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
Claims 1 and 9 are amended. Claims 13 and 13 are withdrawn. Claim 14 is cancelled. Claims 1-11 are presently examined.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 1/16/2026 are overcome.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taurino (WO 2020/008008).
Regarding claim 1, Taurino discloses an aerosol generating system (abstract) having control circuitry (page 30, lines 32-33, page 31, lines 1-2, figure 6, reference numeral 212) that receives ambient temperature measurements from an ambient temperature sensor (page 34, lines 4-7, figure 6, reference numeral 214). The absolute temperature of a susceptor is estimated by measuring the apparent resistance the susceptor and the ambient temperature (page 14, lines 14-22). The resistance is considered to be an aspect of power supplied to the inductor. The power supplied to the inductor coil is adjusted based on the measured resistance at a normal ambient temperature so that the cartridge is heated to a desired operating temperature (page 14, lines 27-33). The susceptor resistance corresponds to susceptor temperature (page 15, lines 10-16), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of controlling the power supplied based on an estimated temperature. The measurements take place during operation of the system (page 15, lines 10-16).
Regarding claim 2, Taurino discloses that the control circuitry supplies power to an inductor based on a target value (page 10, lines 3-6) which a value of either resistance or current supplied to the inductor (page 10, lines 7-13). The current supplied is considered to meet the claim limitation of an aspect of power supplied to an inductor.
Regarding claim 4, Taurino discloses that the apparent resistance of the susceptor, which corresponds to the current temperature of the susceptor, compared to a target apparent resistance value of the susceptor which corresponds to an expected desirable temperature of the susceptor (page 15, lines 10-16), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of controlled based on a temperature difference.
Regarding claim 6, Taurino discloses that the estimated temperature is determined based on the ambient temperature, apparent resistance, and that these are influenced by the geometry and properties of the cartridge (page 14, lines 14-22).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taurino (WO 2020/008008) in view of Abi Aoun (US 2022/0117307, hereafter referred to as Abi Aoun ‘307).
Regarding claim 3, Taurino discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Taurino does not explicitly disclose using a PID controller.
Abi Aoun ‘307 teaches an aerosol generating device (abstract) that is controlled by a PID controller which uses a control loop feedback mechanism to control the temperature of a heating element based on temperature data from a temperature sensor [0578].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control circuitry of Taurino with the PID controller of Abi Aoun ‘307. One would have been motivated to do so since Taurino discloses receiving measured resistance data that corresponds to temperature and Abi Aoun ‘307 teaches a PID controller that uses control loop feedback to properly control the temperature.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taurino (WO 2020/008008) in view of Alvarez (US 10,874,139).
Regarding claim 5, Taurino discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Taurino does not explicitly disclose suspending power supply to the inductor when the estimated temperature of the susceptor reaches a threshold.
Alvarez teaches an e-vapor device (abstract) in which the temperature of a heater structure is monitored to prevent overheating, and power to the vaporizer is stopped if the temperature is equal to or higher than a threshold temperature to prevent overheating (column 17, lines 46-56).
It would therefore have been obvious to combine the measurement of the apparent resistance equivalent to estimated temperature of Taurino with the threshold of Alvarez. One would have been motivated to do so since Alvarez teaches a threshold that prevents overheating.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Abi Aoun (US 2020/0022412, hereafter referred to as Abi Aoun ‘412) teaches a method for determining the temperature of a susceptor of an aerosol generating device that measures a frequency response of an RLC circuit to determine the susceptor temperature (abstract). The device determines a frequency characteristic at an ambient temperature of 20 °C [0095], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of receiving an ambient temperature. The susceptor and aerosol generating material are combined in an integral unit that is inserted into the aerosol generating device [0042]. The controller measures the frequency response [0059] by detecting the current flowing through the inductor using a sense coil [0061] which also heats the susceptor [0050]. The calculation to determine temperature makes several assumptions ([0086], [0091], [0093]), indicating that the determined temperature is an estimate since the assumptions slightly distort the calculation. However, Abi Aoun does not teach or suggest determining the susceptor temperature based on both operating parameters of the device and thermal properties of the aerosol generating material.
Park (US 2021/0112870) teaches an aerosol generating device having two susceptors that determines the temperature of susceptors based on the temperature profile of the susceptors (abstract). The temperature profile is measured by a temperature sensor [0057]. However, Park does not teach or suggest determining the temperature based on thermal properties of a consumable.
Korus (US 12,004,566) teaches an apparatus for an aerosol generating device having an induction heater that heats an aerosol generating material and a controller that determines a property of the susceptor arrangement from the change in an electrical parameter of the circuit (abstract). The temperature is related to changes in the resonant frequency caused by inserting different consumables, enabling the controller to identify the specific consumable inserted (column 23, lines 6-51). However, Korus does not teach estimating the temperature based on the specific consumable inserted, but rather identifying the consumable based on temperature changes.
The prior art does not teach or suggest determining an estimated temperature of a susceptor in an aerosol generating device based on operating parameters of the aerosol generating device and thermal properties of the consumable.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are entered as set forth above.
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 RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 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, Philip 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights