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 08/25/2026, (“Remarks”) were in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 02/25/2026 (“Non-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 Of the pending claims, claim(s) 13–21 is/are currently withdrawn because they encompass other invention(s) not elected by Applicant on 03/06/2025.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
Applicant's arguments regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103 (Remarks p. 2-3) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Fursa fails to disclose “monochromatic” radiation as claimed because Fursa at [0091] discloses that “the radiation emitter is a light-emitting diode (LED) emitting red light at about 670nm + 50nm” which is a range of light wavelengths (Remarks p. 2-3). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Fursa’s disclosure of “red light at about 670nm + 50nm” at [0091] refers to monochromatic radiation, particularly because Fursa discloses at [0015] that “a red LED denotes a LED that emits radiation in a narrow band of wavelengths having green or red as primary color. Such kind of LEDs may also be denoted as monochromatic LEDs.” Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art modifying Gimkiewicz to incorporate Fursa’s teachings would use monochromatic radiation as taught by Fursa.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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