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 .
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 05/08/2026.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, 22, 25-31 and 34-35 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claims 1, 22, 28 and 31 are amended.
Claims 8, 11-21, 23-24 and 32-33 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-12, regarding Step 2A, Prong 1 of 101 analysis, the Applicant argues that the recitation of limitations (i)-(iii) are not directed to abstract ideas, and thus the claim itself is not considered to be directed to a judicial exception.
The Examiner agrees that the limitations of (i)-(iii) are not themselves directed to mental processes. However, the Examiner notes that an analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1 is not a question of whether all limitations of a claim are judicial exceptions, but rather if the claim recites any judicial exception. In the present case, other elements of the claim are directed to abstract ideas and the claim therefore requires further analysis to determine its patent eligibility.
On pages 12-13, regarding Step 2A, Prong 2 of 101 analysis, the Applicant argues that the limitations of (i)-(ii) integrate the exception into a practical application, such as altering the state of the user or delivering treatment of the user.
A limitation may be considered to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application as long as it imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception beyond linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The recited limitations of (i)-(iii) are recited at such a high level of generality that they would not do more than link the exception to a particular technology. Particularly, the limitations do not further describe how the recited “adjusting” is accomplished or describe the recited “current user interaction” and may therefore include any actions. Therefore, they are not considered to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
On page 13, regarding Step 2B, the applicant argues that the claims provide a non-routine method of providing treatment to a user that demonstrates an improvement to the technology.
The Examiner disagrees.
Aerosol provision systems are well known in the tobacco and medical device arts to provide treatments to alter a user’s state. Examples include any other e-cigarettes, vaporizers, or inhalers. The Applicant has not demonstrated any particular improvement to the field of use that would distinguish over aerosol provision systems already known in the art.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-15, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite a “non-zero” exposure in (ii) and to remove the previously presented option (i). The Applicant argues that Thorens and Batista do not appropriately teach this amendment, specifically a “non-zero” exposure.
The Examiner disagrees.
While Thorens does not explicitly teach that an operational parameter that may be adjusted is a non-zero exposure of aerosol generating material received by the aerosol provision system to one or more heaters, Batista ‘041, teaches that isolating the power control of multiple heaters and varying power supplied to those heaters (and thus the exposure of the aerosol generating material to heat produced by the heaters) may more effectively produce aerosol and to adjust properties of the aerosol ([0017]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Thorens by making adjusting the operational parameter of the aerosol provision system comprise adjusting a non-zero exposure of aerosol generating material to one or more heaters as taught by Batista ‘041 because both Thorens and Batista ‘041 are directed to systems comprising aerosol provision systems and computers, Batista ‘041 teaches that selectively adjusting the heating elements may improve efficiency and aerosol properties and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
The Examiner notes that the non-zero exposure may be adjusted through the control of multiple heating elements, as the exposure may be adjusted by selecting different heating elements without turning all elements off.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 15-16, filed 05/08/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 22 is amended to recite that a current user interaction deviates from the default user behaviour by an “amount in terms of a continuous variable” such that a property of aerosol generated by the aerosol provision is adjusted “proportional to the amount of deviation in terms of the continuous variable”. The Applicant argues that Thorens does not appropriately teach an adjustment proportional to the amount of deviation from a continuously varying parameter.
The Examiner notes that the term “an amount in terms of a continuous variable” introduces a 112b issue, as it is unclear as to the scope of this amount. See 112 rejections below. As interpreted under 112, Thorens is still determined to teach the amended claim.
The following is a modified rejection based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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 1-7, 9-10, 22, 25-31 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a system comprising: an aerosol provision system configured to obtain user behavior data relating to an interaction by a user with the aerosol provision system; determine default user behavior with respect to the interaction on the basis of the obtained user behavior data; monitor a current user interaction by the user with the aerosol provision system; and when the current user interaction deviates from the default user behavior by a pre-determined amount, adjust an operational parameter of the aerosol provision system on the basis of the current user interaction.”
The limitations of obtaining data, determining default behavior and monitoring a user as claimed are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are directed to collecting and analyzing information related to the user. Data analysis steps that are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind are considered to recite mental processes, and thus are viewed as reciting an abstract idea. Both the collection of a plurality of data points within a predetermined period of time and/or relating to different locations and subsequent statistical analysis may be performed by the human mind. Furthermore, the courts do not distinguish between a mental process that is performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid, as may be the case in either recording data or performing statistical analysis. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-B).
The judicial exception is not further integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recitation of “an aerosol provision system configured to generate aerosol from an aerosol generating material for user inhalation” and a computer as claimed are generic parts of an electronic cigarette, and thus do nothing more than link the invention to the e-cigarette field.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because the claim contains additional elements that do not amount to significantly more. The additional elements of an aerosol provision system and a computer are known and conventional in the art (See MPEP § 2105.05 (I)(A)), as shown by Thorens (WO 2016091658 A1), which teaches:
An aerosol provision system (aerosol-generating element or heater 119) configured to generate aerosol from an aerosol generating material for user inhalation (page 7, lines 8-11; page 11, lines 5-7);
And a computer (electric control circuitry 109; page 10, line 21).
Additionally, the recitation of the process “when the current user interaction deviates from the default user behavior by a pre-determined amount adjust an operational parameter of the aerosol provision system on the basis of the current user interaction in order to adjust a property of aerosol generated by the aerosol provision system during aerosol generation, wherein adjusting the operational parameter of the aerosol provision system in order to adjust a property of aerosol generated by the aerosol provision system during aerosol generation comprises one or more of: adjusting which of a plurality heating elements are activated by the aerosol provision system during aerosol generation in order to adjust the heating of aerosol generating material and thereby adjust a property of aerosol generated during aerosol generation…” are known and conventional in the art (See MPEP § 2105.05 (I)(A)), as shown by Thorens (WO 2016091658 A1), which teaches that, in response to a deviation in user behavior, the device may adjust determined operational parameters that correspond with the default user behavior (page 13, lines 13-16; page 4, line 34-page 5, line 2; page 15, lines 17-27 teach that adjustments may be made to an operational mode or user profile). Thorens further teaches that adjusting the operational parameter of the aerosol provision system in order to adjust a property of aerosol generated by the aerosol provision system during aerosol generation comprises adjusting power provided by the aerosol provision system to a plurality of heating elements and thereby adjusting a property of aerosol generated during aerosol generation (page 15, lines 17-18, teaches that the adjustment may be the amount of power supplies to the heater, which would inherently act to adjust the heating of aerosol generating material and adjust a property of the aerosol generated. Page 7, lines 11-12, teaches that the heater may comprise one or more heating elements).
Batista (US 20170340014 A1), directed to a system (aerosol-generating system 10; [0096]) comprising an aerosol provision system (heater assembly 300) configured to generate aerosol from an aerosol generating material ([0099]) for user inhalation ([0107]) and a computer ([0025]), further teaches that isolating the power control of multiple heaters may more effectively produce aerosol and to adjust properties of the aerosol ([0017]).
Furthermore, the limitation is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is stated with a high level of generality and fails to specify the “current user interaction”. Thus, these additional elements still merely link the abstract idea to the field of endeavor and do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim differs from claim 1 in that the computer is further configured to obtain two or more different types of interaction by the user and monitor and analyze accordingly. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea that could practically be performed in the human mind, without further integrating the claim into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
The claim further recites that “the user behavior data being data from two or more different types of sensor of the aerosol provision system”. These additional elements require a sensor to collect data, which is merely insignificant extra-solution activity and is not sufficient to integrate the idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2107.05 (g)(3). The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are known in the art, as shown by Thorens et al. (WO 2019175810 A1), which teaches a sensor (puff detection system 111 may be a gas flow sensor; page 10, lines 23-24; page 2, lines 16-27) configured to obtain user behavior data.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim differs from claim 1 only in that the computer is further configured to obtain a plurality of sample points within a period of time monitor and analyze user behavior accordingly. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea that could practically be performed in the human mind, without further integrating the claim into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites that the computer is further configured to “determine default operational parameters that correspond with the determined default user behavior and adjust determined default operational parameters of the aerosol provision system responsive to a degree of deviation between the current user interaction and the default user behavior”. Similar to claim 1, the step of “determining default operational parameters…” is an abstract idea. The additional element to “adjust determined operational parameters…” is equivalent to the words “apply it” and thus does not further integrate the claim into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites that the computer is further configured to “determine default operational parameters that correspond with the determined default user behavior and adjust determined default operational parameters of the aerosol provision system responsive to a type of deviation between the current user interaction and the default user behavior”. Similar to claim 1, the step of “determining default operational parameters…” is an abstract idea. The additional element to “adjust determined operational parameters…” is equivalent to the words “apply it” and thus does not further integrate the claim into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites that the computer is further configured to “classify according to a predetermined criterion whether the deviation between the current user interaction and the default user behavior is indicative of increased stress; and if so, initiate a stress mitigation action”. Similar to claim 1, the steps to “classify…” and “initiate…” are abstract ideas relating to collecting, analyzing, and displaying data that could practically be performed in the human mind. The claim does not recite additional elements.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites that the computer is further configured to “ask the user if the user would like for a stress mitigation action to be initiated; and receive an indication from the user via a user interface”. These additional elements require a request from a user, which is merely insignificant extra-solution activity and is not sufficient to integrate the idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2107.05 (g)(3). The additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are known in the art, as shown by Batista ‘810 (WO 2019175810 A1), which teaches that a computer may be configured to ask a user if the user would like for a stress mitigation action to be initiated (page 10, line 28-page 11, line 2) and to receive an indication from the user via a user interface (page 11, lines 1-2).
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites that “modifying a user interface of the aerosol provision system comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of displaying a predetermined message; playing a sound; and displaying a visual display”. This claim is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this involves an extra-solution limitation that is known and conventional in the art (see MPEP § 2106.05 (g)(1)), as shown by Batista ‘810 (WO 2019175810 A1), which teaches modifying a user interface of the aerosol provision system based on health data, including stress data (page 2, lines 9-10; page 6, lines 1-13).
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites that “operations of the computer are located within one or more selected from the group consisting of the aerosol provision system; a remote server operable to communicate with the aerosol provision system; a mobile computing device operable to communicate with the aerosol provision system; and a remote server operable to communicate with a mobile computing device operable to communicate with the aerosol provision system”. This claim is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this involves an extra-solution limitation that is known and conventional in the art (see MPEP § 2106.05 (g)(1)), as shown by Thorens (WO 2016091658 A1), which teaches that the operations of the computer are located within the aerosol provision system (electric control circuitry or controller 109, located in the body, manages system operation; page 6; page 10, lines 20-23 and 34-35).
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites “a system comprising: an aerosol provision system configured to generate aerosol from an aerosol generating material for user inhalation; and a computer configured to obtain user behavior data relating to an interaction by a user with the aerosol provision system; determine by statistical analysis default user behavior with respect to the interaction on the basis of the obtained user behavior data; monitor a current user interaction by the same user with the aerosol provision system; and when the current user interaction by the user with the aerosol provision system deviates from the default user behavior relating to the interaction by the same user with the aerosol provision system by an amount in terms of a continuous variable, adjust an operational parameter of the aerosol provision system on the basis of the amount of deviation in terms of the continuous variable to adjust a property of aerosol generated by the aerosol generated by the aerosol provision system is proportional to the amount of deviation in terms of the continuous variable.”
The limitations of obtaining data, determining default behavior and monitoring a user as claimed are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are directed to collecting and analyzing information related to the user. Data analysis steps that are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind are considered to recite mental processes, and thus are viewed as reciting an abstract idea. Both the collection of a plurality of data points within a predetermined period of time and/or relating to different locations and subsequent statistical analysis may be performed by the human mind. Furthermore, the courts do not distinguish between a mental process that is performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid, as may be the case in either recording data or performing statistical analysis. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-B).
The judicial exception is not further integrated into a practical application. In particular, the recitation of “an aerosol provision system configured to generate aerosol from an aerosol generating material for user inhalation” and a computer as claimed are generic parts of an electronic cigarette, and thus do nothing more than link the invention to the e-cigarette field.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because the claim contains additional elements that do not amount to significantly more. Firstly, the additional elements merely contain instructions to apply the judicial exception, which has been found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. See MPEP § 2105.05 (I)(A). Additionally, the additional elements of an aerosol provision system, a computer, and a sensor for user behavior data are known and conventional in the art (See MPEP § 2105.05 (I)(A)), as shown by Thorens (WO 2016091658 A1), which teaches:
An aerosol provision system (aerosol-generating element or heater 119) configured to generate aerosol from an aerosol generating material for user inhalation (page 7, lines 8-11; page 11, lines 5-7);
And a computer (electric control circuitry 109; page 10, line 21).
Additionally, the recitation of the process “when the current user interaction deviates from the default user behavior by a pre-determined amount adjust an operational parameter of the aerosol provision system on the basis of the current user interaction in order to adjust a property of aerosol generated by the aerosol provision system during aerosol generation, wherein adjusting the operational parameter of the aerosol provision system in order to adjust a property of aerosol generated by the aerosol provision system during aerosol generation comprises one or more of: adjusting which of a plurality heating elements are activated by the aerosol provision system during aerosol generation in order to adjust the heating of aerosol generating material and thereby adjust a property of aerosol generated during aerosol generation…” are known and conventional in the art (See MPEP § 2105.05 (I)(A)), as shown by Thorens (WO 2016091658 A1), which teaches that, in response to a deviation in user behavior, the device may adjust determined operational parameters that correspond with the default user behavior (page 13, lines 13-16; page 4, line 34-page 5, line 2; page 15, lines 17-27 teach that adjustments may be made to an operational mode or user profile).
Thorens further teaches that adjusting the operational parameter of the aerosol provision system in order to adjust a property of aerosol generated by the aerosol provision system during aerosol generation comprises adjusting power provided by the aerosol provision system to a plurality of heating elements and thereby adjusting a property of aerosol generated during aerosol generation (page 15, lines 17-18, teaches that the adjustment may be the amount of power supplies to the heater, which would inherently act to adjust the heating of aerosol generating material and adjust a property of the aerosol generated. Page 7, lines 11-12, teaches that the heater may comprise one or more heating elements).
Batista (US 20170340014 A1), directed to a system (aerosol-generating system 10; [0096]) comprising an aerosol provision system (heater assembly 300) configured to generate aerosol from an aerosol generating material ([0099]) for user inhalation ([0107]) and a computer ([0025]), teaches that isolating the power control of multiple heaters may more effectively produce aerosol and to adjust properties of the aerosol ([0017]).
Furthermore, the limitation is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is stated with a high level of generality and fails to specify the “current user interaction”. Thus, these additional elements still merely link the abstract idea to the field of endeavor and do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1).
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 25, the recitation of the limitation “the operational parameter that is adjusted does not enable or disable further operation of the device” attempts to cover any solution to a deviation with no restriction on how the result is accomplished, and is therefore equivalent to the words “apply it” and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 26, the claim recites that “the adjustment to the property of aerosol generated by the aerosol provision system is proportional to the degree of deviation of the user's behavior from the default behavior”. This claim is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this involves an extra-solution limitation that is known and conventional in the art (see MPEP § 2106.05 (g)(1)), as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a device may increase a heating parameter in order to generate more aerosol when a user interaction increases in frequency or strength, in order to produce an appropriately higher amount of aerosol.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 27, the claim differs from claim 1 only in that “the default user behavior is the default user behavior of a user, and the current user interaction is a current user interaction with the aerosol provision system of the same user”. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea that could practically be performed in the human mind, without further integrating the claim into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 28, the recitation of the limitation “adjusting the property of aerosol generated by the aerosol provision system comprises adjusting the property of aerosol generated by the aerosol provision system for user inhalation by the same user” attempts to cover any solution to a deviation with no restriction on how the result is accomplished, and is therefore equivalent to the words “apply it” and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 29, the claim recites that “the operational parameter that is adjusted causes the rate of delivery of an active ingredient to change between two non-zero values”. This claim is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this involves an extra-solution limitation that is known and conventional in the art (see MPEP § 2106.05 (g)(1)), as shown by Thorens (WO 2016091658 A1), which teaches that an operational parameter that may be adjusted is the amount of power supplied to the heater (page 15, lines 17-18), which would inherently cause the rate of delivery of an active ingredient to change between two non-zero values.
Regarding claim 30, the claim recites that “the operational parameter that is adjusted causes a user interface of the aerosol provision system to change”. This claim is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because this involves an extra-solution limitation that is known and conventional in the art (see MPEP § 2106.05 (g)(1)), as shown by Batista ‘810 (WO 2019175810 A1), which teaches that an operational parameter that is adjusted may cause a user interface of an aerosol provision system to change (page 2, lines 9-10).
Regarding claim 31, the recitation of the limitation “the adjustment causes a change of a multi value state” attempts to cover any solution to a deviation with no restriction on how the result is accomplished, and is therefore equivalent to the words “apply it” and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 34, the claim differs from claim 2 only in that the adjustment is specified to be linearly proportional to the amount of deviation in terms of the continuous variable. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea that could practically be performed in the human mind, without further integrating the claim into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Regarding claim 35, the claim differs from claim 2 only in that the adjustment is specified to be nonlinearly proportional to the amount of deviation in terms of the continuous variable. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea that could practically be performed in the human mind, without further integrating the claim into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites the term “an amount in terms of a continuous variable” in lines 14-15. It is unclear as to what comprises “an amount in terms of a continuous variable”, as it is unclear as to the scope of a “continuous variable” and further unclear as to how the claimed amount relates to this variable. The instant specification discloses that “handling/manual interactions may also be characterized by… intensity of the interaction (for example in terms of continuous variables such as degree of motion or amount of pressure)” ([0051]) and that a continuous variable may be one of “frequency of inhalation, volume of inhalation or duration of inhalation” ([0057]). These examples suggest that the continuous variable may include any motion or pressure input, or may correspond to inhalation frequencies, volumes or durations. However, this description does not further mention “an amount in terms of” the continuous variable or provide a relationship between the two. Under such a description, the amount may be interpreted to be any number.
The Examiner further notes that the limitation to “the amount of deviation in terms of the continuous variable” on lines 16 and 18 is also unclear, as it is uncertain as to whether the “amount” (line 14) is the same as the “amount of deviation” (lines 16, 18) or a different quantity altogether.
Thus, the claim is indefinite.
For examination purposes, any amount will be interpreted to meet the claimed “amount in terms of a continuous variable” and “amount of deviation in terms of the continuous variable”.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 22, 25-31 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorens (WO 2016091658 A1) in view of Batista ‘014 (US 20170340014 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Thorens teaches a system (smoking system 100; Fig. 1; page 10, line 19) comprising:
an aerosol provision system (aerosol-generating element or heater 119) configured to generate aerosol from an aerosol generating material for user inhalation (page 7, lines 8-11; page 11, lines 5-7);
and a computer (electric control circuitry 109; page 10, line 21) configured to:
obtain user behavior data relating to an interaction by a user with the aerosol provision system (set-up procedure obtains user data relating to user flow measurements; Fig. 4, step 420; page 13, lines 27-page 14, line 14);
determine default user behavior with respect to the interaction on the basis of the obtained user behavior data (behavior is stored as a default puff signature; Fig. 4, step 430; page 13, line 27-page 14, line 14. The device taught by Thorens is capable of deriving and comparing a correlation score via a correlation algorithm (page 3, lines 3-4; page 4, lines 6-10). Thus, the device can determine the default user behavior).
monitor a current user interaction with the aerosol provision system (Fig. 5, step 520; page 14, line 17);
and when the current user interaction deviates from the default user behavior by a pre-determined amount (compares current interaction to default puff signature, when correlation score is not greater than a threshold amount; Fig. 5, step 530, step 540, and step 550; page 14, lines 18-32), adjust an optional parameter of the aerosol provision system on the basis of the current user interaction (if threshold is not exceeded by the current user interaction, the device is disabled; Fig. 5, step 570; page 14, lines 34-36) in order to adjust a property of aerosol generated by the aerosol provision system during aerosol generation.
Thorens further teaches that, in response to a deviation in user behavior, the device may adjust determined operational parameters that correspond with the default user behavior (page 13, lines 13-16; page 4, line 34-page 5, line 2; page 15, lines 17-27 teach that adjustments may be made to an operational mode or user profile). Thorens further teaches that adjusting the operational parameter of the aerosol provision system in order to adjust a property of aerosol generated by the aerosol provision system during aerosol generation comprises adjusting power provided by the aerosol provision system to a plurality of heating elements and thereby adjusting a property of aerosol generated during aerosol generation (page 15, lines 17-18, teaches that the adjustment may be the amount of power supplies to the heater, which would inherently act to adjust the heating of aerosol generating material and adjust a property of the aerosol generated. Page 7, lines 11-12, teaches that the heater may comprise one or more heating elements).
Thorens does not explicitly teach that an operational parameter that may be adjusted is a non-zero exposure of aerosol generating material received by the aerosol provision system to one or more heaters.
Batista ‘041, directed to a system (aerosol-generating system 10; [0096]) comprising an aerosol provision system (heater assembly 300) configured to generate aerosol from an aerosol generating material ([0099]) for user inhalation ([0107]) and a computer ([0025]), teaches that isolating the power control of multiple heaters and varying power supplied to those heaters (and thus the exposure of the aerosol generating material to heat produced by the heaters) may more effectively produce aerosol and to adjust properties of the aerosol ([0017]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Thorens by making adjusting the operational parameter of the aerosol provision system comprise adjusting a non-zero exposure of aerosol generating material to one or more heaters as taught by Batista ‘041 because both Thorens and Batista ‘041 are directed to systems comprising aerosol provision systems and computers, Batista ‘041 teaches that selectively adjusting the heating elements may improve efficiency and aerosol properties and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Thorens teaches that the computer is further configured to:
obtain user behavior data relating to two or more different types of interaction by the user with the aerosol provision system (controller may be configured to obtain and compare any suitable user puff signature parameters; page 6, lines 12-19; one or more parameters may be extracted from the flow rate measurements; Fig. 4, step 420; page 13, lines 27-page 14, line 14);
determine default user behavior with respect to the two or more different types of interaction on the basis of the obtained user behavior data (behavior is stored as a default puff signature; Fig. 4, step 430; page 13, line 27-page 14, line 14);
monitor current user interactions with the aerosol provision system (Fig. 5, step 520; page 14, line 17);
and when two or more of the current user interactions deviate from the default user behavior by respective pre-determined amounts (compares current interaction to default puff signature, when correlation score is not greater than a threshold amount; Fig. 5, step 530, step 540, and step 550; page 14, lines 18-32), adjust an optional parameter of the aerosol provision system on the basis of the current user interactions (if threshold is not exceeded by the current user interaction, the device is disabled; Fig. 5, step 570; page 14, lines 34-36).
Thorens further teaches that the user behavior data is from a sensor of the aerosol provision system (puff detection system 111 may be a gas flow sensor; page 10, lines 23-24; page 2, lines 16-27) and that the sensor may be any suitable type of sensor (page 6, lines 30-34 teaches, for example, a microphone-based sensor, a pressure sensor and a sensor based on electrical resistance).
Thorens does not explicitly teach that the user behavior data is data from two or more different types of sensors of the aerosol provision system.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Thorens by adding another sensor such that the device obtains user behavior data from two or more sensors of different types because one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having multiple types of sensors may provide more thorough and accurate user behavior data, and this involves applying known sensors to the same product to yield predictable results.
Furthermore, the duplication of parts, such that there are two or more sensors, is prima facie obvious when a new and unexpected result is not produced. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(B).
Regarding claim 3, Thorens teaches that the computer is further configured to:
obtain user behavior data for the two or more different types of interaction comprising a plurality of sample points within a predetermined period of time (measures puff data points over a period of time to create a puff signature temporal profile; page 14, lines 19-22);
determine default user behavior with respect to the two or more different types of interaction for a corresponding plurality of points within the predetermined period of time (see Fig. 2, page 12, line 34-page 13, line 16);
and compare current interactions with default user behavior for a current respective point within the predetermined period of time (compares current interaction to default puff signature; Fig. 5, step 530, step 540, and step 550; page 14, lines 18-32).
Regarding claim 4, Thorens teaches that the computer is further configured to: determine default operational parameters that correspond with the determined default user behavior and adjust determined default operational parameters of the aerosol provision system responsive to a degree of deviation (correlation score) between the current user interaction and the default user behavior (page 15, lines 17-20)
Regarding claim 5, Thorens teaches that the computer is further configured to determine default operational parameters that correspond with the determined default user behavior and adjust determined default operational parameters of the aerosol provision system responsive to a type of deviation (correlation score, which may include multiple parameter types (page 6, lines 12-19)) between the or each current user interaction and the default user behavior (page 15, lines 17-27).
Regarding claim 10, Thorens teaches that operations of the computer are located within the aerosol provision system (electric control circuitry or controller 109, located in the body, manages system operation; page 6; page 10, lines 20-23 and 34-35).
Regarding claim 22, Thorens teaches a system (smoking system 100; Fig. 1; page 10, line 19) comprising:
an aerosol provision system (aerosol-generating element or heater 119) configured to generate aerosol from an aerosol generating material for user inhalation (page 7, lines 8-11; page 11, lines 5-7);
and a computer (electric control circuitry 109; page 10, line 21) configured to:
obtain user behavior data relating to an interaction by a user with the aerosol provision system (set-up procedure obtains user data relating to user flow measurements; Fig. 4, step 420; page 13, lines 27-page 14, line 14);
determine default user behavior with respect to the interaction on the basis of the obtained user behavior data relating to the interaction by the user with the aerosol provision system (behavior is stored as a default puff signature; Fig. 4, step 430; page 13, line 27-page 14, line 14; In the instant case, the device taught by Thorens is capable of deriving and comparing a correlation score via a correlation algorithm (page 3, lines 3-4; page 4, lines 6-10). Thus, the device can determine the default user behavior);
monitor a current user interaction by the same user with the aerosol provision system (Fig. 5, step 520; page 14, line 17);
and when the current user interaction by the user with the aerosol provision system deviates from the default user behavior relating to the interaction by the same user with the aerosol provision system by some amount (compares current interaction to default puff signature, when correlation score is not greater than a threshold amount; Fig. 5, step 530, step 540, and step 550; page 14, lines 18-32), adjust an optional parameter of the aerosol provision system on the basis of the current user interaction (if threshold is not exceeded by the current user interaction, the device is disabled; Fig. 5, step 570; page 14, lines 34-36. Page 4, line 32-page 5, line 2 further teaches that heat or other operational parameters may be varied depending on user behavior of the same user).
Thorens further teaches that, in response to a deviation in user behavior, the device may adjust determined operational parameters that correspond with the default user behavior (page 13, lines 13-16; page 4, line 34-page 5, line 2; page 15, lines 17-27 teach that adjustments may be made to an operational mode or user profile). Thorens further teaches that adjusting the operational parameter of the aerosol provision system in order to adjust a property of aerosol generated by the aerosol provision system during aerosol generation comprises adjusting power provided by the aerosol provision system to a plurality of heating elements and thereby adjusting a property of aerosol generated during aerosol generation (page 15, lines 17-18, teaches that the adjustment may be the amount of power supplies to the heater, which would inherently act to adjust the heating of aerosol generating material and adjust a property of the aerosol generated. Page 7, lines 11-12, teaches that the heater may comprise one or more heating elements).
Thorens does not explicitly teach that an operational parameter that may be adjusted is which of a plurality of heating elements are activated.
Batista ‘041, directed to a system (aerosol-generating system 10; [0096]) comprising an aerosol provision system (heater assembly 300) configured to generate aerosol from an aerosol generating material ([0099]) for user inhalation ([0107]) and a computer ([0025]), teaches that isolating the power control of multiple heaters may more effectively produce aerosol and to adjust properties of the aerosol ([0017]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Thorens by making adjusting the operational parameter of the aerosol provision system comprise adjusting which of a plurality of heating elements are activated by the aerosol provision system as taught by Batista ‘041 because both Thorens and Batista ‘041 are directed to systems comprising aerosol provision systems and computers, Batista ‘041 teaches that selectively adjusting the heating elements may improve efficiency and aerosol properties and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 25, Thorens does not explicitly teach that the operational parameter that is adjusted does not enable or disable further operation of the device.
However, in another embodiment, Thorens teaches that, in response to a deviation in user behavior, the device may have adjustable operational parameters other than one to enable or disable operation (page 13, lines 13-16; page 4, line 34-page 5, line 2; page 15, lines 17-27 teach that the adjustment may be made to an operational mode rather than to enable or disable operation).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art that instead of disabling the device upon deviation from default user behavior, the device could instead be configured to change any other operational parameter, as this involves substituting one alternative configuration for another to yield predictable results.
Moreover, the Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. In the instant case, the device taught by Thorens is capable of adjusting parameters that do not enable or disable operation of the device in response to a deviation in user behavior. Thus, the device can adjust operational parameters in response to deviation in the user behavior.
Regarding claim 26, Thorens does not explicitly teach that the adjustment to the property of aerosol generated by the aerosol provision system is proportional to the degree of deviation of the user's behavior from the default behavior.
However, Thorens teaches that heat may be varied depending on a user behavior (page 4, lines 32-34), such as stronger (page 4, lines 14-15) or more frequent (page 4, line 34-page 5, line 2) puffs.
One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a device may increase a heating parameter in order to generate more aerosol when a user interaction increases in frequency or strength, in order to produce an appropriately higher amount of aerosol.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Thorens by adjusting a property of aerosol generated by the aerosol provision system proportionally to the degree of deviation of the user's behavior from the default behavior (increasing heating when increased user puff is detected) because one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that heating should increase when user puff behavior increases in order to sufficiently supply aerosol, and this involves applying a known teaching to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 27, Thorens teaches that the default user behavior is the default user behavior of a user, and the current user interaction is a current user interaction with the aerosol provision system of the same user (page 4, line 32-page 5, line 2 teaches that heat or other operational parameters may be varied depending on user behavior of the same user).
Regarding claim 28, Thorens teaches that adjusting the property of aerosol generated by the aerosol provision system comprises adjusting the property of aerosol generated by the aerosol provision system for user inhalation by the same user (page 4, line 32-page 5, line 2 teaches that heat or other operational parameters may be varied depending on user behavior of the same user).
Regarding claim 29, Thorens does not explicitly teach that the operational parameter that is adjusted causes the rate of delivery of an active ingredient to change between non-zero values.
However, in another embodiment, Thorens teaches that, in response to a deviation in user behavior, the device may have adjustable operational parameters other than one to enable or disable operation (page 13, lines 13-16; page 4, line 34-page 5, line 2; page 15, lines 17-27 teach that the adjustment may be made to an operational mode rather than to enable or disable operation, such as the amount of power supplied to the heater). Thorens further teaches that an operational parameter that may be adjusted is the amount of power supplied to the heater (page 15, lines 17-18),
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art that instead of disabling the device upon deviation from default user behavior, the device could instead be configured to change any other operational parameter, such as the amount of power supplied to the heater, as this involves substituting one alternative configuration for another to yield predictable results. Changing the amount of power supplied to the heater would be expected to cause the rate of delivery of an active ingredient to change between non-zero values.
Regarding claim 31, Thorens does not explicitly teach that the adjustment causes a change of a multi value state.
However, in another embodiment, Thorens teaches that, in response to a deviation in user behavior, an adjustment may cause a change in a multi value state (page 13, lines 13-16; page 4, line 34-page 5, line 2; page 15, lines 17-27 teach that the adjustment may be made to an operational mode rather than to enable or disable operation, such as the amount of power supplied to the heater).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art that instead of disabling the device upon deviation from default user behavior, an adjustment could cause a change in a multi value state, such as a to user profile parameters, as this involves substituting one alternative configuration for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 34-35, Thorens does not explicitly teach that the adjustment to the property of aerosol generated by the aerosol provision system is either linearly proportional, as required by claim 34, or nonlinearly proportional, as required by claim 35, to the amount of deviation in terms of the continuous variable.
However, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that any proportional relationship must necessarily be either linear or nonlinear.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the proportional relationship of Thorens may be made to be either linearly or nonlinearly proportional, as those of ordinary skill would recognize that one relationship may better represent a desired outcome from the input values, as this involves choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorens and Batista ‘014 as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Blackley (US 20160371590 A1) and Batista ‘810 (WO 2019175810 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Thorens teaches that detected deviations may be used to adjust the operation of the device to best suit the user behavior (page 8, lines 32-34).
Thorens does not explicitly teach (I) that upon detection of a deviation that indicates increased stress, the operation of the device may be adapted to produce a stress mitigation action or (II) that the stress mitigation action comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of: changing an amount of an active ingredient delivered per unit volume of air inhaled; changing an amount of a flavor delivered per unit volume of air inhaled, and modifying a user interface of the aerosol provision system.
Regarding (I), Blackley, directed to a system (breath analysis apparatus 100; [0054]) comprising an aerosol provision system (vaporizer 108; [0062]) and a computer (processor 102; [0054-0055]) configured to obtain, monitor and analyze data related to a current user interaction ([0087-0089]); and when the interaction deviates from a default, adjust an optional parameter of the aerosol provision system on the basis of the current user interaction ([0088]), teaches that when the deviation indicates stress, the computer may be configured to provide a stress mitigation action ([0207]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Thorens by configuring the computer to recognize a deviation associated with increased stress (such as a puff signature associated with user stress) and provide a stress mitigation action as taught by Blackley because both Thorens and Blackley are directed to aerosol provision systems that detect and respond to user behavior, Blackley teaches that it is known in the art to configure an aerosol provision system to recognize and mitigate user stress, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding (II), Batista ‘810, directed to a system (aerosol generating device 27; page 1, line 17) comprising an aerosol provision system (heating element or aerosolizer 4; page 1, lines 27-30) and a computer (electronic control unit or controller 6; page 12, line 25) configured to obtain user behavior data (page 1, lines 31-32; page 5, lines 24-32; page 7, lines 24-25) and adjust an operational parameter of the system based on the obtained data (page 9, line 25; page 10, lines 4-5), teaches that the system comprises a user interface (display) controlled by the computer to display graphics based on analyzed user behavior, such as stress (page 2, lines 9-10; page 6, lines 1-13).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Thorens by adding a user interface and configuring the computer to modify the user interface of the aerosol provision system based on analyzed user behavior as taught by Batista ‘810 because both Thorens and Batista ‘810 are directed to aerosol provision systems that detect and respond to user behavior, Batista ‘810 teaches that it is known in the art to change a user display based on detected user behavior, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Thus, the stress mitigation action comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of changing an amount of an active ingredient delivered per unit volume of air inhaled; changing an amount of a flavor delivered per unit volume of air inhaled; and modifying a user interface of the aerosol provision system.
Regarding claim 7, Thorens does not explicitly teach that the computer is configured to prompt a user.
Batista ‘810, directed to a system (aerosol generating device 27; page 1, line 17) comprising an aerosol provision system (heating element or aerosolizer 4; page 1, lines 27-30) and a computer (electronic control unit or controller 6; page 12, line 25) configured to obtain user behavior data (page 1, lines 31-32; page 5, lines 24-32; page 7, lines 24-25) and adjust an operational parameter of the system based on the obtained data (page 9, line 25; page 10, lines 4-5), teaches that a computer may be configured to ask a user if the user would like for a stress mitigation action to be initiated (page 10, line 28-page 11, line 2) and to receive an indication from the user via a user interface (page 11, lines 1-2).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Thorens by configuring the computer to ask a user if the user would like for a stress mitigation action to be initiated and to receive an indication from the user via a user interface as taught by Batista ‘810 because both Thorens and Batista ‘810 are directed to aerosol provision systems that detect and respond to user behavior, Batista ‘810 teaches that it is known in the art to generate a user prompt and receive a user indication before an action is initiated, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Batista ‘810 teaches that modifying the user interface comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of displaying a predetermined message; playing a sound; and displaying a visual display (page 2, lines 9-10).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorens and Batista ‘014 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Batista ‘810 (WO 2019175810 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Thorens teaches that detected deviations may be used to adjust the operation of the device to best suit the user behavior (page 8, lines 32-34).
Thorens does not explicitly teach that operational parameter that is adjusted causes a user interface of the aerosol provision system to change.
Batista ‘810, directed to a system (aerosol generating device 27; page 1, line 17) comprising an aerosol provision system (heating element or aerosolizer 4; page 1, lines 27-30) and a computer (electronic control unit or controller 6; page 12, line 25) configured to obtain user behavior data (page 1, lines 31-32; page 5, lines 24-32; page 7, lines 24-25) and adjust an operational parameter of the system based on the obtained data (page 9, line 25; page 10, lines 4-5), teaches that the system comprises a user interface (display) controlled by the computer to display graphics based on analyzed user behavior (page 2, lines 9-10; page 6, lines 1-13).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Thorens by adding a user interface and configuring the computer to modify the user interface of the aerosol provision system based on analyzed user behavior as taught by Batista ‘810 because both Thorens and Batista ‘810 are directed to aerosol provision systems that detect and respond to user behavior, Batista ‘810 teaches that it is known in the art to change a user display based on detected user behavior, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
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 Charlotte Davison whose telephone number is (703)756-5484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-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, 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.
/C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights