DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 4-19 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claims 10-19 have been withdrawn. Claim 1 has been amended.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 6/18/2026 containing
amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 6/18/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 and 4-9 under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 6/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 1 to include a display and cause the display to provide graphical feedback to the user, while the user is performing usage over the session, based on an estimated difference between the user profile data and the target usage profile which indicates the target usage of the aerosol provision system for the session, whereas previously this was not required. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously applied art and newly found art.
The following is a modified rejection made based on amendments made to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen (US2019/0158938) in view of Barbaric (US2021/0046261).
Regarding claim 1, Bowen discloses:
An aerosol provision system (vaporizer system) configured to generate aerosol from an aerosol generating material for user inhalation ([0025]) the aerosol provision system comprising:
A display (user interface, [0075]); and
A computer (controller 105, [0034]) configured to:
Derive user profile data indicating a user's usage of the aerosol provision system as a function of time, the user profile data indicating an amount of consumption by usage of the aerosol provision system (the current operation of the vaporizer where the parameter of dosage/exposure is compared, [0125])
Obtain data of a target usage profile indicating a target usage of the aerosol provision system as a function of time (Recording of a use profile which may include dosage/exposure, [0125]).
Estimate a difference between a total consumption by usage of the aerosol provision system over a predetermined period of time (the vaporizer may compare the use parameter to the current operation of the vaporizer, wherein the use parameter may be dosage/exposure, [0125]) corresponding to a session, the session being a period of more intense use of the aerosol provision system to generate aerosol which occurs between periods of less intense use of the aerosol provision system to generate aerosol (draw events [0125] and session control [0138]), as indicated by the user profile data (current operation of the vaporizer), and a target usage of the aerosol provision system for the session as indicated by the target usage profile (use profile, [0124]-[0125]).
Adjust one or more operational parameters of the aerosol provision system to at least partially map the user's usage over the session, as indicated by the user profile data, to the target usage of the aerosol provision system for the session (adjust the operational parameter accordingly to match the use profile, [0125]).
Wherein adjusting the one or more operational parameters of the aerosol provision system to at least partially map the user’s usage over the session, as indicated by the user profile data, to the target usage of the aerosol provision system for the session comprises, if the total consumption by usage of the aerosol provision system over the session has reached the target usage of the aerosol provision system for the session, at least one of: (i) adjusting a power supplied to a heater by the aerosol provision system in order to adjust an amount of aerosol generated by the heater or user inhalation; and (ii) stopping the generation of aerosol by the aerosol provision system by preventing a supply of power to a heater by the aerosol provision system (where the heater may be controlled based on the recorded profile [0125]).
Bowen does not appear to explicitly disclose causing the display to provide graphical feedback to the user, while the user is performing usage over the session, based on an estimated difference between the user profile data and the target usage profile which indicates the target usage of the aerosol provision system for the session.
However, Bowen further teaches visual outputs and displaying information ([0151]).
Barbaric, direction to methods and systems for delivering a dose using a vaporizer, teaches:
A display (user interface 666, fig. 6B) to provide graphical feedback to the user (dynamic graphical presentation via the color wheel 667, fig. 6B), while the user is performing usage over the session (near instantaneous usage of the vaporizer 600, [0069]), based on an estimated difference between the user profile data (the strength and duration of the draw [0069], and the dose of one or more constituent substances [0070]) and the target usage profile which indicates the target usage of the aerosol provision system for the session (the strength and/or duration of a draw needed to reach a desired dose of one or more substances, [0069], fig. 6B).
This gives immediate real-time feedback can be used to educate (e.g., coach) a user ([0069]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to cause the display of Bowen to provide graphical feedback to the user, while the user is performing usage over the session, based on an estimated difference between the user profile data and the target usage profile which indicates the target usage of the aerosol provision system for the session as taught by Barbaric, because both Bowen and Barbaric are directed to vaporization systems with displays, Barbaric teaches this gives immediate feedback that can be used to educate a user, and this merely involves applying a known way to display visual information to user to a similar vaporization system to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Bowen discloses:
In which the one or more operational parameters are adjusted to change the amount of an active ingredient delivered per unit volume of air inhaled (dosage, [0125]).
Regarding claim 5, Bowen further teaches:
In which the computer is configured to: at least partially map the user's usage as indicated by the user profile data to the target usage of the aerosol provision system (where the vaporizer may include session control, and where there is a suggested dosage limit per period of time (i.e. target usage) based on user data such as previous vaping consumption (i.e. use profile data), [0138]).
Wherein the mapping distributes the total delivered active ingredient indicated by the target usage profile across the user's usage for the predetermined period of time as indicated by the user profile data (controlling consumption of the vaporizable material for consumption over one session [0138]).
Regarding claim 8, Bowen discloses:
In which the computer is further configured to: receive from a user interface an indication from the user to commence mapping (where the recorded operational profile may be played back later by pressing the icon; the vaporizer may compare the use parameter to the current operation of the vaporizer and may adjust the operational parameter accordingly to match the use profile, [0125]).
Regarding claim 9, Bowen further discloses in which the operations of the computer are located within one or more of:
i. the aerosol provision system (controller 105 located in the vaporizer 100, [0038]).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowen (US2019/0158938) in view of Barbaric (US2021/0046261) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Selby (WO2016/198879, cited previously).
Regarding claim 6, Bowen further teaches:
In which the computer is configured to: at least partially map the user's usage as indicated by the user profile data to the target usage of the aerosol provision system (where the vaporizer may include session control, and where there is a suggested dosage limit per period of time (i.e. target usage) based on user data such as previous vaping consumption (i.e. use profile data), [0138]).
Bowen does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the mapping distributes delivery of an active ingredient within user inhalations responsive to a schedule of inhalations within the target usage of the aerosol provision system.
Selby, directed to a spray delivery device, teaches:
A controller that can determine a proportionality constant K such that the rate of delivery (of the fluid) is tuned to be completed within the expected inhalation event (Pg. 12, first paragraph).
By successively adjusting the K value in this way over inhalation events allows tuning of the delivery to the anticipated inhalation profile for the user. This can all act to refine the delivery profile, such that the dose is delivered in a desired manner during a typical inhalation of a user (Pg. 13, first paragraph).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller of Bowen to tune the rate of delivery of each dose to be completed within the inhalation event, as taught by Selby, and thus the mapping distributing delivery of an active ingredient within user inhalations responsive to a schedule of inhalations within the target usage of the aerosol provision system, because both Bowen and Selby are directed to electronic aerosol delivery systems, Selby teaches this allows the dose to be delivered in a desired manner during a typical inhalation, and this merely involves incorporating a known way to administer a dose (i.e. tuned to an inhalation profiles) to a similar electronic aerosol delivery system to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Bowen further teaches:
In which the computer is configured to: at least partially map the user's usage as indicated by the user profile data to the target usage of the aerosol provision system (where the vaporizer may include session control, and where there is a suggested dosage limit per period of time (i.e. target usage) based on user data such as previous vaping consumption (i.e. use profile data), [0138]).
Bowen does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the mapping distributes delivery of an active ingredient during a respective user inhalation responsive to the difference between an expected inhalation duration indicated by the user profile data and a corresponding target inhalation duration.
Selby, directed to a spray delivery device, teaches:
A controller that can determine a proportionality constant K such that the rate of delivery (of the fluid) is tuned to be completed within the expected inhalation event (Pg. 12, first paragraph). The expected inhalation event defined an expected inhalation duration.
By successively adjusting the K value in this way over inhalation events allows tuning of the delivery to the anticipated inhalation profile for the user. This can all act to refine the delivery profile, such that the dose is delivered in a desired manner during a typical inhalation of a user (Pg. 13, first paragraph).
As Bowen teaches the vaporizer providing a suggested dosage limit per period of time based on user data such as previous vaping consumption, it would be obvious to configure the controller to deliver the entire dose within an expected inhalation, as taught by Selby, based on a difference between the user’s previous vaping consumption (i.e. expected inhalation duration indicated by the user profile data) and the suggested dosage limit per period of time (i.e. corresponding target inhalation duration).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller of Bowen to tune the rate of delivery of each dose to be completed within a respective user inhalation event, as taught by Selby, and thus the mapping distributing delivery of an active ingredient during a respective user inhalation responsive to the difference between an expected inhalation duration indicated by the user profile data and a corresponding target inhalation duration, because both Bowen and Selby are directed to electronic aerosol delivery systems, Selby teaches this allows the dose to be delivered in a desired manner during a typical inhalation, and this merely involves incorporating a known way to administer a dose (i.e. tuned to an inhalation profile) to a similar electronic aerosol delivery system to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicole A Szumigalski whose telephone number is (703)756-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Philip Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights