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 1-25 are pending and are subject to this office action. This office action is in response to Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/22/26.
Claims 14-25 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 1/22/26, page 8) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues: Marubashi does not disclose each and every element of Claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant specifically argues that Marubashi does not explicitly teach a controller configured to “suspend power to the aerosol generator based on the temperature...” However, as Applicant references, Marubashi teaches that the reference temperature used by the controller to determine whether to suspend power may be based on a temperature measured by the temperature sensor 282. ([0063]). While Marubashi further teaches that a correction value may be used, the correction value may be in the form of a multiplication coefficient or additive constant. ([0063]). Thus, Marubashi explicitly teaches that the temperature value obtained from the temperature sensor is the lone independent variable needed by the controller when determining whether to suspend power. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation “based,” it would be reasonable to conclude that Marubashi teaches that the controller is configured to suspend power based on the temperature as measured by the temperature sensor 282, similarly as claimed in Applicant’s Claim 1, absent further evidence to the contrary.
The following rejections are maintained and the following claim objections are new.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant’s Arguments (dated 1/22/26, pages 7-8) do not indicate that any claims were amended. However, in the copy of the claims submitted with the arguments (dated 1/22/26, pages 2-6), several claims appear to have been amended/misnumbered. While the amendments do not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because the amendments were not presented in a marked-up format, it appears that the amendments were likely inadvertent. The claims appear to have been amended as follows:
Originally submitted Claims 2-11 were renumbered to Claims 1-10 (such that there are two Claim 1s and no Claim 11).
Originally submitted Claims 2-7 were amended to depend from Claim 14.
Originally submitted Claims 8-11 were amended to depend from Claim 7.
Where the above amendments appear to be inadvertent, the following rejections have not been modified based on Applicant’s Amendments. For purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted as being labeled/numbered as originally presented. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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 ("If the processor 240 determines in step S609 that the temperature THTR of the heater 127 exceeds 300°C., in step S616, the processor 240 makes a notification representing the occurrence of an abnormality" [0064], Figs 6A); and
suspend power to the aerosol generator based on the temperature and a threshold temperature ("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], Fig 6A).
Regarding Claim 2, Marubashi further discloses an aerosol provision device
wherein the temperature is 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 temperature is 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 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 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 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights