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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 28 April 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-18, and 20-23 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claims 20-23 have been added. Claims 2, 13, 19 have been cancelled. Claims 14-15 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 10, 11, 16, and 18 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, pages 6-9, filed 2 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, page 6-8, that Wilson teaches that when the device is in the first mode (beginner mode) the indication is provided after a single puff and not after a plurality of puffs as is required by amended claim 1.
The Examiner acknowledges that the specific example provided by the by the prior art does explicitly disclose the first indication occurring after only a single dose, i.e. two second inhalation. However, Wilson goes on to teach that these parameters- including length, thus number of doses/puffs and type of indication when a threshold have been reached- can be altered by the user. Wilson teaches certain parameters of the beginner mode can be configured by the user on a mobile application. This includes changing the time from a default two seconds to a longer time, e.g. three seconds, before the device notifies the user of the length of a dose. [0057] A person having ordinary skill would reasonably conclude that the user could change feedback settings and set the first indication to change the feedback settings to notify the user only after a pre-selected number of doses/ puffs had been inhaled.
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response to the interview summary. The Examiner applied the broadest reasonable interpretation to the possible function of the safe mode claimed in new claim 23. The Examiner notes this interpretation could change with further amendments and remarks in future filings.
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, 3-12, 17-18 and 20-23 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] The prior art teaches that the device includes monitoring that tracks the number of doses being inhaled. [0055-0056] Wilson teaches that the dose can be measured as the length of pull or intake. [0055] This definition of dose is considered to read on the limitation of a puff.
Wilson teaches certain parameters of the beginner mode can be configured by the user on a mobile application. This includes changing the time from a default two seconds to a longer time, e.g. three seconds, before the device notifies the user of the length of a dose. [0057] A person having ordinary skill would reasonably conclude that the user could change feedback settings and set the first indication to change the feedback settings to notify the user only after a pre-selected number of doses/ puffs had been inhaled.
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. Wilson goes on to teach that in the beginner mode a first indication
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 does 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 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 20, as discussed in claim 1, Wilson discloses that the in the beginner mode the vibrations can continue when the user inhales or puffs longer than the prescribed two seconds. In this situation the devices is configured to keep vibrating every two seconds until the maximum amount to the substances is consumed. Thus, the art teaches a plurality of puffs, but does not teach a specific number of puffs. A person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that any set number of puffs, including 5, 10, 15 or 20, could be the threshold number of puffs.
Regarding claim 21, Wilson teaches the device feedback can have haptic vibrations and/or an LED light in one side of the housing and that is may include light indicators such as a blinking LED or specific color LED. ([0054-0055], [0074])
Regarding claim 22, Wilson teaches an embodiment where in the beginner mode the feedback module is configured to vibrate after the user has finished inhaling vapor (a dose), considered the first threshold. The device then monitors the number of doses inhaled and is configured to stop heating or converting the substance after a threshold number of doses have been dispensed. The art also teaches that the feedback module can provide additional indications before the heater/ converter shutdown. ([0055],[0057]) The shutdown or additional indications would read on the further threshold limitation.
Regarding claim 23, Wilson teaches that when the device is being used in the beginner (first) mode the device is configured to stop heating or converting the substance after a predetermined number of doses have been dispensed within a preset period of time. The prior art teaches that the feedback module can be configured to increase a frequency and intensity of haptic vibrations (or other indications) to warn the user before shutting down. [0056] The prior art also teaches that when the devices is being operated in the expert (second) mode the controls are also configured to stop delivery when the threshold numbers of doses is reached. [0016]
Additionally Wilson teaches that a software application may work with the dosing module and the selection module to control or prevent usage of the device if the number of doses has been reached for the day or within a set time period. [0084] This teaching is considered to read on the limitation of the safety mode being activated irrespective of the device being in the beginner (first) or expert (second) mode.
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 nor 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
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
Prosecution Insights