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 1-28 are pending and subject to this Office Action. Claims 12-23 have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-11 and 24-28) in the reply filed on 27 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“determ1ining” should be “determining”. (lines 13 and 16)
“second criteria,. Issue a” should be “second criteria; issue a” (line 16)
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: "\\1herin" should be
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: "average pressure data" should be .
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11, 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).
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 red 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])
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 various power versus pressure relationships where the pressure change is evaluated to determine if the pressure lies between the minimum pressure that is needed to activate the power for the device and the high pressure where the power to the device is limited to a maximum power. [0171-0173] Novak teaches that between the minimum pressure (threshold) and the high pressure (second threshold) the controller is configured to alter power (provide instructions) as a function of the pressure measurements received by the controller which is considered to read on the limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Novak teaches that the process circuitry is configured to determine the difference between a most-recent of the measurements from the sensor and the reference atmospheric air pressure. When the readings are between the reference atmospheric air pressure and the threshold difference the device remains in a powered off mode and no power is supplied to the device. Thus, the reference atmospheric air pressure and the threshold difference would correspond to the lower and upper bounds of the first set of thresholds. [0154]
Regarding claim 5, 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] The time period that the device is set to measure the current atmospheric pressure while in the boundaries of the first threshold, i.e. the powered off state, is considered to read on the third criteria.
Regarding claim 6, Novak teaches that the process circuitry is configured to determine the difference between a most-recent of the measurements from the sensor and the reference atmospheric air pressure. When the readings are between the reference atmospheric air pressure and the threshold difference the device remains in a powered off mode and no power is supplied to the device. Thus, the reference atmospheric air pressure and the threshold difference would correspond to the lower and upper bounds of the first set of thresholds. [0154] When the difference between the atmospheric air pressure and the reference atmospheric air pressure exceeds the threshold difference the processing circuitry activates the heating element by providing and adjusting power to the device based upon the pressure. [0164]
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Novak teaches the pressure to begin the heating process must exceed a minimum threshold that is a deviation from the reference atmospheric pressure. [0011] Novak teaches that the reference atmospheric air pressure (baseline) may be a rolling average of measurements that is periodically sampled by the sensor based on an algorithm. When the pressure measured by the sensor does not indicate a puff is coming the sample is added to the previous samples that were taken and the base-line is recalculated.(0153],[0166]) The periodic sampling, a time based sampling, is considered to read on the third criteria used for updating the pressure sensor data.
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 claims 10 and 11, Novak teaches that the second threshold, where power is provided to the heating element, has both a lower and an upper bound. ([0171-0173], Fig 14A-F) Novak discloses that the once the threshold pressure difference has been overcome the process circuitry powers on the heating element to generate a vapor. The lower end of this second set of thresholds is the minimum pressure required to trigger the power to be sent. Novak also teaches that the power supplied to the device is a function of the pressure differential. When the pressure differential reaches a “high pressure” limit the power is then limited to the “max power” the device can receive. [0170] Thus the lower bound for the second set of thresholds is the threshold pressure difference and the upper bound is the max pressure difference.
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 that an algorithm may be used to determine rolling buffer of measurements from the sensor to account for changes in atmospheric air pressure. [0153] As this algorithm is used to determine if the measurement taken should be used for a rolling buffer, it would be understood by a person having ordinary skill that the algorithm would also recognize that the
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 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
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