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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 36–32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected electronic aerosol provision system, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/17/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The foreign references identified in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on 07/29/2022, 08/02/2024, 12/17/2024 were searched for corresponding US Patents, Publications, or other English equivalents. Please see below:
CN 205052879 = No US or other English equivalents;
WO 2017045897 = US 20170071253;
WO 2016183724 = No US or other English equivalents;
WO 2019072971 = US 20210186100;
CN 107949286 = US 20230209662;
EP 3349601 = US 20230209662;
JP 6608083 = US 20200235599;
AR 071747 = US 20160345634;
EP 2849590 = US 20150136153; and
AR 097796 = US 20150090278.
Of the above, US 20230209662, US 20210186100, US 20200235599, US 20160345634, US 20150136153, and US 20150090278 are being cited in the attached PTO-892 because they are not already of record.
Claim Objections
Examiner notes that some limitations recite the article “the” to reference subject matter which is not previously recited. While the below recitations are not ambiguous because antecedent basis is inherently present for such subject matter, greater consistency may be obtained by introducing new limitations with the article “a” or “an” in the following locations:
In claim 24’s line 2, replacing “the surface of an inner wall” with “a surface of an inner wall”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the threshold electrical characteristic" in lines 2–3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. (Note: antecedent basis for this limitation would exist if claim 9 depended from claim 6).
For the purposes of searching and throughout the remainder of this action, Examiner will assume any reference that reaches the limitations of claim 8 will also arrive at the limitations of claim 9.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the threshold electrical characteristic" in line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. (Note: antecedent basis for this limitation would exist if claim 10 depended from claim 6).
For the purposes of searching and throughout the remainder of this action, Examiner will assume any reference that reaches the limitations of claim 7 will also arrive at the limitations of claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1–2, 7–10, 12, and 21–25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by REEVELL US 20230209662 (disclosure supported in 15/264,881, filed on 09/14/2016).
As to claim 1, REEVELL discloses a method of controlling an electronic aerosol provision system comprising
PNG
media_image1.png
219
425
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
370
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a capacitor formed by a first electrode (34a), a second electrode (34b) and a dielectric (shell and/or 38a; see also US 20230115077 ¶34 evidencing similar dielectrics in Applicant’s published specification) between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 2A), a sensor (Fig. 9, 34) for sensing an electrical characteristic of the capacitor (¶113 and ¶59 “the electric circuitry configured to monitor the electrical resistance of the vaporizer, and to control the supply of power to the vaporizer dependent on the electrical resistance of the vaporizer.”), and a control unit (40; ¶40 and ¶64 “The controller is connected to the sensor and configured to measure the capacitance of the capacitor of the sensor and to store data indicative of the measured capacitance or the determined volume of the liquid storage portion in the memory”), wherein at least a portion of the dielectric (38a) is provided in a cavity between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 2A, ¶101), the method comprising:
causing power to be supplied to the capacitor (¶113);
identifying an onset of the power to the capacitor at a first time (this will occur when the system is powered on initially and/or with each puff; ¶60); and
measuring an electrical characteristic of the capacitor at a second time (at any time after the onset of power, e.g., continuously while powered or with activation of each puff; ¶15 and ¶113).
As to claim 2, REEVELL discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method is for determining an amount of aerosolizable material between the first electrode and the second electrode (¶32–37).
As to claims 7 and 10, REEVELL discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the electrical characteristic is selected from one or more of voltage, current, and charge (¶113).
By arriving at the limitations of claim 7, REEVELL also arrives at the limitations of claim 10 (see claim interpretation under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above).
As to claim 8 and 9, REEVELL discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the electrical characteristic is a voltage across the capacitor (¶113).
By arriving at the limitations of claim 8, REEVELL also arrives at the limitations of claim 9 (see claim interpretation under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above).
As to claim 12, REEVELL discloses the method of claim 1.
REEVELL further discloses wherein the sensor comprises a resistor configured to form a resistor-capacitor circuit with the capacitor (Fig. 9, 34 illustrates a resistor; ¶59 discusses “the electric circuitry configured to monitor the electrical resistance of the vaporizer, and to control the supply of power to the vaporizer dependent on the electrical resistance of the vaporizer”).
As to claim 21, REEVELL discloses the method of claim 1, wherein one or both of the first electrode and the second electrode are provided adjacent a surface of a wall defining the cavity (Fig. 2A).
As to claim 22, REEVELL discloses the method of claim 21, wherein one or both of the first electrode and the second electrode are embedded in the wall, wherein the dielectric comprises any portion of the wall separating the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 6A–B; ¶106; different structure than Fig. 2A, but also anticipates).
As to claim 23, REEVELL discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the first electrode is provided adjacent the surface (Fig. 6A–6B, 34B) and the second electrode (Fig. 6A–6B, 34A) is provided within the cavity and substantially separated from the wall (Fig. 6A–6B; ¶106; different structure than Fig. 2A, but also anticipates).
As to claim 24, REEVELL discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the first electrode (Fig. 6A–6B, 34B) is provided adjacent the surface and the second electrode (Fig. 6A–6B, 34A) is provided adjacent the surface of an inner wall defining an airflow channel passing through the cavity (Fig. 6A–6B; ¶106; different structure than Fig. 2A, but also anticipates).
As to claim 25, REEVELL discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the aerosolizable material comprises a liquid aerosolizable material (¶9).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REEVELL US 20230209662 (disclosure supported in 15/264,881, filed on 09/14/2016) in view of COLOTTE U.S. Pub. No.: 20180292250.
As to claim 3, REEVELL discloses the method of claim 2.
REEVELL fails to disclose wherein the control unit is configured to control an aspect of the electronic aerosol provision system based on the determined amount of aerosolizable material between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the aspect is any one selected from the group consisting of: an aerosol generator, one or more light emitting units, a display, a haptic module, a speaker, and a wired or wireless communications interface.
COLOTTE teaches wherein the control unit is configured to control an aspect of the electronic aerosol provision system based on the determined amount of aerosolizable material (¶43–44) wherein the aspect is any one selected from the group consisting of: an aerosol generator (¶53 “:If this pressure signal indicates that the liquid storage portion 22 is empty or nearly empty, the control unit 16 prevents activation of the vaporizer 24.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of COLOTTE into the disclosure of REEVELL for the benefit of preventing the activation of the aerosol generator when the e-liquid level is low (as taught by COLOTTE at ¶53).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REEVELL US 20230209662 (disclosure supported in 15/264,881, filed on 09/14/2016).
As to claim 11, REEVELL discloses the method of claim 1.
REEVELL fails to explicitly disclose the capacitor has a capacitance in a range selected from the group consisting of: 0.1 to 100 pF, 0.5pF to 70pF, and 1.0 pF to 60pF.
REEVELL teaches the “capacitors may have a capacitance in Picofarad (pF) range.” (¶24) and generally makes obvious at least a capacitor with a capacitance between .1 and 100 Picofarad because these units are within the range of Picofarad. Accordingly, REEVELL makes obvious wherein the capacitor has a capacitance in a range selected from the group consisting of: 0.1 to 100 pF, 0.5pF to 70pF, and 1.0 pF to 60pF. see MPEP 2144.05 (I) (explaining In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REEVELL US 20230209662 (disclosure supported in 15/264,881, filed on 09/14/2016) and in further view of BLAKE U.S. Pub. No.: 20030226837.
As to claim 15, REEVELL discloses the method of claim 1.
REEVELL fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sensor comprises a switch and the control unit is configured to control the switch to cause power to be supplied through the capacitor.
BLAKE teaches wherein the sensor comprises a switch and the control unit is configured to control the switch to cause power to be supplied through the capacitor (Fig. 4, ¶53–54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of BLAKE into the disclosure of REEVELL for the benefit of safely enabling the use of a lithium ion battery cell (as taught by BLAKE at ¶53).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4–6, 13–14 and 16–20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to dependent claim 4, the primary reason for indicating claim 4 as possessing allowable subject matter is because the prior art fails to provide any teachings, suggestions, motivations, or other rationales to arrive at wherein the method further comprises, by the control unit: determining a comparison value based at least on the measured electrical characteristic, wherein the comparison value is a rate of change of the electrical characteristic; and comparing the comparison value to a threshold, wherein the threshold is a rate of change.
Simply stated, REEVELL does not take time into consideration when making a comparison. Accordingly, REEVELL fails to arrive at comparing the comparison value to a threshold, wherein the threshold is a rate of change.
A search of the prior art failed to return a reference that would remedy REEVELL’s deficiencies.
Accordingly, claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Dependent claims 16–20 would be allowed for the same reasons via their dependency on claim 4.
As to dependent claim 5, the primary reason for indicating claim 5 as possessing allowable subject matter is because the prior art fails to provide any teachings, suggestions, motivations, or other rationales to arrive at wherein the second time is a time at which the measured electrical characteristic equals or exceeds a threshold electrical characteristic; wherein the method further comprises, by the control unit: determining a comparison value as a difference between the first time and the second time; and comparing the comparison value to a threshold, wherein the threshold is a period of time.
Again, REEVELL does not take time into consideration when making a comparison. Accordingly, REEVELL fails to arrive at determining a comparison value as a difference between the first time and the second time; and comparing the comparison value to a threshold, wherein the threshold is a period of time.
A search of the prior art failed to return a reference that would remedy REEVELL’s deficiencies.
Accordingly, claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to dependent claim 6, the primary reason for indicating claim 6 as possessing allowable subject matter is because the prior art fails to provide any teachings, suggestions, motivations, or other rationales to arrive at wherein the second time is a set amount of time after the first time and the measured electrical characteristic is a comparison value, wherein the method further comprises, by the control unit: comparing the comparison value to a threshold, wherein the threshold is a threshold electrical characteristic.
Again, REEVELL does not take time into consideration when making a comparison. Accordingly, REEVELL fails to arrive at wherein the second time is a set amount of time after the first time and the measured electrical characteristic is a comparison value, wherein the method further comprises, by the control unit: comparing the comparison value to a threshold, wherein the threshold is a threshold electrical characteristic.
A search of the prior art failed to return a reference that would remedy REEVELL’s deficiencies.
Accordingly, claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to dependent claim 13, the primary reason for indicating claim 13 as possessing allowable subject matter is because the prior art fails to provide any teachings, suggestions, motivations, or other rationales to arrive at wherein the resistor has a resistance in a range selected from the group consisting of: 50 to 1000 kΩ, 100 to 800 kΩ, 150 to 600 kΩ, and 200 to 400 kΩ.
Applicant’s specification, see page 43, explains that resistors of this magnitude enable the circuitry to have time scales that are measurable the control circuitry. Again, REEVELL does not take time into consideration when making a comparison. Accordingly, REEVELL fails to arrive at wherein the resistor has a resistance in a range selected from the group consisting of: 50 to 1000 kΩ, 100 to 800 kΩ, 150 to 600 kΩ, and 200 to 400 kΩ.
A search of the prior art failed to return a reference that would remedy REEVELL’s deficiencies.
Accordingly, claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to dependent claim 14, the primary reason for indicating claim 14 as possessing allowable subject matter is because the prior art fails to provide any teachings, suggestions, motivations, or other rationales to arrive at wherein the resistor-capacitor circuit is configured to provide a time delay between the onset of the supply of power to the capacitor and the capacitor reaching a threshold electrical characteristic, the time delay selected from the group consisting of: between 2 and 50 ps, and between 5 and 30 ps.
Applicant’s specification explains, see page 44–45, that Resistor-capacitor circuits providing a time delay within these ranges have been found to provide a sufficiently prompt and accurate response without the need for expensive and/or bulky components.
Again, REEVELL does not take time into consideration when making a comparison. Accordingly, REEVELL fails to arrive at wherein the resistor-capacitor circuit is configured to provide a time delay between the onset of the supply of power to the capacitor and the capacitor reaching a threshold electrical characteristic, the time delay selected from the group consisting of: between 2 and 50 ps, and between 5 and 30 ps.
A search of the prior art failed to return a reference that would remedy REEVELL’s deficiencies.
Accordingly, claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
MAHARAJH U.S. Pub. No.: 20060047368 explains the relationship of energy transferred to the heater assembly (¶50–51) and provides a standard assumption of 2.5V as the amount of energy applied to the circuit (¶52).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANLEY L CUMMINS IV whose telephone number is (571)272-1060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. (CST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H. Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MANLEY L CUMMINS IV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747