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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/20/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claim to include new limitation.
Applicant’s argument regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been fully considered but is not persuasive. The amended language merely adds that, “in response to determining that the determined temperature satisfies at least one criterion, the controller causes the indicator assembly to indicate that the aerosol provision device is ready for use for a predetermined period of time.”
Although this limitation recites additional “response” language, it still describes data processing and information display—that is, the controller (a generic processor) performs mathematical/mental-process steps of:
determining a temperature;
evaluating that temperature against one or more criteria; and
providing an indication that the device is ready for use.
These steps amount to the abstract idea of data collection, evaluation, and notification, which is a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process. The claim does not integrate this abstract idea into a practical application that improves the functioning of the computer or heating hardware itself. Rather, the claim uses generic components (a controller, heater assembly, and indicator) to perform their well-understood and conventional roles—sensing, comparing, and signaling a status—without reciting any technical improvement in how those components operate.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP § 2106.04(a)), the claim is thus directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements (the generic heater, temperature sensor, and indicator) merely apply the abstract idea in a particular technological environment (an aerosol device) without effecting a technological improvement.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include an “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter, as the additional elements amount to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional components performing their ordinary functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(d); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)).
Accordingly, the amendment does not overcome the § 101 rejection, and the subject matter of claim 1 remains directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant’s with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 of Sur in view of Bleloch have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Sur and Bleloch, either alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest “causing the indicator assembly to indicate that the aerosol provision device is ready for use for a predetermined period of time after it is determined that the determined temperature satisfies at least one criterion.” Applicant argues that Sur provides only immediate feedback and that Bleloch’s preheat function teaches away from any delay.
However, as set forth in the rejection, Sur teaches an aerosol provision device (¶¶ [0076]–[0081], [0216]) including a heater assembly, indicator, and controller configured to determine the temperature of the heater and provide readiness indication based on that determination. Sur further discloses operating the power source to heat the heater for a desired duration of time (¶ [0060]) sufficient to maintain aerosol formation, which corresponds to a predetermined period as claimed. Sur also teaches that the control system monitors heater status and provides feedback, including visual or haptic indications, during the heating period and places the device in a standby or sleep mode after a defined interval of non-use (¶¶ [0059]–[0060], [0078]). Thus, Sur inherently teaches providing readiness feedback correlated with a time interval of operation after temperature stabilization.
Bleloch, in turn, teaches a vaporizer having a pre-heat mode where the device maintains the vaping material at a predetermined temperature to minimize delay when the user initiates vaporization (¶¶ [0088]–[0090]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate Bleloch’s pre-heat timing control into the device of Sur to ensure consistent and reliable readiness indication after the heater reaches a stable temperature, thereby reducing user delay and improving performance consistency. The modification would have been a predictable design optimization to ensure temperature stabilization before signaling readiness, consistent with KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Therefore, the combination of Sur and Bleloch teaches or suggests all limitations of claim 1, including the step of providing a readiness indication for a predetermined period after the temperature criterion is satisfied. Applicant’s arguments do not identify error in the rejection. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is accordingly maintained.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 03/26/2024 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/26/2024.
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, 3-5, 6-16 are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a comparison step as the claim states “if the determined temperature satisfies at least one criterion” and therefore an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step of the indicator indicating the aerosol provision device is ready does not have to occur as this action only occurs “if” the temperature satisfies at least one criterion. Therefore, there is NO abstract idea much less a particular practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim elements recited are heater assembly, indicator assembly and controller which are all routine and conventional in the art as evidenced by US 2018/0132529.
Claims 3-5, 6-16, do not solve the issues of the 101 thereby also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sur et al. (US 2018/0132529), and further in view of Bleloch et al. (US 2015/0320116).
Regarding claim 1, Sur teaches an aerosol provision device (aerosol delivery device 100), comprising:
a heater assembly (heater 222) configured to heat aerosol generating material;
an indicator assembly (indicator 250 (e.g., visual indicator, audio indicator, haptic indicator) [0081])
a controller (control component 208) configured to: cause the heater assembly to heat the aerosol generating material, determine a characteristic of the heater assembly (control component 208 or another control mechanism for controlling the amount of electric power to the heater 222 [0216]). Sur further teaches control component include control functional elements to alter power state or locked state of the aerosol delivery device either based on or independent of the temperature of the heater such as turning the device on or off [0078]. The control component is further configured to control an indicator that indicates the temperature of the heater [0081]. The indicator indicates the temperature of the heater and the control component based on the temperature can turn on or off operation of the aerosol delivery device. Examiner is interpreting turning the device on as the device is ready for use thereby reading on the limitation of “in response to determing that the determined characteristic satisfies at least one criterion, cause the indicator assembly to indicate that the aerosol provision device is ready for use, wherein the characteristic is a temperature of the heater assembly”.
Sur further teaches that the power source is able to deliver sufficient power to rapidly heat the heating element to provide for aerosol formation and power the aerosol delivery device through use for a desired duration of time (equivalent to the claimed predetermined period of time) but does not explicitly teach the device is ready for use during a predetermined period of time after it is determined that the determined temperature satisfies the at least one criterion.
However Sur has established that the device can track and monitor the status and function of the device [0059]-[0060] and the device is set up to give feedback based on that tracking such as temperature of the heater [0076] and placing the device in a sleep/standby after a defined period of non-use.
Furthermore Bleloch teaches a vaporizer device wherein when placed in pre-heat mode, the device maintains the vaping material at a pre-determined temperature so that there is less delay when the device is changed to the next setting. A second press initiates the draw cycle. The firmware increases the power to the coil to a predetermined level that gives a desirable and safe vapor for all the time the button is depressed.
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to optimize the device of Sur to include this pre-heat mode of Bleloch for the benefit of reducing delays from the device when changing setting as disclosed by Bleloch.
Regarding claim 3, Sur teaches comprising:
a temperature sensor 226 arranged to provide an output indicative of the temperature of the heater assembly; wherein the controller is further configured to: receive the output from the temperature sensor, and determine the temperature of the heater assembly based on the output from the temperature sensor (the MCU is configured communicate with the service platform to enable the computing device 302 in communication with the service platform to remotely receive and provide a user perceptible feedback that indicates the temperature of the heater 222 measured or determined from the property measured by the temperature sensor [0076]).
Regarding claim 4, Sur teaches wherein the at least one criterion is satisfied when the determined temperature is greater than or equal to a threshold temperature (The feedback may include, for example, a visual, audible and/or haptic notification of the temperature of the heater 222, or that the temperature of the heater is above, at or below a threshold temperature that defines an upper acceptable limit [0077]).
Regarding claim 6, Sur teaches the feedback may include, for example, a visual, audible and/or haptic notification of the temperature of the heater 222, or that the temperature of the heater is above, at or below a threshold temperature that defines an upper acceptable limit [0077]. Furthermore, the electronic components need a certain amount of time to detect the temperature values and process the information thereby implicitly taught by Sur.
Regarding claim 9-11, Sur teaches wherein the indicator assembly comprises a visual, haptic and audible component to indicate that the aerosol provision device is ready for use (The feedback may include, for example, a visual, audible and/or haptic notification of the temperature of the heater 22 [0077]).
Regarding claim 7, Sur teaches the same aerosol provision device as claimed, since temperature claimed is a normal operating temperature of an aerosol provision device the limitation is implicitly taught by Sur.
Regarding claim 8, since Sur teaches the temperature of the heater is above, at or below a threshold temperature that defines an upper acceptable limit [0077] thereby at least two different operating modes which are an activated mode and a deactivated mode reading on the limitation of “wherein the aerosol provision device is configured to operate in one of a first mode or a second mode, the first mode having different heating characteristics than the second mode, wherein the threshold temperature is different in the first mode than in the second mode”.
Regarding claim 12-14, the limitation that specifies normal operating parameters of an aerosol provision device are product by process claims which does not impart patentability to the apparatus claims. Note that determination of patentability is based on the product apparatus itself, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, 688, thus will not be given patentable weight
Regarding claim 15-16, Sur teaches a resistive heating element such as a wire coil, micro heater, carbon-based heater or the like [049] but does not explicitly teach wherein the heater assembly comprises a first inductor coil and a second inductor coil for generating a varying magnetic field; and a susceptor arranged to heat the aerosol generating material, wherein the susceptor is heatable by penetration with the varying magnetic field; wherein the controller is configured to cause the heater assembly to heat the aerosol generating material by causing the inductor coil to generate the varying magnetic field and the controller is configured to cause the second inductor coil to generate the second varying magnetic field after causing the indicator assembly to indicate that the aerosol provision device is ready for use; and in use, the aerosol is drawn along a flow path of the aerosol provision device towards a proximal end of the aerosol provision device, and the first inductor coil is arranged closer to the proximal end of the aerosol provision device than the second inductor coil.
However Bleloch discloses the device comprises additional heating elements 1403 which may be resistive heating or induction heating elements around a cartridge 1401 and a wick element 1405 located within the cartridge 1401. The multiple heating elements 1403 are shown as multiple induction coils along the length of the cartridge 1401 [0083]. An alternating current of an appropriate frequency in the induction coil induces eddy currents and/or magnetic hysteresis heating of the wick element, causing the wick element to heat up [0008].
Bleloch further teaches using induction heating allows the heat to be more evenly distributed through the volume of the liquid to be vaporized and thus to achieve the same or better rates of vapor production with lower temperature gradients and hence lower peak temperatures or hot spots [0006].
Therefore it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Sur to include the heating assembly of Bleloch for the advantages of uniform heating as disclosed by Bleloch.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H Wilson can be reached on (571) 270-3882. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747