DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 12, and 21-22 and supporting remarks filed 04/21/2026 (“Amendment”) have been entered. Accordingly, the claim rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn and new rejections are set forth below. Claims 1-22 remain pending and are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC 103 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 1-8 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilat (US 2018/0020735 A1) in view of Fei (US 2020/0029622 A1, previously cited) and Fleischhauer (EP 0973419 B1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Bilat is directed to an electrically operated aerosol-generating system which may be configured to detect adverse conditions (Abstract) (which reads on a “capsule monitoring system for an aerosol-generating device”):
The system includes electric circuitry which may comprise a microprocessor (“processor”) for implementing various operations [0014, 0038].
The system includes electric circuitry which may comprise a memory (“memory”) which may carry instructions [0014, 0041].
The electric circuitry (and thus the microprocessor) may be configured to measure an initial cartridge heater resistance, compare it to a range of acceptable resistances, and prevent power supply if outside the acceptable range [0052], which reads on “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the capsule monitoring system to…apply a first power to a first contact point of the aerosol-generating device, determine a first resistance between the first contact point and a second contact point while applying the first power, the first contact point and the second contact point configured to contact a heater associated with the capsule, determine whether the first resistance is within a resistance operation range of the heater”.
Bilat discloses measuring the initial resistance in response to determining an existence of an electrical connection between the electric circuitry and heater [0010], but fails to specifically disclose the microprocessor being configured to “detect actuation of a mechanism detection switch of the aerosol-generating device after a capsule is inserted into the aerosol-generating device” and thus fails to disclose performing its resistance check “in response to detecting the actuation of the mechanism detection switch”.
Bilat fails to explicitly disclose the electric circuitry/microprocessor being configured to “display a capsule accepted indicator in response to the first resistance measured while applying the first power being within the resistance operation range of the heater” as claimed. However, Bilat discloses providing a negative indication to a user when the resistance is outside the acceptable range and the cartridge heater is unacceptable [0102-0103], and thus it would be similarly obvious to provide a positive indication to the user when the resistance is within the acceptable range (which reads on the claim language), because this would be a simple design choice which provides more information to the user.
Bilat discloses preventing power supply after a failed resistance check [0052], but Bilat is silent on preheating, and thus fails to specifically disclose “prevent a preheating operation of the aerosol-generating device in which preheat power is applied to preheat the capsule received in the aerosol-generating device in preparation for a user session, in response to the first resistance measured while applying the first power not being within the resistance operation range of the heater while the capsule remains inserted within the aerosol-generating device”.
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 by closing an electrical circuit [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 [0026]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Fei’s lid 204 could similarly be used in Bilat to secure the cartridge. When combining Bilat and Fei, one would be motivated to perform Bilat’s resistance check after closing Fei’s lid 204, because Fei discloses that closing the lid 204 activates the device 500 by closing a circuit [0026, 0030], and Bilat discloses determining the existence of such a circuit before measuring the resistance (Bilat [0010]).
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 “…in which preheat power is applied to preheat the capsule received in the aerosol-generating device in preparation for a user session…”). Fleischhauer discloses performing the preheat power cycle to obtain a fuller, more subjectively pleasing response from the cigarette 23 [0113]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Fleischhauer’s preheating cycle could similarly be performed in Bilat to obtain a more user-pleasing response. When combining Bilat and Fleischhauer, one would be motivated to carry out the preheating only if Bilat’s resistance check is successful, and not carry out the preheating if the resistance is outside Bilat’s range (which reads on the “prevent” step as claimed), because Bilat discloses preventing power supply after a failed resistance check [0052].
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 Bilat by (1) incorporating Fei’s lid 204 into Bilat’s device to secure the cartridge and configuring Bilat’s electric circuitry and microprocessor to perform Bilat’s resistance check after closing Fei’s lid 204, and (2) configuring Bilat’s electric circuitry and microprocessor to perform Fleischhauer’s preheating power cycle if Bilat’s resistance check is successful and to not perform Fleischhauer’s preheating power cycle if Bilat’s resistance check is not successful, because Bilat, Fei, and Fleischhauer are directed to electronic aerosol systems, Fei teaches using the lid 204 to advantageously secure the cartridge, Fleischhauer teaches advantageously preheating to provide a more subjectively pleasing response, 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 2, Bilat discloses measuring the initial resistance within a time period after the electrical connection is detected [0010, 0102, 0109]. In modified Bilat, it would be similarly obvious to measure the resistance within a time period after each occurrence of closing Fei’s lid 204, which reads on “start a capsule monitor timer configured to measure a capsule monitor time, and reset the capsule monitor timer in response to actuation of the mechanism detection switch”.
Regarding claim 3, Bilat discloses measuring the initial resistance shortly after the cartridge heater is inserted [0102], which reads on “increase the first power…”. Bilat fails to explicitly disclose a “first power threshold” for the resistance check, but discloses that it is performed “using much lower power” and is performed shortly after heater insertion or activation [0102], and thus it would be obvious to limit the power supply when performing the resistance check, i.e., apply the appropriate power “until the first power exceeds a first power threshold” as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, it would be obvious to “monitor the first power…” as claimed for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claim 3. Bilat discloses performing the resistance check within a predetermined time period [0102] which reads on “monitor the capsule monitor time…”. Bilat discloses performing the resistance check and preventing power supply to the heater if the check is failed [0102], which reads on the “determine” and “cease” steps as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Bilat discloses providing an indication if the resistance check is failed [0102], which reads on the claim language.
Regarding claim 6, Bilat discloses performing the resistance check within a predetermined time period and at low power [0102], which renders obvious the two “monitor” steps and the “determine” step for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claims 2-4. Furthermore, as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, modified Bilat discloses a device which performs Fleischhauer’s preheating after a successful resistance check. Thus, it would be obvious to continue increasing power after a successful resistance check, which reads on the “increase” step as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Bilat discloses performing the resistance check within a predetermined time period and at low power [0102], which renders obvious the two “monitor” steps for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claims 2-4. Bilat discloses that the resistance check is performed over a short predetermined time period [0102], which implies that Bilat stops supplying power to perform the check after the time period is exceeded, which reads on the “cease” step as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Bilat discloses a method where the insertion of a cartridge is first detected, then the resistance is measured and checked for a time period, and if the resistance is unacceptable, then power is prevented, and the method returns to the first step ([0196], Fig. 9). It would be similarly obvious to prevent power supply and return to the first step if no resistance can be measured over the time period (because one of ordinary skill in the art would similarly interpret this as a cartridge error such as a faulty cartridge or the cartridge being removed), which reads on the “determine” and “return” steps as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Bilat discloses performing the resistance check “using much lower power” [0102], which renders obvious the “monitor” step for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claim 3. Further, in view of the disclosure for “using much lower power” [0102], it would be obvious to stop the resistance check if the power exceeds a low threshold, which reads on the “cease” step as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, Bilat discloses measuring an storing an initial resistance R1 ([0150-0155], Fig. 4), which reads on the “store” step as claimed. In modified Bilat as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, closing Fei’s lid 204 prompts the device to perform Bilat’s resistance check, which reads on the “detect” step as claimed. In modified Bilat as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, Fleischhauer’s preheat cycle is performed after a successful resistance check, which reads on the “apply” step as claimed. It would be further obvious to continue monitoring resistance and continue preheating if the resistance is acceptable which reads on the two “determine” steps and the “return” step), because Bilat teaches continually monitoring for an adverse condition [0119].
Regarding claim 13, Fleischhauer discloses the preheat power cycle as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1. The cycle may be divided into phases with set ranges of power supplied in each phase ([0085-87, 0090-92, 0105], Figs. 15-16). Thus, in modified Bilat, it would be obvious to similarly carry out Fleischhauer’s preheat power phases with set ranges of power and to “increase the preheat power until the preheat power exceeds a preheat power threshold” determined by the power ranges.
Regarding claim 14, Bilat teaches continually monitoring resistance [0119], and teaches preventing power supply to the heater if the check is failed [0102], and thus it would be obvious to continue performing resistance checks during Fleischhauer’s preheating cycle, which reads on the “monitor”, “determine”, and “cease” steps as claimed.
Regarding claim 15, Bilat discloses providing an indication if an adverse condition is detected [0102], which reads on “display a fault indicator”.
Regarding claim 16, Bilat teaches continually monitoring resistance [0119], and continuing heating if no adverse condition is detected [0152-0158], and thus it would be obvious to continue performing resistance checks during Fleischhauer’s preheating cycle, which reads on the “monitor”, “determine”, and “increase” steps as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, Bilat teaches continually monitoring resistance [0119], and teaches preventing power supply to the heater if the check is failed [0102], and thus it would be obvious to continue performing resistance checks during and after Fleischhauer’s preheating cycle, which reads on the “monitor” and “cease” steps as claimed.
Regarding claim 18, Bilat discloses providing an indication if an adverse condition is detected [0102], which reads on “display a fault indicator”.
Regarding claim 19, as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, modified Bilat includes the electric circuitry and microprocessor configured to perform Bilat’s resistance check after closing Fei’s lid 204, which reads on the claim language.
Regarding claim 20, as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, Fei’s lid 204 is configured to secure a cartridge 400, and in modified Bilat the lid 204 would be configured similarly, which reads on the claim language.
Regarding claim 21, as set forth above in the discussion of claim 1, modified Bilat is configured to perform Fleischhauer’s preheating cycle after a successful resistance check, which reads on “initiate the preheat operation of the aerosol-generating device after…determining the first resistance being within the resistance operation range of the heater”.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilat (US 2018/0020735 A1) in view of Fei (US 2020/0029622 A1, previously cited) and Fleischhauer (EP 0973419 B1, previously cited) as applied to claim 3, further in view of Bell (WO 2021/140112 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, it would be obvious to “monitor the first power relative to the first power threshold” for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claim 3. Bilat teaches continually monitoring resistance to determine adverse conditions [0119], and teaches providing an indication if the resistance check fails [0102], but Bilat fails to disclose the claimed “maximum heater resistance”, and thus fails to specifically disclose “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 and the first power exceeding the first power threshold, and display a fault indicator in response to the first resistance not exceeding the maximum heater resistance”.
Bell is directed to an electronic aerosol provision system (Title). Bell discloses control circuitry 20 and detection circuitry 22 for sensing electrical resistance between electrical contacts 2a coupled to a heater 48 of a cartridge 4 (p. 12 l. 13-p. 13 l. 20). In the absence of a cartridge 4, the resistance approaches infinity (p. 13 l. 6-7). Thus, the detection circuitry 22 can determine that the cartridge 4 is disconnected if the resistance exceeds a threshold (“maximum heater resistance”) (p. 13 l. 3-20). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this detection could similarly be incorporated into Bilat, in order to simply and reliably determine whether a cartridge is inserted. Specifically, in combination, one would be motivated to perform Bilat’s resistance check, and if the check fails, perform Bell’s resistance check to determine whether a cartridge is inserted, and to then provide Bilat’s negative indication in the event that Bilat’s resistance check fails but Bell’s resistance check passes (indicating that a cartridge is inserted but is outside Bilat’s acceptable range), which reads on the “monitor the first resistance…” and “display” steps.
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 Bilat by configuring Bilat’s electric circuitry and microprocessor to first perform Bilat’s resistance check, and if such check fails, to then perform Bell’s resistance check to determine whether a cartridge is inserted, and if such check succeeds, to then provide a negative indication to the user, because Bilat and Bell are directed to electronic aerosol systems, Bell teaches that this allows for detecting insertion of a cartridge, 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 10, it would be obvious to “monitor the first power relative to the first power threshold” for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claim 3. Bilat teaches continually monitoring resistance to determine adverse conditions [0119], and teaches preventing power supply if the resistance check fails [0102], but Bilat fails to disclose the claimed “maximum heater resistance”, and thus fails to specifically disclose “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 and the first power exceeding the first power threshold, 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 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 first resistance exceeding the maximum heater resistance”.
Bell is directed to an electronic aerosol provision system (Title). Bell discloses control circuitry 20 and detection circuitry 22 for sensing electrical resistance between electrical contacts 2a coupled to a heater 48 of a cartridge 4 (p. 12 l. 13-p. 13 l. 20). In the absence of a cartridge 4, the resistance approaches infinity (p. 13 l. 6-7). Thus, the detection circuitry 22 can determine that the cartridge 4 is disconnected if the resistance exceeds a threshold (“maximum heater resistance”) (p. 13 l. 3-20). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this detection could similarly be incorporated into Bilat, in order to simply and reliably determine whether a cartridge is inserted. Specifically, in combination, one would be motivated to perform Bilat’s resistance check, and if the check fails, perform Bell’s resistance check to determine whether a cartridge is inserted, and to then return the device to providing no power in the event that both resistance checks fail (indicating that no cartridge is inserted), which reads on the “monitor the first resistance…”, “determine”, and “return” steps.
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 Bilat by configuring Bilat’s electric circuitry and microprocessor to first perform Bilat’s resistance check, and if such check fails, to then perform Bell’s resistance check to determine whether a cartridge is inserted, and if such check fails, to then return the device to supplying no power, because Bilat and Bell are directed to electronic aerosol systems, Bell teaches that this allows for detecting insertion of a cartridge, 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).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilat (US 2018/0020735 A1) in view of Fleischhauer (EP 0973419 B1, previously cited).
Bilat is directed to an electrically operated aerosol-generating system which may be configured to detect adverse conditions (Abstract) (which reads on a “capsule monitoring system for an aerosol-generating device”):
The system includes electric circuitry which may comprise a microprocessor (“processor”) for implementing various operations [0014, 0038].
The system includes electric circuitry which may comprise a memory (“memory”) which may carry instructions [0014, 0041].
The electric circuitry (and thus the microprocessor) may be configured to detect insertion of a substrate and measure an initial cartridge heater resistance [0065], which reads on “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to cause the capsule monitoring system to, 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…”.
The electric circuitry (and thus the microprocessor) may be configured to measure an initial cartridge heater resistance after the insertion detection [0065], compare it to a range of acceptable resistances, and supply power if within the acceptable range [0052, 0103]. Furthermore, Bilat discloses continually monitoring resistance by storing an initial resistance value, measuring a subsequent resistance, and comparing the difference [0119, 0124]. However, Bilat is silent on preheating and thus fail to specifically disclose “apply a preheat power to a first contact point of the aerosol-generating device to start a preheat operation to begin preheating a capsule inserted within the aerosol-generating device in preparation for a user session, determine a preheat resistance between the first contact point and a second contact point while applying the preheat power, determine whether the preheat resistance is within a resistance tolerance range, the resistance tolerance range based on a first resistance stored in the memory of the aerosol-generating device, continue the preheat operation of the session in response to the preheat resistance measured while applying the preheat power being within the resistance tolerance range, and discontinue the preheat operation of the session in response to the preheat resistance measured while applying the preheat power not being within the resistance tolerance range while the capsule remains inserted within the aerosol-generating device”.
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]). Fleischhauer discloses performing the preheat power cycle to obtain a fuller, more subjectively pleasing response from the cigarette 23 [0113]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Fleischhauer’s preheating cycle could similarly be performed in Bilat to obtain a more user-pleasing response. When combining Bilat and Fleischhauer, one would be motivated to carry out the preheating only if Bilat’s resistance check is successful, because Bilat discloses preventing power supply after a failed resistance check but providing power supply after a successful check [0052, 0103].
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 Bilat by configuring Bilat’s electric circuitry and microprocessor to perform Fleischhauer’s preheating power cycle if Bilat’s resistance check is successful, because Bilat and Fleischhauer are directed to electronic aerosol systems, Fleischhauer teaches advantageously preheating to provide a more subjectively pleasing response, 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
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 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
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights