DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-6, 8-9, and 24-28 are pending and subject to this Office Action. Claims 1-6, 8-9, 24, and 28 have been amended. Claims 7 and 10-11 have been cancelled. Claims 12-23 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, pages 10-12, filed 23 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The objections to claim 1 and 2 have been resolved. The objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues, page 10-11, the digital circuit compares the calculated average pressure to multiple consecutive pressure samples received from the pressure sensor and determines whether a difference between the calculated average pressure and each of the multiple consecutive pressure samples are above a preset threshold. Applicant argues that Novak does not disclose or suggest determining multiple consecutive pressure readings are above a threshold to trigger a heating element.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Novak teaches there are embodiments of the invention where the processing circuitry is configured to “determine a rate of change of the atmospheric air pressure from at least some of the measurements atmospheric air pressure, and if the difference is caused by the puff action based on the rate of change.” [0012] Novak goes on to teach the periodic sampling of the sensor may be performed to consider the rate of change of the pressure and the difference between the sensor sample and the baseline is used to determine if a puff is coming. [0166] If the differential is over a threshold the device preforms a system check and then activates the aerosol component. While the device is producing aerosol the sensor continues to measure the pressure in the device and compare the measured pressure to the reference pressure to determine a change in draw rate to adjust power based on the user change from the sensor. [0167] A person having ordinary skill would recognize that for a rate of change of pressure to be calculated multiple pressures over a given time period would need to be taken. When coupled with Novak’s teaching that the power to the device is adjusted based on this rate, the person of ordinary skill would recognize that if the pressure differential was above the predetermined threshold the heating element would receive power (triggered on).
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments made to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 24-25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Novak, et al (US20200154788A1).
Regarding claim 1, Novak teaches an aerosol delivery device that includes:
a power source, an aerosol production component, and a sensor to determine pressure (abstract). Novak also teaches that the pressure sensor is an absolute pressure sensor. ([0080],[0150]) where the absolute pressure sensor is connected to processing circuitry that determines the difference between the measurements of the atmospheric air pressure and from the flow sensor.
circuitry that determines a difference between the measurements of atmospheric air pressure and a reference atmospheric air pressure and outputs a signal to cause the switch to switchably connect and disconnect an output voltage from the power source to the aerosol production component. (Abstract) The circuitry is connected to both the sensor and the switch [0008] The prior art teaches the device includes processing circuitry configured to perform data processing, application execution, or other processing, control or management services. This processing circuitry may include a processor embodied in a variety of forms such as at least one processor core, microprocessor, coprocessor, controller, microcontroller or various other computing or processing devices including one or more integrated circuits. [0071]
the control component may include one or more input/output peripherals, which may be coupled to or integrated with the processing circuitry [0072]
and processing circuitry coupled to the sensor and the switch, and configured to at least: determine a difference between the measurements of atmospheric air pressure from the sensor and a reference atmospheric air pressure [0071]
the sensor is configured to determine the difference between the atmospheric air pressure and the reference atmospheric air pressure and when the difference between the two values, a minimum pressure threshold, is reached, the processing circuitry activates the heating of the device. [00136] The pressure values between the atmospheric pressure and the activation pressure is considered the first threshold. The value above the activation pressure is considered to read on the second criteria.
the heating element, the control body, and the power source are connected [0087] and when the flow sensor (a pressure switch) detects a pressure differential that exceeds a threshold the heating element is activated to vaporize the components. [0091] When the pressure differential meets or exceeds the minimum pressure differential, the sensor sends an output signal (trigger signal) to a switch connecting the power source to the aerosol production component (heating element) for either pre-heating or heating the aerosol generating material. ([0136], [0158])
Novak teaches that the control circuitry receives the pressure data that is sampled by the pressure sensor and compares the current reading to that of the average of previous readings to determine a pressure differential between the current readings and a baseline of the previous readings. If the current reading has a differential that exceeds a set threshold the heating element is activated. If the current reading does not exceed the set threshold the current measured pressure is added to the average pressure baseline. ([0019], [0154]) Novak teaches the reference atmospheric air pressure may be set to an average of the measurements taken that do not exceed the threshold. ([0166], Fig. 13)
Regarding claim 2, Novak teaches the process circuitry can be in various forms which include a controller and a microcontroller. [0071-0072]
Regarding claim 3, Novak teaches the use of a MEMS-based pressure sensor that is able to be connected to the processing circuitry. [0135]
Regarding claim 4, Novak teaches that the sensor is configured to produce measurements of the ambient atmospheric air pressure and provide an average of the measurements of the ambient atmospheric air pressure. [0009-0010] Novak also teaches that the device can include a secondary sensor that reads the atmospheric air pressure.[0152] The ambient atmospheric air pressure is considered to read on the ambient air pressure of the environment around the electrical cigarette.
Regarding claim 8, Novak teaches after a cartridge is attached the sensor is filled with set baseline information and the reference atmospheric air pressure (or baseline) may be set to an average of the measurements. Next, periodic sampling of the sensor may be performed as shown at block, the rate of change and the difference of the sensor sample and the baseline may be used to determine if a puff is coming. If a puff is not coming, then the sample may be added to buffer, a new average taken, and the baseline re-established. [0166] Novak teaches that when the pressure sensor experiences a change that is not enough to trigger activation or maintain the threshold pressure need to trigger heating the sensor uses that data to update the baseline/buffer data calculation. [0166]
Regarding claim 9, Novak teaches in some instances the processing circuitry can be configured to set the reference atmospheric air pressure when triggered by an event such as motion. [0141] Novak teaches that the reference atmospheric pressure can be fixed before use. The “setting” of the reference atmospheric pressure is considered to read on the fixed average.
Regarding claim 24, Novak teaches that the processing circuitry may include one or more integrated circuits and that this processing circuitry may include memory coupled to or integrated with the processor, and which may store data, computer program instructions executable by the processor, some combination thereof, or the like. [0071] Novak goes on to teach that the control component may include one or more input/output peripherals, which may be coupled to or integrated with the processing circuitry.[0072] The input peripheral would be considered to read on the pressure sensor and the output peripheral would be considered to read on the heating element. As discussed in claim 1, the heating element, the control body, and the power source are connected [0087] and when the flow sensor (a pressure switch) detects a pressure differential that exceeds a threshold the heating element is activated to vaporize the components. [0091] When the pressure differential meets or exceeds the minimum pressure differential, the sensor sends an output signal (trigger signal) to a switch connecting the power source to the aerosol production component (heating element) for either pre-heating or heating the aerosol generating material. ([0136], [0158])
Regarding claim 25, Novak teaches that the processing circuitry may include a processor embodied in a variety of forms such as at least one processor core, microprocessor, coprocessor, controller, or microcontroller. [0071]
Regarding claim 28, Novak teaches the use of a MEMS-based pressure sensor that is able to be connected to the processing circuitry. [0135]
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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novak, et al (US20200154788A1) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Jordan, et al (US20160374397A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Novak teaches when the atmospheric pressure changes but does not meet the threshold difference the sensor calculates a new baseline pressure and the pressure is then measured periodically. [0166]
Novak is silent as to the possible value of the pressure threshold that would activate the heating element.
Jordan, directed to the design of vaping devices having a pressure sensor, teaches a heater control circuit having a microprocessor and a MEMS pressure sensor. The prior art provides an example where when a pressure in the device exceeds a disabling pressure (pressure threshold) from the baseline pressure for a given threshold time the device may change modes. Jordan teaches a possible pressure range of 225-300 Pa and a time of three seconds. [0111] Jordan teaches a pressure range where the device changes from being active to being disables is about 300 Pa and that the time to measure the pressure change would occur over a period of time. Jordan further notes that the time threshold may be a design parameter that is empirically determined. [0146] Thus a person having ordinary skill would consider the claimed time parameter of 1 to 2 seconds when considering the time parameter for taking pressure sensor readings.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Novak by using the pressure and time parameters as taught by Jordan because both Novak and Jordan are directed to electronic vaporizers having pressure sensors, Jordan teaches this allows the device to determine the mode of operation based on presser changes and the baseline pressure (Abstract), and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novak, et al (US20200154788A1) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Yan, et al (US20190387794A1).
Regarding claim 26, Novak is silent as to the process circuitry containing a power management circuit.
Yang teaches a power control circuit is coupled to the controller such that when the device is triggered to the operational mode the power control circuitry receives control commands from the controller in real time defining the output power based on the pressure differential that the device is undergoing during use. [0017-0018]
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Novak by using a power control circuit as taught by Yang because both Novak and Yang are directed to electronic cigarette, Yang teaches this configuration corresponding relationship between pressure differentials and output powers, the greater pressure differential is corresponding to the greater real-time output power [0018], and this involves the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 27, Yang teaches that the controller is coupled to a battery management circuit and sends instructions to the battery management circuit, which in response to the instructions, controls the power supply to the device. ([0064], [0086])
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRGINIA R BIEGER whose telephone number is (703)756-1014. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Phillip Louie can be reached at (571)270-1241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/V.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
