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 .
Election/Restriction Response
Applicant’s election of Species 3 with traverse (claims 1-23) in the reply filed on 02/04/2026 is acknowledged.
In view of Applicant’s arguments on p. 9-10 of the Remarks and upon further consideration that there is not clear distinction between the species 1-3. Specifically, Species 3 includes all the features of species 1 and species 2. The restriction requirement is withdrawn.
The status of the 02/04/2026 claims, is as follows: Claims 1-23 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The (4) information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/01/2023, 02/12/2024, 01/06/2025, and 04/08/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner.
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 18-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 18:
The limitation "the maximum-power phase" in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it has antecedent basis.
For the purpose of substantive examination, it is presumed to read “a maximum-power phase”.
In claim 19:
The limitation "an airflow sensor" in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because there is a previous instance of “airflow sensor” recited in line 5 of claim 12. It is unclear if it is intended to refer to the same “airflow sensor” as in line 5 of claim 12.
For the purpose of substantive examination, it is presumed that it refers to the same “airflow sensor” as in line 5 of claim 12.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang (US 20160143359) in view of Hu (US 20230138171)
Regarding Claim 1, Xiang discloses a power control system (figs. 1-2) for an aerosol-generating device (electronic cigarette), the power control system comprising:
at least one processor (microprocessor 100); and
a memory (memory associated with the microprocessor 100) coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions;
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the power control system (figs. 1-2) to,
determine whether a first power (actual heating voltage to the heating wire) to be applied to a heater of the aerosol-generating device (heating wire) exceeds a power threshold (standard heating voltage) (para. 0026 and 0032; step S3 fig. 4),
in response to the first power exceeding the power threshold (“if the actual heating voltage detected is greater than the standard heating voltage”), apply a second power to the heater (“lowers the actual heating voltage to the heating wire”), the second power not exceeding the power threshold (standard heating voltage) (para. 0026, 0034-0036. It is noted when the actual heating voltage is higher than the standard heating voltage, the actual heating voltage is lowered to be equal to the standard heating voltage), and
in response to the first power not exceeding the power threshold, apply the first power (actual heating voltage) to the heater (para. 0026, 0034-0036) (it is noted when the actual heating voltage is equal to the standard heating voltage, the actual heating voltage is applied to the heating wire).
Xiang does not disclose the first power being based on a desired heater temperature.
However, Hu discloses power to the heater 130 is controlled such that the heater is heated to desired predetermined temperature (para. 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the process of Xiang to provide the first power that is based on the desired heater temperature as taught by Hu, such that the desired temperature is achieved, thereby enhance the user’s experience.
Claims 11-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 20220039480) in view of Nakano (US 20190246703) and Yan (US 20230165314)
Regarding Claim 11, Cho discloses a power control system (controller 160; fig. 4) for an aerosol-generating device (aerosol generating device 100), the power control system comprising:
at least one processor (processor) (para. 0081); and
a memory (memory) coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions (para. 0079-0080);
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the power control system (controller 160) to,
detect a start of a session (para. 0084 and 0078) (it is noted the session is the operation of the heater, either in pre-heating mode or operation mode. The user initiates the heating using the user interface 140),
request a power be applied to a heater of the aerosol- generating device (heater 120) (para. 0083-0084).
Cho does not disclose:
the power control system is configured to start a stage timer, the stage timer configured to measure an elapsed time,
increment a power-exceeded variable by a time interval when the power exceeds a power threshold, the power-exceeded variable corresponding to a total amount of time the power exceeds the power threshold,
monitor the power-exceeded variable against a power- exceeded threshold, and
in response to the power-exceeded variable exceeding the power-exceeded threshold, end the session.
However, Nakano discloses the power control system (controller 130) is configured to start a stage timer (timer), the stage timer configured to measure an elapsed time (para. 0159-0160).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of Cho to start the stage timer as taught by Nakano to determine whether the elapsed time reaches a predetermined time for different phase of heating of the aerosol-generating device i.e. pre-heating mode or operation mode (para. 0084 of Cho).
The modification does not disclose the power control system is configured:
increment a power-exceeded variable by a time interval when the power exceeds a power threshold, the power-exceeded variable corresponding to a total amount of time the power exceeds the power threshold,
monitor the power-exceeded variable against a power- exceeded threshold, and
in response to the power-exceeded variable exceeding the power-exceeded threshold, end the session.
However, Yan discloses the power control system (controller 102) configured to:
request a power be applied to a heater of the aerosol- generating device (real-time voltage value Vr of the heater) (para. 0085-0086, 0090 and also step S31 fig. 7),
increment a power-exceeded variable (smoking duration) by a time interval when the power (real-time voltage Vr) exceeds a power threshold (preset voltage threshold V1) (para. 0089-0090; step S33 and S34 fig. 7), the power-exceeded variable (smoking duration, step S34-S35 fig. 7) corresponding to a total amount of time the power (real-time voltage Vr) exceeds the power threshold (preset voltage threshold V1),
monitor the power-exceeded variable (smoking duration) against a power- exceeded threshold (preset duration threshold) (step S37 fig. 7), and
in response to the power-exceeded variable (smoking duration) exceeding the power-exceeded threshold (preset duration threshold), end the session (the heater 103 is controlled to stop heating, step S39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of Cho to apply power to the heater, increment the power-exceeded variables by the time interval when the power exceeds the power threshold, monitor the power-exceeded variables against the power exceeded threshold, and in response to the power-exceeded variable exceeds the power-exceeded threshold, end the session, as taught by Yan. Doing so would allow the controller to determine when the puff is taken and how many puffs have been taken by the user without the use of flow sensor, which reduces the cost and facilitates product miniaturization (abstract, para. 0004-0005 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 12, the modification discloses the power control system (controller 160 of Cho), wherein the at least one processor (processor of Cho) is configured to execute the instructions to cause the power control system to:
detect when a puff of the aerosol-generating device is being taken (detecting a user’s puff by using the puff detecting sensor of Cho) (para. 0084 and 0075 of Cho),
increment a puff variable (number of puffs of Cho) when an airflow sensor (puff detecting sensor of Cho) detects that a puff has been taken, the puff variable corresponding to a total number of puffs taken during the session (para. 0084-0085 and 0075 of Cho), and
start the stage timer (timer of Nakano) (para. 0159 of Nakano).
The modification does not disclose the power control system is configured to clear the stage timer.
However, Yan discloses the power control system (controller 160; fig. 4) is configured to reset the aerosol generation apparatus using the input device (para. 0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the user interface of Cho to reset the aerosol generation apparatus that also results the timer of Nanako being reset/cleared, in order to reset the aerosol generation apparatus to improve its performance.
Regarding Claim 13, Cho discloses the aerosol- generating device (aerosol generating device 100) is operating in a maximum-power phase (time period during which power is applied to the heater, para. 0083) when the elapsed time does not exceed a preheat time threshold (pre-heating mode) and a puff is not being taken (puff is not taken during pre-heating mode) (para. 0084. It is noted the heater is provided with power during pre-heating mode and the puff is not taken during pre-heating mode).
Regarding Claim 14, Yan discloses the power threshold (preset voltage threshold V1) varies within the session (1.5V-2.5V) (para. 0055).
Regarding Claim 15, Yan discloses the power threshold (preset voltage threshold V1) is maximized within the session (preheating period from t0 to t2) (it is noted the voltage threshold V1 is maximized because it is a value that is pre-defined above zero, para. 0055 and 0090; fig. 6) when a puff is not being taken (puff is not taken during pre-heating from t0 to t2) and the elapsed time does not exceed the preheat time threshold (t2).
Regarding Claim 16, Cho discloses the preheat time threshold varies throughout the session, based on the puff variable (para. 0084. It is noted the preheating ends when puff is detected. Therefore, the pre-heating time period varies based on when puff is detected).
Regarding Claim 17, Cho discloses the preheat time threshold is longer when the puff variable is equal to zero than when the puff variable is greater than zero (para. 0084. It is noted the preheat period is longer when no puff is detected compared to the preheat period when a puff is detected. In other words, when puff is detected, the preheating mode is switched from a pre-heating mode to an operation mode).
Regarding Claim 18, Yan discloses the aerosol- generating device (aerosol generation apparatus 10) is operating in the maximum-power phase (time period during which a voltage is applied to the heater) when the elapsed time (elapsed time during the smoking phase) does not exceed an initial puff time threshold (t3) and a puff is being taken (para. 0046-0049 and 0090; figs. 3 and 6) (it is noted during the smoking phase, the voltage is applied to the heater and puff is being taken during the smoking phase).
Regarding Claim 20, Cho discloses the session (operation of the heater) is started when a control button (user interface 140; fig. 4) is actuated and the aerosol-generating device begins to preheat (para. 0084-0085).
Regarding Claim 21, the modification discloses the at least one processor (processor Cho) is configured to execute the instructions to cause the power control system (controller 160 of Cho) to display a fault indicator (para. 0084-0085 of Cho) when the power-exceeded variable (sum of the smoking duration) exceeds the power-exceeded threshold (preset duration threshold) (para. 0070; fig. 7 step S37-S38 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 22, Yan discloses the power threshold (preset voltage threshold of the heater 103) varies within the session (1.5V-2.5V) (para. 0055).
Regarding Claim 23, Yan discloses the at least one processor (processor 810) is configured to execute the instructions to cause the power control system (controller 102) to not increment the power-exceeded variable (no smoking duration is calculated) when the aerosol-generating device (aerosol generation apparatus 10) is operating in a maximum-power phase (time period during which a voltage is applied to the heater) (para. 0074) (it is noted the detection step is prevented from executed during preheating phase from t0 to t2. In other words, during preheating phase, voltage is applied to the heater to pre-heat, but no detection step is executed which means that no smoking duration is calculated).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Cho (US 20220039480), Nakano (US 20190246703), and Yan (US 20230165314) as applied to claim 12, further in view of Yamada (US 20190335816)
Regarding Claim 19, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above. Cho discloses the puff detecting sensor is configured to detect the user’s puff (para. 0084 and 0075. It is noted the sensor of Cho that is relied upon is the sensor configured to detect pressure change).
The modification does not disclose detecting that a puff is being taken comprises:
detecting, with an airflow sensor, airflow through the aerosol- generating device; and
measuring a length of time of the airflow through the aerosol- generating device,
wherein when the length of time of the airflow through the aerosol- generating device exceeds a puff length threshold, puff is being taken, and
wherein when the length of time of the airflow through the aerosol- generating device does not exceed the puff length threshold, a puff is not being taken.
However, Yamada discloses a flow rate sensor 112 is configured to detect the user’s puff (para. 0222), wherein detecting that a puff is being taken comprises:
detecting, with an airflow sensor (flow rate sensor 112), airflow through the aerosol- generating device (inhaler device 100); and
measuring a length of time of the airflow (duration in which the flow rate is detected) through the aerosol- generating device (para. 0222),
wherein when the length of time of the airflow through the aerosol- generating device (duration in which the flow rate is detected) exceeds a puff length threshold (predefined duration), puff is being taken (puff is started) (para. 0222), and
wherein when the length of time of the airflow through the aerosol- generating device does not exceed the puff length threshold, a puff is not being taken (para. 0222).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the puff detecting sensor of Cho to measure the length of time of the airflow and compare it to the puff length threshold to determine whether the puff is taken or not as taught by Yamada, to apply known technique (i.e. measure the length of time of the airflow and compare it to the puff length threshold) to a known device (i.e. puff detecting sensor of Cho) to yield predictable result, which is to determine whether or not puff is taken by using the puff detecting sensor of Cho.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 would be allowable for disclosing “increment a power-exceeded variable by a time interval when the first power exceeds the power threshold, the power-exceeded variable corresponding to a total amount of time the first power exceeds the power threshold,
monitor the power-exceeded variable against a power-exceeded threshold, and
in response to the power-exceeded variable exceeding the power- exceeded threshold, end the session.”
The prior art Xiang (US 20160143359) teaches when the actual heating voltage detected is greater than the standard heating voltage, the voltage adjusting module 300 lowers the actual heating voltage such that the actual heating voltage is equal to the standard heating voltage. When the actual heating voltage detected is lower than the standard heating voltage, the voltage adjusting module 300 increases the actual heating voltage such that the actual heating voltage is equal to the standard heating voltage (para. 0026 and 0034-0036). Xiang is silent with regards to:
“increment a power-exceeded variable by a time interval when the first power exceeds the power threshold, the power-exceeded variable corresponding to a total amount of time the first power exceeds the power threshold,
monitor the power-exceeded variable against a power-exceeded threshold, and
in response to the power-exceeded variable exceeding the power- exceeded threshold, end the session” as required by claim 2.
There is no teaching, reasonable and/or obvious suggestion, and/or reasonable and/or obvious motivation to combine or modify the teaching of Xiang to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 3-10 would be allowable for their dependency from claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on (571) 270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BONITA KHLOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights