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 Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claims 16-17 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1 and 3 are currently amended. Claim 2 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant amended claim 1 to include limitations that were rejected in dependent claim 2, and added further limitations not previously considered in the previous rejection.
Applicant argues that “Anderson nowhere teaches that the display screen is presented in real time during the operation”. Yet, Anderson explicitly discloses real-time usage monitoring, ([0270]), the assertion that the displayed graphical information is not presented in real time. Pocreva too teaches a computer that displays the graphed data in real-time, ([0087] the user inhales deeply and is able to see the display screen on a tablet, while performing the inhalation, considered to teach real time display).
The additional limitations presented in amended claim 1, as described in the rejections below, are regrettably still considered obvious in light of the prior art.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, 12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 2020/0000143 A1) in view of Pocreva, et al. (US 2021/0361888 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson teaches an information processing device ([0236], see also Fig. 1A: vaporizer system in vaporizer body (50) to the left of the seal (42)) comprising:
a controller (24) configured to generate a display image ([0621, 0653-0655], see also Fig. 4: data recorder on vaporizer communicates with display (430) on user device (305)) that displays a profile and information related to a puff detection time in association with each other, the profile being information related to an operation of generating an aerosol ([0655]: inhale flow rate may be displayed as an image by the graphical display),
the operation being performed by an inhaler device (vaporizer device (100)) configured to generate the aerosol by using a substrate ([0304], see also Fig. 1),
the puff detection time being a time at which inhalation of the aerosol generated by the inhaler device is detected, the inhalation being performed by a user ([0655]: inhale flow rate is displayed real time, meaning the user can track a detection time per inhalation);
wherein the profile is information indicating a time-series change of a parameter related to the operation of generating the aerosol ([0655]: graphical information displayed includes a real-time inhale flow rate through the vaporizer device), wherein the vaporizer may be connected to a device which may enable user programmable dose control and real-time usage monitoring, ([0270]), understood to render obvious displaying sensor data related to the usage of the vaporizer in real-time. Anderson further discloses the usage data may include the timing of one or more puffs, the duration of the one or more puffs, and the frequency of the one or more puffs, and/or a length of time between two or more successive puffs, ([0015]), and include sensors to detect the puff by using pressure and flow sensors, ([0235]). The usage data is also considered to include temperature data sensed from a temperature sensor in the device, or preferably based on measuring the resistance of the heater where the resistance of the heater may be a known function of its temperature, ([0309]). Anderson discloses when a user is drawing on the device, considered to a user operation that changes the air flow (a parameter), and that draw is detected, the controller may cause the heating profile to change (from standby to active aerosol generation), ([0310]).
Pocreva, teaches displaying information regarding puff characteristics in an inhalation device ([0010]), and is thus within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Pocreva teaches an inhaler accessory apparatus that is used to transmit time-series data regarding an inhalation effort of a user to a computer ([0087], see also Fig. 9), wherein the computer is able to generate a display image of the graphical data in the form of a curve from a start time point to an end time point (see Fig. 12: curve A). The computer displays the graph in real-time, ([0087] the user inhales deeply and is able to see the display screen on a tablet, while performing the inhalation).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Anderson to include displaying a time-series plot of puff detection, as taught by Pocreva, in the graphical display of Anderson because both Anderson and Pocreva are directed to displaying information regarding puff characteristics in an inhalation device. Pocreva teaches the visual display allows a user to monitor their inhalations in real time to improve the effectiveness and consistency of their inhalations from the inhaler ([0087]), and this modification merely involves use of a providing display information in a known format to improve the prior art device of Anderson.
Regarding claim 3, modified Anderson teaches the information processing device of claim 1. Pocreva teaches wherein the display image includes information indicating the parameter at the puff detection time (see Fig. 12: information indicating inhalation effort is visible on graph).
Regarding claim 4, modified Anderson teaches the information processing device of claim of claim 3. Pocreva teaches wherein the display image displays the profile from the start time point to the end time point in association with information indicating the parameter at the puff detection time, the puff detection time being detected from the start time point to the end time point (see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 5, modified Anderson teaches the information processing device of claim 3. Anderson teaches wherein a puff detection time is detected from the start time point to a current time point ([0655]: inhale flow rate is displayed real time).
Pocreva, teaches displaying an image of a puff characteristic profile ([0087]), teaches the displayed curve between a start time point (see Fig. 12, curve A: 0s on the x-axis) to an end time point (the intersection of the curve and the x-axis, between 4s and 5s).
It would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Anderson by displaying the profile from the start time point to the end time point as taught by Pocreva because both Anderson and Pocreva are directed to displaying an image of a puff characteristic profile. Pocreva teaches an alternative of displaying the puff profile that merely involves use substitution of the real-time display of Anderson for a similar display with fixed start and end points to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, modified Anderson teaches the information processing device of claim 3. Anderson teaches wherein the display image displays the profile from the start time point to the current time point in association with information indicating the parameter at the puff detection time, the puff detection time being detected from the start time point to the end time point ([0655]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Anderson teaches the information processing device of claim 3. Modified Anderson teaches a display image from the start time point to the end time point, which includes the puff detection time.
However, modified Anderson does not teach wherein the display image displays an extracted portion of the profile in part of an entire time section from the start time point to the end time point.
Anderson teaches that structural and logical substitutions and changes may be made without departing from the scope of the disclosure ([0705]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Anderson to segment the graphical display in order to provide an extracted portion including the puff detection time, because the segmentation of the display is considered an aesthetic design change. Aesthetic design changes are considered obvious because aesthetic design changes with no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04 I).
Regarding claim 8, modified Anderson teaches the information processing device of claim 3. Anderson teaches wherein the parameter is information that defines the operation of generating the aerosol, the operation being performed by the inhaler device, and the inhaler device operates in accordance with the profile ([0655]: user interface uses the graphical data to coach the user to adjust the inhale flow rate).
Regarding claim 9, modified Anderson teaches the information processing device of claim 3. Anderson teaches wherein the parameter is information that defines the operation of generating the aerosol ([0655]: inhalation flow rate defines the operation of generating the aerosol).
Regarding claim 10, modified Anderson teaches the information processing device of claim 8. Anderson discloses obtaining temperature data sensed from a temperature sensor in the device, or preferably based on measuring the resistance of the heater where the resistance of the heater may be a known function of its temperature, ([0309]). Anderson discloses when a user changes a parameter of temperature by drawing on the device, where when the draw is detected by the controller, the controller may cause the heating profile to change (from standby to active aerosol generation), ([0310]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Anderson teaches the information processing device of claim 1. Anderson discloses obtaining temperature data sensed from a temperature sensor in the device, or preferably based on measuring the resistance of the heater where the resistance of the heater may be a known function of its temperature, ([0309]). Anderson discloses when a user changes a parameter of temperature by drawing on the device, where when the draw is detected by the controller, the controller may cause the heating profile to change (from standby to active aerosol generation), ([0310]). The parameter of temperature is based on resistance of the heater, and resistance is related to the electricity supplied to the heater, defined by Ohm’s Law.
Regarding claim 14, modified Anderson teaches the information processing device of claim 1. Anderson teaches wherein the display image displays the profile as a graph ([0655]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Anderson teaches the information processing device of claim 1. Anderson does not explicitly teach wherein the display image displays information related to the puff detection time as a table.
Anderson teaches that structural and logical substitutions and changes may be made without departing from the scope of the disclosure ([0705]).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Anderson to display the data of the graph as a table. Reconfiguring the display data from graphical form to tabular form is considered an obvious aesthetic design change with no mechanical function, and as such cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04 I).
Claim 11 is unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 2020/0000143 A1) in view of Pocreva, et al. (US 2021/0361888 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ruscio (U.S. 2022/0211113).
Regarding claim 11, modified Anderson teaches the information processing device of claim 8. Anderson does not teach wherein the parameter is a temperature of a portion heated by a heater configured to heat the substrate.
Ruscio, directed to monitoring information defining the operation of an aerosol-generating device ([0004]), teaches a receiving cavity (221) and a heater (inductor (240)) disposed around and configured to heat the cavity ([0090], see also Fig. 1), wherein a temperature sensor (71) is used to detect a temperature change of air flow in the receiving cavity of an aerosol-generating device, indicating a user taking a puff ([0098]).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Anderson by using a sensor to detect the temperature of air flow in a receiving cavity as a puff detection parameter as taught by Ruscio because both Anderson and Ruscio are directed to monitoring information defining the operation of an aerosol-generating device. Ruscio teaches the monitoring the parameter of the temperature of the airflow ensures an accurate control of the heating process ([0098]), which is considered to modify the a known puff parameter for another to improve similar vaporizer devices in the same way (see MPEP 2143 I(B)).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Pocreva, as applied to claim 9 above, respectively, and further in view of Ono (WO 2021/059380 A1) (published as EP3995018, English equivalent relied upon and supplied with the Non-Final Rejection of 05/27/2025).
Regarding claim 13, modified Anderson teaches the information processing device of claim 9. Anderson does not teach wherein the parameter is an amount of aerosol to be inhaled by a user, the aerosol being generated by a heater configured to heat the substrate.
Ono teaches to an information processing device configured to monitor puff characteristics ([0007]), and is thus within the inventor’s field of endeavor. Ono teaches several parameters relating to the operation of the device and the amount of aerosol inhaled by the user that are communicated to a user, such as a strength of inhalation taken by a user of the device ([0021]) and the number of puffs taken by the user ([0055]).
It would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Anderson by including the parameters taught by Ono because both Anderson and Ono are directed to an information processing device configured to monitor puff characteristics. Ono teaches several alternative parameters that can help a user reduce electric power consumption of the device ([0010]), and provide information regarding the remaining puffs in the device, ([0035]), and this merely involves providing a known puff parameter to improve similar prior devices for an advantage taught in the prior art.
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 DANIEL E VAKILI whose telephone number is (571)272-5171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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.
/D.E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights