puffs remaining take into account the estimated remaining battery power as taught by Bowen, because both Cameron and Bowen are directed to electronic cigarette devices that output a number of available puffs, Bowen teaches this allows a user to see the vaporizer’s status, and this merely involves incorporating a known way to determine a number of puffs remaining (i.e. based on an estimated remaining battery power) to a similar electronic cigarette device to yield predicable results.
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 Nicole A Szumigalski whose telephone number is (703)756-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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.
/N.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights