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 Amendment
The amendments to the claims in the Response of 01/12/2026 is entered. The amendment cancels claims 24-25 and 28-29. Claims 15-23 and 26-27 are currently amended.
Status of Claims
Claims 15-23 and 26-27 are currently amended. Claims 1-14, 24-25, and 28-29 are canceledd.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that arguments of record in documents filed on October 1, 2024, March 7, 2025, and August 28, 2025, are incorporated by reference. Such incorporation is not effective. It is the Applicant’s responsibility to raise and argue each issue raised by the rejections of record. Arguments contained in the prior submissions by Applicant not specifically raised in the present Response are not persuasive because there is no discussion that indicates how the treatment of those arguments in the prior Office Actions was deficient, nor have those arguments been particularly applied to the current claim set.
In the Response of 01/12/2026, Applicant disagrees with the assertions and conclusions in the “Office Action”. (Response pg 6, lines 3-4 under the heading “Rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 103). For the purposes of responding to Applicant, Examiner presumes that the Office Action to which the Applicant is referring is the Non-Final Action of 10/10/2025, because otherwise Applicant arguments would be considered non-responsive.
Applicant argues that Strutt does not anticipate the aerosol generating device actuating a haptic element on a different device based on a user not holding the aerosol generating device, Response pg 6-7 carryover paragraph. This is not persuasive.
Strutt discloses a system comprising an accessory device may provide haptic feedback from the inhaler device to indicate a positively or negatively received input, ([pg 36 lines 28-31]). A negatively received input, is considered to include an absence of a receiving signal from the aerosol generating device. Thus, if Strutt reasonably discloses that the aerosol generating device can generate a signal in response to a sensor signal that where the user is not holding the device, then the disclosure of Strutt discloses the accessory device actuates the haptic element on the accessory device in the absence of receiving that signal. Because Strutt broadly discloses that the aerosol generating device does detect gestures made with the device, including most broadly a change of position or orientation of the device or change of position of a touch on the device, ([pg 4 lines 9-15]), indicating that the sensor of the aerosol generating device comprises at least one sensor to sense a user action and output a sensor signal dependent on the sensing, ([pg 5 lines 21-22]), the user actions may be performed directly on or proximate to the inhalation device, a touch gesture on a surface of the device and/or moving an item in communication with the device (e.g. an accessory device and/or packaging, ([pg 6 lines 31—34]), where the sensor may detect movement of the device, including a movement pattern, tilt of the device, translation or rotation of the device, a detected gesture of the device, ([pg 9 lines 1-8]). Because the sensor detects touch of the device, and the sensor may send a signal indicating the absence of that input to the accessory device (a negative input) and Strutt may direct the accessory device to actuate a haptic element on the accessory in response to that condition, actuating the haptic element of the accessory device in the absence of a detected user touch on the inhalation device, Thus, Strutt is understood to anticipate actuation of the haptic element in the accessory device in the absence of a signal that corresponds to those detectable conditions. The arguments made by Applicant are unpersuasive.
A word about incorporating arguments from prior Responses. To refer to a prior argument that Applicant wishes to reference, Applicant must directly cite to the prior Response, which means identifying which Response and where in the Response the argument is contained, as well as providing some context as to how the argument is responsive the current Office Action, and the particular deficiencies in the prior Office Action treatment of those arguments, so that the Examiner may directly consider whether those arguments are persuasive and clarify the record. Here, there is no articulation of how any prior argument contained in the previous Responses by Applicant is applicable to the most recent Office Action, nor is there any identification of how the Office Action treatment of those arguments was deficient. Applicant attempts to resurrect arguments from prior Responses is not persuasive. Stating that the remaining arguments of record stand is unpersuasive. Arguments that prior argument should be incorporated into the current Response have been considered, but those arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-16, 20, 22-23, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strutt et al. (WO 2016/009202 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Strutt discloses:
An aerosol-generating device, ([pg 4 lines 1-[pg 33 lines 29-31] disclosing an embodiment of the invention in the form of an inhaler device, packaging, and/or accessories e.g. a peripheral device, ([pg 14 lines 1-3] an accessory device), [pg 6 lines 5-16] disclosing that an inhalation device provides a vaporized chemical substance for a user to inhale and that the vaporized substance may comprise a vapor resulting from heating a substance to convert the substance from the liquid phase to the gas phase and may comprise an aerosol), comprising:
a housing comprising an air inlet, an air outlet, and an airflow path extending therebetween and an aerosol-generating element disposed within the housing and configured to generate an aerosol within the airflow path, ([pg 4 lines 9-10] disclosing that the device provides oral delivery of the substance; [pg 6 lines 5-16] disclosing that the device provides a vaporized chemical substance comprising an aerosol for a user to inhale; reasonably disclosing that the device comprises an air inlet, an air outlet to the mouth of the user, and an airflow path extending between the two, which comprises an aerosol generating element for forming a vapor comprising an aerosol of the chemical substance);
a plurality of haptic output elements, ([pg 7 lines 12-14] disclosing the device may comprise at least one (reasonably suggesting devices with more than one) indicator configured to provide device status information to a user; [pg 7 lines 19-22] disclosing that the at least one indicator comprises a vibrating device, which is a haptic feedback device, and suggesting that other types of feedback may be used; reasonably disclosing embodiments with a plurality of haptic feedback devices; see also [pg 33 lines 29-31] & [pg 35 line 20-30] disclosing an embodiment where haptic feedback is provided in a variety of forms requiring different haptic feedback elements);
a circuit operably coupled to the plurality of haptic output elements and configured to independently actuate each haptic output element of the plurality of haptic output elements, ([pg 16 lines 21 -35] disclosing a controller coupled to the one or more components of the system; [pg 7 lines 1-14] disclosing controlling procedures and providing feedback to a user, where the at least one indicator provides device status information to a user, the processor controlling the at least one indicator in response to the determination of the device status); and
a first sensor coupled to the housing and configured to generate a first status signal responsive to a user action, ([pg 4 lines 9-15]), indicating that the sensor of the aerosol generating device comprises at least one sensor to sense a user action and output a sensor signal dependent on the sensing, ([pg 5 lines 21-22]), the user actions may be performed directly on or proximate to the inhalation device, a touch gesture on a surface of the device and/or moving an item in communication with the device (e.g. an accessory device and/or packaging, ([pg 6 lines 31—34]), where the sensor may dectect movement of the device, including a movement pattern, tilt of the device, translation or rotation of the device, a detected gesture of the device, ([pg 9 lines 1-8]), all of which reasonably disclose a user touching the inhalation device, and the sensor being capable of generating a signal in response to the touch of a user, which is a necessary requirement of holding).
wherein the circuit is further configured to actuate a first haptic output element of the plurality of haptic output elements responsive to the first status signal, ([pg 7 lines 1-2], [pg 7 lines 12-15], [pg 7 lines 19-22]),
wherein the aerosol-generating device further comprises a communication interface in operable communication with the circuit, wherein the circuit is further configured to communicate with the peripheral device via the communication interface, ([pg 21, lines 4-12] disclosing that the aerosol generating device contains a communication interface that allows it to interface with other devices), and
wherein the peripheral device comprises a further haptic output element of the plurality of haptic output elements, ([pg 36 lines 29-31] disclosing that the accessory device may provide haptic feedback),
wherein the circuit is further configured to instruct the peripheral device, via the communication interface, to actuate the further haptic output element responsive to an absence of the first status signal, (because the first status signal is responsive to a user holding the aerosol-generating device, an absence of the first signal is interpreted as a state where the aerosol generating device is not being touched), ([pg 36 lines 28-31] disclosing that the accessory provides haptic feedback to indicate a positively or negatively received user input, which would include lack of an input received from the inhalation devices touch sensors).
Regarding claim 16, Strutt discloses the aerosol generating system according to claim 15. Strutt further discloses an embodiment of the device where the haptic output elements of the device may provide haptic feedback in the form of forces, vibrations, motions, and/or electrical stimuli and may include changes to the surface texture, roughness, temperature, profile and/or cross section, ([pg 35, lines 20-30] which are understood to inherently include requiring some of the haptic output elements to be coupled to the housing because they directly affect housing characteristics like housing texture).
Regarding claim 20, Strutt discloses the aerosol generating system according to claim 15. Strutt discloses that the first sensor may be a touch sensor, ([pg 6 lines 26-27], [pg 8 lines -2]), a pressure sensor, ([pg 7 line 30-32]), an optical sensor, ([pg 22 line 23]), or a motion sensor, ([pg 9 lines 1-8]), see also ([pg 29 lines 6-11].
Regarding claim 22, Strutt discloses the aerosol generating system according to claim 15. Strutt further discloses the aerosol generating element comprises a heater, ([pg 5 lines 34-35]).
Regarding claim 23, Strutt discloses the aerosol generating system according to claim 15. Strutt further discloses an aerosol-generating substrate comprising nicotine ([pg 19, lines 4-9])
Regarding claim 26, Strutt discloses the aerosol generating system according to claim 15. Strutt further discloses:
wherein the peripheral device further comprises a second sensor configured to generate a fifth status signal responsive to a user holding the peripheral device, and wherein the circuit is further configured to instruct the peripheral device, via the communication interface, to actuate the fourth output element responsive to the fifth status signal, ([pg 12 lines 9-22] disclosing packaging which comprises a device to indicate at least one of a positively or negatively received input to the user interface, where the user feedback is preferably haptic, and the sensor is a touch sensor and/or a motion sensor, reasonably disclosing a peripheral device that will generate a signal from a sensor when it is held, and actuate a haptic feedback element responsive to this signal).
Regarding claim 27, Strutt discloses the aerosol generating system according to claim 15. Strutt discloses broad characteristics of devices that may be considered peripheral devices, including devices with Bluetooth pairing modules, ([pg 14 lines 5-12]), and specifically lists that a smartphone is one example of an pairable accessory device, ([pg 14 lines 14-28]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strutt et al. (WO 2016/009202 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Strutt discloses the aerosol generating system according to claim 15.
Strutt discloses one or more of the device procedures controlled on the basis of detecting such actions, and may comprise feedback and/or operational actions, ([pg 7 lines 1-2]), and that the device status information may be provided to a user through more than one indicator, where the indicator is controlled by a processor, and the indicator comprises haptic feedback elements, ([pg 7 lines 12-22]).
Strutt does not explicitly disclose that the first sensor generates a second status signal responsive to the user picking up the aerosol generating device, and actuates a second haptic output element responsive to the second status signal.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided a sensor that could be configured to sense when the aerosol generating device was picked up, when it was held, and configure the sensor to output different signals to the controller for when these events occur. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide different signals for these events, to pair the event with a different haptic output, to convey different information to the user, such as when the device is first picked up, it would be obvious to sense this initial contact with a touch sensor, and provide haptic feedback to indicate whether the aerosol generating device was paired with a smartphone accessory device, and separately on sensing that the user was in contact with the device for a period of time (indicating that the device was held), send a second signal to actuate a second haptic feedback element indicating that the aerosol generating device was ready to provide aerosol to the user. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the same sensor to detect different events to save the expense and complexity of having an excessive amount of sensors, while providing different haptic elements to convey different information to the user, to ensure that the communication to the user is clear and unambiguous.
Regarding claim 18, Strutt discloses the aerosol generating system according to claim 15.
Strutt discloses that the aerosol generating device may comprise a physical button (input element) that is used to turn the device on, ([pg 19 line 29-31]). Strutt does not explicit disclose the circuit is configured to actuate a third haptic output element responsive to a third status signal.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Strutt to provide a third status signal responsive to the input element, where actuating the physical button causes the controller to determine the amount of aerosolizable material in the device and generate a third status signal conveying that information to the user by actuating a third haptic output element. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the desirability of knowing the amount of aerosol that may be generated from the device when the device is turned on, to communicate to the user at the outset of a use session whether there is sufficient aerosol substrate remaining for consumption, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide this feedback from a third haptic output element as before, to ensure that the communication to the user is clear and unambiguous.
Regarding claim 19 Strutt discloses the aerosol generating system according to claim 18.
Strutt discloses that the aerosol generating device may comprise a number of different input elements, including a switch comprising a button, ([pg 19 line 29-31]) and further listing a number of sensors (providing inputs) for the device, ([pg 22 lines 10-27]).
Regarding claim 21, Strutt discloses the aerosol generating system according to claim 15. Strutt further discloses the haptic output of the plurality of haptic output elements includes forces, vibrations, motions, electrical stimuli, changes in texture, temperature, roughness, profile and cross section. Strutt does not disclose the types of haptic output elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Strutt and select from the plurality of haptic output element to supply the desired haptic output. By disclosing the various haptic output types without disclosing the haptic output elements necessary to generate those output types, Strutt reasonably discloses that one of ordinary skill in the are would have known haptic output elements that generate these types of haptic outputs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have known haptic output elements such as a mechanical actuator, ([pg 29 line 16]), a piezoelectric devices, ([pg32 line 26]), and a thermal output element, ([pg 5, lines 34-35] disclosing a heater), and been capable of selecting appropriate haptic output elements to deliver the desired haptic output.
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 DANIEL E VAKILI whose telephone number is (571)272-5171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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 at (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.
/D.E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1747 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755