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 Amendment
Claims 1 and 11 are amended. Claims 4-5, 9, and 15 are cancelled. Claims 12-14 are withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-11 and 16 are presently examined.
Applicant’s arguments regarding an alleged drawings objection have been noted, however, the Office action of 12/19/2025 did not raise any objection to the drawings.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 12/19/2025 is overcome.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 12/19/2025 are overcome.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 12/19/2025 are overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is directed to a device, which is considered to fall within the statutory category of a machine. The claim is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process since it involves steps of collecting, comparing, and analyzing data. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the limitation of supplying either first or third power to a heater, which applicant’s specification teaches is based on the amount of foreign substances adhered to a heater [93]. However, this is not considered to be an improvement in the functioning of the claimed heater since it is merely an instruction to change the intensity at which the heater operates, not an improvement in the efficiency or design of the heater. The claim therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). Finally, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exemption. The claim recites the additional elements of an aerosol generating device comprising a heater configured to heat an aerosol generating article, a sensor configured to generate a sensing signal corresponding to a change in capacitance of an accommodation space into which the aerosol generating article is inserted, and a processor electrically connected to the heater and the sensor.
However, these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. For instance, Sur (US 10,051,891) teaches a control body that is couplable with a cartridge having a heater element that heats an aerosol precursor composition (abstract), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an aerosol generating article. The control body has a control component and a capacitive sensor that delivers data to control functional elements of the device (abstract). Kaufman (US 10,687,553) teaches an apparatus for enabling smokable material to be heated that has a capacitive sensor that detects a change in capacitance when an article of smokable material is associated with a housing of the apparatus in use (abstract). A smokable material article is inserted into a housing (column 4, lines 33-47), indicating that the housing must define an accommodation space. A heater heats the article (column 3, lines 3-5). Frake (US 2022/0125110) teaches an aerosol generating device comprising a power supply, ah eater, a cavity to receive an aerosol generating article, and first and second electrodes that form a capacitor when the article is received within the cavity to measure a capacitance of the article and supply power in different power profiles (abstract). The additional elements therefore constitute insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Regarding claims 2-3, 8, 11 and 16, the claims do not recite any additional features that would affect the subject matter eligibility analysis as set forth with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the claims recite the additional element of an output interface that outputs an output notification. However, this is considered to be insignificant post-solution activity since outputting is not integrated into the claim as a whole since it is not part of the main control method. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the additional element of the capacitive sensor having a metal thin film electrode. However, this feature is well-understood, routine, and conventional. For instance, Cheng (US 9,285,405) teaches a capacitive touch panel having a thin film sensor (abstract) that is made from metal and forms and electrode (column 2, lines 18-31). He (US 10,410,036) teaches a sensor module for on screen sensing (abstract) having a top electrode layer made from metal that functions based on capacitive sensing (column 32, lines 30-63). Rothkopf (US 11,914,141) teaches a capacitive sensor that is made from an inner coating forming a metal layer adjacent to capacitive sensor electrodes in a capacitive sensor (column 11, lines 1-18). The additional element therefore constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 pm.
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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755