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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2025 October 10 has been entered.
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: in the last line, “the operational range” is suggested to be “the predetermined operational temperature range” to clearly point to the same term recited earlier in the claim.
Claim 10: “claim 9 wherein” should be “claim 9, wherein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1: the terms "operational temperature range" and “predetermined activation temperature” are unclear.
The term “operational temperature range”, when taken alone, is subjective and can include meanings such as every temperature at which the device can heat, a temperature range selected by a user, and a length of time during which a first temperature is reached. In constructing the meaning of “operational temperature range” in view of the instant specification, said specification only describes the operational temperature range as “preferably always” encompassing the first temperature [applicant 55], which is self-contradicting between option (“preferably”) and requirement (“always”). The instant specification does not help to define the subjective operational temperature range into a clear term, and one of ordinary skill would not clearly envisage the metes and bounds of “operational temperature range”. The limitations “within an operational temperature range” and “wherein the predetermined activation temperature is below the operational range” are interpreted as omitted to make the claim examinable.
Confusion arises as to the meaning imparted by “activation” in “predetermined activation temperature”. The instant specification does not describe that reaching the predetermined activation temperature yields an observable phenomenon, so one of ordinary skill would not know which temperatures are “activation” temperatures and which temperatures are non-“activation” temperatures. The term “activation” is interpreted as omitted to make the claim examinable.
Claims 2-15 are rejected by dependence on claim 1.
Claim 15: the limitations encompass both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus. See MPEP 2173.05(p): In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The courts have held that a claim reciting a “system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data” is indefinite. Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). The courts have held that a claim reciting an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using the workstand is indefinite. The limitation “wherein said power is supplied to said heating element” is interpreted as “wherein the controller is configured to supply said power to said heating element” to make the claim examinable.
Claim Interpretation
The term “turned on” is interpreted to include the meaning of “activated”, consistent with [applicant 36, 47, 50] disclosing a device “switched on” into a sleep mode and thereafter “turned on” into an active mode
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 9-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Atkins (US 20180042306 A1).
Claim 1: Atkins teaches an aerosol generation device (fig. 8 and [75], #800) comprising:
a heating element (803) arranged for heating an aerosol substrate (820 comprises a substrate);
an energy supply (804) configured to power said heating element (803);
a temperature sensor ([84], temperature sensor) configured to measure a temperature of said heating element (fig. 8 and [75], #803);
a controller (805) configured to control, as soon as said aerosol generation device is turned on ([35], when a puff puts the device into a heating mode), power supplied from said energy supply to the heating element to heat up the heating element to a first temperature (vaporization temperature),
wherein at an activation time ([91], puff), when said aerosol generation device is turned on (when a user puffs), the controller is configured to:
determine whether the temperature of said heating element at the activation time (puff) is lower than a predetermined temperature (threshold temperature), and control power (vaporizing power) to be supplied to said heating element only if the temperature of said heating element is lower than the predetermined temperature (if a heating temperature is below the threshold temperature, then vaporizing power is supplied; if a heating temperature is above the threshold temperature, then vaporizing power is not supplied).
Claim 2: Atkins teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 1, wherein said activation time ([91], puff) is when said aerosol device is turned on upon a user's request (the puff puts the device into a heating mode) in order to start a vaping cycle, and wherein the power (vaporizing power) is prevented from being supplied to said heating element (if a heating temperature is above the threshold temperature, then vaporizing power is not supplied), at said activation time (puff), as long as the temperature of said heating element is above said predetermined temperature (threshold temperature).
Claim 9: Atkins teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 1, further comprising an active user interface ([83], manual interface) for receiving user input to turn said aerosol generation device on (the manual interface is capable of receiving a user toggle intended to activate the device).
Claim 10: Atkins teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 9, wherein said active user interface ([83], manual interface) includes a push button (button).
Claim 11: Atkins teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 1, further comprising a passive user interface ([33], LED display) arranged for providing indication on mode or status of said aerosol generation device (the LED display is electrically communicated with the microcontroller which receives information, so the LED display is capable of receiving and displaying the microcontroller’s information).
Claim 12: Atkins teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 11, wherein said passive user interface ([33], LED display) includes an LED display.
Claim 15: Atkins teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to supply said power to said heating element (fig. 8 and [75], #803) until said heating element (803) reaches said first temperature ([35], vaporization temperature) so that an amount of energy provided to the aerosol substrate remains within a predetermined range (between 0 joules and the maximum battery capacity) irrespective of the temperature of said heating element at the activation time.
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.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins (US 20180042306 A1) as applied to claim 1 in view of Fringeli (WO 2019170886 A1).
Claim 3: Atkins teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 1, wherein said aerosol substrate ([23], vaporizable material) is a solid exemplified as leaves [68].
Atkins does not explicitly teach that the solid is a tobacco stick.
Fringeli teaches a solid aerosol substrate that can be alternatives of leaves (p. 1, lines 15-17) and a tobacco stick (lines 12-13).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to substitute Fringeli’s tobacco stick for Atkins’s exemplified leaves, because doing so would be a simple substitution of solid aerosol substrates between aerosol generation devices and would predictably deliver aerosol to a user.
Claim 13: Atkins teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 1.
Atkins does not explicitly teach a slider configured to cover said heating element in a first position, and to leave space for insertion of said aerosol substrate in a second position, wherein said aerosol generation device can only be turned on when said slider is in said second position.
Fringeli teaches an aerosol generation device (fig. 1) comprising a slider (fig. 3-5, #44) configured to cover a heating element (fig. 1, #22) in a first position (fig. 3), and to leave space for insertion of an aerosol substrate in a second position (fig. 5), wherein the aerosol generation device can only be turned on (p. 26, lines 7-18, power can only be supplied when #42 is in the open position) when the slider (44) is in the second position (fig. 5), such that the heating element is controlled to heat only when the aerosol substrate is received (p. 26, lines 7-18), thereby increasing energy efficiency.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add, to Atkins’s housing, Fringeli’s slider configured to cover said heating element in a first position, and to leave space for insertion of said aerosol substrate in a second position, wherein said aerosol generation device can only be turned on when said slider is in said second position, because doing so would enable the heating element to heat only when an aerosol substrate is received, thereby increasing energy efficiency.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins (US 20180042306 A1) as applied to claim 1 in view of Bellinger (WO 2019148049 A1).
Claim 4: Atkins teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 1, wherein a temperature control scheme of said controller is adjusted so that, at the end of a vaping cycle ([44], when cooldown ends), the temperature of said heating element is at a standby temperature (standby temperature).
Atkins does not explicitly teach that the end temperature is below the predetermined temperature.
Bellinger teaches an aerosol generation cooldown phase ([59], while the heating element cools) that is long enough to yield a vaping cycle end temperature that is the same as a prior vaping cycle start temperature, such that a user can get repeatable flavor between vaping cycles [59].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to extend Atkins’s cooldown phase, as motivated by Bellinger’s long cooldown phase, such that the end temperature is below the predetermined temperature, because doing so would enable a user to get repeatable flavor.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins (US 20180042306 A1) in view of Bellinger (WO 2019148049 A1) as applied to claim 4 in further view of Brooks (US 4947874 A).
Claim 5: modified Atkins teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 4, wherein said vaping cycle includes a final heat-off phase ([44], cooldown during which heating is shut off) during which power is switched off to said heating element for a time period.
Modified Atkins does not explicitly teach that the time period is predetermined.
Brooks teaches a vaping cycle (col. 16, lines 18-24, duty cycle) comprising a final heat-off phase (“off” period) having a predetermined length (between 0.5 seconds and 1 second), such that a heating element can cool between vaping cycles and avoid overheating (lines 18-20).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to specify, in applying Bellinger’s long cooldown phase to Atkins, that the long cooldown phase is predetermined as suggested by Brooks, because doing so is exemplified by Brooks as yielding sufficient cooling to avoiding overheating.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins (US 20180042306 A1) as applied to claim 1 in view of Monsees (US 20130042865 A1).
Claim 6: Atkins teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 1.
Atkins does not explicitly teach that said predetermined temperature is approximately 170°C.
Monsees teaches an aerosol generation device (title) having a predetermined temperature ([72], standby temperature) that is exemplified at 150 °C, which is close to approximately 170 °C,
wherein the predetermined activation temperature is a result-effective variable that balances minimizing standby temperature, in order to conserve energy, against minimizing time to reach the vaporization temperature, in order to create uninterrupted smoking for a user [72].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to routinely optimize Atkins’s predetermined temperature to approximately 170 °C as taught by Monsees, because doing so would optimize minimizing standby temperature, in order to conserve energy, against minimizing time to reach the vaporization temperature, in order to create uninterrupted smoking for a user.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins (US 20180042306 A1) as applied to claim 1 in view of Lord (US 20150237917 A1).
Claim 7: Atkins teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 1.
Atkins does not explicitly teach that, after said activation time, said controller is configured to further delay power supply to said heating element until a predetermined temperature threshold, set below said predetermined temperature, is reached by said heating element.
Lord teaches a control scheme comprising a predetermined temperature ([59], first safe threshold temperature) and a predetermined temperature threshold (second safe threshold temperature), set below the predetermined temperature (first safe threshold temperature), such that the device can only be heated at safe temperatures [59].
Atkins’s one predetermined threshold controls heating, and Lord’s two predetermined thresholds control heating to yield expectation to succeed. Atkins’s control scheme of only increasing power below at least one threshold would function the same with two predetermined thresholds.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to duplicate Atkins’s predetermined temperature into Lord’s predetermined temperature and predetermined temperature threshold, because doing so is exemplified by Lord as facilitating heating only at safe temperatures and would preserve Atkins’s control scheme of only increasing power below at least one threshold.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins (US 20180042306 A1) as applied to claim 1 in view of Farine (WO 2019105879 A1).
Claim 8: Atkins teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 1, wherein, when said aerosol device is turned on ([35], when a puff puts the device into a heating mode), said controller is configured to generate a power supply mode when a temperature below said predetermined temperature ([91], if a heating temperature is below the threshold temperature, then power is supplied) is detected for said heating element.
Atkins does not explicitly teach that the power supply mode is a low power supply mode.
Farine teaches an aerosol generation device (title) having a control scheme starting with a low power supply mode (p. 2, lines 12-20), such that energy efficiency is increased while desired temperature behavior is maintained (lines 12-20).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use, as Atkins’s generic power supply mode, Farine’s low and gradual power supply mode, because doing so would increase energy efficiency while maintaining desired temperature behavior.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkins (US 20180042306 A1) as applied to claim 1 in view of Lin (CN 108143006 A with reference made to machine translation).
Claim 13: Atkins teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 1, comprising an LED display ([33], LED display) configured to providing feedback on state transitions of said aerosol generation device (the LED display is electrically communicated with the microcontroller which receives information, so the LED display is capable of receiving and displaying the microcontroller’s information).
Atkins does not explicitly teach a vibrator configured to provide feedback on state transitions of said aerosol generation device.
Lin teaches an aerosol generation device (fig. 1 and [60]) comprising an LED display (22) and a vibrator (9) configured to provide feedback on state transitions of an aerosol generation device [60].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to add, to Atkins’s passive user interface comprising an LED display, Lin’s vibrator configured to provide feedback on state transitions of an aerosol generation device, because doing so would predictably enable feedback in multiple modes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 2025 October 10 have been carefully considered. Upon further search and consideration necessitated by applicant’s amendments, a new ground of rejection is made for claim 1 over Atkins.
Applicant’s arguments (p. 7-11) against Ding in view of Gill are mooted by the new ground of rejection which does not rely on Ding or Gill.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tobey C. Le whose telephone number is (703)756-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30-18:30 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.
/TOBEY C LE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755