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
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 06/22/2026, are accepted and appreciated by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/22/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 7, 8, and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 7, 8, and 14 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/22/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1 and 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Self-diagnosis by a controller of the device is not a mental step or a mathematical concept, but it is an additional element that does not integrate the claim into a practical application. The self-diagnosis in the claim amounts to just reviewing values of an error log. There is no recitation in the claim of a signal processing operation that applies electrical signals to a heater, the battery, or a sensor. Therefore, it is viewed as using a computer as a tool to process the abstract ideas as seen in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). A human can look at an error log and make determinations off of said log using observation, judgement, and opinion. The fact that the error log is stored in memory is viewed as insignificant extra solution activity as seen in MPEP 2106.05(h). The fact patterns of Enfish and McCro are different than the instant application. In Enfish a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data was claimed. In the instant application no such technique was claimed.
The field of aerosol generating devices is not an improvement to a specific technology or technical field. Aerosol generating devices apply to many fields of endeavor from water hoses to combustion engines. Furthermore, the argued improvement is not reflected in the claims. The claims do not include any of the tangible real-world outcomes listed. In addition, the claims do not include that the system is a high-temperature heating environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
Lastly, the claim does not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. Outputting data is not significantly more as seen in MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1 and 10 stand as rejected below.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/22/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1 and 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The combination of Bessant and Baker does teach “determining, by the controller, a faulty function of the faulty component based on an error log recorded in a memory of the aerosol generating device," as recited in amended claim 1. Para. [0042] of Baker teaches making a log of different events and maintaining that log in non-volatile memory. Para. [0046] further teaches that those events include error states, therefore, it is viewed that Baker contains an error log in the memory of the device. Furthermore, Para. [0052] shows that the log can be used for the diagnosis of the failure of the e-cigarette. As a result, Baker teaches an error log that can be used to diagnose the failure of an aerosol generating device. It would be obvious to combine the error log of Baker with the features of Bessant, in order to keep track of errors over time to get a more comprehensive view of the health of the aerosol generating device. In addition, Bessant teaches in Para. [0104] that it would be useful to diagnose the nature of the damage to the device based on stored data. In the end, claims 1 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Bessant (US 20210007406 A1) and Baker (US 20180271155 A1).
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1, the following bold limitations are considered abstract:
when the aerosol generating device does not normally operate normally due to an error, determining, by a controller of the aerosol generating device, whether to activate the self-diagnosis for analyzing the error of the aerosol generating device;
when the self-diagnosis is activated, performing, by the controller, a function self-test by checking whether each of functions required for a normal heating operation of the aerosol generating device is operative;
determining, by the controller, a faulty component of the aerosol generating device based on a result of the function self-test;
determining, by the controller, a faulty function of the faulty component based on an error log recorded in a memory of the aerosol generating device;
determining, by the controller, a severity of the determined faulty function;
and outputting, by the controller, a final diagnosis result with respect to the self-diagnosis based on the faulty component, the faulty function, and the severity.
The above bolded limitations are directed to abstract ideas and would fall within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Determining whether or not to diagnose a device based on an error and diagnosing a device based on faulty components and functions can be done in the human mind using observation, judgement, and opinion. Similarly, performing a function self-test, is viewed as checking a device. Checking is a mental process as it is done using observation, judgement, and opinion. MPEP 2106.04 teaches “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Mental processes recited in claims that require computers are explained further below with respect to point C.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements –
“a controller of the aerosol generating device, a memory of the aerosol generating device, and outputting a final diagnosis result with respect to the self-diagnosis based on the faulty component, the faulty function, and the severity.”
Examiner views these limitations amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims
-Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP
2106.05(b)
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Moreover, Examiner views the claims to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to an aerosol generating device.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a controller of the aerosol generating device, a memory of the aerosol generating device, and outputting a final diagnosis result with respect to the self-diagnosis based on the faulty component, the faulty function, and the severity” amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting as seen in MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, memory and a controller are viewed as elements for using a computer as a tool to process the abstract ideas. Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by Bessant (US 20210007406 A1) and Baker (US 20180271155 A1).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claim fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception because the limitations “a controller of the aerosol generating device, a memory of the aerosol generating device, and outputting a final diagnosis result with respect to the self-diagnosis based on the faulty component, the faulty function, and the severity” just tie the claim to a generic computing system for outputting data.
With respect to claim 10, the following bold limitations are considered abstract:
a heater configured to generate an aerosol by heating an aerosol generating material;
a battery;
a memory storing information about a use history and an error log of the aerosol generating device;
and a controller configured to:
when the aerosol generating device does not operate normally due to an error, determine whether to activate the self-diagnosis for analyzing the error of the aerosol generating device;
when the self-diagnosis is activated, performing a function self-test by checking whether each of functions required for a normal heating operation of the aerosol generating device is operative;
determine a faulty component of the aerosol generating device based on a result of the function self-test;
determine a faulty function of the faulty component based on the error log recorded in the memory of the aerosol generating device;
determining a severity of the determined faulty function;
and outputting a final diagnosis result with respect to the self-diagnosis based on the faulty component, the faulty function, and the severity.
The above bolded limitations are directed to abstract ideas and would fall within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Determining whether or not to diagnose a device based on an error and diagnosing a device based on faulty components and functions can be done in the human mind using observation, judgement, and opinion. Similarly, performing a function self-test, is viewed as checking a device. Checking is a mental process as it is done using observation, judgement, and opinion. MPEP 2106.04 teaches “The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Mental processes recited in claims that require computers are explained further below with respect to point C.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements –
“a heater configured to generate an aerosol by heating an aerosol generating material; a battery; a memory storing information about a use history and an error log of the aerosol generating device; and a controller configured to: and outputting a final diagnosis result with respect to the self-diagnosis based on the faulty component, the faulty function, and the severity.”
Examiner views these limitations amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims
-Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP
2106.05(b)
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Moreover, Examiner views the claims to be merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to an aerosol generating device.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a heater configured to generate an aerosol by heating an aerosol generating material; a battery; a memory storing information about a use history and an error log of the aerosol generating device; and a controller configured to: and outputting a final diagnosis result with respect to the self-diagnosis based on the faulty component, the faulty function, and the severity.” The outputting limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting as seen in MPEP 2106.05(g). The heater, battery, memory and controller are viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as seen in MPEP 2106.05(h). Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by Bessant (US 20210007406 A1) and Baker (US 20180271155 A1).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claim fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception because the limitations “a heater configured to generate an aerosol by heating an aerosol generating material; a battery; a memory storing information about a use history and an error log of the aerosol generating device; and a controller configured to: and outputting a final diagnosis result with respect to the self-diagnosis based on the faulty component, the faulty function, and the severity.” just tie the claim to a generic computing system for outputting data.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-15 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below:
The dependent claims are directed to further determining other information about the device during the self-test and what data is used during the self-test. Therefore, they still describe a mental process as determining information and using data from a log can be done in the human mind using observation, judgement, and opinion. Claim 14 includes a flooding detection module which is viewed as a device for mere data gathering and claim 15 includes a computer readable medium which is viewed as element for using a computer as a tool.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-9 and 11-15 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessant (US 20210007406 A1) as modified by Baker (US 20180271155 A1).
With respect to claim 1,
Bessant teaches,
when the aerosol generating device does not operate normally due to an error, determining, by a controller of the aerosol generating device, whether to activate the self-diagnosis for analyzing the error of the aerosol generating device; (Abstract teaches “A response procedure for an aerosol-generating device includes detecting a fall or shock using at least one acceleration value and initiating at least one response procedure using a controller.” (i.e. a fall is viewed as an error.) Abstract further teaches “The response procedures may include at least one of: initiating a mechanical change in the aerosol-generating device, initiating a modification to an external device interface, generating a human-perceptible beacon, storing data associated with the fall or shock in persistent or non-volatile memory, initiating a diagnostic routine, monitoring for a lost device condition, and initiating a soft shutdown or restart.” (i.e. diagnostic routine viewed as a self-test)
when the self-diagnosis is activated, performing, by the controller, a function self-test by checking whether each of functions required for a normal heating operation of the aerosol generating device is operative; (Para. [0106] teaches “The diagnostic routine may include checking a resistance value of the aerosolizer. For example, if the aerosolizer includes a heating blade, the overall resistance of the blade may be measured as an indication of its integrity. A higher than expected resistance may mean that the heating blade is broken. If the aerosol-generating substrate includes an e-liquid, the resistance of a heating element, such as a heating mesh, of the aerosolizer may be measured.”)
determining, by the controller, a faulty component of the aerosol generating device based on a result of the function self-test; (Para. [0106] teaches “The diagnostic routine may include checking a resistance value of the aerosolizer. For example, if the aerosolizer includes a heating blade, the overall resistance of the blade may be measured as an indication of its integrity. A higher than expected resistance may mean that the heating blade is broken. If the aerosol-generating substrate includes an e-liquid, the resistance of a heating element, such as a heating mesh, of the aerosolizer may be measured.” (i.e. heating blade being broken is considered a faulty component.))
determining, by the controller, a severity of the determined faulty function; (Para. [0106] teaches “Initiating a diagnostic routine may provide the device with an accounting of the extent of damage.”)
and outputting, by the controller, a final diagnosis result with respect to the self-diagnosis based on the faulty component, the faulty function, and the severity. (Para. [0107] teaches “The warning may also be related to the results of the diagnostic routine.”)
Bessant does not explicitly teach,
determining, by the controller, a faulty function of the faulty component based on an error log recorded in a memory of the aerosol generating device;
Baker teaches,
determining, by the controller, a faulty function of the faulty component based on an error log recorded in a memory of the aerosol generating device; (Para., [0042] teaches “The left-hand portion of this diagram (FIG. 5A) shows the processing involves the controller detecting an event (operation 610), obtaining a time-stamp for the event from timer 219 (unless this is provided with the event itself) (operation 615), and then saving information about this event (620), including the time-stamp and the nature of the event, to a log, which may be maintained in the non-volatile memory 218.”Para. [0046] teaches “In addition, the e-cigarette may record a wide variety of further types of events and/or parameter into the log, such as error states, operating temperature, etc.” Para. [0052] teaches “In some implementations, the event data when generated may be applied directly, on an ongoing basis, to update the model (rather than being read back out of a log). Note that the event data might still be recorded into a log however, since this might (for example) still provide useful information—i.e. for diagnostics in case of some form of failure of the e-cigarette 10.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bessant with determining, by the controller, a faulty function of the faulty component based on an error log recorded in a memory of the aerosol generating device such as that of Baker.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Bessant, because as seen in Para. [0104] of Bessant “Further, this response procedure may be especially useful in diagnosing the nature of the damage based on stored data about the fall or shock.” Therefore, using stored data to determine a faulty function would be useful as suggested by Bessant.
With respect to claims 2 and 11,
Bessant further teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining whether to activate the self-diagnosis comprises, if the error recently occurred in the aerosol generating device or occurred more than a predetermined number of times in the aerosol generating device, determining to activate the self-diagnosis. (Para. [0104] teaches “The diagnostic flag may be enabled, for example, when the fall duration, fall height, or impact exceed certain thresholds. The fall count may store the number of falls over the life of the device.” (I.e. error occurred more than a predetermined number of times.))
With respect to claim 3,
Bessant further teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the function self-test is performed with respect to an operating function of a hardware component including at least one of a heater, a sensor, the controller, and a battery included in the aerosol generating device, and an execution function of software for controlling a heating operation of the aerosol generating device. (Para. [0106] teaches “The diagnostic routine may include checking a resistance value of the aerosolizer. For example, if the aerosolizer includes a heating blade, the overall resistance of the blade may be measured as an indication of its integrity. A higher than expected resistance may mean that the heating blade is broken. If the aerosol-generating substrate includes an e-liquid, the resistance of a heating element, such as a heating mesh, of the aerosolizer may be measured.” (i.e. heating blade being broken is considered a heater.))
With respect to claim 4,
Bessant does not explicitly teach,
The method of claim 1, wherein the function self-test is performed by referring to monitoring information about a use history of the aerosol generating device.
Baker further teaches,
wherein the function self-test is performed by referring to monitoring information about a use history of the aerosol generating device. (Para. [0096] teaches “The log data may include logs corresponding to events that occurred in the aerosol generating device 100. Here, the events may include all operations performed by the aerosol generating device 100 in response to a user input, such as power on/off, heating start, heating completion, and smoking start of the aerosol generating device 100. In addition, events that occurred in the aerosol generating device 100 may include all errors that occurred in the aerosol generating device 100.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim wherein the function self-test is performed by referring to monitoring information about a use history of the aerosol generating device such as that of Baker.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Bessant, because as seen in Para. [0104] of Bessant “Further, this response procedure may be especially useful in diagnosing the nature of the damage based on stored data about the fall or shock.” Therefore, using stored use data to determine a faulty function would be useful as suggested by Bessant.
With respect to claim 9,
Bessant further teaches,
The method of claim 1, wherein the final diagnosis result comprises guide information indicating whether it is required to disassemble the aerosol generating device. (Para. [0105] teaches “The diagnosis may be useful in facilitating proper repair of the device by customer care.” (i.e. proper repair would involve disassembly))
With respect to claim 10,
All limitations except for:
“a heater configured to generate an aerosol by heating an aerosol generating material; a battery; a memory storing information about a use history and an error log of the aerosol generating device; and a controller” are included in claim 1 and are taught by the combination of Bessant and Baker as seen above.
Bessant further teaches,
a heater configured to generate an aerosol by heating an aerosol generating material; (Para. [0044] teaches “aerosolizer may include a heater, a heater coil, a chemical heat source (such as a carbon heat source), or any suitable means that heats the substrate to generate aerosol.”)
a battery; (Para. [0061] teaches “The power source may be a battery. The battery may be disposable or rechargeable.”
a memory storing information about a use history and an error log of the aerosol generating device; and a controller; (Para. [0071] teaches “The controller may be used to determine whether the fall or shock is detected. The controller may be used to determine when to initiate the response procedures. In particular, the controller of the aerosol-generating device may include a processor and a memory.”
With respect to claim 15,
Bessant further teaches,
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for executing the method of claim 1 on a computer. (Para. [0071] teaches “The functionality of the controller may be implemented in firmware. At least one response procedure may be stored in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, such as the memory,”)
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessant (US 20210007406 A1) and Baker (US 20180271155 A1) as applied to claim 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Owada (JP 2006155064 A).
With respect to claims 5 and 12,
The combination of Bessant and Baker does not explicitly teach,
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining of the faulty component comprises filtering the faulty component from among a plurality of faulty components of the aerosol generating device based on accumulated appearance frequencies and recent appearance frequencies of the faulty function associated with the plurality of the faulty components in the error log.
Owada teaches,
wherein the determining of the faulty component comprises filtering the faulty component from among a plurality of components of the aerosol generating device based on accumulated appearance frequencies and recent appearance frequencies of the faulty function associated with the components in the error log. (Para. [0017] teaches “In the appearance frequency table shown in FIG. 3(F), the larger the value representing the appearance frequency, the more frequently occurring the log is, and the less problematic the log is. Conversely, the smaller the value representing the appearance frequency, the more unusual the log is. Therefore, the most unusual thing is the log of the line with serial number 2. It can be said that an item that appears less frequently, that is, an uncommon item, is more likely to have been output as a result of a problem occurring.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bessant and Baker wherein the determining of the faulty component comprises filtering the faulty component from among a plurality of components of the aerosol generating device based on accumulated appearance frequencies and recent appearance frequencies of the faulty function associated with the components in the error log such as that of Owada.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Bessant, because if a condition shows up on an error list a large number of times it could further confirm that something is wrong with the component or that the error is something routine and not affecting the overall operation of the device. Furthermore, Para. [0017] of Owada teaches “It can be said that an item that appears less frequently, that is, an uncommon item, is more likely to have been output as a result of a problem occurring. When displaying the logs, you can filter the accumulated logs based on this occurrence frequency, making it possible to quickly identify the location of the problem from within the logs.”
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessant (US 20210007406 A1) and Baker (US 20180271155 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Agnihotram (US 20150309855 A1).
With respect to claim 6 and 13,
Bessant does not explicitly teach,
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining of the faulty function comprises: determining that a function identified by the function self-test is the faulty function of the faulty component, if the function identified by the function self-test has a predetermined priority among a plurality of functions associated with the faulty component in the error log.
Agnihotram teaches,
wherein the determining of the faulty function comprises: determining that a function identified by the function self-test is the faulty function of the faulty component, if the function identified by the function self-test has a predetermined priority among a plurality of functions associated with the faulty component in the error log. (Para. [0010] teaches “The measurement error model module uses measurement error model on the sensor data. The maximum likelihood estimator describes the sensor data using a multivariate probability distribution wherein one or more parameters of the multivariate probability distribution are estimated by a maximum-likelihood estimation technique. The likelihood ratio testing module compares the sensor data with the control samples using a likelihood ratio test. The determining module determines the sensor data that indicates the one or more faulty components.” Para. [0011] teaches “The probabilistic engine receives the symptoms of a faulty device, identifies one or more faulty components associated with each symptom and determines the device status.” (i.e. higher priority is viewed as a higher probability.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bessant and Baker wherein the determining of the faulty function comprises: determining that a function identified by the function self-test is the faulty function of the faulty component, if the function identified by the function self-test has a predetermined priority among a plurality of functions associated with the faulty component in the error log such as that of Agnihotram.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Bessant and Baker, because if a function has priority over another function, it could be viewed as being the root cause of the fault. Therefore, higher priority function should be addressed before the other diagnosed problems which could be dependent upon the function with the higher priority.
Claims 7, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessant (US 20210007406 A1) and Baker (US 20180271155 A1) as applied to claim 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Jain (US 20220022554 A1).
With respect to claim 7,
The combination of Bessant and Baker does not explicitly teach,
The method of claim 1, further comprising analyzing a flooding detection frequency with respect to the aerosol generating device, the flooding detection frequency being a number of times the aerosol generating device gets wet, wherein the determining of the severity comprises, when the flooding detection frequency is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, determining the severity of the faulty function by using a first set of threshold levels, and when the flooding detection frequency is less than the first threshold value, determining the severity of the faulty function by using a second set of threshold levels.
Jain teaches,
further comprising analyzing a flooding detection frequency with respect to the aerosol generating device, the flooding detection frequency being a number of times the aerosol generating device gets wet, (Para. [0095] teaches “moisture test may be conducted, to detect the presence of a leak, for example due to a payload reservoir breaking or becoming loose. One or more moisture detection sensors may be incorporated into the EVPS, for example near the point of attachment of a reservoir to the EVPS, and/or near any components that may be damaged by liquid, such as the processor or the power cell. If moisture is detected, a corresponding signal is received by the detection processor.” (i.e. leak is viewed as flooding)
wherein the determining of the severity comprises, when the flooding detection frequency is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, determining the severity of the faulty function by using a first set of threshold levels, and when the flooding detection frequency is less than the first threshold value, determining the severity of the faulty function by using a second set of threshold levels. (Para. [0117] “The detection processor may then detect the presence or absence of one or more moisture sensor signals, to detect if unwanted moisture is found within the EVPS, and if so then this result is passed to the diagnostic processor to indicate a specific form of misuse, namely wetting of the EVPS (though misuse of a reservoir, dropping the EVPS in water, and the like).” (i.e. threshold is above if receives a signal and determines that there is moisture present and below if no signal is received and then there is no moisture present.)) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bessant and Baker further comprising analyzing a flooding detection frequency with respect to the aerosol generating device, the flooding detection frequency being a number of times the aerosol generating device gets wet, wherein the determining of the severity comprises, when the flooding detection frequency is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, determining the severity of the faulty function by using a first set of threshold levels, and when the flooding detection frequency is less than the first threshold value, determining the severity of the faulty function by using a second set of threshold levels such as that of Jain.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Bessant and Baker, because liquid within the device can damage multiple components within the aerosol generating device as seen in Para. [0118].
With respect to claim 8,
The combination of Bessant and Baker does not explicitly teach,
The method of claim 7, wherein the final diagnosis result comprises a diagnosis result based on flooding, when the flooding detection frequency is equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold value.
Jain teaches,
The method of claim 7, wherein the final diagnosis result comprises a diagnosis result based on flooding, when the flooding detection frequency is equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold value. (Para. [0121] teaches “In response to any of the above diagnostics indicating a fault with the EVPS (for example, if the cell integrity test or circuit integrity test fails, or the temperature of a component of the EVPS is above a predetermined threshold, or if a predetermined component is detected to be proximate to moisture), then an output processor is adapted to indicate the result of the or each performed diagnostic to a user.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bessant and Baker wherein the final diagnosis result comprises a diagnosis result based on flooding, when the flooding detection frequency is equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold value such as that of Jain.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Bessant and Baker, because liquid within the device can damage multiple components within the aerosol generating device as seen in Para. [0118].
With respect to claim 14,
The combination of Bessant and Baker does not explicitly teach,
The aerosol generating device of 10, further comprising a flooding detection module configured to detect flooding with respect to the aerosol generating device, wherein the controller is further configured to: analyze a flooding detection frequency detected by the flooding detection module, the flooding detection frequency being a number of times the aerosol generating device gets wet; when the flooding detection frequency is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, determine the severity of the faulty function by using a first set of threshold levels; and when the flooding detection frequency is less than the predetermined threshold value, determine the severity of the faulty function by using a second set of threshold levels.
Jain teaches,
further comprising a flooding detection module configured to detect flooding with respect to the aerosol generating device, (Para. [0095] teaches “to detect the presence of a leak, for example due to a payload reservoir breaking or becoming loose. One or more moisture detection sensors may be incorporated into the EVPS, for example near the point of attachment of a reservoir to the EVPS, and/or near any components that may be damaged by liquid,” (i.e. flooding detection module is viewed as the one or more moisture detection sensors.))
wherein the controller is further configured to: analyze a flooding detection frequency detected by the flooding detection module; (Para. [0095] teaches “moisture test may be conducted, to detect the presence of a leak, for example due to a payload reservoir breaking or becoming loose. One or more moisture detection sensors may be incorporated into the EVPS, for example near the point of attachment of a reservoir to the EVPS, and/or near any components that may be damaged by liquid, such as the processor or the power cell. If moisture is detected, a corresponding signal is received by the detection processor.” (i.e. leak is viewed as flooding))
wherein the determining of the severity comprises, when the flooding detection frequency is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, determining the severity of the faulty function by using a first set of threshold levels, and when the flooding detection frequency is less than the first threshold value, determining the severity of the faulty function by using a second set of threshold levels. (Para. [0117] “The detection processor may then detect the presence or absence of one or more moisture sensor signals, to detect if unwanted moisture is found within the EVPS, and if so then this result is passed to the diagnostic processor to indicate a specific form of misuse, namely wetting of the EVPS (though misuse of a reservoir, dropping the EVPS in water, and the like).” (i.e. threshold is above if receives a signal and determines that there is moisture present and below if no signal is received and then there is no moisture present.)) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Bessant and Baker further comprising a flooding detection module configured to detect flooding with respect to the aerosol generating device, wherein the controller is further configured to: analyze a flooding detection frequency detected by the flooding detection module, the flooding detection frequency being a number of times the aerosol generating device gets wet; when the flooding detection frequency is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, determine the severity of the faulty function by using a first set of threshold levels; and when the flooding detection frequency is less than the predetermined threshold value, determine the severity of the faulty function by using a second set of threshold levels such as that of Jain.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Bessant and Baker, because liquid within the device can damage multiple components within the aerosol generating device as seen in Para. [0118].
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 JOSHUA L FORRISTALL whose telephone number is 703-756-4554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 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, Andrew Schechter can be reached on 571-272-2302. 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.
/JOSHUA L FORRISTALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights