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 1-9 and 15 are pending and are subject to this office action. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 10-14 are previously withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed on 01/07/2026 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-9, filed 01/07/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakano (US 20210169148 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to require the controller facilitate a temperature experienced by the pod based on a lifetime of the pod alone which was not previously presented. Nakano discloses the control unit (50) estimates the amount of flavor generated from the flavor source using the cumulative time (“monitors a lifetime of the pod”) in which electrical power was supplied to the electrical load (122R ,“aerosol generator”) using a timer ([0154, 0157, 0160]) and the control unit (50) maintains the temperature of the flavor source near a target temperature ([0101]) but does not explicitly disclose the temperature control is based on the lifetime of the pod alone. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art.
On pg. 6-7, Applicant argues that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply to claim 15 because the terms, “aerosol generating means” and “control means” have sufficient definite meaning as the same for the structure that performs the function. The Examiner disagrees. The limitations, “aerosol generating means for, in use, generating an aerosol” and “control means of the aerosol provision device is configured to monitor a lifetime of the pod and to facilitate modulation of a temperature experienced by the pod over the life time” use the term “means”, are modified by functional language, and are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the limitations meet the 3 prong analysis and 35 U.S.C.112(f) applies.
The rejections below are maintained and modified based on Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
“Aerosol generating means for, in use, generating an aerosol,” in claim 15 line 10. The corresponding structure in the specification for generating an aerosol is an aerosol generator (122, Fig. 1, pg. 4). Therefore, “an aerosol generating means” will be interpreted as an aerosol generator, or equivalents thereof.
“Control means of the aerosol provision device is configured to monitor a lifetime of the pod and to facilitate modulation of a temperature experienced by the pod over the life time,” in claim 15 lines 12-14. The corresponding structure in the specification for monitoring a lifetime of the pod and facilitating modulation of a temperature experienced by the pod of the lifetime is a controller (144, Fig. 1, pg. 4). Therefore, a control means will be interpreted as a controller, or equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(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, 7-8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakano (US 20210274851 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakano discloses an aerosol inhaler (1, “Aerosol provision system”, Fig. 3, [0057]), comprising:
A cartridge (20,30, “aerosol generating component”) configured to be attachable/detachable (“configured for engagement”) from a power supply unit (10, “aerosol provision device”, Fig. 1, [0024, 0056]),
The first cartridge (20) and second cartridge (30) may be integrated into one unit and therefore the integrated first cartridge (20) and second cartridge (30) is considered to be an aerosol generating component ([0056]),
The power supply unit (10, “aerosol provision device”) comprises a power supply (12) and a controller unit (50, “controller”, Fig. 3, [0026, 0028-0029]), and;
The cartridge (20,30, “aerosol generating component”) comprises a load (21, “aerosol generator”) for atomization and a second cartridge (30, “pod”) that contains a flavor source (33) and is located downstream of the electrical load (21, Fig. 3, [0024, 0042, 0053]).
The “lifetime” of the pod is interpreted as the cumulative time the pod has been used.
The controller unit (50) comprises a memory (50a) and stores the cumulative discharging time in the memory (50a, “monitors a lifetime of the pod”, Fig. 5, [0029, 0098]).
The controller unit (50) determines the target temperature (“facilitates the modulation of a temperature experienced by the pod over the lifetime”) of the flavor source (33) in the second cartridge (30, “pod”) based on the cumulative discharging time (“based on the lifetime of the pod alone”, Step S1, Fig. 10, [0106-0108]).
Regarding claim 2, Nakano discloses the controller unit (50) determines a temperature of the flavor source (33, “a temperature at the pod”) in the second cartridge (30, “pod”, Fig. 5, Step S2 in Fig. 10, [0107]).
Regarding claim 3, Nakano discloses the controller unit (50) is connected to a temperature detection element (T1, “a temperature sensor”) for a acquiring a temperature of the flavor source (33, Fig. 5, [0026, 0063]) or a temperature detection element (T3) comprising a thermistor (“a resistance sensor”) for determining a temperature of the flavor source (33, Fig. 6, [0065]).
The controller is interpreted as the control unit (50) and the associated inputs and outputs and therefore the controller unit (50) connected to a temperature detection element (T1, “a temperature sensor” or T3, “a resistance sensor”) is considered to meet the claim limitation of a controller comprising a temperature sensor or resistance sensor.
Regarding claim 7, Nakano discloses the second cartridge (30, “pod”) comprises a flavor source (33, Fig. 3, [0053-0054]).
Regarding claim 8, Nakano discloses a second load (31, “heater”) for supplying heat to the second cartridge (30, “pod”, Fig. 3, [0049-0050, 0053]) and the controller unit (50) controls power supplied to the second load (31, “heat delivery of the heater to the pod”, Fig. 10, [0107-0108]).
Regarding claim 15, Nakano discloses an aerosol inhaler (1, “Aerosol provision means”, Fig. 3, [0057]), comprising:
A cartridge (20,30, “aerosol generating component”) configured to be attachable/detachable (“configured for engagement”) from a power supply unit (10, “aerosol provision device”, Fig. 1, [0024, 0056]),
The first cartridge (20) and second cartridge (30) may be integrated into one unit and therefore the integrated first cartridge (20) and second cartridge (30) is considered to be an aerosol generating component ([0056]),
The power supply unit (10, “aerosol provision device”) comprises a power supply (12, “power means”) and a controller unit (50, “control means”, Fig. 3, [0026, 0028-0029]), and;
The cartridge (20,30, “aerosol generating component”) comprises a load (21, “aerosol generating means”) for atomization and a second cartridge (30, “pod”) that contains a flavor source (33) and is located downstream of the electrical load (21, Fig. 3, [0024, 0042, 0053]).
The “lifetime” of the pod is interpreted as the cumulative time the pod has been used.
The controller unit (50) comprises a memory (50a) and stores the cumulative discharging time in the memory (50a, “monitors a lifetime of the pod”, Fig. 5, [0029, 0098]).
The controller unit (50) determines the target temperature (“facilitates the modulation of a temperature experienced by the pod over the lifetime”) of the flavor source (33) in the second cartridge (30, “pod”) based on the cumulative discharging time (“based on the lifetime of the pod alone”, Step S1, Fig. 10, [0106-0108]).
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.
Claim 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (US 20210274851 A1, hereinafter referred to as Nakano ‘4851) in view of Nakano (US 20210169148 A1, hereinafter referred to as Nakano ‘9148).
Regarding claim 4, Nakano ‘4851 discloses a controller unit (50) connected to a variety of sensors (Fig. 5, [0028]).
Nakano ‘4851 does not explicitly disclose a mechanical element controlled by the controller.
However, Nakano ‘9148, directed to a suction component generator (100, Fig. 1, [0060]), discloses:
A flow rate adjusting unit (730, “mechanical element”) provided between an atomization unit (120) and flavor unit (130) which rotates about an axis C to adjust the amount of aerosol passing though the flavor source (Fig. 4, [0078-0079]). A mechanical element is interpreted as a structure that moves and therefore the flow rate adjusting unit (730) is considered to meet the claim limitation of a mechanical element, and;
The control unit (50) operates the flow adjusting unit (730, [0083]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakano ‘4851 by providing a flow rate adjusting unit and configuring the controller to control the flow rate adjusting unit as taught by Nakano ‘9148 because both Nakano ‘4851 and Nakano ‘9148 are directed to aerosol generating devices, Nakano ‘9148 teaches the flow rate adjusting unit controls the amount of aerosol passing though the flavor source and this involves applying a known mechanical element in a similar aerosol generating device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, Nakano ‘9148 discloses the flow rate adjusting unit (730, “mechanical element”) that allows aerosol to pass through the flavor unit (130) or blocks/diverts the flow of aerosol through the flavor unit (130, Fig. 4, [0079-0080]). The Examiner notes that claim 5 does not require that the mechanical element provides movement of the pod and that claim 5 only requires relative movement between the pod and the aerosol flow direction. Therefore, the flow rate adjusting unit (730) changing direction of the aerosol generated by the load (122, “aerosol generator”) by allowing aerosol to pass through the flavor unit (130) or blocking/diverting the flow of aerosol through the flavor unit (130, Fig. 4, [0079-0080]) is considered to meet the claim limitation of proving relative movement between the pod and a direction of the aerosol generated in use by the aerosol generator.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (US 20210274851 A1) in view of Li (US 20210227890 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Nakano discloses the controller unit (50) is connected to a temperature detection element (T1, “a temperature sensor”) for a acquiring a temperature of the flavor source (33, Fig. 5, [0026, 0063]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that temperature is a measure of energy delivered to the second cartridge (30) at least in part by the aerosol generated from the load (21).
Nakano does not explicitly disclose the controller unit (50) is configured to detect engagement of the cartridge (20,30, “aerosol generating component”) with the power supply unit (10, “aerosol provision device”). However, Li, directed to an electronic atomization device (abstract, [0047]), discloses:
An electronic atomization device comprising a cartridge and a power supply device (Fig. 2, [0047])
A detection module which detects if the cartridge is inserted in the power supply device and only activates the device when the cartridge is detected ([0047-0048])
The detection module allows the device to be disconnected from power in storage which allows the device to have power when delivered to a user ([0029, 0051])
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakano by configuring the controller to detect the cartridge with a detection module as taught by Li because both Nakano and Li are directed to aerosol generating devices, Li teaches the detection module saves power in storage, and this involves applying a known power saving controller configuration in a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (US 20210274851 A1) in view of Yoon (US 20220295888 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Nakano discloses a second load (31, “heater”) for supplying heat to the second cartridge (30, “pod”, Fig. 3, [0049-0050, 0053]).
Nakano does not explicitly disclose a heater movement mechanism.
However, Yoon, directed to an aerosol generating device (100), discloses:
An aerosol generating device (100) comprising a heater (120), a heater support (130, “heater movement mechanism”) that moves the heater (120) along a longitudinal direction to heat the aerosol generating article (200) at different points (First position shown in Fig. 1A, Second position shown in Fig. 1B, [0045-0047])
The movable heater (120) heats the aerosol generating article (200) with various heating profiles without requiring a plurality of separate heaters, which improves the flavor and taste of the aerosol ([0010, 0104])
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakano by providing the heater along the circumferential surface of the pod and a heater support for moving the heater along a longitudinal direction as taught by Yoon because both Nakano and Yoon are directed to aerosol generating devices, Yoon teaches the heater support to heat the article at different points along a longitudinal direction which allows a single heater to heat the article with different heating profiles, and this involves applying a known heater movement mechanism to a similar device 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 MORGAN FAITH DEZENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-0155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-430pm EST.
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.
/M.F.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755