DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 4-14 are currently pending and are subject to this office action. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 14 is newly added. Claims 9-13 are withdrawn. Claims 2 and 3 are canceled. This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 07/23/2026.
Response to Amendments
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 07/23/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 5-10, filed 07/23/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 1 to include a limitation that was not previously presented, specifically, “wherein the second stage is a vaporization stage configured for continuous user consumption, and wherein a fluctuation of the temperature of the at least one heating element within the present second temperature range comprises alternating between a higher temperature for vaporizing the aerosol-forming substance and a lower temperature for reducing vapor pressure and allowing replenishment of the aerosol-forming substance”. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tan (CN 110664017 A).
The following are modified rejections based on Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN 108851242 A, as cited in IDS dated 02/06/2023 and hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation) and further in view of Tan (CN 110664017 A, as cited in IDS dated 02/06/2023 and hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation).
With regard to Claim 1, He, directed to a heating element temperature control method and electrical smoking system, teaches (i) a heating element for heating and releasing volatile compounds [0041] and an energy supply device to control the work of the heating element [0042]. (ii) A control module controls the energy supply of the heating element [0042]. (iii) The heating element can work in a preheating stage in a preset preheating temperature and move to a first constant temperature of a constant temperature stage to release volatile compounds [0042]. (iv) The constant temperature stage includes going from the first constant temperature, after a preset time, to a second constant temperature and back to the first constant temperature [0022-0023], meeting the claim limitation of a second stage.
He further teaches (v) wherein after operating in the constant temperature stage for a preset time, the device enters a temperature rising stage. During the temperature rising stage, the temperature value of the first constant temperature gradually increases several times from the second constant temperature [0016]. (vi) During the temperature rising stage, the first and second constant temperature are increased by a temperature level of 5 °C continuously [0059] while the temperature difference in the first constant temperature and second constant temperature of the constant temperature stage is 50 °C [0044]. (vii) The temperature rising stage follows the constant temperature stage sequentially [0059].
Furthermore, (viii) He teaches repeated oscillations of temperature between a first constant temperature, T1, and a second constant temperature, T2 [0043], relating to the second stage of the claimed invention. Both constant temperatures can be freely adjusted within a preset range. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the oscillations correspond to changes in supplied heating power, resulting in adjacent fluctuations in heating power. Selecting a threshold to manage these fluctuations would have been a matter of routine optimization to improve control and improve inhalation time [0005-0007]. (ix) He discloses where the complete heating operation includes preheating, a period of controlled oscillation, and incremental temperature increase [0046-0059].
He further teaches wherein (x) the constant temperature stage is a stage in which volatile compounds are continuously released, and its duration can be based on the number of user puffs [0042]. (xi) The device operates at the first constant temperature, cools at the second constant temperature, then returns to the first constant temperature upon detecting a smoking condition of the device and then instructs the device to repeat the process [0044]. The first constant temperature is suitable for promoting the release of volatile compounds by the device [0044]. (xii) The second constant temperature is lower than the first constant temperature [0044]. He teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however He is silent to:
The lower temperature for reducing vapor pressure and allowing replenishment of the aerosol-forming substance
PNG
media_image1.png
202
280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tan, directed to a method and device of an atomizer, teaches that during atomization, atomized gas moves in a direction opposite the entry of e-liquid, producing a cushion effect [0010]. When atomization is stopped, the cushion effect is reduced, thereby restoring the supply of e-liquid, wherein the temperature is lowered (Fig. 11: "IV") and the e-liquid is entered [0010]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to configured the lower temperature of He's temperature fluctuation according to the teachings of Tan in order to maintain sufficient e-liquid supply to the vaporization surface and avoid dry burning during continued use.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lower temperature of He to wherein the lower temperature for reducing vapor pressure and allowing replenishment of the aerosol-forming substance because both He and Tan are directed to fluctuating temperatures in aerosol generating devices. Tan teaches a cushion effect with a lower temperature that allows the restoration of liquid to maintain sufficient e-liquid supply to the vaporization surface and avoid dry burning during continued use and this merely involves the use of a known temperature control technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
With regard to Claim 5, He teaches (i) wherein the constant temperature stage includes going from the first constant temperature, after a preset time, to a second constant temperature [0022]. (ii) When the heating element is continuously kept at the first constant temperature for more than a first preset time, the heating element is cooled from the first constant temperature to the second constant temperature [0022], indicating a reduction in power. (iii) When the heating element has an instant drop at the second constant temperature, the heating element rises to the first constant temperature [0023], indicating an increase in power.
With regard to Claim 6, He teaches (i) wherein the constant temperature stage includes going from the first constant temperature, after a preset time, to a second constant temperature [0022]. (ii) The heating element goes back and forth between the first and second constant temperatures after preset times [0015], by controlling the energy supply of the heating element [0019].
With regard to Claim 7, He teaches wherein in the preheating stage, the preset preheating temperature can be to 350 °C [0047], which can also be the same as the first constant temperature [0044]. The first constant temperature is suitable for promoting the release of volatile compounds [0044], meeting the wherein a lower temperature limit of the first temperature range is greater than vaporization critical temperature of the aerosol-forming substrate.
With regard to Claim 8, He teaches wherein during the temperature rising stage, the first constant temperature is increased several times from the second constant temperature [0017], meeting the claim limitation of fluctuated power.
With regard to Claim 14, He teaches repeated oscillations between the first and second constant temperatures during the constant-temperature stage [0043]. Operation at the lower second constant temperature corresponds to a reduced second heating power and operation at the higher first constant temperature after the lower second constant temperature corresponds to the increased third heating power. He further teaches maintaining the heating element at the first constant temperature for a preset period before returning the second constant temperature [0043], thus maintaining the increased third power for a preset time before returning to the reduced second power.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN 108851242 A, as cited in IDS dated 02/06/2023 and hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation) and Tan (CN 110664017 A, as cited in IDS dated 02/06/2023 and hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Farine (US 20150237916 A1, as cited in IDS dated 11/25/2024).
With regard to Claim 4, He teaches wherein after operating in the constant temperature stage for a preset time, the device enters a temperature rising stage [0016]. Modified He teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified He is silent to:
Wherein, in the third stage, the heating power of the heating element fluctuates
The absolute value of the difference between the heating power obtained by two adjacent fluctuations of the heating element is greater than a preset second power difference
Farine, directed to a device and method for controlling an electrical heater, teaches (i) a smoking session split into multiple phases, wherein a third phase of the smoking session limits a duty cycle of the device to 60%. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that duty cycle corresponds to the amount of time power is supplied to the heating element and that in a phase with a lower percentage, the system would modulate power in response to heat loss or a puff. (ii) Further, the first phase has a duty cycle of 95%, a second phase has a duty cycle of 65%, the third phase has a duty cycle of 60%, and so forth [0092]. There is a 30% power difference in the first and second phase, while there is a 5% power difference between the second and third phase, wherein 5% is smaller than 30%. A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the power difference logic of Farine to the temperature rising stage of He to keep track of abnormal conditions [0009] and limit risk of combustion of the substrate [0008].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the heating control method of modified He to when in the third stage, the heating power of the heating element fluctuates and the absolute value of the difference between the heating power obtained by two adjacent fluctuations of the heating element is greater than a preset second power difference, wherein the second power difference is smaller than the first power difference because both He and Farine are directed to limiting the risk of combustion in aerosol generating devices. Farine teaches a smoking session split into multiple phases with different duty cycle values to keep track of abnormal conditions [0009] and limit risk of combustion of the substrate [0008] and this merely involves applying a known power difference technique to a known aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
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 OLUWATOSIN O DIYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 am - 6 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.
/O.O.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights