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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/21/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 10/21/2025.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, 22 and 25-33 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 22, 26, 27, 28, 32 and 33 are amended
Claims 8, 11-21 and 23-24 are cancelled.
Response to Amendments
The Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections of claims 3, 9 and 24 for being indefinite due to Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 10/21/2025.
The Examiner withdraws the 112(d) rejections of claim 9 for being of improper dependent form due to Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed on 10/21/2025.
The Examiner notes that the 101 rejections of claims 1-7, 9-10, 22 and 25-33 are maintained, as the amended claims do not amount to “significantly more” than the claimed exception. See 101 Rejections below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-15, filed 10/21/2025, with respect to the 102 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 1 has been amended to include limitations to adjusting the operational parameter. Prior art of record Thorens does not explicitly teach one or more of “adjusting which of a plurality heating elements are activated…; adjusting an air flow path…; adjusting an exposure of aerosol generating material…; and adjusting a composition of aerosol generating material…”. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new obviousness ground of rejection is made over Thorens in view of Batista ‘014 (US 20170340014 A1).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 15, filed 10/21/2025, with respect to the 102 rejection of claim 22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 22 has been amended to include limitations to adjusting the operational parameter in addition to restrictions of use “by the same user”. Prior art of record Thorens does not explicitly teach one or more of “adjusting which of a plurality heating elements are activated…; adjusting an air flow path…; adjusting an exposure of aerosol generating material…; and adjusting a composition of aerosol generating material…”. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new obviousness ground of rejection is made over Thorens in view of Batista ‘014 (US 20170340014 A1).
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Thorens does not appropriately teach use “by the same user” as newly presented, the Examiner disagrees.
Thorens teaches that the computer is configured to 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). Thorens further teaches that the computer is configured to 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 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. 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). Thus, Thorens teaches the claim limitation.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 17, filed 10/21/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 32 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 32 has been amended to include limitations to adjusting the operational parameter in addition to user data comprising “timing at which a plurality of inhalations occurred”. Prior art of record Thorens does not explicitly teach one or more of “adjusting which of a plurality heating elements are activated…; adjusting an air flow path…; adjusting an exposure of aerosol generating material…; and adjusting a composition of aerosol generating material…”. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new obviousness ground of rejection is made over Thorens in view of Batista et al. (US 20170340014 A1).
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Thorens does not appropriately teach user data comprising “timing at which a plurality of inhalations occurred”, the Examiner disagrees.
Thorens teaches that the user behavior data comprises a timing at which each of a plurality of user inhalations occurred (page 3, line 31-page 4, line 5 teaches collecting data points based on timing of each inhalation). Thus, Thorens teaches the claim limitation.
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 and 9-10 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 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. 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 23, the claim differs from claim 22 only in that the statistical analysis is further specified to be a statistical representation. 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 24, the claim recites that the statistical representation is a “rolling representation”. 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 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 32, 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, the user behavior data comprising a timing at which each of a plurality of user inhalations occurred; determine default user behavior with respect to the interaction on the basis of the timing at which each of the plurality of user inhalations occurred; 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, wherein the adjustment comprises the computer determining default operational parameters that correspond with the determined default user behavior, and then adjusting these determined default operational parameters of the aerosol provision system responsive to the degree of deviation between the current user interaction and the default user behavior”
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 comprising a timing and subsequent 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 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 (mouthpiece end 103; page 10, lines 25-26; page 12, lines 21-33) configured to generate aerosol from a payload (cartridge 113; page 10, lines 25-26) comprising an active ingredient from an aerosol generating material (aerosol-forming substrate or liquid 115 comprising tobacco; page 7, lines 18-21) for user inhalation (page 7, lines 8-11; page 11, lines 5-7), wherein the aerosol provision system comprises a heater (heater 119; page 12, lines 21-23) capable of interacting with the payload to form the aerosol;
and 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 33, the recitation of the limitation “wherein the timing at which each of the plurality of user inhalations occurred comprises a distribution pattern of the plurality of user inhalations” 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.
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 and 22-33 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 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 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 sensor 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 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. 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 23, Thorens teaches that the statistical analysis may comprise a statistical representation of a user’s behavior in respect of the interaction with the aerosol