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 arguments, filed on 11/13/2025, (“Remarks”) were in response to the Final Rejection mailed on 11/13/2025 (“Final Rejection”).
Claim(s) 1–21 is/are pending. Of the pending claims, claim(s) 13–21 is/are currently withdrawn because they encompass other invention(s) not elected by Applicant on 03/06/2025.
Therefore, claim(s) 1–12 is/are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Prior Art Rejections
Claim(s) 1, 5–6, 8–9, and 11–12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIMKIEWICZ WO 2017029089 (published 02/23/2017) (of record) (“GIMKIEWICZ”) in view of GOCH WO 2021205008 (“GOCH”) (with reference made to the attached machine translation).
Applicant’s Remarks, id. at 2, were fully considered. Applicant argues:
As an initial matter, the Office Action admits, and Applicants agree that Gimkiewicz does not disclose monochromatic radiation, as recited in independent claim 1. The Examiner also cites Goch in connection with Gimkiewicz. However, the Examiner does not mention Goch as disclosing any feature related to claim 1, let alone monochromatic radiation. Thus, the Office Action fails on its face to establish a prima facie showing of obviousness.
This appears to be an oversight and that the Examiner intended to cite Goch in connection with claim 1.
Remarks at 2. Examiner acknowledges that the Final Rejection failed to cite any portion of Goch in the rejection of independent claim 1, see Final Rejection at 5, and, accordingly, agrees that the Final Rejection could not establish a prima facie case of obviousness without any additional evidence being cited because Gimkiewicz is silent to the use of wherein the electronic radiation is monochromatic. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant continues:
However, Goch is not prior art.
In this regarrd, Applicants respectfully submit that Goch does not qualify as prior art under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) or 35 USC § 102(a)(2). With regard to 102(a)(1), Goch has a publication date of October 14, 2021. This date does not precede Applicants' priority date of February 18, 2020, as indicated by the certified copy of the foreign priority application in the image file wrapper for the present application. With regard to 102(a)(2), Goch has an effective filing date of April 9, 2020, which again, does not precede Applicants' effective filing date of February 18, 2020. Accordingly, Goch is disqualified as prior art.
Claims 2-12 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 1 and thus include all the recitations of their respective independent claims. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 are patentable for at least those reasons given above for independent claim 1.
Remarks at 2. Examiner agrees. Accordingly, Goch is not applied in this second Non-Final Rejection. As demonstrated in the rejection below, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the generic disclosure Gimkiewicz and arrive at wherein the electronic radiation is monochromatic in view of the teachings of FURSA US 20220240591 (made of record as pertinent prior art cited in the Final Rejection) with support back to 06/14/2019 via EP Application Number: 19405008.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5–6, 8–9, and 11–12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIMKIEWICZ WO 2017029089 (published 02/23/2017) (of record) (“GIMKIEWICZ”) in view of FURSA US 20220240591 (of record) (“FURSA”) with support back to 06/14/2019 via EP Application Number: 19405008.
As to claim 1, GIMKIEWICZ discloses an aerosol provision device (100) comprising:
a receptacle (Fig. 4a, 15) configured to receive an article (12) comprising an aerosolizable medium (Page 9, Lines 33–36);
an emitter (42) configured to emit electromagnetic radiation into the receptacle (Page 10, Lines 15–20);
a receiver (44, Figs. 3–4a) configured to receive the electromagnetic radiation after the electromagnetic radiation interacts with the article in the receptacle (Page 10, Lines: 15–20); and
control electronics (18) configured to determine at least one characteristic of the article based on a property of the electromagnetic radiation received by the receiver (Page 9, Lines: 29–32).
GIMKIEWICZ is silent to the use of wherein the electronic radiation is monochromatic.
FURSA teaches wherein the electronic radiation is monochromatic. Id. at [0091]’s (explaining “the radiation emitter 71 is a light-emitting diode (LED) emitting red light at about 670 nm±50 nm.”), see also EP Application Number 19405008 at 20 ll. 31–32 (providing support for the same back to 06/19/2019).
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 FURSA’s monochromatic electronic radiation unit into the generic disclosure of GIMKIEWICZ for the benefit of supplying appropriate light to detect a specific state within the receptacle (as taught by FURSA at [0088–89]).
As to claim 5, modified GIMKIEWICZ makes obvious the aerosol provision device according to claim 1.
GIMKIEWICZ further discloses wherein the property is an intensity distribution of the electromagnetic radiation (Page 11, Line 18 through Page 12, Line 11; Here the intensity distribution will correspond to the image observed with the darker regions of the image, e.g., lines of the barcode, resulting a less intense amount of electromagnetic radiation being sensed and relied upon in the determination step than the brighter areas of the image).
As to claim 6, modified GIMKIEWICZ makes obvious the aerosol provision device according to claim 5.
GIMKIEWICZ further discloses wherein the receiver comprises an image sensor (Page 11, Lines 2–8), and wherein the control electronics are configured to determine, based on the received electromagnetic radiation at the image sensor, the intensity distribution (Page 11, Line 18 through Page 12, Line 11; see explanation in rejection of claim 5).
As to claim 8, modified GIMKIEWICZ makes obvious the aerosol provision device according to claim 1.
GIMKIEWICZ further discloses wherein the property is a polarization state of the electromagnetic radiation (Page 11, Line 18 through Page 12, Line 11; the image detected and used for determination will include a polarization state).
As to claim 9, modified GIMKIEWICZ makes obvious the aerosol provision device according to claim 8.
GIMKIEWICZ further discloses wherein the receiver comprises a sensor (Page 11, Lines 2–5), and wherein the control electronics are configured to determine, based on the received electromagnetic radiation, the polarization state (Page 11, Line 18 through Page 12, Line 11; the image detected and used for determination will include a polarization state. This arrives at wherein the control electronics are configured to determine, based on the received electromagnetic radiation, the polarization state.)
As to claim 11, modified GIMKIEWICZ makes obvious the aerosol provision device according to claim 1.
GIMKIEWICZ further discloses further comprising a heating assembly (14; Page 10, Lines 25–32), wherein the control electronics are configured to operate the heating assembly based on the determined at least one characteristic of the article (Page 12, Lines 1–7).
As to claim 12, modified GIMKIEWICZ makes obvious the aerosol provision device according to claim 1.
GIMKIEWICZ further discloses further comprising an alignment feature (Fig. 2, 14, 24; Page 9, 33 through Page 10, Line 7) to ensure that the article is received within the receptacle at a predetermined orientation relative to the emitter. (Fig. 2, 14, 24; Page 9, 33 through Page 10, Line 7).
Claim(s) 2–4, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GIMKIEWICZ WO 2017029089 (published 02/23/2017) (of record) (“GIMKIEWICZ”) and FURSA US 20220240591 (of record) (“FURSA”) with support back to 06/14/2019 via EP Application Number: 19405008. as applied in the rejections above, and in further view of MATTEO KR 20220119021 (“MATTEO”) (with reference made to the attached machine translation).
As to claim 2, modified GIMKIEWICZ makes obvious the aerosol provision device according to claim 1.
GIMKIEWICZ and FURSA fail to disclose wherein the property is an angle at which the electromagnetic radiation is received by the receiver.
MATTEO teaches wherein the property is an angle at which the electromagnetic radiation is received by the receiver (please see reproduction below):
PNG
media_image1.png
557
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
338
915
media_image2.png
Greyscale
MATTEO at 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the above teachings of MATTEO into the disclosure of modified GIMKIEWICZ for the benefit of sensing distinct indicia along the surface of an aerosolizable medium (as taught by MATTEO at 10).
As to claim 3, modified GIMKIEWICZ makes obvious the aerosol provision device according to claim 2.
GIMKIEWICZ teaches a receiver (44) comprises an image sensor (page 10, ll. 19–20).
GIMKIEWICZ and FURSA fail to disclose wherein the control electronics are configured to determine, based on the received electromagnetic radiation at the image sensor, the angle at which the electromagnetic radiation is received
MATTEO teaches wherein the receiver comprises an image sensor (Fig. 10, 30’s 30a–30d), and wherein the control electronics are configured to determine, based on the received electromagnetic radiation at the image sensor, the angle at which the electromagnetic radiation is received (MATTEO at 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the above teachings of MATTEO into the disclosure of modified GIMKIEWICZ for the benefit into the disclosure of modified GIMKIEWICZ for the benefit of sensing distinct indicia along the surface of an aerosolizable medium (as taught by MATTEO at 10).
The obvious combination above arrives at control electronics are configured to determine, based on the received electromagnetic radiation at the image sensor, the angle at which the electromagnetic radiation is received (see each angle of reflected light in Fig. 10).
As to claim 4, modified GIMKIEWICZ makes obvious the aerosol provision device according to claim 2.
GIMKIEWICZ and FURSA fail to disclose wherein the receiver comprises a plurality of image sensors, and wherein the control electronics are configured to determine, based on which of the plurality of image sensors receives the electromagnetic radiation, the angle at which the electromagnetic radiation is received.
MATTEO teaches wherein the receiver comprises a plurality of image sensors (30a–30d), and wherein the control electronics are configured to determine, based on which of the plurality of image sensors receives the electromagnetic radiation, the angle at which the electromagnetic radiation is received (MATTEO at 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the above teachings of MATTEO into the disclosure of modified GIMKIEWICZ for the benefit into the disclosure of modified GIMKIEWICZ for the benefit of sensing distinct indicia along the surface of an aerosolizable medium (as taught by MATTEO at 10).
The obvious combination above arrives at the receiver comprises a plurality of image sensors, and wherein the control electronics are configured to determine, based on which of the plurality of image sensors receives the electromagnetic radiation, the angle at which the electromagnetic radiation is received. This is consistent with Applicant’s Fig. 11. Please see reproduction below:
As to claim 7, modified GIMKIEWICZ makes obvious the aerosol provision device according to claim 5.
GIMKIEWICZ teaches wherein the property is an intensity distribution of the electromagnetic radiation (Page 11, Line 18 through Page 12, Line 11; Here the intensity distribution will correspond to the image observed with the darker regions of the image, e.g., lines of the barcode, resulting a less intense amount of electromagnetic radiation being sensed and relied upon in the determination step than the brighter areas of the image) and the control electronics (18) are configured to determine, based on an intensity of the electromagnetic radiation received by image sensor, the intensity distribution (Page 9, Lines: 29–32).
GIMKIEWICZ and FURSA fail to disclose wherein the receiver comprises a plurality of image sensors and accordingly cannot arrive at wherein the control electronics are configured to determine, based on an intensity of the electromagnetic radiation received by each of the plurality of image sensors, the intensity distribution.
MATTEO teaches wherein the receiver comprises a plurality of image sensors (Fig. 10, 30’s 30a–30d; Page 10), which are consistent with Applicant’s disclosure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the above teachings of MATTEO into the disclosure of modified GIMKIEWICZ for the benefit of sensing distinct indicia along the surface of an aerosolizable medium (as taught by MATTEO at 10).
The obvious combination above arrives at wherein the receiver comprises a plurality of image sensors (from MATTEO), and wherein the control electronics (from GIMKIEWICZ) are configured to determine, based on an intensity of the electromagnetic radiation received by each of the plurality of image sensors, the intensity distribution (as disclosed by GIMKIEWICZ at Page 9, Lines: 29–32).
As to claim 10, modified GIMKIEWICZ makes obvious the aerosol provision device according to claim 8.
GIMKIEWICZ and FURSA fail to disclose wherein the receiver comprises a plurality of sensors each configured to receive electromagnetic radiation of a particular polarization state, and wherein the control electronics are configured to determine, based on an intensity of the electromagnetic radiation received by each of the plurality of sensors, the polarization state.
MATTEO teaches
PNG
media_image3.png
267
363
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the receiver comprises a plurality of sensors (Fig. 2, 30 and 32; Page 8), each configured to receive electromagnetic radiation of a particular polarization state (see underlined portion on Page 8), and wherein the control electronics are configured to determine, based on an intensity of the electromagnetic radiation received by each of the plurality of sensors, the polarization state (see underlined portion on Page 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the above teachings of MATTEO into the disclosure of modified GIMKIEWICZ for the benefit into the disclosure of modified GIMKIEWICZ for the benefit of sensing distinct indicia along the surface of an aerosolizable medium (as taught by MATTEO at 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the above teachings of MATTEO into the disclosure of modified GIMKIEWICZ for the benefit of sensing distinct indicia along the surface of an aerosolizable medium that makes the identification of the coded indicate more difficult to recognize and replicate (as taught by MATTEO at 8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220015438 (of record) discloses a system using consumables filled with a liquid composition ([0001]) that implement a monochromatic light source with a sensor ([0032–35]).
US 20140053856 (of record) discloses an e-cig that utilizes multiple monochromatic LEDs as an indicator for a use [0029].
US 20210015162 (of record) discloses “a comparison at block 346 may compare one or more of signal strength, signal polarization, signal frequency, signal wavelength, and signal direction of the determined alteration to signal strength, signal polarization, signal frequency, signal wavelength, and signal direction of the plurality of predetermined alterations.” ([0061])
US 20220225675 (of record) reflected light is used to determine the position of housing closure ([0142]).
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