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
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 03/30/2026.
Claims 1-5 and 8-24 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 13-24 are previously withdrawn.
Claims 6-7 are previously cancelled.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejection of claims 1-5 and 8-24 as being indefinite due to amendments to the claims filed 03/30/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 03/30/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim 1 has been amended to include newly presented limitations directed to detection of a puff event. However, upon further consideration, prior art of record Novak makes obvious that “wherein initiation of a puff event is predicted before the puff is detected when the positive slope changes of the air pressure are larger than the negative changes in air pressure” as claimed. Therefore, the rejection over Novak is maintained.
The following is a modified rejection based on Applicant’s amendments 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 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novak et al. (US 20200154788 A1) in view of Wang (US 20100307518 A1) and Melker et al. (US 20130172759 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Novak teaches an aerosol provision device (aerosol delivery device 100) comprising:
a power source (power source 212; power source 904);
circuitry including (control component 208; [0080]):
a sensor (flow sensor 520, sensor 908) configured to produce measurements of air pressure through at least a portion of the aerosol provision device;
and processing circuitry (processing circuitry 912) configured to determine:
a device baseline rate of change of air pressure from the measurements ([0023], [0154]), and detect a puff event, the puff event defined by a predetermined difference between a rate of change of air pressure from the measurements and the device baseline rate of change of air pressure ([0023], [0154]);
aerosol-generating material (aerosol precursor composition, aerosol precursor composition 410; [0081]);
and an aerosol generator (heating element 220; [0081]) (aerosol production component 914; [0129]) powered by the power source under control of the circuitry to energize the aerosol-generating material to generate an aerosol for delivery to a user ([0138]),
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to buffer a plurality of the measurements of the air pressure ([0166]), determine the device baseline rate of change of air pressure from the plurality of measurements ([0012], [0143]), [0153]), and update the plurality of measurements that are buffered ([0153], [0166]).
Novak does not explicitly teach (I) that the puff event is filtered, prior to determination by the single sensor, using at least one of a first order filter, a second order filter, an RMS filter, a band bass filter, and any combination thereof or (II) that multiple buffers are used.
Regarding (I), Wang, directed to directed to an aerosol provision device (smoking device 10; [0028]) comprising a power source (accumulator 21; [0035]); a sensor (sensor device 24; [0037]) circuitry ([0039]) configured to detect a puff event ([0048]); aerosol-generating material (agent 33; [0028]); and an aerosol generator (heating device 22; [0028]) to generate an aerosol for delivery to a user ([0028]), teaches that a puff event may be filtered prior to determination by the single sensor, using a band bass filter ([0052-0053]). Wang teaches that this filter may be used to eliminate unwanted noise in the puff measurement ([0052-0053]).
Melker, directed to systems for monitoring respiration including airflow (puff) detection ([0011]; [0145]), further teaches using a bandpass filter to remove noise from pressure signals related to a user’s breath ([0145]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Novak by adding a band pass filter prior to the single sensor as taught by Wang and Melker because Novak, Wang and Melker are directed to systems with puff event detection, Wang and Melker teach that a band pass filter may be added to eliminate unwanted noise and more accurately detect a puff, and this involves using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
Regarding (II), mere duplication of parts, such as using multiple buffers, has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(B). It would therefore be no different to use multiple separate buffers for multiple functions than to use one buffer for the same functions.
Regarding the limitation to “wherein initiation of a puff event is predicted before the puff is detected when the positive slope changes of the air pressure are larger than the negative slope changes in air pressure”, the Examiner notes that this is merely a functional limitation. The claim does not explicitly require that the puff event prediction necessarily must be performed. The Examiner further notes that the instant specification requires only that “in some implementations where the positive slope buffer is larger than the negative slope buffer, puff event detection may be more accurately predicted” ([0091], emphasis added), but does not require this step for puff detection. Additionally, the limitation does not require additional structure. Novak teaches that any change in air pressure may be used to detect a puff event ([0023], [0154]). Thus, the device of modified Novak would be expected to meet all required elements of the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Novak teaches that the sensor is a microelectromechanical systems-based (MEMS-based) sensor ([0135]).
Regarding claim 4, Novak teaches that the processing circuitry 912 is configured to determine an average rate of change of the air pressure ([0153-0154]).
Regarding claim 5, Novak teaches that the processing circuitry is configured to determine an instantaneous rate of change of the air pressure ([0154]).
Regarding claim 8, Novak teaches that the processing circuitry is configured to determine an aggregate of the plurality of the measurements of the air pressure ([0153], where average is an aggregate variable).
Regarding claim 9, Novak teaches that the processing circuitry is configured to determine a deviation of the plurality of the measurements of the air pressure ([0011-0012]).
The Examiner notes that while Novak does not explicitly teach that the circuitry calculates the deviation as root mean square, the prior art is considered to have a structure that may inherently perform the claimed function. As the circuitry of the prior art reference is capable of measuring deviation of a data set, then it is also structurally capable of measuring the root mean square of the same data set. Thus, the threshold does not differentiate the claimed device from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
Regarding claim 10, Novak teaches that the predetermined difference comprising a puff event is at least a threshold rate of change, which may be set to any threshold that detects a puff event, including thirteen millimeters of water per second.
The Examiner notes that while Novak does not explicitly cite thirteen millimeters of water per second, the selection of this threshold is merely a manner of operating the structurally-equivalent device. Thus, the threshold does not differentiate the claimed device from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114 (II).
Regarding claim 11, Novak teaches that the aerosol provision device further comprises one or more of a coupler or a receptacle (cartridge 104) structured to engage and hold a consumable (reservoir 218) that includes the aerosol- generating material ([0081]).
Regarding claim 12, Novak teaches that the aerosol-generating material is contained in a reservoir (reservoir 218) integrated with the device ([0081]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novak, Wang and Melker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sur (US 20190082736 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Novak teaches that the sensor is an electromechanical pressure sensor ([0135]).
Novak does not teach that the sensor is multidirectional.
Sur, directed to an aerosol provision device (aerosol delivery device 100; [0036]) comprising a power source (power source 212; [0044]), a circuitry including a pressure sensor (flow sensor 210; [0048]) configured to produce measurements of air pressure through at least a portion of the aerosol provision device and a processing circuitry (control component 208; [0062]), an aerosol-generating material (aerosol precursor composition in reservoir 218; [0038]), and an aerosol generator (heater 222; [0048]), teaches that the sensor 210 may be a multidirectional electromechanical pressure sensor configured to produce the measurements of the air pressure based on pressure on the sensor in different directions ([0065]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Novak by making the sensor multidirectional as taught by Sur because both Novak and Sur are directed to aerosol provision devices with pressure sensors, Novak is silent to a specific direction of a pressure sensor and one with ordinary skill would be motivated to look to prior art for a known and suitable pressure sensor direction, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product 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 Charlotte Davison whose telephone number is (703)756-5484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/C.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1755
/PHILIP Y LOUIE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights