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
This office action is in response to the Applicants’ arguments/remarks filed 6-30-2026.
Claims 1-9 and 11, 13-19 are presently examined.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 14 are amended.
Claims 10 and 12 are canceled.
Applicant’s drawings amendment, see drawings filed 6-30-2026, with respect to the objection to the drawings has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s claim amendment, see claims filed 6-30-2026, with respect to the claim objection has been fully considered and is persuasive. The objection to the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicants claim amendment, see claims filed 6-30-2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112b rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, and 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to these claims has been withdrawn. However, the 35 USC 112b rejection of claim 14 is not overcome by the amendment to claim 14 and is maintained.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim 1 recites, inter alia:
control circuitry configured to selectively operate the heater and the at least one indicator in one of a plurality of operational modes (mental evaluation, abstract idea)
such that the at least one indicator is operated, in use, to indicate when an initialisation heating time has elapsed, thereby signalling when the aerosol generating device is ready for use, wherein the at least one indicator comprises the visual indicator, wherein said visual indicator comprises a light emitting indicator that is progressively lit during heating-up, wherein, in a first one of the plurality of operational modes (rules), when the temperature measured by the temperature sensor is a first start temperature, the control circuitry is configured to operate the heater until a use temperature is reached,
and wherein the control circuitry is further configured to operate the light emitting indicator such that the light emitting indicator is progressively lit when the heating temperature reaches one or more of a plurality of first intermediate temperatures between the first start temperature and the use temperature such that each progressive lighting of the light emitting indicator is indicative of one of the plurality of corresponding first intermediate temperatures.
wherein, in a second one of the plurality of operational modes, when the temperature measured by the temperature sensor is a second start temperature, the control circuitry is configured to operate the heater until a use temperature is reached, and wherein the control circuitry is further configured to operate the light emitting indicator such that the light emitting indicator is progressively lit when the heating temperature reaches one or more of a plurality of second intermediate temperatures between the second start temperature and the use temperature such that each progressive lighting of the light emitting indicator is indicative of one of the plurality of second intermediate temperatures, wherein the second start temperature is higher than the first start temperature, and wherein a difference between any two of the plurality of second intermediate temperatures is smaller than a difference between any two of the plurality of first intermediate temperatures.
The control circuitry being configured to selectively operate the heater and at least one indicator/light in one of a plurality of operational modes, (e.g., selecting a mode/rule and applying the mode/rule) is a mental process, the rules defining which indicator or indicators to light up. This is either “applying” the abstract idea or “generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the rule (selected mode) which represents the mental process, and the process or rule that is configured to be calculated or selected, which is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic “rule” (software program) performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a temperature) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, selecting to operate the heater in a mode/selecting a rule (or software program/processor) to perform calculating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Monsees (US 20160262459 A1) teaches a heating chamber (15, see [0078]), a heater (16), temperature sensor (thermocouple sensor [0095]), indicator [0072], indicator lighting based in temperature [0154])
Krietzman (US 20160235122 A1) teaches heating chamber [0048], heater (20) [0056], temperature sensor (34) [0058], and indicator [0077] and indicator lighting up based on the temperature of the heating chamber [0077].
Verleur (US 20150305409 A1) teaches a heating chamber [0052], heater (214) [0052], temperature sensor, and indicator (118) [0051] and indicator lighting up based on the temperature of the heating chamber [0051]
Therefore, as shown by Monsees, Krietzman, and Verleur, further adding a heating chamber, heater, temperature sensor, and indicator and indicator lighting up based on the temperature of the heating chamber is an insignificant extra solution activity, because these features are well understood, routine, and conventional.
Mere instructions to perform a calculation using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally claims 2-9, 11, and 13-19 do not add additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "said light emitting indicator" in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation is being interpreted as a light emitting indicator. Claims 15-18 are rejected as being indefinite by virtue of their dependence on claim 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 6-30-2026 with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections along with the claim amendments, have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Therefore, the 35 USC 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 6-30-2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections along with the claim amendments, have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1 applicant argues that because claim 1 does not recite any rules or the selection of rules that the claims overcome the rejection set forth under 35 USC 101. This is not found persuasive because the claims as amended are still directed to an abstract idea (e.g., selectively operating the heater and at least one indicator in one of a plurality of modes (e.g., selecting rules)) Although the term “rules” has been removed from the claim the claim is still directed to the selection of rules/modes for indicating heating status and corresponding lighting (see 35 USC 101 rejection as set forth above.
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 Michael T Fulton whose telephone number is (703)756-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 - 4:30 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.
/M.T.F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights