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
Claims 1-12 and 16-19 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claims 17-19 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, pages 6-9, filed 21 November 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, page 6-7, that the second mode of operation does not meet the limitation of the first claim as in the “expert mode” the device vibrates and thus provides an indication to the user.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitation is directed to “monitoring the usage of the device” and requires the first mode to provide feedback when a first threshold is reached and the second mode requires no indication provided to the user. The limitation for the second mode was considered to be that there would be no indication provided for the usage of the device or that a threshold was reached, which is taught by Wilson. Wilson teaches that the device would provide the same vibration at the beginning and throughout the use of the device. While there is indication to the user that the device is operating in the second mode, there is no indication to the user about the usage status of the device. Thus the teaching of Wilson is considered to read on the limitation of monitoring the usage of the device and providing no indication of the usage to the user. The Examiner also notes that Wilson teaches that the feedback settings, specifically noting the continuous vibration feature in expert mode, can be turned off [0057] which would read on no feedback being provided to the user about the mode of operation or indicate a threshold being reached.
Applicant argues, pages 7-8, that since both modes of Wilson require power a person having ordinary skill would not consider Monsees when modifying Wilson.
Wilcon teaches a device with two modes of operation to control dosing of a substance. Wilson teaches that the device has a power source and “any other electronics for controlling operation of the device.”[0044] and discusses a control system that uses PCB’s and can control the heating element and record information about the use of the device. [0046] Wilson further goes on to teach that the control system can comprise “a mode selection module comprising software instructions for detecting a user-selected operating mode of the electronic inhalation device and implementing the selected mode” [0069] where “the mode selection module 410 is configured to receive a signal or other indication of a user-selected mode from the mode selection system 200” [0070] Monsees teaches that the mode selection is done through the positioning (alignment/ misalignment) of the pod contacts with the device contacts.
Monsees is used to modify Wilson to teach the use of an accelerometer to determine the position of the device and the operating mode as a function of position via the accelerometer. Monsees teaches that the accelerometer is used to cycle an aerosol generating device between standby mode and an operational heating mode. The standby mode described by Monsees is not a powered off mode but merely a lower power mode that is used to conserve energy. As such, Monsees teaches that the operational mode and the power consumption of the device can be controlled via the position of the device.
Using the teachings of Monsees to modify Wilson would improve the device of Wilson by simply requiring the user to reposition the device to change the mode of operation. Using an accelerometer to determine the position of the cartridge instead of the user having to reposition the cartridge to change the contact alignment to switch between a beginner (limited mode) and an expert mode (unlimited mode) would allow the device to conserve power and make the use of the device simpler for the user.
Applicant argues, page 8, that none of the prior art teaches the device being rotated 180 degrees and that a modified Wilson only teaches the pod being rotated 180 degrees.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, Wilson teaches that the position of the pod in the device determines the mode of operation of the device. The pod of Wilson is rotated 180 degrees along the longitudinal axis to change the mode of operation. Monsees teaches the use of an accelerometer to determine the position of a device and pod/cartridge and change the mode of operation based not on the pod position but on the device position. Thus the combination of Wilson and Monsees would provide a device and pod that would change mode of operation based on the position of the device and pod being rotated 180 degrees.
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments made 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 (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.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson, et al (US20200305511A1) and further in view of Monsees, et al (US20130042865A1) and in the alternative Henry, et al (US20160158782A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wilson teaches an inhalant dispensing system (aerosol generating device) that is designed to vaporize a substance [0009] and that the device can monitor usage via a processor disposed in the device to control the operating modes. [0015]
Wilson teaches an inhalant dispensing system that has two modes of operation: beginner mode and expert mode. The beginner mode (first mode) is configured to control, monitor, measure, and/or track the dosing of the system. [0008] Wilson teaches that the first mode can trigger a notification, being a haptic vibration or flashing light, (first indication) to indicate that a single dose (first threshold) has been completed. [0013] Wilson teaches that in beginner mode each inhalation and thus dose is tracked and monitored. The vibration or light that a single dose has been completed while in the beginner mode is considered to read on the first indication a first threshold has been reached.
The second mode of operation, expert mode, does not control individual dosing but instead controls the total amount dosed over a time period and that once the total number of doses is reached the system will stop providing power to the heating element.[0010] While in the expert mode of operation the device notifies the user of this mode by constantly vibrating until the total number of doses is reached and the power discontinued thus allowing for open-ended use of the device.[0056]
Wilson teaches that the device housing comprises a mode selector configured to receive user selection of one of the plurality of operating modes and that the mode selector comprises at least one sensor disposed in the receptacle and configured to detect an orientation of the substance delivery component relative to the receptacle, the detected orientation indicating the user-selected mode. [0018] Wilson goes on to teach that the selection of the operating mode can be done via the orientation of the cartridge in the device.
However, Wilson teaches that the positioning that determines the mode of operation would be done through rotating the cartridge in the device to realign the contacts of the cartridge with the housing. [0049]However, Wilson dos not explicitly disclose that the mode selection could be done using positioning of the device.
Monsees, directed to the design of vaporizers, teaches the vaporizer can contain a means of sensing the motion of the device using an accelerometer.[0007] Monsees teaches that the sensor can be used to determine the position of the device to change the mode of operation of the device. [0071]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wilson by using positional motion to control the function of the device modes as taught by Monsees because both Wilson and Monsees are directed to aerosol generating devices, Monsees teaches the use of multiple modes controlled by position can conserve battery power [0071], and this involves the use of known technique of using motion to control operating modes to improve similar devices in the same way.
Alternatively, Henry teaches that the device comprises a microprocessor that uses gesture and associates an operation with the gesture to control a function of the device. (Abstract) Henry teaches that this can be done via gyroscopes and accelerometers to determine the position and motion of the device. [0054]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wilson by using positional motion and gestures to control the function of the device modes as taught by Henry because both Wilson and Henry are directed to aerosol generating devices, Henry teaches the gesture-enabling the aerosol delivery device may enhance the user experience [0047], and this involves the use of known technique of using motion to control operating modes to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed in claim 1, Wilson teaches that the haptic vibration or light indication only occurs in the beginner (first) mode when the system dispenses a single dose (first threshold) while in the beginner mode orientation.
Regarding claim 3 and 4, Wilson as modified by Monsees teaches that the devices can have a standby (second mode) that is time or sensor based. As discussed in claim 1 Monsees teaches “After non-use based on time, movement or lack thereof, position (e.g. vertical), or placement in a charging cradle, or after any combination of any of these, the device is programmed to convert to sleep mode” [0071] Monsees teaches that the device can use both position, sensor, and time to determine when the device will enter the second (standby) mode. The teaching that the device could have a delay based on a time duration and/or sensor activation once placed in a second mode position is considered to read on the limitations of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, Wilson teaches that the feedback module may be configured to increase the frequency of vibrations or the intensity of the vibrations (indications) after dispensing a threshold number of doses to warn the user before shutting off the system. [0055] This increase in frequency or intensity when the number of dispensed doses exceeds a given threshold is considered to read on the second indication.
Regarding claim 6, Wilson teaches that the device will provide a vibration when the inhalation duration has been reached in the beginner mode (second mode). [0055] The inhalation time limit taught by Wilson is considered to read on the second threshold limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Wilson teaches the device can be an intelligent inhalant dispensing system comprising “a “smart” pod or other substance delivery component configured to provide information about the contents stored in the pod, and a “smart” electronic inhalation device configured to obtain information from a smart pod installed therein and facilitate monitoring, measuring, controlling, and/or tracking usage of the pod or device.” and “The smart inhalation device may contain information specific to the user of the device, and may combine this information with the information from the smart pod to make dosing and administration decisions.” [0035]
Wilson teaches a system that is able to identify the aerosol source and use the information from both the source material and the user’s information to determine the dose and administration of the aerosol.
Regarding claim 8, Wilson teaches that the user can set the threshold for number of doses the user can receive before the device shuts off. [0057]
Regarding claim 9, Wilson teaches that the inhalation device comprises a feedback module, aka “indicator system,” that can notify the user of various operating statuses of the device. These indicators include low or depleted contents of the pod, low battery contents, or errors messages related to the cartridge. [0073] These indicators would be relevant to the user regardless of the mode of operation the device is using.
Regarding claim 10, Wilson teaches the inhalation system includes a control system. The control system can record information about any dosage dispensed and the time the dose was dispensed. The stored information can be communicated to a mobile device for the user or others to access. [0046]
Regarding claim 11, Wilson teaches that the user can input to change/ customize settings for the operating modes including the time for dosing and the maximum number of doses allowed before shut-off. [0081] While Wilson does not explicitly state this is only for the first mode of operation, a person having ordinary skill would recognize that the beginner mode taught by Wilson would benefit from this typer of setting.
Regarding claim 12, as discussed in claim 1 a modified Wilson teaches that the orientation of the pod determines the mode of operation of the device. The two orientations occur when the pod is rotated about the longitudinal axis by 180 degrees. [0049]
Regarding claim 17, Wilson teaches the device can have a control system included in the electronic device. The control system can include a feedback module coupled to the mode system. Wilson goes on to teach that the feedback system may include haptic vibrations, sound cues, and/or light indications, such as, e.g., blinking on and off, changing colors, etc. [0054] Wilson discloses a light on one side of the device body. (Fig 2A-2C, annotated figure 1 below) The light disclosed by a modified Wilson of claim 1 is on one side of the two sided device and as such that if the device was in one orientation, considered the first orientation, the light would face up since this orientation provides feedback to the user about the device operation. When in the orientation 180 degrees opposite the first orientation, the light would face down as no feedback is required to be provided to the user.
PNG
media_image1.png
671
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1.
Regarding claim 18, Wilson teaches that the vaping session can be started by depressing a button on the device [0043] and that the device can have an exterior light indicator, LED or colored LED ([0055], [0058], [0074]).
Regarding claim 19, as discussed in claim 1, Wilson teaches that the aerosol generating device that in a beginner mode is configured to control, monitor, measure, and/or track dosing for more inexperienced users [0008] [0036]]. Wilson goes on to teach that the aerosol generating device can be comprised of an “intelligent” system having a “smart pod” or “smart cartridge” that the data available for interpretation and can comprise a memory component. The inhalation device is configured to receive or interpret data provided by the smart pod, store information about the user, and use both for controlling, monitoring, and/or tracking usage of the device. [0036] Wilson also teaches that the user may also use the mobile application to track intake and usage history and apply this information to control certain feedback settings. [0057] The system allows for a device and pod/cartridge that is capable of communicating with the inhalation device for tracking, monitoring, dosing, and/or controlling purposes. ([0060], [0064]) The art teaches that this information would be collected regardless of the mode of operation.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson, et al (US20200305511A1) and Monsees, et al (US20130042865A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Amorde, et al (US20190380388A1).
Regarding claim 16, neither Wilson or Monsees teach that a change in the first threshold would cause the device to reset the number of puffs to zero.
Amorde, directed to the design of vaporizers, teaches that the input and/or user selections can act as control signals for the controller to perform a corresponding function which includes resetting. [0056] ; [0068]
Amorde teaches that an input and/or user selection can be a control signal for the controller to perform a corresponding function. This corresponding function can be a change in dose or a device reset. [0056]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wilson and Monsees by having the dose count reset as taught by Amorde because Wilson, Monsees and Amorde are directed to aerosol generating devices, Amorde teaches this allows the user to reset session controls [0085], and this involves the use of known technique of using motion to control operating modes to improve similar devices in the same way.
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 VIRGINIA R BIEGER whose telephone number is (703)756-1014. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7:30-4:30.
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, Phillip 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.
/V.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755