DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “As described in the present application, a device might have a "light" "regular" and/or "full flavor" mode, corresponding to three airflow-concentration curves. These correspond to specific types of cigarettes that a user may wish to experience. For example, the "light" mode may offer a milder, smoother flavor, whereas the "full flavor" mode may offer a stronger taste, mimicking the experience one may have if smoking a regular red cigarette. This mimicking of a type of cigarette is not covered by either the smoking profile or the heating profile of Raichman.” In response, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Raichman teaches the airflow rate is calculated based on a sensed parameter [col. 9, l. 14-26], which inherently involves some predetermined transfer function relating the sensed parameter to the airflow rate. Raichman teaches the controller controls operation of the heating element to simulate the behavior and increased generated smoke due to increased air flow rate of a standard combustion cigarette [page 5, l. 29 to page 6, l. 8], and thus the controlled concentration of the active ingredient (first chemical constituent) mimics a type of cigarette.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raichman (WO 2018/051346).
Regarding claim 1, Raichman teaches an electronic vaping device comprising: a heating element that is to be energized to convert a portion of a medium into a vapor by elevating a temperature of the medium, wherein the medium comprises at least a first chemical constituent to be included in the vapor [page 16, l. 5-21]; an airflow passage through which air entraining the vapor flows as a result of a user inhaling through a mouthpiece during a puff [page 55, l. 13-16]; one or more sensors arranged to sense a parameter indicative of an airflow rate of the air entraining the vapor flowing through the airflow passage [page 3, l. 25 to page 4, l. 8]. Raichman teaches: in response to receiving an indication from the sensor that airflow rate through the vaporizing unit has increased, the control circuitry is configured to drive the heating element to increase a temperature of the plant material [page 10, l. 23-25]; increasing the temperature of the capsule causes an increase in the vaporization rate of the active ingredient, with more vapors being emitted as temperature is set higher [page 36, l. 7-10]; and when smoking a traditional combustion cigarette, an increase in the user's inhalation rate increases generated smoke, and in the vaping device the target temperature to which the capsule is heated is correlated to airflow rate (which is indicative of user inhalation rate), in order to simulate the burning of a traditional cigarette [page 39, l. 30 to page 40, l. 3]. Raichman further teaches the airflow rate is calculated based on the sensed parameter [col. 9, l. 14-26], which inherently involves some predetermined transfer function relating the sensed parameter to the airflow rate, and the controller controls operation of the heating element to simulate the behavior and increased generated smoke due to increased air flow rate of a standard combustion cigarette [page 5, l. 29 to page 6, l. 8]. In other words, Raichman teaches a controller that controls operation of the heating element based on the airflow rate of the air to control a concentration of the first chemical constituent based on the airflow rate calculated using a transfer function relating the sense parameter to the airflow rate, wherein the transfer function is predetermined so that the controlled concentration of the first chemical constituent mimics a type of cigarette.
increasing a yield of the first chemical constituent in the vapor entrained in the air as a result of an increase in the airflow rate over a range of flow rates of the air flowing through the airflow passage.
Regarding claims 2-3, Raichman teaches the one or more sensors comprise a pressure sensor in fluid communication with the airflow passage, that senses a pressure of the air entraining the vapor [page 3, l. 25 to page 4, l. 8].
Regarding claim 9, it is interpreted that the controller controlling operation of the heating element based on the airflow rate of the air indicated by the sensed parameter necessarily results in interfering with dilution of the first chemical constituent as the airflow rate increases over a range of flow rates through the airflow passage, due to the increased concentration/yield of the constituent. Raichman thereby reads on the present limitations.
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 are 4, 11-13, and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Raichman.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Raichman teaches the controller controls operation of the heating element to simulate the behavior and increased generated smoke due to increased air flow rate of a standard combustion cigarette [page 5, l. 29 to page 6, l. 8]. The instant invention discloses that this simulation of a standard combustion cigarette involves the controller controlling operation of the heating element to continuously increase a rate at which the first chemical constituent is converted into the vapor over the relatively-low range of the flow rates of the air flowing through the airflow passage [instant Fig. 9; instant specification 0063]. Thus, the controller of Raichman is interpreted to control operation of the heating element to continuously increase a rate at which the first chemical constituent is converted into the vapor over a range of flow rates of the air flowing through the airflow passage. In the alternative, Raichman teaches the controller controls operation of the heating element in accordance with a desired smoking profile desired by the user [page 8, l. 10-31]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the smoking profile through routine experimentation, including the rate at which the first chemical constituent is converted into the vapor, to achieve the effects desired by the user.
Regarding claim 11, Raichman teaches an electronic vaping device comprising: a heating element that is to be energized to convert a portion of a medium into a vapor by elevating a temperature of the medium, wherein the medium comprises at least a first chemical constituent to be included in the vapor [page 16, l. 5-21]; an airflow passage through which air entraining the vapor flows as a result of a user inhaling through a mouthpiece during a puff [page 55, l. 13-16]; one or more sensors arranged to sense a parameter indicative of an airflow rate of the air entraining the vapor flowing through the airflow passage [page 3, l. 25 to page 4, l. 8]. Raichman teaches: in response to receiving an indication from the sensor that airflow rate through the vaporizing unit has increased, the control circuitry is configured to drive the heating element to increase a temperature of the plant material [page 10, l. 23-25]; increasing the temperature of the capsule causes an increase in the vaporization rate of the active ingredient, with more vapors being emitted as temperature is set higher [page 36, l. 7-10]; and when smoking a traditional combustion cigarette, an increase in the user's inhalation rate increases generated smoke, and in the vaping device the target temperature to which the capsule is heated is correlated to airflow rate (which is indicative of user inhalation rate), in order to simulate the burning of a traditional cigarette [page 39, l. 30 to page 40, l. 3]. Raichman further teaches the airflow rate is calculated based on the sensed parameter [col. 9, l. 14-26], which inherently involves some predetermined transfer function relating the sensed parameter to the airflow rate, and the controller controls operation of the heating element to simulate the behavior and increased generated smoke due to increased air flow rate of a standard combustion cigarette [page 5, l. 29 to page 6, l. 8]. In other words, Raichman teaches a controller that controls operation of the heating element based on the airflow rate of the air to control a concentration of the first chemical constituent based on the airflow rate calculated using a transfer function relating the sense parameter to the airflow rate, wherein the transfer function is predetermined so that the controlled concentration of the first chemical constituent mimics a type of cigarette, and increasing a yield of the first chemical constituent in the vapor entrained in the air as a result of an increase in the airflow rate over a range of flow rates of the air flowing through the airflow passage.
Regarding the range of flow rates being up to 30 mL/sec, Raichman teaches the controller controls operation of the heating element to simulate the behavior and increased generated smoke due to increased air flow rate of a standard combustion cigarette [page 5, l. 29 to page 6, l. 8]. The instant invention discloses that this simulation of a standard combustion cigarette involves claimed range [instant specification 0063-0068]. Thus, Raichman is interpreted to read on the claimed range. In the alternative, Raichman teaches the controller controls operation of the heating element in accordance with a desired smoking profile desired by the user [page 8, l. 10-31]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the smoking profile through routine experimentation to achieve the effects desired by the user.
Regarding claim 12, Raichman teaches the one or more sensors comprise a pressure sensor in fluid communication with the airflow passage, that senses a pressure of the air entraining the vapor [page 3, l. 25 to page 4, l. 8].
Regarding claim 17, it is interpreted that the controller controlling operation of the heating element based on the airflow rate of the air indicated by the sensed parameter necessarily results in interfering with dilution of the first chemical constituent as the airflow rate increases over a range of flow rates through the airflow passage, due to the increased concentration/yield of the constituent. Raichman thereby reads on the present limitations.
Claims 5-7, 10, 14-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raichman as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Novak (US 2020/0154786).
Regarding claims 5-7, Raichman does not teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Novak teaches a vaporization device including a non-transitory computer-readable medium for storing control profiles and instructions [0082]. As Raichman teaches controlling the generation of vapor in accordance with the airflow rate [page 39, l. 30 to page 40, l. 3], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the device of Raichman a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a profile reduceable to concentration that relates a resultant concentration of the first chemical constituent to each of a plurality of different flow rates of the air for memory storage purposes and for providing instructions to the controller for operation.
Regarding the claimed slope, Raichman teaches the controller controls operation of the heating element to simulate the behavior and increased generated smoke due to increased air flow rate of a standard combustion cigarette [page 5, l. 29 to page 6, l. 8]. The instant invention discloses that this simulation of a standard combustion cigarette involves claimed slopes [instant specification 0063-0068]. Thus, the profile and relationship stored in modified Raichman are interpreted to correspond to the claimed values. In the alternative, Raichman teaches the controller controls operation of the heating element in accordance with a desired smoking profile desired by the user [page 8, l. 10-31]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the smoking profile through routine experimentation to achieve the effects desired by the user.
As a further alternative, the claims do not directly relate the profile stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium to any configuration of the electronic vaping device. Therefore, any non-transitory computer-readable medium, including that of modified Raichman, is interpreted as capable of storing any profile or relationship such that it reads on the present limitations.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Raichman teaches the controller controls operation of the heating element to simulate the behavior and increased generated smoke due to increased air flow rate of a combustion cigarette [page 5, l. 29 to page 6, l. 8]. Raichman does not teach a computer-readable medium. Novak teaches a vaporization device including a computer-readable medium for storing control profiles and instructions [0082]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Raichman such that the controller comprises a computer-readable medium storing a model relating operation of the heating element based on the airflow rate to a concentration curve of a specific tobacco combustion cigarette to be simulated by the electronic vaping device for memory storage purposes and for providing instructions to the controller for operation.
Regarding claims 14-15, Raichman does not teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Novak teaches a vaporization device including a non-transitory computer-readable medium for storing control profiles and instructions [0082]. As Raichman teaches controlling the generation of vapor in accordance with the airflow rate [page 39, l. 30 to page 40, l. 3], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the device of Raichman a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a profile reduceable to yield that relates a resultant yield of the first chemical constituent to each of a plurality of different values of the airflow rates for memory storage purposes and for providing instructions to the controller for operation.
Regarding the claimed slope, Raichman teaches the controller controls operation of the heating element to simulate the behavior and increased generated smoke due to increased air flow rate of a standard combustion cigarette [page 5, l. 29 to page 6, l. 8]. The instant invention discloses that this simulation of a standard combustion cigarette involves claimed slopes [instant specification 0063-0068]. Thus, the profile and relationship stored in modified Raichman are interpreted to correspond to the claimed values. In the alternative, Raichman teaches the controller controls operation of the heating element in accordance with a desired smoking profile desired by the user [page 8, l. 10-31]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the smoking profile through routine experimentation to achieve the effects desired by the user.
As a further alternative, the claims do not directly relate the profile stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium to any configuration of the electronic vaping device. Therefore, any non-transitory computer-readable medium, including that of modified Raichman, is interpreted as capable of storing any profile or relationship such that it reads on the present limitations.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raichman as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Gill (US 2017/0156403).
Raichman does not teach the controller controls operation of the heating element based on the airflow rate of the air indicated by the sensed parameter, at least maintaining a temperature of the vapor or air flowing through the mouthpiece as a flow rate of the air flowing through the airflow passage increases over a range of airflow rates. Gill teaches a vapor inhaler wherein an induction coil is energized as necessary to maintain the temperature of the vapor inhaled by the user [0051]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this configuration to the device of Raichman such that the controller controls operation of the heating element based on the airflow rate, at least maintaining a temperature of the vapor (and air) flowing through the mouthpiece, including as a flow rate of the air increases over a range of airflow rates, so that the user is provided with a constant temperature.
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 ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights