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
Claim 3 is amended. Claim 14 is newly added. Claims 1-14 are presently examined.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 7/3/2025 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 7/3/2025 is overcome.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 14 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-11, drawn to a method of controlling an aerosol generating device.
Group II, claim(s) 14, drawn to a method of controlling an aerosol generating device.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a method of controlling an aerosol generating device, comprising: receiving operating parameters of the aerosol generating device, wherein the operating parameters comprise: ambient temperature; and an aspect of a power supplied to an inductor of the aerosol generating device; determining an estimated temperature of a susceptor disposed within a consumable for the aerosol generating device based on the operating parameters, wherein the estimated temperature is determined during an induction heating of the susceptor by the inductor; and controlling the power supplied to the inductor based on the estimated temperature of the susceptor, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Abi Aoun (US 2020/0022412) in view of Malgat (US 10,588,347).
Abi Aoun discloses 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. Abi Aoun does not explicitly disclose controlling the power based on the estimated temperature.
Malgat teaches a heated aerosol generating article (abstract) that is heated to approximately 375 °C to form volatile compounds (column 12, lines 23-36). The temperature is regulated based on a measured temperature (column 12, lines 61-67).
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 device of Abi Aoun with the control of Malgat. One would have been motivated to do so since Malgat teaches controlling an aerosol generating article to achieve a suitable temperature to form volatile compounds.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 14 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is directed to a method, which falls within the statutory category of a process. However, the claim recites the abstract ideas of determining and controlling. These are mental processes that are recited at a high level of generality and are therefore considered to be able to be practically performed in the human mind. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III A. The claim recites the additional elements of a consumable having a susceptor, however, these features do not constitute significant extra-solution activity as required by MPEP § 2106.05(g). The additional structural features are well-understood and serve only to link the abstract idea to the field of aerosol generating device. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Finally, the structural elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. For instance, Armoush (US 10,561,172) teaches an inductive heating apparatus (title) that directly heats a substance to be vaporized (column 2, lines 63-67, column 3, lines 1-23). Lee (US 11,589,622) teaches an aerosol generating device having a heater that is controlled based on temperature (abstract). A cigarette that contains a susceptor is heated by an induction heating method using an electrically conductive coil (column 6, lines 36-42). Finally, Forster teaches an aerosol generating device for generating aerosol from an aerosol generating material (abstract). The device has a heating unit in the form of an inductor element heating coil that supplies a varying magnetic field to a susceptor heating element (column 2, lines 34-40) that heats a smoking article (column 19, lines 42-53).
Regarding claims 2 and 4-11, the claims recite additional abstract ideas that do not make further contributions to patentability.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the new structural element of a PID controller. However, this feature is also well understood, routine, and conventional. Armoush teaches that the controller is made up of PID control circuits (column 20, lines 11-17), Lee teaches that the device uses a PID control method (column 2, lines 24-30), and Forster teaches that the device uses a PID controller (column 20, lines 31-40).
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abi Aoun (US 2020/0022412) in view of Malgat (US 10,588,347).
Regarding claim 1, Abi Aoun discloses 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. Abi Aoun does not explicitly disclose controlling the power based on the estimated temperature.
Malgat teaches a heated aerosol generating article (abstract) that is heated to approximately 375 °C to form volatile compounds (column 12, lines 23-36). The temperature is regulated based on a measured temperature (column 12, lines 61-67).
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 device of Abi Aoun with the control of Malgat. One would have been motivated to do so since Malgat teaches controlling an aerosol generating article to achieve a suitable temperature to form volatile compounds.
Regarding claim 2, Abi Aoun discloses that the electrical property that is measured is the current flowing through a circuit to the inductor [0061].
Regarding claim 6, Abi Aoun discloses that the device is controlled based on the resonant frequency of the susceptor [0048] which is based on the Curie temperature of the material [0071], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a thermal property. The frequency response is considered to be an operating parameter.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abi Aoun (US 2020/0022412) in view of Malgat (US 10,588,347) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Monsees (US 10,045,567).
Regarding claim 3, modified Abi Aoun teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Abi Aoun does not explicitly teach controlling the power using a PID controller.
Monsees teaches a vaporizer device that uses a PID controller to monitor the power delivered to a heating coil to determine whether acceptable vaporization is occurring and if insufficient liquid is available for vaporization (column 30, lines 23-37). The device is shut down if the heating element is dry (column 30, lines 38-41).
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 device of modified Abi Aoun with the PID controller of Monsees. One would have been motivated to do so since Monsees teaches a PID controller that shuts the device off when insufficient liquid is available for normal vaporization.
Regarding claim 4, modified Abi Aoun teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Abi Aoun does not explicitly teach controlling the power using a PID controller.
Monsees teaches a vaporizer device that uses a PID controller to monitor the power delivered to a heating coil to determine whether acceptable vaporization is occurring and if insufficient liquid is available for vaporization (column 30, lines 23-37). The device is shut down if the heating element is dry (column 30, lines 38-41). The PID controller functions by comparing the measured temperature of the heater with a set point value (column 30, lines 42-55).
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 device of modified Abi Aoun with the PID controller of Monsees. One would have been motivated to do so since Monsees teaches a PID controller that shuts the device off when insufficient liquid is available for normal vaporization.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abi Aoun (US 2020/0022412) in view of Malgat (US 10,588,347) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alvarez (US 10,874,139).
Regarding claim 5, modified Abi Aoun teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Abi Aoun does not explicitly teach suspending power supply when an estimated temperature exceeds 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 one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the temperature measurement of modified Abi Aoun with the threshold of Alvarez. One would have been motivated to do so since Alvarez teaches a temperature threshold that prevents overheating.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (a) that the device of Abi Aoun does not receive an ambient temperature and (b) that the dependent claims are allowable due to dependence on an allowable claim.
Regarding (a), the processor of Abi Aoun is conducting operations based on an ambient temperature of 20 °C [0095]. The mere fact that Abi Aoun is making calculations based on an ambient temperature, even if it is assumed, means that Abi Aoun has “received” an ambient temperature. That temperature has been received by the processor of Abi Aoun.
Regarding (b), all examined claims, including the examined independent claim, are rejected as set forth above.
Conclusion
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