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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/29/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant contends that the Examiner improperly relies on the same structure to disclose both the claimed aerosol generator and the claimed temperature sensor. This argument is not persuasive because independent claim 1 does not require these elements to be structurally distinct. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, a single structure may perform multiple claimed functions. See MPEP § 2111.
As previously explained, Bilat expressly discloses that the resistive heating element may function as a temperature sensor by measuring its electrical resistance to determine temperature (Bilat ¶[0047]). Applicant’s own specification defines a “temperature sensor” as circuitry configured to determine temperature based on current through, voltage across, or resistance of the aerosol generator (Applicant’s Spec. ¶[0088]). Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Bilat’s resistive heating element performing temperature determination through resistance measurement satisfies the claimed temperature sensor limitation.
Applicant further argues that Bilat teaches away from the claimed invention by stating that a dedicated temperature sensor may not be necessary. This argument is unpersuasive. Bilat does not discourage temperature sensing; rather, it teaches that temperature sensing may be accomplished without a separate, dedicated sensor because the resistive heating element itself may be used to determine temperature. The claims do not require a dedicated temperature sensor, and Bilat’s disclosure is fully consistent with the claimed limitations. Therefore, Bilat does not teach away from the claimed invention.
Applicant also argues that it would not have been obvious to modify Bilat with the calibration functionality taught by LaChance due to alleged cost and space concerns. This argument is not supported by evidence. As set forth in the prior Office Action, LaChance teaches performing calibration upon cartridge engagement, including sensing cartridge parameters and establishing baseline values to adjust operation (LaChance ¶[0037]). Bilat already discloses resistance-based monitoring and control of the aerosol generator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate LaChance’s calibration techniques into Bilat to improve the accuracy and reliability of temperature-based control across multiple consumables or cartridges. Such a modification represents the predictable use of known techniques and would have been obvious under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Attorney argument regarding cost or space, without evidentiary support or claim limitations, is insufficient to overcome the rejection.
For at least the foregoing reasons, the cited references, alone or in combination, teach or suggest all limitations of independent claim 1. Claims 1–4 and 6–12 therefore remain unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Bilat in view of LaChance.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/12/2024.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “temperature sensor configured to determine the temperature of the aerosol generator” does not fall under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Even though the wording includes a function (“configured to determine”), the word “sensor” already describes a specific kind of structure that a person skilled in the art would understand, for example, a thermistor, thermocouple, or other electrical component that measures temperature.
Because the term “sensor” itself identifies physical structure, it’s not a vague or “black-box” term like “module,” “mechanism,” or “means.”
In addition, the specification gives concrete examples of how the sensor works (see paragraphs [0088]), explaining that temperature can be determined using current, voltage, or resistance. This shows the claim is supported by an identifiable structure in the disclosure.
Therefore, the limitation is interpreted using its plain meaning (a temperature measuring component) and not as a means-plus-function element under § 112(f).
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilat et al. (US 2021/0195948), and further in view of LaChance et al. (US 2020/0297944).
Regarding claim 1, Bilat teaches an aerosol provision device comprising:
a power source (¶ [0072], element 14);
aerosol-generating material (¶ [0083], cartridge 20 contains aerosol-forming substrate);
an aerosol generator powered by the power source to energize the aerosol-generating material to generate an aerosol (¶ [0016], heater assembly 30 powered by the power source to energize the aerosol-generating material);
and circuitry that controls power to the aerosol generator to energize the aerosol-generating material, including processing circuitry configured to:
determine a temperature of the aerosol generator (¶ [0097], “the electric circuitry 16 is configured to measure the electrical resistance of the heater filaments”);
determine a temperature function of the aerosol generator (¶ [0104], monitoring the first derivative of the resistance with respect to time, dR/dt);
determine if the aerosol-generating material has reached an end of life (EOL) (¶ [0108]–[0110], cease power when dR/dt exceeds a threshold);
and disable the aerosol generator when the material has reached EOL (id.).
However, Bilat does not explicitly disclose that the processing circuitry performs a calibration when the coupler or receptacle is engaged with a consumable, including determining a reference temperature and resistance, and calculating temperature based on those reference values.
LaChance, however, teaches this feature. LaChance discloses a vaporization system including a microcontroller configured to monitor, detect, and record information about a cartridge when installed, and to calibrate the vaporization process (LaChance ¶ [0037], abstract). Specifically, LaChance teaches a system that senses cartridge parameters upon insertion to perform calibration to adjust operation, including setting baseline values for temperature regulation and vaporization behavior.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the recalibration functionality of Bilat to incorporate the reference determination and calibration features of LaChance, thereby improving the accuracy of temperature-based control and resistance tracking across multiple consumables or cartridges.
The combination would have involved the predictable use of known techniques (i.e., calibration upon cartridge engagement) to improve system responsiveness and reliability, and thus would have been obvious under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
With respect to the limitation that the processing circuitry is further causes the aerosol generator to heat the aerosol-generating material and form the aerosol where it is determined that the aerosol-generating material has not reached an EOL, this functionality is disclosed in Bilat. Bilat’s controller executes heating cycles to generate aerosol and ceases power only upon detection of an adverse or EOL condition when dR/dt exceeds a threshold (¶¶ [0108]–[0110]).
Accordingly, when the EOL condition is not detected, the controller continues to energize the heater, thereby heating the aerosol-generating material and forming aerosol which is the normal operating state explicitly discussed in the “saturated with substrate” cycles of ¶¶ [0114]–[0116]. Thus, Bilat necessarily discloses the claimed operation “where it is determined that the aerosol-generating material has not reached EOL.”
Finally, the limitation reciting that the circuitry includes a temperature sensor determines the temperature of the aerosol generator is met by Bilat. Paragraph [0047] of Bilat expressly states that “temperature sensing may be based upon measuring at least the electrical resistance of the resistive heating element. In other words, the resistive heating element may function as a temperature sensor.” Bilat further explains that measuring the electrical resistance of the heating element allows its temperature to be ascertained. This directly corresponding to the claimed “temperature sensor that determines the temperature of the aerosol generator.”
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification (¶ [0088]) defines the temperature sensor in the same manner such as circuitry that determines temperature using current, voltage, or resistance of the aerosol generator. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, Bilat’s resistive heating element performing temperature determination through resistance measurement fully satisfies the claimed temperature sensor.
Regarding claim 2, Bilat teaches wherein the processing circuitry configured to at least:
measure a current through the aerosol generator, and a voltage across the aerosol generator (measure the electrical resistance of the heater filaments [0097]);
determine a resistance of the aerosol generator based on the current and the voltage, the resistance of the aerosol generator being variable and proportional to a temperature of the aerosol generator (because heat is generated in short bursts using high current pulses in such puff actuated system, stainless steel filaments having a relatively high specific heat capacity is ideal [0097]);
and calculate the temperature of the aerosol generator based on the resistance (In order to detect an increase temperature of the heater filaments [0097]).
Regarding claim 3, Bilat teaches wherein the aerosol-generating material is contained in a reservoir integrated with the device (The cartridge 20 contains an aerosol - forming substrate [0083]).
Regarding claim 4, Bilat teaches wherein the aerosol-generating material is contained in a consumable, wherein the device further comprises one or more of a coupler or a receptacle structured to engage and hold the consumable (The cartridge housing 24 that has a size and shape selected to be received into the cavity 18. The housing contains capillary material 27, 28 that is soaked in a liquid aerosol-forming substrate [0089]).
Regarding claim 6, Bilat teaches wherein the aerosol provision device further comprises a switch that is manipulatable by a user to activate the aerosol provision device for a time interval during which the aerosol-generating material is energized by the aerosol generator to generate the aerosol, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the temperature of the aerosol generator during the time interval, and to determine the temperature function based on the time interval (The electric circuitry may be arranged to deactivate the heating element by switching off a switch between the heating element and an electric power supply [0008]).
Regarding claim 7-11, Bilat discloses an aerosol provision device comprising a control circuit configured to monitor operating parameters of the aerosol generator and determine when the aerosol-generating material is depleted or at an end of life (EOL). Specifically:
• Claim 7: Bilat discloses determining EOL based on temperature-related data. See [Bilat, ¶¶ [0097], [0104], and [0108]], which describe control logic that monitors the temperature of the heating element and the aerosol generation characteristics to determine whether the cartridge is spent. Paragraph [0097] describes comparing a temperature function to a threshold value, thus teaching a determination of whether a temperature function exceeds a threshold.
• Claim 8: Bilat discloses that the temperature function includes the rate of temperature change. Paragraph [0104] [0198] expressly states that a rapid rise or drop in temperature over time can be used to identify abnormal conditions, including end of life. This inherently teaches determining whether a rate of change exceeds a threshold.
• Claim 9: Bilat teaches monitoring how long a temperature exceeds a particular level. Paragraphs [0108] and [0111] describe identifying overheating or prolonged temperature excursions to determine when a cartridge is spent, thus meeting the limitation of evaluating a threshold duration for which a temperature exceeds a set value.
• Claim 10: Bilat teaches evaluating complex thermal profiles and derivative data. Paragraph [0112] [0113] implies evaluating second-order changes such as the change in rate of temperature rise or fall, indicating that the control system evaluates whether the change in the rate of change of temperature (i.e., acceleration) exceeds a threshold.
• Claim 11: Bilat further teaches monitoring the number of instances in which a temperature threshold is exceeded within a certain interval to flag cartridge anomalies. See [Bilat, ¶ [0121]], which discloses repeated detection cycles and how trends in thermal data over time indicate cartridge EOL.
Regarding claim 12, Bilat teaches an aerosol provision device as recited in claim 4 (from which claim 12 depends), including a cartridge (a consumable) containing aerosol-generating material structured to be received in a cavity of the device (¶ [0089]), and processing circuitry configured to control energization of the aerosol generator to generate aerosol material from the consumable.
However, Bilat does not explicitly disclose that the processing circuitry is configured to:
• detect when the coupler or the receptacle is disengaged with the consumable, and engaged with a second consumable; and
• enable the aerosol generator to energize the aerosol-generating material of the second consumable when the device is activated.
LaChance, however, teaches such functionality. LaChance describes a system with:
• a microcontroller configured to detect when a cartridge (consumable) is removed and replaced (¶ [0037]), and
• to sense the type of cartridge inserted, as well as record information and adjust the vaporization operation accordingly (abstract; ¶ [0037]).
Specifically, LaChance teaches detecting disengagement and re-engagement of cartridges, and dynamically adjusting operation based on the newly engaged cartridge’s properties, effectively enabling the aerosol generator to function with the second cartridge upon activation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Bilat to include LaChance’s teachings of detecting replacement of a consumable and enabling the aerosol generator based on the newly inserted consumable. Such combination would have yielded predictable benefits in terms of improving system adaptability and reusability, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
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 JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 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, Michael H Wilson can be reached on (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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747