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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/16/2025 (“Amendment”) has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 8, 10, and 22 and supporting remarks have been entered. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 8 and 10 under 35 USC 112 and the claim rejections under 35 USC 102-103 are withdrawn. However, new claim rejections under 35 USC 103 are set forth below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 102-103 (Amendment p. 12) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (WO 2021/140112 A1, previously cited) in view of Choi (US 2021/0378314 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bell discloses an electronic aerosol provision system (Title) (which reads on a “capsule monitoring system for an aerosol-generating device”):
The system includes control circuitry 20 which may include a processor (“processor”) (p. 10 l. 9-16).
The control circuitry 20 is configured to store values (and thus includes a “memory”) (p. 13 l. 21-25).
The control circuitry 20 may be integrated with detection circuitry 22 (p. 11 l. 1-3). The detection circuitry 22 includes a sensing element 22a for sensing electrical resistance between electrical contacts 2a coupled to a heater 48, and a processing element 22b for determining whether a cartridge 4 is engaged and/or disengaged based on a change in the resistance, such as whether the resistance drops below a threshold range (which reads on “apply a first power…determine a first resistance…determine whether the first resistance is within a resistance operation range of the heater”) (p. 12 l. 13-p. 13 l. 20).
Bell discloses a method of operating the device wherein the system 1 is first placed in sleep mode, then dis/engaged with the cartridge 4, then switched to active mode (p. 19 l. 30-p. 21 l. 23, Fig. 7). In step S6, after detecting an engagement, an indication is provided to the user that the system 1 is now in an active mode (p. 21 l. 27-35, Fig. 7) (which reads on “display a capsule accepted indicator in response…”).
The method includes steps S7-9 wherein the device in active mode is switched to sleep mode when a disengagement of the cartridge 4 has been detected (p. 30 l. 4-35, Fig. 8) (which reads on “prevent preheating of the aerosol-generating device in response to the first resistance not being within the resistance operation range of the heater”. Although Bell is silent on preheating, the sleep mode prevents any heating and thus reads on the claim).
However, as shown by the flow chart in Fig. 7, Bell discloses a single step S2 wherein the resistance determination is used as the cartridge engagement detection, and thus Bell fails to disclose two separate steps as claimed. More specifically, Bell discloses “apply a first power” as set forth above, but fails to disclose “detect actuation of a mechanism detection switch…”, and fails to disclose applying the first power “in response to detecting…” as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
822
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
536
336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Choi is directed to an electronic vaping apparatus and cartridge therefor (Title). The apparatus includes a controller for supplying power corresponding to the type of vaporizable substance identified in the cartridge (Abstract). First, the controller 250 detects a closed electrical circuit between a cartridge heater 406 and an electrical power supply 206 via pins 256, 258 [0077] (which reads on “detect actuation of a mechanism detection switch”). Then, the controller 250 determines the electrical resistance of the heater 406 [0077] (which reads on “in response to detecting…apply a first power…determine a first resistance…”). The resistance is compared to a threshold value or range; the controller 250 determines the type of vaporizable substance and supplies power accordingly (Abstract, [0077]).
Choi’s apparatus advantageously allows a user to easily vaporize multiple substances without manually reconfiguring the apparatus [0086], and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Choi’s determination of cartridge identity facilitates this advantage. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply Choi’s determination of cartridge identity to Bell in order to easily allow a user to vaporize multiple substances without manually reconfiguring the apparatus each time.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bell by configuring Bell’s control circuitry 20, sensing element 22a, and processing element 22b, starting at Bell’s step S2, to first detect a closed circuit between Bell’s electrical contacts 2a and heater 48, to then determine the electrical resistance of the heater 48, and to determine the vaporizable substance within the cartridge 4 as taught by Choi (and still performing the other steps S211b, S211a, etc. disclosed in Bell’s Fig. 7), because both Bell and Choi are directed to electronic vaporization devices and cartridges, Choi teaches that this allows a user to vaporize multiple substances without manually reconfiguring the apparatus, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Alternatively, claim 1 is rejected under Bell in view of Choi and Fei as set forth below in the discussion of claims 19-20.
Regarding claim 2, Bell’s method includes a step S21 of determining if a predetermined total switching time has elapsed, wherein the control circuitry 20 starts a timer once the cartridge 4 has been detected (p. 23 l. 11-20) (which reads on “start a capsule monitor timer configured to measure a capsule monitor time”). If the predetermined total switching time has elapsed (i.e., YES in step S21), the method proceeds to step S1 to start over and wait for the first dis/engagement of the next sequence (p. 23 l. 21-26, p. 24 l. 5-25) (which reads on “reset the capsule monitor timer in response to actuation of the mechanism detection switch”).
Claims 3-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (WO 2021/140112 A1) in view of Choi (US 2021/0378314 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Fleischhauer (EP 0973419, previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, Bell discloses that control circuitry 20 supplies power to the heater 48, and the amount of power can be changed, for example through pulse width and/or frequency modulation techniques (p. 8 l. 20-25). However, modified Bell fails to disclose “increase the first power until the first power exceeds a first power threshold” as claimed.
Fleischhauer discloses a controller in an electrical smoking system and method (Abstract). The method includes configuring a power cycle and dividing it into at least first and second phases, so that a total energy input is achieved in each cycle (Abstract) (which reads on “increase the first power until the first power exceeds a first power threshold”). This allows a thermal pathway to be established and then repeated precisely throughout a battery discharge cycle ([0008] l. 52-53).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Bell by configuring Bell’s control circuitry 20 to supply power in cycles having a total energy input, because both Bell and Fleischhauer are directed to electronic aerosol systems with controllers, Fleischhauer teaches that this establishes and precisely repeats a thermal pathway, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 4, Bell discloses steps S7-9 in its operation method, wherein the device in active mode is switched to sleep mode when a predetermined time has not elapsed but a disengagement of the cartridge 4 has been detected (p. 30 l. 4-35, Fig. 8) (which reads on “monitor the capsule monitor time relative to a time threshold” and “cease applying the first power to the first contact point of the aerosol-generating device in response to the first resistance not being within the resistance range of the aerosol-generating device”). Bell discloses that the detection circuitry 22 monitors electrical resistance and detects changes in the resistance value, which is used to detect when the cartridge 4 is dis/engaged (p. 13 l. 3-20). When resistance exceeds a threshold value, the processing element 22b determines the cartridge 4 is disconnected (p. 13 l. 3-20) (which reads on “determine whether the first resistance is within a resistance range of the aerosol-generating device in response to the first power not exceeding the first power threshold and the capsule monitor time not exceeding the time threshold”). Bell discloses that the detection circuitry 22 may continuously monitor a parameter (i.e., resistance) indicative of the engagement state of the cartridge 4 (p. 20 l. 20), and thus the resistance determination could be made at any point in time during operation (such as “in response to the first power not exceeding the first power threshold and the capsule monitor time not exceeding the time threshold” as claimed). However, Bell fails to explicitly disclose “monitor the first power relative to the first power threshold” as claimed.
Fleischhauer discloses a power cycle divided it into at least first and second phases, so that a total energy input is achieved in each cycle, as set forth above. A logic circuit 195 dynamically monitors the battery voltage during each pulse and compensates to maintain the target total power ([0077]) (which reads on “monitor the first power relative to the first power threshold”).
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 Bell’s control circuitry 20 to monitor the power being supplied relative to the total target power as taught by Fleischhauer, for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Bell discloses step S6 wherein, after engagement of the cartridge 4, the control circuitry 20 signals an indicator 14 to display that the system 1 is now in the active mode (p. 21 l. 27-35). It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to similarly configure the control circuitry 20 to signal the indicator 14 to display a fault message upon detecting a disengagement of the cartridge 4 during heating (which reads on “display a fault indicator”), because this is a simple design choice in view of Bell’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Bell discloses the capsule monitoring system of claim 3 as set forth above. Bell discloses a method of operating the device with steps S1-S5 wherein the system 1 is first placed in sleep mode, then an engagement of the cartridge 4 is detected (i.e., by measuring resistance as set forth above), and so the system 1 is switched to an active mode wherein the user can activate the heater 48 (p. 19 l. 30-p.21 l. 23). Bell discloses steps S7-S9 as set forth above with regard to claim 4. In steps S8 and S9, if the predetermined time has not elapsed, and the cartridge 4 remains engaged, the device would remain in active mode (p. 30 l. 9-36) (which reads on “monitor the capsule monitor time relative to a time threshold” and “determine whether the first resistance is within a resistance range of the aerosol-generating device in response to…the capsule monitor time not exceeding the time threshold, and increase the first power applied to the first contact point of the aerosol-generating device in response to the first resistance being within the resistance range of the aerosol-generating device”). Bell fails to explicitly disclose “monitor the first power relative to the first power threshold” and determining the resistance “in response to the first power not exceeding the first power threshold” as claimed.
Fleischhauer discloses a power cycle divided it into at least first and second phases, so that a total energy input is achieved in each cycle, as set forth above with regard to claim 3. A logic circuit 195 dynamically monitors the battery voltage during each pulse and compensates to maintain the target total power ([0077]) (which reads on “monitor the first power relative to the first power threshold”).
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 Bell’s control circuitry 20 to monitor the power being supplied relative to the total target power and to continue supplying power when the total target power has not yet been reached (i.e., in response to the first power not exceeding the first power threshold) as taught by Fleischhauer, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, modified Bell discloses the capsule monitoring system of claim 3 as set forth above. Bell fails to explicitly disclose “monitor the first power relative to the first power threshold, monitor the capsule monitor time relative to a time threshold, and cease applying the first power to the first contact point of the aerosol-generating device in response to the first power not exceeding the first power threshold and the capsule monitor time exceeding the time threshold” as claimed.
Flesichhauer discloses a logic circuit 195 for dividing a power cycle into at least first and second phases, so that a total energy input is achieved in each cycle, as set forth above ([0077]) (which reads on “monitor the first power relative to the first power threshold”). Each phase has a predetermined time period ([0045]) (which reads on “monitor the capsule monitor time relative to a time threshold”). After the time period of the second phase has elapsed, a timing network 197 provides a shut-off signal to the logic circuit 195 ([0045]) (which reads on “cease applying the first power to the first contact point of the aerosol-generating device in response to the first power not exceeding the first power threshold and the capsule monitor time exceeding the time threshold”).
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 Bell’s control circuitry 20 to monitor the power being supplied relative to the total target power, and to stop supplying power after the time period has elapsed, as taught by Fleischhauer, for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, Bell discloses steps S7-S9 as set forth above, wherein the device 2 is switched to sleep mode after a long period of inactivity (which reads on “determine whether a capsule has been inserted into the aerosol-generating device based on the capsule monitory time and the time threshold, and return the aerosol-generating device to performing one or more operations that were being performed by the aerosol-generating device prior to detection of the actuation of the mechanism detection switch, in response to a determination that the capsule has not been inserted into the aerosol-generating device, the determination being based on the capsule monitor time exceeding the time threshold”).
Regarding claim 9, Bell discloses the detection circuitry 22 configured to detect changes in resistance between the electrical contacts 2a (p. 13 l. 3-20). In the absence of a cartridge 4, the resistance approaches infinity (i.e., a “maximum heater resistance”). The detection circuitry 22 may monitor and detect a drop in the resistance below a threshold value in order to determine that the cartridge 4 is not detected. Such a determination may be made when the resistance value drops below a threshold range of resistances (which reads on “monitor the first resistance relative to a maximum heater resistance in response to the first resistance not being within the resistance operation range of the heater”). As set forth above with regard to claim 5, Bell discloses step S6 wherein, after engagement of the cartridge 4, the control circuitry 20 signals an indicator 14 to display that the system 1 is now in the active mode (p. 21 l. 27-35). It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to similarly configure the control circuitry 20 to signal the indicator 14 to display a fault message upon detecting a disengagement of the cartridge 4 during heating (which reads on “display a fault indicator”), because this is a mere design choice in view of Bell’s disclosure.
Bell fails to explicitly disclose “monitor the first power relative to the first power threshold”.
Flesichhauer discloses a logic circuit 195 for dividing a power cycle into at least first and second phases, so that a total energy input is achieved in each cycle, as set forth above ([0077]) (which reads on “monitor the first power relative to the first power threshold”).
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 Bell’s control circuitry 20 to monitor the power being supplied relative to the total target power as taught by Fleischhauer, for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to claim 3.
Regarding claim 10, Bell discloses the detection circuitry 22 configured to detect changes in resistance between the electrical contacts 2a (p. 13 l. 3-20). In the absence of a cartridge 4, the resistance approaches infinity (i.e., a “maximum heater resistance”). The detection circuitry 22 may monitor and detect a rise in the resistance above the threshold value in order to determine that the cartridge 4 is disconnected (p. 13 l. 3-20) (which reads on “monitor the first resistance relative to a maximum heater resistance in response to the first resistance not being within the resistance operation range of the heater”). As set forth above, Bell discloses that the detection circuitry 22 may continuously monitor a parameter (i.e., resistance) indicative of the engagement state of the cartridge 4 (p. 20 l. 20), and thus the resistance determination could be made at any point in time during operation (for example, after the first phase of Fleischhauer’s power cycle). Bell further discloses a step S9 wherein a single disengagement of the cartridge 4 can cause the device 2 to enter sleep mode (p. 30 l. 20-35) (which reads on “determine whether a capsule has been inserted into the aerosol-generating device based on the first resistance and the maximum heater resistance, and return the aerosol-generating device to normal operation in response to a determination that the capsule has not been inserted into the aerosol-generating device, the determination being based on the first resistance exceeding the maximum heater resistance”). Bell fails to explicitly disclose “monitor the first power relative to the first power threshold” and monitoring the first resistance “in response to…the first power exceeding the first power threshold” as claimed.
Flesichhauer discloses a logic circuit 195 for dividing a power cycle into at least first and second phases, so that a total energy input is achieved in each cycle, as set forth above ([0077]) (which reads on “monitor the first power relative to the first power threshold”).
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 Bell’s control circuitry 20 to monitor the power being supplied relative to the total target power, and to monitor resistance after completion of a first power phase, as taught by Fleischhauer, for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, Bell fails to explicitly disclose “monitor the first power relative to the first power threshold, and cease applying the first power to the first contact point in response to the first power exceeding the first power threshold” as claimed.
Flesichhauer discloses a logic circuit 195 for dividing a power cycle into at least first and second phases, so that a total energy input is achieved in each cycle, as set forth above ([0077]) (which reads on “monitor the first power relative to the first power threshold”). Once the first phase has finished, the logic circuit 195 references the battery voltage and a look-up table 304 to determine a second duty cycle ([0045]) (which reads on “cease applying the first power to the first contact point in response to the first power exceeding the first power threshold”).
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 Bell’s control circuitry 20 to monitor the power being supplied relative to the total target power, and to stop supplying a first power at the end of a first power phase, as taught by Fleischhauer, for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, Bell discloses the capsule monitoring system of claim 1 as set forth above. Bell’s detection circuitry 22 can be configured to measure differences in successive resistance values (p. 13 l. 21-26) (which reads on “store the first resistance in the memory of the capsule monitoring system after determining the first resistance is within the resistance operation range of the heater” and “determine whether the preheat resistance is within a resistance tolerance range, the resistance tolerance range based on the first resistance stored in the memory of the aerosol-generating device”). As set forth above, Bell discloses that the detection circuitry 22 may continuously monitor a parameter (i.e., resistance) indicative of the engagement state of the cartridge 4 (p. 20 l. 20), and thus the resistance determination could be made at any point in time during operation (for example, during Fleischhauer’s preheat power cycle). Bell fails to explicitly disclose “detect start of a session of the aerosol-generating device, apply a preheat power to the first contact point of the aerosol- generating device, determine a preheat resistance between the first contact point and the second contact point” and “return the aerosol-generating device to a preheat operation of the session in response to the preheat resistance being within the resistance tolerance range” as claimed.
Fleischhauer discloses a preheat power cycle carried out by the logic circuit 195’ ([0108-114]). The preheat cycle begins when a cigarette detector 57 detects that a cigarette 23 is inserted ([0108]) (which reads on “detect start of a session of the aerosol-generating device”). The preheat cycle includes supplying power to each heating element 37 in succession ([0110]) (which reads on “apply a preheat power to the first contact point of the aerosol- generating device”). During the preheat cycle, power pulses may be adjusted in response to changes in heater resistance ([0114-0115, 0078]) (which reads on “determine whether the preheat resistance is within a resistance tolerance range, the resistance tolerance range based on the first resistance stored in the memory of the aerosol-generating device, and return the aerosol-generating device to a preheat operation of the session in response to the preheat resistance being within the resistance tolerance range”). Fleischhauer discloses performing the preheat power cycle to obtain a fuller, more subjectively pleasing response from the cigarette 23 ([0113]).
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 Bell’s control circuitry 20 to perform Fleischhauer’s preheat power cycle, with motivation being to obtain a fuller, more subjectively pleasing response from the aerosol-generating article as taught by Fleischhauer, and to continuously monitor resistance during the preheat power cycle as taught by Bell, as well as for the reasons set forth above in the discussion of claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, Bell fails to explicitly disclose “increase the preheat power until the preheat power exceeds a preheat power threshold” as claimed.
Fleischhauer discloses a preheat power cycle carried out by the logic circuit 195’ as set forth immediately above ([0108-114]). The preheat cycle provides a target total energy level of approximately 5-25 Joules ([0111]) (which reads on “increase the preheat power until the preheat power exceeds a preheat power threshold”).
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 Bell’s control circuitry 20 to perform Fleischhauer’s preheat power cycle for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, Bell discloses the detection circuitry 22 configured to detect changes in resistance between the electrical contacts 2a (p. 13 l. 3-20). The detection circuitry 22 may monitor and detect a drop in the resistance below a threshold range of resistances in order to determine that the cartridge 4 is not detected (which reads on “determine whether the preheat resistance is within a resistance range of the aerosol-generating device”). Bell discloses steps S7-9 in its operation method, wherein the device in active mode is switched to sleep mode when a disengagement of the cartridge 4 has been detected (p. 30 l. 4-35). As set forth above, Bell discloses that the detection circuitry 22 may continuously monitor resistance (p. 20 l. 20), and thus the resistance determination could be made at any point in time during operation (for example, during Fleischhauer’s preheat power cycle) (which reads on “cease applying the preheat power to the first contact point of the aerosol-generating device in response to the preheat resistance not being within the resistance range of the aerosol-generating device”). Bell fails to explicitly disclose “monitor the preheat power relative to the preheat power threshold” and determining resistance “in response the preheat power not exceeding the preheat power threshold” as claimed.
Fleischhauer discloses a preheat power cycle carried out by the logic circuit 195’ as set forth above ([0108-114]) (which reads on “monitor the preheat power relative to the preheat power threshold”). During the preheat cycle, power pulses may be adjusted in response to changes in heater resistance ([0114-0115, 0078]) (which reads on “determine whether the preheat resistance is within a resistance range in response the preheat power not exceeding the preheat power threshold”).
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 Bell’s control circuitry 20 to perform Fleischhauer’s preheat power cycle for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to claim 12.
Regarding claim 15, as set forth above with regard to claim 5, Bell discloses step S6 wherein, after engagement of the cartridge 4, the control circuitry 20 signals an indicator 14 to display that the system 1 is now in the active mode (p. 21 l. 27-35). It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to similarly configure the control circuitry 20 to signal the indicator 14 to display a fault message upon detecting a disengagement of the cartridge 4 during heating (which reads on “display a fault indicator”), because this is a simple design choice in view of Bell’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Bell discloses the capsule monitoring system of claim 13 as set forth above. Bell discloses the detection circuitry 22 configured to detect changes in resistance between the electrical contacts 2a (p. 13 l. 3-20). The detection circuitry 22 may monitor and detect a drop in the resistance below a threshold range of resistances in order to determine that the cartridge 4 is not detected (which reads on “determine whether the preheat resistance is within a resistance range of the aerosol-generating device”). Bell discloses a method of operating the device with steps S1-S5 wherein the system 1 is first placed in sleep mode, then an engagement of the cartridge 4 is detected (i.e., by measuring resistance as set forth above), and so the system 1 is switched to an active mode wherein the user can activate the heater 48 (p. 19 l. 30-p.21 l. 23), which could similarly be performed during a preheat power cycle (which reads on “increase the preheat power applied to the first contact point of the aerosol-generating device in response to the preheat resistance being within the resistance range of the aerosol-generating device”). Bell fails to explicitly disclose “monitor the preheat power relative to the preheat power threshold” and determining the resistance “in response to the preheat power not exceeding the preheat power threshold” as claimed.
Fleischhauer discloses a preheat power cycle carried out by the logic circuit 195’ as set forth above ([0108-114]) (which reads on “monitor the preheat power relative to the preheat power threshold” and “increase the preheat power applied to the first contact point of the aerosol-generating device in response to the preheat resistance being within the resistance range”). During the preheat cycle, power pulses may be adjusted in response to changes in heater resistance ([0114-0115, 0078]) (which reads on “determine whether the preheat resistance is within a resistance range in response the preheat power not exceeding the preheat power threshold”).
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 Bell’s control circuitry 20 to perform Fleischhauer’s preheat power cycle for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to claim 12.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Bell and Fleischhauer discloses the capsule monitoring system of claim 13 as set forth above. Bell discloses steps S7-9 in its operation method, wherein the device in active mode is switched to sleep mode when a disengagement of the cartridge 4 has been detected (p. 30 l. 4-35). As set forth above, Bell discloses that the detection circuitry 22 may continuously monitor resistance (p. 20 l. 20), and thus the resistance determination could be made at any point in time during operation (for example, during Fleischhauer’s preheat power cycle) (which reads on “cease applying the preheat power to the first contact point of the aerosol-generating device in response to the preheat resistance not being within the resistance range”). Bell fails to explicitly disclose “monitor the preheat power relative to the preheat power threshold” and ceasing the power in response to “the preheat power exceeding the preheat power threshold” as claimed.
Fleischhauer discloses a preheat power cycle carried out by the logic circuit 195’ as set forth above, which achieves a target total energy level ([0108-114]) (which reads on “monitor the preheat power relative to the preheat power threshold” and “cease applying the preheat power to the first contact point of the aerosol-generating device in response to the preheat resistance not being within the resistance tolerance range and the preheat power exceeding the preheat power threshold”).
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 Bell’s control circuitry 20 to perform Fleischhauer’s preheat power cycle for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to claim 12.
Regarding claim 18, as set forth above with regard to claim 5, Bell discloses step S6 wherein, after engagement of the cartridge 4, the control circuitry 20 signals an indicator 14 to display that the system 1 is now in the active mode (p. 21 l. 27-35). It would be obvious to a skilled artisan to similarly configure the control circuitry 20 to signal the indicator 14 to display a fault message upon detecting a disengagement of the cartridge 4 during heating (which reads on “display a fault indicator”), because this is a simple design choice in view of Bell’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 21, modified Bell discloses the capsule monitoring system of claim 1 as set forth above. Bell fails to explicitly disclose “initiate a preheat operation…” as claimed.
Fleischhauer discloses a preheat power cycle carried out by the logic circuit 195’ as set forth above, which is performed after detection of a cigarette 23 ([0108-114]) (which reads on “initiate a preheat operation of the aerosol-generating deviceafter at least one of determining the first resistance being within the resistance operation range or displaying the capsule accepted indicator”).
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 Bell’s control circuitry 20 to perform Fleischhauer’s preheat power cycle after detection of a cartridge 4 engagement, for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to claim 12.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (WO 2021/140112 A1) and Choi (US 2021/0378314 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Fei (US 2020/0029622 A1, previously cited). Alternatively, claims 1 and 19-20 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (WO 2021/140112 A1) and Choi (US 2021/0378314 A1) in view of Fei (US 2020/0029622 A1).
Regarding claim 19, as set forth above with regard to claim 1, modified Bell discloses detection circuitry 22 with a sensing element 22a and processing element 22b, together configured to detect when the cartridge 4 is engaged and/or disengaged with the aerosol provision device 2 (p. 10 l. 29-36). However, Bell and Choi fail to explicitly disclose that “the mechanism detection switch is configured to be actuated when a closure mechanism of the aerosol-generating device is closed” as claimed.
Fei discloses a portable vaporizer configured to accept a removable vaporizer cartridge (Abstract). Fei discloses a lid 204 which closes against a disposable cartridge 400 and activates the vaporizer 500 for use ([0026, 0030]). The lid 204 advantageously secures the cartridge 400 without requiring additional attachment mechanisms.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bell’s device 2 to include Fei’s lid 204 and to configure Bell’s control circuitry 20 to activate the device 2 upon closure of the lid 204, because Bell, Choi, and Fei are directed to vaporizers and cartridges therefor, Fei teaches that this secures the cartridge 4 without additional attachment mechanisms, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 20, modified Bell fails to explicitly disclose “wherein the closure mechanism is configured to secure a capsule within the aerosol-generating device”.
Fei discloses the lid 204 which closes against and secures the disposable cartridge 400, as set forth above ([0026]) (which reads on “wherein the closure mechanism is configured to secure a capsule within the aerosol-generating device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device 2 of Bell to include the lid 204 of Fei, for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to claim 19.
Alternatively, claim 1 is rejected under Bell in view of Choi and Fei. Modified Bell discloses the control circuitry 20 as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1. Choi discloses the controller 250 which detects a closed electrical circuit between a cartridge heater 406 and an electrical power supply 206 via pins 256, 258 [0077], which reads on “detect actuation of a mechanism detection switch” as set forth above. However, if Choi’s disclosure was considered not to read on the claimed “detect actuation of a mechanism detection switch”, then Bell and Choi would fail to disclose this claim element.
Fei discloses a portable vaporizer configured to accept a removable vaporizer cartridge (Abstract). Fei discloses a lid 204 which closes against a disposable cartridge 400 and activates the vaporizer 500 for use ([0026, 0030]) (which reads on “detect actuation of a mechanism detection switch”). The lid 204 advantageously secures the cartridge 400 without requiring additional attachment mechanisms.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bell’s device 2 to include Fei’s lid 204 and to configure Bell’s control circuitry 20 to activate the device 2 upon closure of the lid 204, because Bell, Choi, and Fei are directed to vaporizers and cartridges therefor, Fei teaches that this secures the cartridge 4 without additional attachment mechanisms, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claims 19-20, alternatively modified Bell in view of Fei would read on claims 19-20 in the same manner as set forth above in the discussion of claims 19-20.
Claim 2 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (WO 2021/140112 A1) in view of Choi (US 2021/0378314 A1) and Fei (US 2020/0029622 A1).
Alternatively modified Bell would read on claim 2 in the same manner as set forth above in the discussion of claim 2.
Claims 3-18 and 21 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (WO 2021/140112 A1) in view of Choi (US 2021/0378314 A1) and Fei (US 2020/0029622 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Fleischhauer (EP 0973419).
Alternatively modified Bell, further modified in view of Fleischhauer, would read on claims 3-18 and 21 in the same manner as set forth above in the discussion of claims 3-18 and 21.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell (WO 2021/140112 A1) in view of Choi (US 2021/0378314 A1) and Fleischhauer (EP 0973419, previously cited).
Bell discloses an electronic aerosol provision system (Title) (which reads on a “capsule monitoring system for an aerosol-generating device”):
The system includes control circuitry 20 which may include a processor (“processor”) (p. 10 l. 9-16).
The control circuitry 20 is configured to store values (and thus includes a “memory”) (p. 13 l. 21-25).
The control circuitry 20 may be integrated with detection circuitry 22 (p. 11 l. 1-3). The detection circuitry 22 includes a sensing element 22a for sensing electrical resistance between electrical contacts 2a coupled to a heater 48, and a processing element 22b for determining whether a cartridge 4 is engaged and/or disengaged based on a change in the resistance, such as whether the resistance drops below a threshold range (which reads on “determine a preheat resistance…determine whether the preheat resistance is within a resistance tolerance range”) (p. 12 l. 13-p. 13 l. 20). Bell discloses that the detection circuitry 22 may continuously monitor resistance (p. 20 l. 20), and thus the resistance determination could be made at any point in time during operation (for example, during Fleischhauer’s preheat power cycle, i.e., “determine a preheat resistance…while applying the preheat power”).
The method includes steps S7-9 wherein the device in active mode is switched to sleep mode when a disengagement of the cartridge 4 has been detected (p. 30 l. 4-35, Fig. 8) (which reads on “discontinue the preheat operation of the session in response to the preheat resistance not being within the resistance tolerance range”).
However, Bell fails to explicitly disclose “detect start of a session of the aerosol-generating device, and in response to detecting the start of the session of the aerosol-generating device, apply a preheat power to a first contact point of the aerosol-generating device” and “continue a preheat operation of the session in response to the preheat resistance being within the resistance tolerance range” as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
822
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
536
336
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Choi is directed to an electronic vaping apparatus and cartridge therefor (Title). The apparatus includes a controller for supplying power corresponding to the type of vaporizable substance identified in the cartridge (Abstract). First, the controller 250 detects a closed electrical circuit between a cartridge heater 406 and an electrical power supply 206 via pins 256, 258 [0077] (which reads on “detect start of a session of the aerosol-generating device”). Then, the controller 250 determines the electrical resistance of the heater 406 [0077] (which reads on “in response to detecting…” and “determine a preheat resistance…”). The resistance is compared to a threshold value or range; the controller 250 determines the type of vaporizable substance and supplies power accordingly (Abstract, [0077]). Choi’s apparatus advantageously allows a user to easily vaporize multiple substances without manually reconfiguring the apparatus [0086], and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Choi’s determination of cartridge identity facilitates this advantage. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply Choi’s determination of cartridge identity to Bell in order to easily allow a user to vaporize multiple substances without manually reconfiguring the apparatus each time.
Fleischhauer is directed to a power controller and method of operating an electrical smoking system (Title). Fleischhauer discloses a preheat power cycle carried out by a logic circuit 195’ [0108-114]. The preheat cycle begins when a cigarette detector 57 detects that a cigarette 23 is inserted [0108]. The preheat cycle includes supplying power to each heating element 37 in succession ([0110]) (which reads on “apply a preheat power to a first contact point of the aerosol-generating device”). During the preheat cycle, power pulses may be adjusted in response to changes in heater resistance ([0114-0115, 0078]) (which reads on “continue a preheat operation of the session in response to the preheat resistance being within the resistance tolerance range”). Fleischhauer discloses performing the preheat power cycle to obtain a fuller, more subjectively pleasing response from the cigarette 23 [0113].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bell by configuring Bell’s control circuitry 20, sensing element 22a, and processing element 22b, starting at Bell’s step S2, to first detect a closed circuit between Bell’s electrical contacts 2a and heater 48, to then determine the electrical resistance of the heater 48, and to determine the vaporizable substance within the cartridge 4 as taught by Choi (and still performing the other steps S211b, S211a, etc. disclosed in Bell’s Fig. 7). It would further be obvious to modify Bell by configuring the control circuitry 20 to perform Fleischhauer’s preheat power cycle after Choi’s detection and determinations, because Bell, Choi, and Fleischhuaer are directed to electronic aerosolization devices and controllers therefor, Choi teaches that this allows a user to vaporize multiple substances without manually reconfiguring the apparatus, Fleischhauer teaches that this provides a fuller, more subjectively pleasing response from the aerosol-generating article, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 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.
/MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747