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 Submission
Applicant’s submission filed on 2026 March 26 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5, and 9-16 are pending. Claims 15-16 remain withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 9-14 are presently examined.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 9-14 are 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: under the subheading “wherein the period of time…”, the claim defines “a single heating operation” as a period during which continuous power is provided. [Applicant 52] discloses, contrary to the amended claim language, that resistance is measured within the heating operation before the heating element is heated, i.e., the heating operation includes a resistance-measuring period during which power is not provided and a heating period during which power is provided. The recited term “continuous” appears only in [applicant 65] disclosing that the period of time can be continuous, not that the heating operation encompasses continuous provision of power.
Claims 3, 5, and 9-14 are rejected by dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilat (US 20180020735 A1 cited on an IDS) in view of Luo (CN 108851233 A cited on an IDS and with reference made to machine translation).
Claims 1 and 14: Bilat teaches a vapor provision system (fig. 1d and [134], #10) and a cartridge (20) comprising:
a heating element ([145], #30) for generating a vapor from a vapor precursor material (aerosol-forming substrate);
and control circuitry ([147], #16) configured to provide power for the heating element (30) for performing a heating operation to generate the vapor and to compare a measurement of a resistance value ([155], R2) for the heating element for the heating operation with a predetermined threshold resistance value (R1ref) for the heating element for use in detecting a fault condition (adverse condition), wherein the control circuitry is further configured to:
monitor the resistance of the heating element during at least one heating operation ([169], when a new puff is detected, power is supplied to start a heating operation) of the heating element to determine a plurality of monitored resistance values (ΔR is measured during each puff) over a period of time (time from when power is supplied to when the cartridge is disabled);
compare each of the plurality of monitored resistance values (ΔR corresponding to R2 as in [155]) with the predetermined threshold resistance value (ΔRmax corresponding to R1ref as in [155]);
and detect a fault condition (if ΔR exceeds ΔRmax for consecutive measurements, then the cartridge is disabled) for the heating element based on the comparison of the plurality of monitored resistance values (ΔR corresponding to R2) with the predetermined threshold resistance value (ΔRmax corresponding to R1ref);
wherein the control circuitry is further configured to detect a fault condition (if ΔR exceeds ΔRmax for consecutive measurements, then the cartridge is disabled) for the heating element in the event that a plurality of the monitored resistance values (ΔR corresponding to R2) exceed the predetermined threshold resistance value (ΔRmax corresponding to R1ref) during the period of time (time from when power is supplied to when the cartridge is disabled);
wherein the period of time (time from when power is supplied to when the cartridge is disabled) is a continuous period of time corresponding to the duration of a single heating operation (when a new puff is detected, power is supplied to start a heating operation) of the heating element during which the control circuitry provides power (power is supplied) to the heating element.
Bilat does not explicitly teach that the single heating operation is a period during which continuous power is provided.
Luo teaches a vapor provision system (title) configured to detect a fault condition ([12], detect burning) either if a resistance value exceeds a threshold once (if a resistance change exceeds a threshold), or if a plurality of resistance values exceeds a threshold (if a resistance change exceeds a threshold M times) within a period during which continuous power is provided (a maximum power is provided for a period of time).
Luo achieves the same fault detection outcome of detecting an empty supply ([Luo 12], the system detects dry burning; [Luo 7], dry burning arises from an empty supply) as Bilat ([Bilat 169], the system detects an empty supply) to yield expectation to succeed.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to confine Bilat’s monitoring of consecutive resistance values to a single heating operation during which continuous power is provided as taught by Luo, because doing so would be a simple substitution of Luo’s plurality of resistance values within a period during which continuous power is provided for Bilat’s exemplified single resistance value within a period during which continuous power is provided to achieve the same fault detection outcome.
Claim 3: modified Bilat teaches a vapor provision system according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of the monitored resistance values ([169], ΔR) which exceed the predetermined threshold resistance value (ΔRmax corresponding to R1ref) are consecutive [169].
Claim 5: modified Bilat teaches a vapor provision system according to claim 4, wherein the plurality of the monitored resistance values ([169], ΔR) which exceed the predetermined threshold resistance value (ΔRmax corresponding to R1ref) comprises at least three [169] monitored resistance values (ΔR corresponding to R2) which exceed the predetermined threshold resistance value (ΔRmax corresponding to R1ref).
Claim 10: modified Bilat teaches a vapor provision system according to claim 1, wherein the control circuitry is configured, for each monitored resistance value ([169], ΔR), to detect a fault condition (if ΔR exceeds ΔRmax for consecutive measurements, then the cartridge is disabled) if the monitored resistance value (ΔR corresponding to R2) and at least one preceding monitored resistance value (ΔR corresponding to R2) exceed the predetermined threshold resistance value (ΔRmax corresponding to R1ref).
Claim 11: modified Bilat teaches a vapor provision system according to claim 1, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to determine a baseline resistance value ([153], R1) for the heating element by making a measurement of a first resistance value (R1) for the heating element, wherein the threshold resistance value (R1ref) is determined based on (R1ref is set based on R1) the baseline resistance value (R1).
Claim 12: modified Bilat teaches a vapor provision system according to claim 11, wherein the threshold resistance value ([153], R1ref) is a predetermined multiple (R1ref = 1 * R1) of the baseline resistance value (R1).
Claim 13: modified Bilat teaches a vapor provision system according to claim 1, wherein the system comprises an inhalation sensor ([148], puff sensor), and wherein the control circuitry is configured to provide power for the heating element for a heating operation in response to a signal from the inhalation sensor (puff sensor) which is indicative of a user inhaling on the vapor provision system (when the puff sensor detects puffing, the control circuit supplies power to the heating element).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilat (US 20180020735 A1 cited on an IDS) in view of Luo (CN 108851233 A cited on an IDS and with reference made to machine translation) as applied to claim 1 in further view of Zhu (WO 2020107394 A1 with priority to CN2018/118524 and with reference made to national stage translation US 20210321675 A1).
Claim 9: modified Bilat teaches a vapor provision system according to claim 1.
Modified Bilat does not explicitly teach that the period of time comprises at least one of 10 seconds, 30 seconds, 60 seconds, or 120 seconds.
Zhu teaches a vapor provision system (title) configured to monitor a plurality of resistance values ([51], resistance detection unit #50 continuously detects a resistance value) during a period of time exemplified at one minute or two minutes, such that the vapor provision system can reasonably and certainly detect high resistance which indicates a fault [51].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use, as modified Bilat’s generic period of time duration, Zhu’s specific one minute or two minute period of time duration, because doing so is exemplified by Zhu as enabling the vapor provision system to reasonably and certainly detect high resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 2026 March 26 have been carefully considered. Upon further search and consideration necessitated by applicant’s amendments, a new ground of rejection is made for claim 1 over Bilat in view of Luo.
Luo teaches detecting a plurality of resistance values over a period of time during which continuous power is provided [Luo 12] to achieve the same fault detection outcome of detecting an empty supply ([Luo 12], the system detects dry burning; [Luo 7], dry burning arises from an empty supply) as Bilat ([Bilat 169], the system detects an empty supply), and one of ordinary skill would be motivated to confine Bilat’s period of time to a period of continuous power to achieve Bilat’s and Luo’s shared fault detection outcome.
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 Tobey C. Le whose telephone number is (703)756-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30-18:30 ET.
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.
/TOBEY C LE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights