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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s amendment to the claims and supporting remarks filed on 03/23/2026 (“Amendment”) have been entered. The rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained. The previous claim objection and claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn, except for the rejection of claim 5 which is maintained and supplemented with a rejection under 35 USC 112(d). The claim rejections under 35 USC 102-103 are withdrawn; new rejections under 35 USC 103 are necessitated by the amendment to claim 1 and are set forth below. Claims 1–32 remain pending, claims 26–32 remain withdrawn, and claims 1-25 are examined herein. This rejection is Non-Final because the rejection of claim 5 under 35 USC 112(d) was not necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that (1) claims 1-2 have not been rejected and therefore dependents thereof are not ineligible “as a whole” (Amendment p. 6-7). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant does not cite any legal authority in support of the proposition that dependent claims are eligible by virtue of their dependency, and the Examiner is unaware of any such authority (see MPEP 2106.07 noting that an independent claim may be eligible while its dependent is not). Claims 1-2 do not recite a judicial exception per Step 2A Prong One, but the rejected dependent claims do, which necessitates the rejections (see Non-Final Rejection mailed 12/23/2025 p. 5-9).
Applicant further argues that (2) claim 1 has been amended to recite “as a first time”, and the claim recites multiple technical elements integrated into a practical application (Amendment p. 8). The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the amendment to claim 1 does not materially alter the eligibility analysis, and because the discussed features of claim 1 do not integrate the judicial exceptions recited in the dependent claims into a practical application (see Non-Final Rejection mailed 12/23/2025 p. 9-12 explaining that the limitations of claim 1 are generic and insignificant extra-solution activities).
Applicant further argues that (3) claim 3 recites controlling an aspect of a physical apparatus, which is not a mental process (Amendment p. 8-9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees because claim 3’s recitation of “control an aspect of the…system” is so broad that it encompasses activities which have been explicitly held to fall under mental processes, for instance, displaying data (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A); Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Furthermore, even if claim 3 were considered to not recite a mental process, claim 3 still recites an abstract mathematical relationship (see Non-Final Rejection mailed 12/23/2025 at p. 6-7) and would therefore remain ineligible.
Regarding the rejection of claim 5 under 35 USC 112(b), Applicant argues that claim 5 further limits claim 1 by requiring the measurement to be taken at a specific instance of “second time” (Amendment p. 9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim does not require the specific instance of “second time” to actually occur. Nothing in the claim language requires the “measured electrical characteristic” to “equal[] or exceed[] a threshold electrical characteristic”, so the claimed “second time” is a condition precedent which may or may not be met, and therefore, “measuring an electrical characteristic of the capacitor at a second time” is a contingent step which is not required by the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation per MPEP 2144.04(II) (and similarly, the “determining” and “comparing” steps of claim 5 are contingent upon the “second time” actually occurring). Therefore, claim 5 is broader than claim 1 from which it depends.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 102-103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 3–6, 9–10, and 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP § 2106.03. Independent claim 1 is drawn to a method of controlling an electronic aerosol provision system. Thus, claim 1 and its dependents pass Step 1 because they are drawn to process, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility Life Sciences & Data Processing Examples (“October 2019 Update”), a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. Please see discussion below:
Claim 3’s “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”
The above limitation falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas. The claimed controlling based on a determined amount is similar other mental processes identified as abstract ideas, e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A).
This conclusion is evidenced by at least the following:
Applicant’s Substitute Specification - Clean Copy filed on 07/29/2022 (“Specification”), p. 20 ll. 11–13 (explaining “control unit 155 may control an aspect of the device 100 based on the comparison between the determined time delay and the one or more values stored in memory.”);
Remarks at 9 last paragraph through p. 10 l. 3 (arguing the prior art is distinguishable because the prior art’s equations lack a temporal element); and
Remarks at 10 ll. 8–11 (explaining “Figures 8-10 [of Applicant’s Drawings] further illustrate how measurements at two different times can be used to identify information about the aerosolizable material.”) (annotation added)
The above limitation is recited at such a high level of generality that it is capable of being performed in the human mind. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) (explaining "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” was found to be a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind because the data analysis steps were recited at a high level of generality.)
The use of a generic computer to perform the evaluation has been held to not overcome Step 2A, Prong 2. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
There is no particularity to this application and the courts have also held that the abstract idea must be applied in a meaningful way rather than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The above limitation also falls into the “mathematical relationships,” “mathematical formulas or equations,” or “mathematical calculation” group of abstract ideas discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A–C). This conclusion is evidenced by at least the following:
Remarks at 9 last paragraph through p. 10 l. 3 (arguing the prior art is distinguishable because the prior art’s equations lack a temporal element);
Specification at 37 l. 20 through p. 38 l. 3 (providing an equation used for making the same or similar determinations); and
Remarks at 10 ll. 8–11 (explaining “Figures 8-10 [of Applicant’s Drawings] further illustrate how measurements at two different times can be used to identify information about the aerosolizable material.”) (annotation added)
Although the above limitation falls under several exceptions there are no bright lines between the types of exceptions. MPEP § 2106.04(I).
Claim 4’s “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.”
This limitation also falls into the “mathematical concept” and “mental process” groups of abstract ideas for the same reasons as set out for claim 3 above.
Claim 5’s “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.”
This limitation also falls into the “mathematical concept” and “mental process” groups of abstract ideas for the same reasons as set out for claim 3 above.
Claim 6’s “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.”
This limitation also falls into the “mathematical concept” and “mental process” groups of abstract ideas for the same reasons as set out for claim 3 above.
Claim 9’s “wherein the threshold electrical characteristic is a voltage in a range of: 0.5V to 3V” further defines the abstract idea identified in claim 6.
Claim 10’s “wherein the threshold electrical characteristic is a voltage in a range of: the supply voltage minus a voltage of between 0.2 and 1.5 volts” further defines the abstract idea identified in claim 6.
Claim 16’s “wherein the threshold is a pre-determined value” further defines the abstract idea identified in claim 4.
Claim 17’s “wherein the threshold is based on a first measurement of the capacitor by the sensor” further defines the abstract idea identified in claim 4.
Claim 18’s “wherein the first measurement is performed when one or more of the following is determined by the control unit: the electronic aerosol provision device is first turned on; a first time the control unit determines the capacitor is present after a period in which the capacitor was determined not present; or a first time the control unit determines aerosolizable material is present after a period in which aerosolizable material was determined to not be present” further defines the abstract idea identified in claims 4 and 17.
Claim 19’s “wherein the control unit is configured to determine a capacitance of the capacitor based on at least the comparison value” further defines the abstract idea identified in claim 4.
Claim 20’s “wherein the control unit is configured to determine an amount of aerosolizable material based on at least the comparison value” further defines the abstract idea identified in claim 4.
In situations like this where multiple judicial exceptions are recited, Examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. See MPEP §§ 2106.04 and 2106.05(II). Thus, for purposes of further discussion, the above limitations will be treated as a single abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether claim(s) as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The abstract idea above is dependent on claim 1. Accordingly, claim 1 is an additional element recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, but fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application for the following reasons:
Claim 1 recites “an electronic aerosol provision system comprising a capacitor formed by a first electrode, a second electrode and a dielectric between the first electrode and the second electrode”
These generically link the abstract idea to the field of endeavor of electronic aerosol provision system that utilize electrodes to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106 (explaining “[a]n abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment”). The courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis. MPEP § 2106.05(I).
Claim 1 recites “a sensor for sensing an electrical characteristic of the capacitor”
This sensor is recited at a high level of generality and is necessary to implement abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) (explaining mere data gathering is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claim 1 recites “control unit, wherein at least a portion of the dielectric is provided in a cavity between the first electrode and the second electrode”
The control unit is recited generically (no structural details are recited other than that it is a “control unit”) and represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on generic circuitry. See Specification at 7 ll. 2–3 (evidencing the control unit is generic), see also id. at 13 ll. 18 (describing control unit as “control electronics”). Accordingly, the above limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites “method comprising: causing power to be supplied to the capacitor”
This is insignificant pre-solution activity necessary to implement the abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites “method comprising . . . identifying an onset of the power to the capacitor as a first time”
This is insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering. Specification at 50–51 (explaining “on the experimental system used for Figure 11 above, a control unit configured to sample at greater than 10MHz would be able to identify a change.”); See MPEP § 2106.05(g) (explaining mere data gathering is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claim 1 recites “method comprising . . . measuring an electrical characteristic of the capacitor at a second time”
This is also insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) (explaining mere data gathering is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity).
Accordingly, claim 1 fails to recite any additional features which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite any additional features which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Please see discussion below:
Claim 2 recites “further comprising determining an amount of aerosolizable material between the first electrode and the second electrode based on the electrical characteristic measured at the second time”.
Claim 3 depends from claim 2. This limitation is insignificant pre-solution activity necessary to implement the abstract idea of claim 3.
Claim 3’s recitation “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” amounts to insignificant post-solution activity of merely applying the abstract idea.
Claim 10’s “when power is supplied to the capacitor, a supply voltage is applied between the first electrode and the second electrode” are steps necessary to implement the abstract idea and amount to insignificant pre-solution activity necessary to apply abstract idea.
Therefore, Step 2A, Prong Two is satisfied because the claims fail to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Analysis under Step 2B may be found in the following section.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim(s) as a whole
amount(s) to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP § 2106.05.
While similar to Step 2A Prong Two, Step 2B goes further by taking into account whether or not
the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The following Table provides
evidence demonstrating that the features recited in addition to the abstract idea(s) were well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field aerosol generating devices:
Features recited in addition to the abstract idea(s)
Conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two
Evidence that the additional features were well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field aerosol generating devices
Claim 1’s “an electronic aerosol provision system comprising a capacitor formed by a first electrode, a second electrode and a dielectric between the first electrode and the second electrode”
Generically link the abstract idea to the field of endeavor of electronic aerosol provision system that utilize electrodes to implement the abstract idea.
US 20230209662 as applied in the below rejection;
Claim 1’s “a sensor for sensing an electrical characteristic of the capacitor”
This sensor is recited at a high level of generality and is necessary to implement abstract idea.
US 20230209662 as applied in the below rejection; and
CN-107156911 as applied in the below rejection.
Claim 1’s “control unit, wherein at least a portion of the dielectric is provided in a cavity between the first electrode and the second electrode”
The control unit is recited generically (no structural details are recited other than that it is a “control unit”) and represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on generic circuitry.
US 20230209662 as applied in the below rejection; and
CN-107156911 as applied in the below rejection.
Claim 1’s “method comprising: causing power to be supplied to the capacitor”
This is insignificant pre-solution activity necessary to implement the abstract idea.
US 20230209662 as applied in the below rejection; and
CN-107156911 as applied in the below rejection.
Claim 1’s “method comprising . . . identifying an onset of the power to the capacitor as a first time”
This is insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering.
US 20230209662 as applied in the below rejection; and
CN-107156911 as applied in the below rejection.
Claim 1’s “method comprising . . . measuring an electrical characteristic of the capacitor at a second time”
This is also insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering.
US 20230209662 as applied in the below rejection; and
CN-107156911 as applied in the below rejection.
Claim 2’s “further comprising determining an amount of aerosolizable material between the first electrode and the second electrode based on the electrical characteristic measured at the second time”
This is insignificant pre-solution activity necessary to implement the abstract idea.
US 20230209662 as applied in the below rejection; and
CN-107156911 as applied in the below rejection.
Claim 3’s recitation “wherein the control unit is configured to control an aspect . . . 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”
This amounts to insignificant post-solution activity of merely applying the abstract idea.
US 20230209662 as applied in the below rejection; and
CN-107156911 as applied in the below rejection.
Claim 10’s “when power is supplied to the capacitor, a supply voltage is applied between the first electrode and the second electrode”
These are steps necessary to implement the abstract idea and amount to insignificant pre-solution activity necessary to apply abstract idea.
US 20230209662’s Fig. 9 and [0113]; and
CN-107156911 (Fig. 2, Page 4).
As demonstrated above, those features recited in addition to the abstract idea remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration because the features were well-known, routine, and conventional at the time of filing.
Accordingly, claims 3–6, 9–10, and 16–20 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited exceptions identified above.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends, as explained in detail immediately below. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
As to claim 5, this claim is indefinite because it impermissibly broadens the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 recites “measuring an electrical characteristic of the capacitor at a second time”—an active method step. However, claim 5’s recitation of “wherein the second time is a time at which the measured electrical characteristic equals or exceeds a threshold electrical characteristic” transforms active method step of claim 1 into a contingent method step, which requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. MPEP § 2111.04(II). That is, the scope of claim 5 appears to broaden the measurement in claim 1 because measurement is not required until a threshold occurs. Accordingly, it is unclear whether “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” is actually required.
For the purposes of searching and throughout the remainder of this action, Examiner will assume a reference which arrives at the limitations of claim 1 arrives at the limitations of claim 5.
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) 1–8, 16–22, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-107156911 (“YAN”, of record) (with reference made to the previously attached machine translation) in view of US 2013/0319435 (“FLICK”).
As to claim 1, YAN discloses a method of controlling an electronic aerosol provision system comprising
PNG
media_image1.png
602
341
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a capacitor formed by a first electrode (215a), a second electrode (215b) and a dielectric (oil in 211) between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 2, page 4), a sensor for sensing an electrical characteristic of the capacitor (Page 4’s “it can be used as two metal electrode dielectric and capacitive sensor 215a and 215b form capacitance detection system, for detecting the smoke oil quantity of 211 in the oil storage cavity” and Page 4’s “when the oil smoke quantity capacitance sensor detects the oil storage cavity 211 of reaches a preset threshold, the control unit 222 sends an alarm or shut off the power supply so as to prevent dry burning heating body 213 l” evidence that some kind of additional sensor is present in the circuitry which enables the control unit receive information from the first/second electrode and dielectric), and a control unit (222), wherein at least a portion of the dielectric (oil storage cavity 211) is provided in a cavity between the first electrode (215a) and the second electrode (215b), the method comprising:
causing power to be supplied to the capacitor (via battery 22, Page 4; Page 4 s30); and
measuring an electrical characteristic of the capacitor at a second time (“can set many threshold, when the smoke oil amount reaches the first threshold value, the control unit 222 sends alarm information and reminds the user to smoke oil quantity is not enough, adding oil in time. When the oil smoke quantity reaches a second threshold, the control unit 222 cuts off the power supply, heating element 213 to stop heating”).
Yan discloses a first measurement of oil when the control unit is powered on, and discloses detecting a “change” in capacitance “in real time” (p. 4, 1st and 3rd full paragraphs), but fails to specifically disclose “identifying an onset of the power to the capacitor as a first time” as claimed.
Flick is directed to an aerosol generating system having means for handling consumption of a liquid substrate (Title). Flick discloses estimating an amount of liquid aerosol-forming substrate remaining in a liquid storage portion [0004]. Specifically, Flick discloses monitoring heating element parameters “over time” to estimate the consumed amount of liquid [0008, 0029, 0033, 0045, 0074]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Flick’s monitoring could be used in Yan as an additional or alternative means of estimating the liquid level. One would also recognize that Flick’s monitoring of total time would be useful to accurately perform Yan’s measurement of the capacitance change (i.e., the change from an initial time point). In either case, one would be motivated to modify Yan to monitor a heating time as disclosed by Flick (and meanwhile monitor the capacitance as disclosed by Yan), which would involve identifying an initial time point, which reads on “identifying an onset of the power to the capacitor as a first time” as claimed.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Yan by configuring Yan’s control unit 222 to monitor parameters of the heating body 213 over time as taught by Flick, because both Yan and Flick are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Flick teaches using the heater parameters to estimate liquid level which one of ordinary skill would recognize as an alternative or additional manner of estimating the liquid level, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As to claim 2, YAN discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising determining an amount of aerosolizable material between the first electrode and the second electrode based on the electrical characteristic measured at the second time (page 4).
As to claim 3, YAN discloses the method of claim 2, 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 (page 4’s “the control unit 222 sends alarm information and reminds the user to smoke oil quantity is not enough, adding oil in time. When the oil smoke quantity reaches a second threshold, the control unit 222 cuts off the power supply, heating element 213 to stop heating, effectively solve the electronic cigarette without smoke oil or smoke oil quantity is insufficient when dry burning heating body is solved. Further, the alarm information can be LED flashing red or whistle and so on.”)
As to claim 4, YAN discloses the method of claim 1, 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 (Page 4’s first full paragraph);
and comparing the comparison value to a threshold, wherein the threshold is a rate of change (Page 4’s first full paragraph).
As to claim 5, YAN discloses the method of claim 1, discloses measuring amount of oil over a period of time. (Page 4) When YAN measures a full chamber of oil, it will arrive at the remainder of this contingent limitation.
As to claim 6, YAN discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second time is a set amount of time after the first time (any time after the first time) and the measured electrical characteristic is a comparison value (low oil), wherein the method further comprises, by the control unit:
comparing the comparison value to a threshold (low oil), wherein the threshold is a threshold electrical characteristic (capacitance associated with low oil)
As to claim 7, YAN discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the electrical characteristic is selected from one or more of voltage, current, and charge (this is how circuits are measured).
As to claim 8, YAN discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the electrical characteristic is a voltage across the capacitor (that measured will correspond to the voltage, i.e., Ohm's Law: V = I * R).
As to claim 16, YAN discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the threshold is a pre-determined value (page 4)
As to claim 17, YAN discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the threshold is based on a first measurement of the capacitor by the sensor (page 4)
As to claim 18, YAN discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the first measurement is performed when the electronic aerosol provision device is first turned on (page 4);
As to claim 19, YAN discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the control unit is configured to determine a capacitance of the capacitor based on at least the comparison value (page 4).
As to claim 20, YAN discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the control unit is configured to determine an amount of aerosolizable material based on at least the comparison value (Page 4).
As to claim 21, YAN 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. 2).
As to claim 22, YAN discloses the method of claim 21, wherein one or both of the first electrode and the second electrode are embedded in the wall (Fig. 2), wherein the dielectric comprises any portion of the wall separating the first electrode and the second electrode (the sensed dielectric would include the wall and the oil).
As to claim 25, YAN discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the aerosolizable material comprises a liquid aerosolizable material (page 4).
Claim(s) 1–2, 7–8, 12, and 21–25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REEVELL US 20230209662 (of record, disclosure supported in 15/264,881, filed on 09/14/2016) in view of US 2013/0319435 (“FLICK”).
As to claim 1, REEVELL discloses a method of controlling an electronic aerosol provision system comprising
PNG
media_image2.png
219
425
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
370
519
media_image3.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); 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).
Reevell discloses the system being powered on initially and/or with each puff; ¶60, but fails to specifically disclose “identifying an onset of the power to the capacitor as a first time” as claimed.
Flick is directed to an aerosol generating system having means for handling consumption of a liquid substrate (Title). Flick discloses estimating an amount of liquid aerosol-forming substrate remaining in a liquid storage portion [0004]. Specifically, Flick discloses monitoring heating element parameters “over time” to estimate the consumed amount of liquid [0008, 0029, 0033, 0045, 0074]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Flick’s monitoring could be used in Reevell as an additional or alternative means of estimating the liquid level. Thus, one would be motivated to modify Reevell to monitor a heating time as disclosed by Flick (and meanwhile monitoring the capacitance as disclosed by Reevell), which would involve identifying an initial time point, which reads on “identifying an onset of the power to the capacitor as a first time” as claimed.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Reevell by configuring Reevell’s controller to monitor parameters of the heater over time as taught by Flick, because both Reevell and Flick are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Flick teaches using the heater parameters to estimate liquid level which one of ordinary skill would recognize as an alternative or additional manner of estimating the liquid level, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As to claim 2, REEVELL discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising determining an amount of aerosolizable material between the first electrode and the second electrode based on the electrical characteristic measured at the second time (¶32–37).
As to claim 7, REEVELL discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the electrical characteristic is selected from one or more of voltage, current, and charge (¶113).
As to claim 8, REEVELL discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the electrical characteristic is a voltage across the capacitor (¶113).
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 renders obvious).
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 renders obvious).
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 renders obvious).
As to claim 25, REEVELL discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the aerosolizable material comprises a liquid aerosolizable material (¶9).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REEVELL US 20230209662 (of record, disclosure supported in 15/264,881, filed on 09/14/2016) in view of US 2013/0319435 (“FLICK”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of COLOTTE U.S. Pub. No.: 20180292250 (“COLOTTE”, of record).
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) 9–10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-107156911 (“YAN”, of record) (with reference made to the previously attached machine translation) in view of US 2013/0319435 (“FLICK”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of in view of AMPOLINI US 20140270727 (“AMPOLINI”, of record).
As to claim 9, YAN discloses the method of claim 6.
YAN fails to explicitly disclose wherein the threshold electrical characteristic is a voltage in a range between .5V to 3V.
AMPOLINI teaches wherein the threshold electrical characteristic is a voltage in a range between .5V to 3V ([0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of AMPOLINI into the generic disclosure of YAN for the benefit of forming a low voltage signal proportional to the reference voltage to enable the controller proportionally measure the voltage fed to the sensor (as taught by AMPOLINI at [0070]).
As to claim 10, YAN discloses the method of claim 6.
YAN further discloses when power is supplied to the capacitor, a supply voltage is applied between the first electrode and the second electrode (Pages 3–4).
YAN fails to explicitly disclose wherein the threshold electrical characteristic is a voltage consisting of the supply voltage minus a voltage of between 0.2 and 1.5 volts.
AMPOLINI teaches wherein the threshold electrical characteristic ([0071]) is a voltage consisting of the supply voltage minus (“determining a voltage drop across a resistor 575 serially disposed between the heating component 320 and the power source 340”) a voltage of between 0.2 and 1.5 volts (“sensing arrangement disclosed herein may produce a measurement range of between 0 and about 0.05V” which is then is “automatically multiplied by 50, to obtain a voltage which may then be compared to the internal reference voltage of the controller 360/processor 370.” That is, this reference discloses subtracting a voltage of between 0*50 and .05*50 or subtracting 0–2.5V.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of AMPOLINI into the generic disclosure of YAN for the benefit of forming a low voltage signal proportional to the reference voltage to enable the controller proportionally measure the voltage fed to the sensor (as taught by AMPOLINI at [0070–71]). See MPEP § 2144.05 (explaining “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”). (annotation added)
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REEVELL US 20230209662 (of record, disclosure supported in 15/264,881, filed on 09/14/2016) in view of US 2013/0319435 (“FLICK”) as applied to claim 1.
As to claim 11, REEVELL discloses the method of claim 1.
REEVELL fails to explicitly disclose the capacitor has a capacitance in a range of: 0.1 to 100 pF.
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 of: 0.1 to 100 pF. 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.).
As to claim 14, REEVELL discloses the method of claim 12.
REEVELL further discloses 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 (this will inherently occur current runs through the system).
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 of: 0.1 to 100 pF. 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.).
REEVELL, by arriving at the structure claimed and generally making obvious at least a capacitor with a capacitance between .1 and 100 Picofarad, is considered to arrive at the time delay between 2 and 50 µs because it is generally consistent with Applicant’s Specification. See id. at 23 ll.11–13 (explaining “[t]he determined capacitance will typically share the same format although it will be appreciated that a value (e.g. 25ps) can be used to determine a range within which the capacitance is contained (e.g. greater than 15pf).”) (annotation added)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REEVELL US 20230209662 (of record, disclosure supported in 15/264,881, filed on 09/14/2016) in view of US 2013/0319435 (“FLICK”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of AMPOLINI US 20140270727 (“AMPOLINI”, of record).
As to claim 13, REEVELL discloses the method of claim 12.
REEVELL a resistor (Fig. 9, R) configured to form a resistor-capacitor circuit with the capacitor (¶59).
PNG
media_image4.png
377
513
media_image4.png
Greyscale
REEVELL is silent to the resistance of the above resistor. Accordingly, REEVELL does not disclose the resistor has a resistance in a range between 50 to 1000 kΩ.
AMPOLINI teaches a resistor has a resistance in a range between 50 to 1000 kΩ. (Fig. 2, 400/420/440; [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of AMPOLINI into the generic disclosure of REVVELL for the benefit of forming a low voltage signal proportional to the reference voltage ( as taught by AMPOLINI at [0070]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REEVELL US 20230209662 (of record, disclosure supported in 15/264,881, filed on 09/14/2016) in view of US 2013/0319435 (“FLICK”) as applied to claim 1, further in view of BLAKE U.S. Pub. No.: 20030226837 (of record).
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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H. Wilson can be reached 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.
/MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights