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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/22/26 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3 and 5-25 are pending and are subject to this office action. This office action is in response to Applicant’s arguments filed on 9/22/26.
Claims 14-25 remain withdrawn.
Claim 4 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 9/22/26, page 7) with regard to the objections to Claims 1-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to Claims 1-10 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments (filed 9/22/26, pages 7-9) with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 as amended under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Marubashi does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to suspend power to the aerosol generator based only on the measured temperature in comparison to a threshold temperature. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Marubashi under 35 USC § 103. The following rejections are modified where necessary based on Applicant's amendments.
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 1-5, 7-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marubashi (US 20210274850 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Marubashi discloses an aerosol provision device (inhalation device 100, [0024], Fig 1) comprising:
a power source ("electric component 110 can include a power supply (battery) 250" [0031], Figs 1 & 2);
an aerosol generator powered by the power source to generate an aerosol from an aerosol-generating material for delivery to a user (The power supply powers the heater 127 of atomizer 104. [0031], Figs 1 & 2);
a sensor configured to detect a process variable other than temperature that indicates use of the aerosol provision device ("The electric component 110 can include a puff sensor (for example, a pressure sensor) 281 that detects the puff operation of the user" [0041], Figs 1 & 2),
the sensor also including an on-chip temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature ("The electric component 110 can include a puff sensor... and the temperature sensor 282 that detects the temperature of a predetermined portion of the electric component 110. The temperature sensor 282 may be incorporated in the puff sensor 281" [0041], Figs 1 & 2); and
processing circuitry configured to control power to the aerosol generator, responsive to the process variable detected by the sensor ("a processor 240 that generates a control signal in accordance with information obtained using the detection circuit 220" [0031], Fig 2), the processing circuitry further configured to at least:
receive a signal from the sensor that indicates the temperature as measured by the sensor (A signal received from the temperature sensor may be used to determine the temperature of the heater. [0063]. If the processor determines in step S609 that the temperature of the heater exceeds the second temperature/threshold reference value, the processor makes a notification representing the occurrence of an abnormality in step S616. [0057], [0064], Figs 6A); and
suspend power to the aerosol generator based on the temperature and a threshold temperature (Where the processor determines in step S609 that the temperature of the heater exceeds the second temperature/threshold reference value, any atomization request is masked in step S617, thus suspending power to the aerosol generator. [0057], [0064]-[0065], Fig 6A).
Marubashi does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to suspend power to the aerosol generator based only on the measured temperature in comparison to a threshold temperature. However, Marubashi teaches that:
The temperature received from the temperature sensor may be used to determine the temperature of the heater through a correction value, which is either a multiplied coefficient or an added constant. ([0063]).
The processor compares the determined temperature of the heater to a second temperature/threshold value. ([0057]).
When the processor determines that the temperature of the heater exceeds the second temperature/threshold value, power is suspended to the aerosol generator. ([0057], [0064]-[0065]).
The second temperature/threshold value is arbitrary and can be determined in accordance with the specific parameters of the device. ([0057]).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that, where the second temperature/threshold value is arbitrary and determined based on the parameters of the device, the multiplied coefficient or added constant could be incorporated into the second temperature/threshold value instead of applied to the temperature received from the temperature sensor. Namely, the second temperature/threshold value could be selected and/or calculated by: a) identifying a preferred threshold value, and b) dividing the preferred threshold value by the coefficient or subtracting the constant from the preferred threshold value. Therefore, no correction value would need to be applied to the temperature received from the temperature sensor and the processor could suspend power to the aerosol generator based only on the measured temperature in comparison to the threshold value, similarly as claimed.
Regarding Claim 2, Marubashi further discloses an aerosol provision device
wherein the measured temperature represents the temperature of the sensor (The temperature sensor 282 may be incorporated in the puff sensor 281 and detect the temperature of a predetermined portion of the electric component 110. [0041], Figs 1 & 2), and
the processing circuitry is configured to suspend the power to the aerosol generator when the temperature of the sensor exceeds the threshold temperature (Step S617 suspends power to the atomizer when step S609 determines the heater 127 exceeds 300oC. [0064]-[0065], Fig 6A).
Regarding Claim 3, Marubashi further discloses an aerosol provision device
wherein the measured temperature represents an ambient temperature within a housing of the aerosol provision device (the temperature sensor 282 may directly detect the temperature of a component different from the heater 127, such as the internal electrical components, and use a correction value to determine the temperature of the heater. [0041], [0063]), and
the processing circuitry is configured to suspend the power to the aerosol generator when the ambient temperature within the housing exceeds the threshold temperature (Step S617 suspends power to the atomizer when step S609 determines the corrected temperature of the power supply correlating to the temperature of the heater exceeds 300oC. [0063]-[0065], Fig 6A).
Regarding Claim 4, Marubashi further discloses an aerosol provision device
wherein the temperature is the temperature of the sensor (The temperature sensor 282 detects the temperature of a predetermined portion of the electric components. [0041]), and
the processing circuitry is further configured to predict an ambient temperature within a housing of the aerosol provision device based on the temperature of the sensor, and a correlation between the temperature of the sensor and the ambient temperature (The temperature sensor 282 may directly detect the temperature of a component different from the heater 127 and utilize the corrected value to determine the temperature of the heater. [0064]), and
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to suspend the power to the aerosol generator when the ambient temperature exceeds the threshold temperature (Step S617 suspends power to the atomizer when step S609 determines the corrected temperature of the power supply correlating to the temperature of the heater exceeds 300oC. [0063]-[0065], Fig 6A).
Regarding Claim 5, Marubashi further discloses an aerosol provision device wherein the sensor is temperature-compensated in that the sensor is designed to use the measured temperature to reduce an impact of the temperature on the process variable as detected by the sensor ("the temperature sensor 282… may be a temperature sensor provided in the puff sensor 281 to output a temperature-compensated pressure value" [0063]).
Regarding Claim 7, Marubashi further discloses an aerosol provision device wherein the process variable indicates a user draw on the device, and the power to the aerosol generator is suspended to automatically terminate the draw ("in step S617, the atomization request is masked (disabled). In a state in which the atomization request is masked, even if an atomization request is generated, it is neglected" [0065]).
Regarding Claim 8, Marubashi further discloses an aerosol provision device wherein the processing circuitry is configured to suspend the power to the aerosol generator to automatically terminate the draw independent of user termination of the draw (When the atomization request is masked/disabled, the power supply to the aerosol generator is prevented independent of user input. [0065], Figs 6A-6B).
Regarding Claim 9, Marubashi further discloses an aerosol provision device wherein the processing circuitry is configured to suspend the power to the aerosol generator for a predetermined duration ("in step S618, the processor 240 determines whether the time (non-operation time) in which an operation by the user on the operation unit OP of the user interface 116 is not performed has reached a predetermined time (for example, 6 min). If the non-operation time has reached the predetermined time, the processor 240 transitions to a sleep state (sleep mode)." [0065], Fig 6A).
Regarding Claim 10, Marubashi further discloses an aerosol provision device wherein the processing circuitry is configured to suspend the power to the aerosol generator for a duration that is determined based on the duration of the draw (Power may also be suspended to the heating unit for a duration wherein the suspension is determined based upon the inhalation time (duration of the draw). [0049]-[0050], Figs 5A-5B.).
Regarding Claim 11, Marubashi further discloses an aerosol provision device wherein the processing circuitry is triggered to suspend the power to the aerosol generator independent of any timer configured to measure an elapsed time of the draw (In steps S607-S617, the atomization request mask command is determined independently of the inhalation time calculation. [0064]-[0065], Figs 6A-6B).
Regarding Claim 13, Marubashi further discloses an aerosol provision device wherein the aerosol-generating material is contained in a consumable configured to be coupled to the device ("The inhalation device 100 may further include a capsule 106 including a flavor source 131, and the atomizer 104 can include a capsule holder 105 that holds the capsule 106 in a detachable state… The flavor source 131 can be, for example, a molded body formed by molding a tobacco material" [0025], Fig 1).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marubashi as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20220273042 A1).
Marubashi discloses wherein the sensor is a pressure sensor configured to detect the process variable as a change in pressure caused by airflow when the user draws on the device ("The electric component 110 can include a puff sensor (for example, a pressure sensor) 281 that detects the puff operation of the user" [0041], Figs 1 & 2), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor is a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) sensor.
Lee teaches a similar device comprising a sensor wherein the sensor is a microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) pressure sensor configured to detect a process variable as a change in pressure caused by airflow when the user draws on the device (The device may utilize a pressure sensor to determine whether a puff has occurred, wherein the pressure sensor may be a MEMS (microelectromechanical system) sensor. [0150]-[0158]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor of Marubashi such that the sensor is a microelectromechanical systems sensor as taught by Lee because Marubashi and Lee are both directed to aerosol generating devices comprising pressure sensors to detect user inhalation, Lee teaches the use of a microelectromechanical systems pressure sensor to determine if a puff has occurred, and this merely involves applying a known sensor component to a similar aerosol generating device to yield predictable results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marubashi as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Lord (US 20150237917 A1).
Marubashi discloses wherein the threshold temperature comprises a first and second temperature value of a temperature range (The processor may utilize a first and second threshold temperature to determine when the device may be used/heated again after masking/disabling. [0057], Fig 6A), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured such that if the temperature exceeds the first temperature value and power to the aerosol generator is suspended, power to the aerosol generator is not restored until the temperature drops below the second temperature value.
Lord teaches a similar device comprising a temperature sensor wherein the processing circuitry is configured such that if the temperature exceeds a first temperature value, power to the aerosol generator is suspended and is not restored until the temperature drops below the second temperature value ("In addition, the computer 20 monitors the ambient temperature reading from the temperature sensor 18 to determine whether the device is safe for a user to operate. If the ambient temperature gets above a first safe threshold temperature then the device can enter a wait mode where the vaporiser is disabled. The device periodically measures the temperature to determine when the ambient temperature is once again safe and fallen below a second safe threshold temperature. The first and second safe threshold temperature can be the same temperature, the first can be higher than the second or the second can be higher than the first." [0059]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the control circuitry of Marubashi with a first and second threshold value as taught by Lord because Marubashi and Lord are both directed to aerosol generating devices comprising temperature sensors and control circuitry which disable the device upon reaching a threshold temperature, Lord teaches the use of a second, lower threshold temperature which must be reached before the device is reenabled to enhance safety, and this merely involves applying a known control circuitry component to a similar aerosol generating device to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Buckman whose telephone number is (571)270-0888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-4:00.
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, 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.
/JEFFREY A. BUCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
