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 .
Priority
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) / (a)(2) as being Luo (WO2019192226). A copy of Luo (WO2019192226) is provided with the Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
With respect to the limitations of claim 1, Lou teaches a vaporization state recognition method performed by a controller (Figs 1-3, control component 400, 0036) of a vaporizer (aerosol generating article 20, 0034), comprising: obtaining, by the controller, a heating rate of an atomizing sheet (Figs 1, 2, heating component 300, 0038) of the vaporizer; and determining, by the controller, a vaporization state of the vaporizer according to the heating rate (0053, 0072), the determining the vaporization state of the vaporizer according to the heating rate comprises: obtaining, by the controller, a changing trend of the heating rate in a predetermined vaporization time (0073, heating is performed at a certain power (e.g., maximum power) for a certain time (e.g., 80ms), the temperature of the resistance wire is detected, and the temperature change is calculated (equivalent to the slope of the temperature rise curve)); determining, by the controller, that the atomizing sheet is abnormal or the vaporizer is in a dry heating state in response to the heating rate being in an increasing trend in the predetermined vaporization time (0073, if the temperature change rate exceeds a threshold, dry-burn is determined); and determining, by the controller, that the vaporizer enters a stable vaporization interval in the determined vaporization time in response to the heating rate being in a declining trend in the predetermined vaporization time (0073, otherwise, it is determined that dry-burn has not occurred).
With respect to the limitations of claims 3, 4 and 5, Lou teaches after the determining that the vaporizer enters a stable vaporization interval in the determined vaporization time (0073, otherwise, it is determined that dry-burn has not occurred), the method further comprises: determining whether the heating rate in the stable vaporization interval is greater than or equal to a preset threshold; and determining that the vaporizer is in a dry heating state in response to the heating rate in the stable vaporization interval being greater than or equal to the preset threshold (0072, 0076, where the dry burning check is repeatedly checked between puffs if there are no dry burning faults);
determining whether the heating rate in the stable vaporization interval is greater than or equal to a preset threshold comprises: determining whether the heating rate in each different sub-interval in the stable vaporization interval is greater than or equal to the preset threshold corresponding to each sub- interval (0072, 0076, where the dry burning check is repeatedly checked between puffs if there are no dry burning faults);
the predetermined vaporization time is a time period of vaporization for 4 seconds to 12 seconds counted from a start of the vaporizer (period for 2nd puff vaporization time is 8~10 seconds = (first puff duration is 2 seconds + 6 second delay interval)).
With respect to the limitations of claim 6, Lou teaches a vaporization state recognition apparatus, comprising: an obtaining module (control component 400, 0036) configured to obtain a heating rate of an atomizing sheet (Figs 1-3, heating component 300, 0038) of a vaporizer (aerosol generating article 20, 0034); and a processing module (main control unit 420, 0052) configured to determine a vaporization state of the vaporizer according to the heating rate (0053, 0072), determining the vaporization state of the vaporizer according to the heating rate comprises: obtaining a changing trend of the heating rate in a predetermined vaporization time (0073, heating is performed at a certain power (e.g., maximum power) for a certain time (e.g., 80ms), the temperature of the resistance wire is detected, and the temperature change is calculated (equivalent to the slope of the temperature rise curve)); determining that the atomizing sheet is abnormal or the vaporizer is in a dry heating state in response to the heating rate being in an increasing trend in the predetermined vaporization time (0073, if the temperature change rate exceeds a threshold, dry-burn is determined); and determining that the vaporizer enters a stable vaporization interval in the determined vaporization time in response to the heating rate being in a declining trend in the predetermined vaporization time (0073, otherwise, it is determined that dry-burn has not occurred).
With respect to the limitations of claim 7, Lou teaches an electronic device, comprising: a memory (Figs 1-3, storage unit 410, 0050); and a processor (main control unit 420, 0052) comprised in the controller (control component 400, 0036) of the vaporizer (aerosol generating article 20, 0034), the memory stores program instructions (0050, the storage unit also stores instructions), and the processor (420) is configured to read the program instructions from the memory (410) to execute the vaporization state recognition method of claim 1 (as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, 0053, 0072).
With respect to the limitations of claim 8, Lou teaches the electronic device comprises the vaporizer (aerosol generating article 20), the vaporizer comprises the atomizing sheet (heating component 300, 0038) and a temperature characteristic component (temperature sensor, 0039, 0049), and the temperature characteristic component is connected to the processor (420) and is configured to detect a temperature of the atomizing sheet (0039, 0049).
With respect to the limitations of claim 10, Lou teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable mediums (Figs 1-3, storage unit 410, 0050) having processor-executable instructions stored thereon (0050, the storage unit also stores instructions), the processor-executable instructions, when executed, facilitate the vaporization state recognition method of claim 1 (0053, 0072).
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.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Luo (WO2019192226) as applied to claims 1, 7 and 8, further in view of Davis (US 2021/0401061).
With respect to the limitations of claim 9, Lou discloses a temperature characteristic component but is silent to the temperature characteristic component comprises a positive temperature coefficient thermistor or a negative temperature coefficient thermistor. However, Davis discloses the temperature characteristic component comprises a positive temperature coefficient thermistor or a negative temperature coefficient thermistor (Fig 43, 0578, the PTC thermistor (RPTC) is thermally connected to the atomizer; 0579) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the electronic device of Lou having a atomizing sheet and temperature characteristic component connected to the processor silent to the type of temperature characteristic component with the temperature characteristic component comprises a positive temperature coefficient thermistor or a negative temperature coefficient thermistor of Davis for the purpose of using a known temperature sensor configuration that allows for regulation of power supplied to a heating element based on an increase or decrease in resistance of the sensor (0579), thereby improving the overall versatility of the device.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1, 3 and 5-8 have been amended.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are pending.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendments to claims 1 and 5, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 with respect to the cited prior art not disclosing the claim 1 and 6 amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued on pages 7-8 about claims 1 and 6 that Lou fails to disclose the limitations directed to “a changing trend of the heating rate in a predetermined vaporization time; the heating rate being in an increasing trend in the predetermined vaporization time; the heating rate being in a declining trend in the predetermined vaporization time” because Lou fails to disclose that the changing trend reflects a second-order analysis of the temperature profile and how the heating rate itself evolves over time, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Lou fully discloses obtaining, by the controller, a changing trend of the heating rate in a predetermined vaporization time (0073, heating is performed at a certain power (e.g., maximum power) for a certain time (e.g., 80ms), the temperature of the resistance wire is detected, and the temperature change is calculated (equivalent to the slope of the temperature rise curve)); determining, by the controller, that the atomizing sheet is abnormal or the vaporizer is in a dry heating state in response to the heating rate being in an increasing trend in the predetermined vaporization time (0073, if the temperature change rate exceeds a threshold, dry-burn is determined); and determining, by the controller, that the vaporizer enters a stable vaporization interval in the determined vaporization time in response to the heating rate being in a declining trend in the predetermined vaporization time (0073, otherwise, it is determined that dry-burn has not occurred) as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 6 above.
As discussed in figure 4 and paragraphs 0071-0073, a dry burning detection method based on if the temperature change rate exceeds a threshold (0073) is continuously checked during use of the electronic cigarette and based on whether the temperature change rate trends up or down according to a threshold rate, a dry burn condition is detected, therefore Lou fully discloses the recited claim limitations. Additionally, the claims do not require that a changing trend equated to a second-order analysis.
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 THIEN S TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday [8:00-4:00].
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, Steven Crabb can be reached on 571-270-5095. 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.
/THIEN S TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 2/11/2026
Prosecution Insights