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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the Applicants’ arguments/remarks filed 4-23-2026.
Claims 1-13 and 15-25 are presently examined.
Claims 1, and 15-18 are currently amended.
Claims 26-31 are withdrawn
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 and 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein the control circuitry system" (emphasis added) in line 16, control circuitry is introduced at line 9 however no control circuitry system is previously introduced. Therefore, it is unclear if the claim is introducing a new control circuitry system or referring back to the control circuitry introduced at line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution and this office action, the limitation is interpreted to be referring back to the control circuitry of line 9 which is consistent with the claim. Claims 2-13 and 15-25 are similarly rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation at least ¼ full, and the claim also recites at least 1/3, ½, 2/3, 3/4 full which are each narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted to require the broadest statement of at least ¼ full.
In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation at least 1/3 full, and the claim also recites ½ full which is a narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted to require the broadest statement of at least 1/3 full.
Additionally claims 11 and 15, when read in light of the amended claim 1, render the scope of the claims unclear. Claim 1 now recites both a first predetermined amount and a second predetermined amount, whereas claim 11 only recites “the predetermined amount” making it unclear whether claim 11 refers to the first predetermined amount or the second predetermined amount or both. Furthermore, if claim 11 is interpreted as encompassing both predetermined amounts, certain combinations permitted by the limitations of those claims would be inconsistent with claim 1’s requirement that the second predetermined amount is less than the first predetermined amount. (e.g., if the first predetermined amount is ¼ and the second is 1/3). Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claims are not reasonably clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-10, 12-14, and 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, under step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, claim 1 is directed to a statutory category because claim 1 recites an aerosol provision system comprising physical components, including a reservoir, sensor, vaporizer, second consumable part, and control circuitry. Claim 1 is therefore directed to a machine which is a statutory category of invention under 35 USC 101.
Under step 2A prong 1, claim 1 recite(s) “control circuitry configured to process the sensor information from the sensor to determine an amount of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir” (emphasis added).
The limitation of determine an amount of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than by reciting “by a processor” (e.g., control circuitry), nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculating the amount of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir. Similarly, the limitation of determining an amount of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation convers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. According, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under step 2A Prong 2, The additional claim elements considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than that the abstract idea because do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The recited reservoir, sensor, vaporizer, and second consumable part merely provide the technological environment in which the abstract idea is used. The sensor obtains information used in the mental process, and the recited signal is merely an output of the result (e.g., an indication to replace the second consumable part). Claim 1 does not recite a particular liquid-level sensing technique, a particular processing technique, or any control action that changes operation of the vaporizer or otherwise improves aerosol generation technology. Rather, the claim broadly applies the abstract idea of determining a material amount and comparing the amount to a threshold in the context of an aerosol provision system. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B the additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the use of an aerosol generating device having a reservoir, sensor, vaporizer, second consumable part, control unit was well understood, routine, and conventional in the field before the filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced as follows by Yamada, Flick, and Sur.
Yamada (US20200237010A1) teaches an aerosol source storage portion 3 (reservoir) and a heater 33 (vaporizer) for generating aerosol [0061]-[0062], and the additive component holding portion 4 containing the flavoring (second consumable part [0061]-[0062]), and a control unit 22 which acquires the output of the remaining quantity sensor 34 and calculates an estimated remaining amount in the storage portion 31 [0073]-[0074]).
Flick (US20200232766A1) also teaches an aerosol reservoir 113 containing a liquid 115, a heater 119 for generating aerosol from the liquid, [0054]-[0055] (See also FIG 1) and a control system/control unit for sensing with a signal and determining the amount of liquid in the reservoir 113 [0057]-[0060] and teaches selecting a threshold amount of liquid aerosol forming substrate, including a relative percentage value ([0015]-[0017]). Flick further teaches issuing a disabling signal when the determined liquid amount is below the threshold amount [0059].
Sur (US20180070632A1) also teaches an aerosol generating device 100 (see FIG 2 and [0041] and teaches a cartridge 104 with a reservoir 212 [0042], a heater 216 [0043] see FIG 2, and a control unit 204, [0041], which uses the remaining quantity sensed to calculate when the amount of aerosolable material is determined as reaching or falling below a second predetermined amount wherein the second predetermined amount is less than the first predetermined amount (see [0070], e.g., the first and second threshold volumes may be respectively 100 ml and 10 ml. The first and second threshold volumes of liquid control component incrementally decreases or increases until the control unit determines the volume is greater than the first threshold volume)
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, 5-10, 17, 19, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20200237010 A1) in view of Flick (US20200232766A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Yamada teaches an aerosol provision system (See FIG 3) comprising:
a first part comprising a reservoir (part 3 that includes storage portion 31, see [0065]-[0068], and annotated FIG 3 below) for storing an aerosolizable material [0068];
PNG
media_image1.png
332
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a sensor (34) for detecting a level of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir (31) of the first part (remaining quantity sensor 34, [0064], [0068]) wherein
the sensor is configured to output sensor information relating to the level of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir (e.g., remaining quantity sensor 34, see [0068], the sensor outputs information related to the level of the aerosolizable material);
a vaporizer, located downstream of the reservoir, for vaporizing the aerosolizable material (load 33 just downstream of the reservoir/storage portion 31, which vaporizes the aerosolizable material, see [0066]-[0067] and FIG 3);
a second consumable part (4, see [0070], see also [0060] and [0062]), for holding flavoring material (flavor component [0070]), located downstream of the vaporizer (See FIG 3); and
control circuitry (22, see FIG 4 and [0073]) configured to process the sensor information from the sensor to determine an amount of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir (remaining quantity sensor 34 outputs sensing data for estimating the amount of aerosolizable material in the reservoir (see also [0068]), and
configured to generate a signal which is a first signal when the amount of the aerosolizable material is determined as reaching, or falling below, a predetermined amount; (e.g., Yamada teaches estimating a remaining quantity of aerosol source held by storage 31, including as a ratio of remaining quantity to storage capacity [0089]) (see [0090], teaches the aerosol source in the storage portion 31 is depleted if the resistance value of the load 33 exceeds a threshold value of the resistance value that corresponds to the above-described threshold value of the temperature, the signal indicates if the aerosol source is depleted, see also FIG 6, thus the control circuitry is configured to generate a signal when the amount of the aerosolizable material is determined as reaching a predetermined amount e.g., such as depleted., and if the sensor shows the aerosolizable material is depleted or empty the control circuitry is configured to produce the signal of ceasing operations of the device by cutting power to the heating element [0101])
the predetermined amount is a first predetermined amount, and the signal is a first signal, (relabeling of terms)
Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the control circuitry system is further configured to generate a second signal when the amount of the aerosolizable material is determined as reaching, or falling below, a second predetermined amount, and wherein the second predetermined amount is less than the first predetermined amount.
However, Flick teaches a similar vaporization device with control circuitry and signals for identifying thresholds of amounts of aerosolizable material [0064] and teaches the control circuitry system is further configured to generate a second signal when the amount of the aerosolizable material is determined as reaching, or falling below, a second predetermined amount, wherein the second predetermined amount is less than the first predetermined amount. (e.g., see [0064], Flick teaches the first signal is a warning that the device is low on aerosolizable material (low being the first predetermined amount), Flick further teaches that when the aerosol generating device’s control circuitry detects the liquid level in the liquid storage has decreased to a second threshold (e.g., empty is the second predetermined amount) that the cartridge is disabled (by this second signal) by the control circuitry [0064], and Flick teaches that this two threshold predetermined amount/signal system is advantageous because it prepares the user to replace the liquid storage portion at the first threshold and further teaches that the signal produced at the second threshold by the control circuitry renders the cartridge inoperable and provides safety benefits and user experience benefits [0065], and protects the user from the consequences of harmful constituents formed by an excess of heat [0061].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yamada with the teachings of Flick and to specifically modify the control circuitry of Flick to provide a second signal when the amount of aerosolizable material of the device of Yamada reaches the second predetermined amount so that the control circuitry of Yamada can render the cartridge inoperable and provide safety benefits and user experience benefits and protect the user from the consequences of harmful constituents formed by an excess of heat as taught by Flick [0061].
Regarding Claim 5, Additionally, Yamada teaches the sensor is located on a wall of, the reservoir (See FIG 3, the sensor 34 is on the outside downstream wall of the reservoir 31).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamada teaches the aerosol provision system comprises a reservoir containing part (part 3 includes reservoir 31, see annotated FIG 3)
the first part is connectable to the reservoir containing part (e.g., the reservoir 31 is connected inside the reservoir containing part 3); and
the second consumable part (4) is connectable to the first part (3) [0062], see also FIG 3.
Yamada teaches the reservoir containing part is reusable (see annotated FIG 3 above).
Regarding Claim 7, Additionally, Yamada teaches the reusable part (2, 3) comprises the sensor (see annotated FIG 3, the reusable part includes the sensor 34).
Regarding Claim 8, Additionally, Yamada teaches the first part (3) comprises the sensor (34) (see annotated FIG 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Additionally, Yamada teaches the first part is able to be removed from the aerosol provision system independently of the second consumable part (see annotated FIG 3, and [0062] which teaches the first part (3) and second consumable part (4) are coupled together).
Regarding Claim 10, Additionally, Yamada teaches the device detects when the liquid is depleted. (see [0090], the aerosol source in the storage portion 31 is depleted if the resistance value of the load 33 exceeds a threshold value of the resistance value that corresponds to the above-described threshold value of the temperature, thus the signal indicates if the aerosol source is depleted, see also FIG 6, thus the control circuitry is configured to generate a signal when the amount of the aerosolizable material is determined as reaching a predetermined amount e.g., such as depleted/empty, and the device ceases operations by cutting power to the heating element [0101], and teaches the signal can be an acoustic signal (vibration) or an optical signal (LED), see [0071].
Regarding Claim 17, Yamada teaches the second signal comprises a command to disable the operation of the aerosol provision system. E.g., Yamada is configured to generate a signal when the amount of the aerosolizable material is determined as reaching, or falling below, a predetermined amount; wherein (see [0090], the aerosol source in the storage portion 31 is depleted if the resistance value of the load 33 exceeds a threshold value of the resistance value that corresponds to the above-described threshold value of the temperature, the signal indicates if the aerosol source is depleted, see also FIG 6, thus the control circuitry is configured to generate a signal when the amount of the aerosolizable material is determined as reaching a predetermined amount e.g., such as depleted., and if the sensor shows the aerosolizable material is at a certain threshold such as low or depleted or empty the control circuitry is configured to produce the signal of ceasing operations of the device by cutting power to the heating element [0101], which disables the operation of the system.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the third signal comprises a command to replace the second consumable part and/or to disable the operation of the vaporizer.
E.g., Yamada is configured to generate a signal when the amount of the aerosolizable material is determined as reaching, or falling below, a predetermined amount; wherein (see [0090], the aerosol source in the storage portion 31 is depleted if the resistance value of the load 33 exceeds a threshold value of the resistance value that corresponds to the above-described threshold value of the temperature, the signal indicates if the aerosol source is depleted, see also FIG 6, thus the control circuitry is configured to generate a signal when the amount of the aerosolizable material is determined as reaching a predetermined amount e.g., such as depleted., and if the sensor shows the aerosolizable material is at a certain threshold such as low or depleted or empty the control circuitry is configured to produce the signal of ceasing operations of the device by cutting power to the heating element [0101], which disables the operation of the system.
Regarding Claim 21, Additionally, Yamada teaches the first part is a first consumable part, e.g., see [0062], Yamada teaches the first part can be disposable (consumable) if desired.
Regarding Claim 22, Additionally, Yamada teaches the vaporizer comprises a heater, e.g., Load 33, see [0067] and FIG 3.
Regarding Claim 23, Additionally, Yamada teaches the flavoring material 41 comprises tobacco [0070].
Regarding Claim 24, Additionally, Yamada teaches the aerosolizable material comprises a fluid (e.g., liquid [0065]).
Regarding Claim 25, Additionally, Yamada teaches the sensor comprises a plurality of sensors. E.g., Yamada teaches a plurality of sensors are necessary to accurately estimate the remaining quantity of aerosol source [0024].
Claims 2, 4, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20200237010 A1) and Flick (US20200232766A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Sur (US 20180070632 A1).
Regarding Claim 2 Yamada teaches a sensor 34 as set forth above, Additionally Yamada recommends the sensor comprises a plurality of sensors. E.g., Yamada teaches a plurality of sensors are necessary to accurately estimate the remaining quantity of aerosol source [0024]. However, Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the liquid level remaining quantity sensor 34 comprises an optical sensor.
Sur discloses suitable sensors for detecting liquid level includes optical sensors [0072] and teaches the optical liquid level sensor 302 may be utilized as a primary sensor for determining the volume of aerosol precursor [0075], and further teaches when the liquid is high the lux value is low because the liquid absorbs the light, and that the liquid level may be detected as half full, full, or empty based on the amount of light at the [sensor near the] heater [0073]. (see also [0070], e.g., 100ml, 10ml being first and second thresholds, and empty at [0073 being a third). Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor of Yamada to be an optical sensor in order to determine the volume of the aerosol precursor as being half full, full, or empty, as taught by Sur, see [0070], [0075], [0073].
Regarding Claim 4, Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada recommends the sensor comprises a plurality of sensors. E.g., Yamada teaches a plurality of sensors are necessary to accurately estimate the remaining quantity of aerosol source [0024]. However, Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the sensor comprises at least one of a capacitive sensor, resistive sensor, and an inductive sensor.
Sur discloses suitable sensors for detecting liquid level includes optical sensors [0072] and teaches the optical liquid level sensor 302 may be utilized as a primary sensor for determining the volume of aerosol precursor [0075], and further teaches when the liquid is high the lux value is low because the liquid absorbs the light, and that the liquid level may be detected as half full, full, or empty based on the amount of light at the [sensor near the] heater [0073]. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor of Yamada to be an optical sensor in order to determine the volume of the aerosol precursor as being half full, full, or empty. [0075], [0073].
Sur also teaches the optical sensor includes an inductive-capacitive resonant circuit. [0072] An ordinary artisan would appreciate than an optical sensor with an inductive capacitive resonant circuit is capable of sensing with induction and capacitance and is also an inductive and capacitive sensor. Therefore, Yamada modified by Sur teaches a capacitive and inductive sensor.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Sur teaches the second signal is a second indication to replace the second consumable part (e.g., Sur teaches the sensor indicates when the liquid level is low and specifically teaches that when the reservoir drops below a second threshold that the system is configured to order a container for replacing the second consumable part [0080].
Sur discloses suitable sensors for detecting liquid level includes optical sensors [0072] and teaches the optical liquid level sensor 302 may be utilized as a primary sensor for determining the volume of aerosol precursor [0075], and further teaches when the liquid is high the lux value is low because the liquid absorbs the light, and that the liquid level may be detected as half full, full, or empty based on the amount of light at the [sensor near the] heater [0073]. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor of Yamada to be an optical sensor in order to determine the volume of the aerosol precursor as being half full, full, or empty. [0075], [0073].
Regarding Claim 18, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the control circuitry is further configured to generate a third signal when the amount of the aerosolizable material is determined as reaching, or falling below, a third predetermined amount, wherein the third predetermined amount is less than the second predetermined amount.
However, Sur teaches a first and second volume threshold amounts can be e.g., 1st 100ml, 2nd 10ml [0070] and teaches the third predetermined amount can be that the reservoir is empty [0073], Sur teaches that the volume of aerosol precursor is measured with an optical liquid level sensor and that the optical sensor can sense different thresholds of liquid, Sur teaches the liquid absorbs some lux of light and therefore when the lux is low the precursor is high and is absorbing light and when the lux is high the liquid level is low [0073]. The sensor 248 uses this information to determine the threshold of liquid level [0073]. the signal would be the corresponding information being generated by the sensor detecting the reservoir is empty. If the sensor shows the aerosolizable material is at a certain threshold such as low or depleted or empty (or otherwise in an obvious condition where it might be suitable to disable the heating element) the control circuitry is configured to produce the signal of ceasing operations of the device by cutting power to the heating element [0101], which disables the operation of the system, in order to prevent overheating of the heating element and the potential damage thereof [0058]).
Sur discloses suitable sensors for detecting liquid level includes optical sensors [0072] and teaches the optical liquid level sensor 302 may be utilized as a primary sensor for determining the volume of aerosol precursor [0075], and further teaches when the liquid is high the lux value is low because the liquid absorbs the light, and that the liquid level may be detected as half full, full, or empty based on the amount of light at the [sensor near the] heater [0073]. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor of Yamada to be an optical sensor in order to determine the volume of the aerosol precursor as being half full, full, or empty. [0070], [0075], [0073], and in order to prevent overheating of the heating element and prevent potential damage thereof [0058].
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20200237010 A1) and Flick (US20200232766A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Brown (US 20150336689 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamada teaches a sensor 34 that detects the liquid level as set forth above and Yamada recommends the sensor comprises a plurality of sensors. E.g., Yamada teaches a plurality of sensors are necessary to accurately estimate the remaining quantity of aerosol source [0024]. However Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the sensor 34 comprises an acoustic sensor.
Brown discloses a device that uses acoustic sensors to detect vaporizable liquid levels that is known in the art and discloses acoustic sensors can be used to detect vaping liquid levels [0050] and discloses they are preferred when used for sensing vaporizable liquid levels in situations where some sensors such as conductive sensors can be shorted by vaping liquid [0050]. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor of Yamada with the acoustic sensor of Brown in order to avoid the sensor being shorted by vaping liquid.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20200237010 A1) and Flick (US20200232766A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Gretton (US 20210337878A1)
Regarding Claim 11, Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the predetermined amount corresponds to the reservoir from the first part being at least ½, 1/3, and 1/4 full with aerosolizable material.
Yamada as modified by Flick teaches the determining liquid amount relative to below a threshold value such as issuing a disabling signal when the amount of aerosol generating material is determined to be below a certain threshold amount [0015] which can be an absolute amount of liquid or a percentage value [0016]. Therefore, although Flick teaches the threshold can be a percentage value Flick is silent to suitable percentages that correspond to the redetermined amount in the reservoir, thus Flick fails to explicitly disclose the predetermined amount corresponds to the reservoir from the first part being at least ½, 1/3, and 1/4 full with aerosolizable material.
Sur teaches a similar system and discloses suitable sensors for detecting liquid level includes optical sensors [0072] and teaches the sensor 248 includes the optical liquid level sensor 302 may be utilized as a primary sensor for determining the volume of aerosol precursor [0075], and further teaches when the liquid is high the lux value is low because the liquid absorbs the light, and that the liquid level may be detected as half full, full, or empty based on the amount of light at the [sensor near the] heater [0073].
Sur discloses suitable sensors for detecting liquid level includes optical sensors [0072] and teaches the optical liquid level sensor 302 may be utilized as a primary sensor for determining the volume of aerosol precursor [0075], and further teaches when the liquid is high the lux value is low because the liquid absorbs the light, and that the liquid level may be detected as half full, full, or empty based on the amount of light at the [sensor near the] heater [0073]. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor of Yamada to be an optical sensor in order to determine the volume of the aerosol precursor as being half full, full, or empty. [0070], [0075], [0073].
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the threshold of modified Yamada as taught by Flick to be at least half full, which falls within the claimed range of at least ¼ full [0070], [0075], [0073]. Because both Yamada, Flick, and Sur are drawn to aerosol generating devices with aerosol precursors. Flick teaches percentage thresholds can be used but is silent to suitable percentages for use and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to a similar reference to find suitable percentage fill levels of liquid levels for a similar aerosol generating article. Sur teaches known suitable percentage levels for a similar device and this merely involves applying suitable characteristics to a similar product with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the second predetermined amount corresponds to the reservoir being at least one of ½ full or 1/3 full with aerosolizable material.
Yamada as modified by Flick teaches the determining liquid amount relative to below a threshold value such as issuing a disabling signal when the amount of aerosol generating material is determined to be below a certain threshold amount [0015] which can be an absolute amount of liquid or a percentage value [0016]. Therefore, although Flick teaches the threshold can be a percentage value Flick is silent to suitable percentages that correspond to the redetermined amount in the reservoir, thus Flick fails to explicitly disclose the predetermined amount corresponds to the reservoir from the first part being at least 1/3 full with aerosolizable material.
Sur teaches the sensor measures when the aerosolizable material is low and specifically teaches examples of the sensor being at least half full [0073] in order to prevent having no aerosol precursor at the heater to prevent damage [0058] and to order new aerosol precursor [0080]. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify the predetermined amount of Sur that Sur is configured to measure as Sur is configured to determine if the volume of the aerosol precursor is low. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to set the predetermined amount to be at least half full, in order to prevent having no aerosol precursor at the heater to prevent damage [0058] and to order new aerosol precursor [0080]
Sur discloses suitable sensors for detecting liquid level includes optical sensors [0072] and teaches the optical liquid level sensor 302 may be utilized as a primary sensor for determining the volume of aerosol precursor [0075], and further teaches when the liquid is high the lux value is low because the liquid absorbs the light, and that the liquid level may be detected as half full, full, or empty based on the amount of light at the [sensor near the] heater [0073]. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensor of Yamada to be an optical sensor in order to determine the volume of the aerosol precursor as being half full, full, or empty. [0075], [0073].
[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20200237010 A1) and Flick (US20200232766A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Dahlman (US 20190269176 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Yamada determines the amount of aerosolizable material in the reservoir as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada recommends the sensor comprises a plurality of sensors. E.g., Yamada teaches a plurality of sensors are necessary to accurately estimate the remaining quantity of aerosol source [0024].
However, Yamada fails to explicitly disclose an orientation sensor configured to output orientation sensor information, to the control circuitry, relating to the orientation of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to process the orientation sensor information from the orientation sensor, alongside the sensor information from the sensor, to determine the amount of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir.
However, Dahlman teaches a sensor that limits the operational alignment range of the device to +/- 45, 35, or 15 degrees in relation to a regular angular position around a longitudinal access. [0015] and that the sensor is adapted to produce a signal if the liquid level falls below a threshold due to operational alignment falling outside of this preset range. Therefore, Dahlman teaches the sensor includes an orientation sensor configured to output orientation sensor information, to the control circuitry, relating to the orientation of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to process the orientation sensor information from the orientation sensor, alongside the sensor information from the sensor, to determine the amount of the aerosolizable material in the reservoir, e.g., as explained in [0015] the orientation information is used to ensure the orientation of the device falls within the thresholds to determine the amount of aerosolizable material in the liquid reservoir and is determined to indicate if the fluid level falls below the threshold.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the sensor 34 of Yamada to include an orientation sensor of Dahlman to use the sensor information from the sensor to determine the amount of aerosolizable material in the reservoir and the make sure the device is within the angular position requirements to determine if the orientation of the device is within suitable angular orientations. [0015]
Regarding Claim 13, modified Yamada teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches the aerosol provision system comprises a reusable part (see annotated FIG 3 above): wherein
the first part is connectable to the reusable part (see annotated FIG 3, the reusable part is connectable to the first part as illustrated, see also rejection of claim 1); wherein
the second consumable part is connectable to the first part (see annotated FIG 3); and wherein
the reusable part comprises the orientation sensor (Yamada teaches the sensor is in the reusable part as illustrated in annotated FIG 3, additionally Yamada modified by Dahlman teaches an orientation sensor, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yamada to include the orientation sensor in the same area as the sensor 34 of Yamada which is located in the reusable part of the device as illustrated in FIG 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 20, Yamada (US20200237010A1) teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, Yamada teaches a wall of the reservoir comprises an opening for delivering the aerosolizable material from the reservoir to the vaporizer (e.g., [0066] also see FIG 3, the end wall of the reservoir is adjacent to the vaporizer and delivers the aerosolizable material with a wick).
Although Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the sensor at least partially covers the opening, Yamada teaches the aerosol source holding portion 3 holds the reservoir and the sensor, Yamada teaches the sensor is a remaining quantity sensor and measures the quantity of liquid in the reservoir [0022], Yamada teaches the sensor is connected directly to the vaporizer [0068]. Yamada is silent to suitable positions of the sensor relative to the vaporizer and its opening, therefore Yamada fails to explicitly disclose the remaining quality sensor at least partially covers the opening for delivering the aerosolizable material.
Flick (US20200232766A1) teaches an aerosol generating device with a fluid reservoir [0026] and teaches the fluid reservoir is in fluid communication with an oscillator membrane [0031] and teaches a detector and sensor that detects aerosolizable media in the presence of the detector [0029], however Flick fails to teach or suggest the remaining quality sensor at least partially covers the opening for delivering the aerosolizable material.
Glaser (US 20160219932) teaches remaining quality sensors in the vapor pathway of aerosol generating devices, but fails to teach sensors specifically in the liquid pathway, see [0021] and FIG 3. Additionally, Glaser fails to suggest motivation to modify Yamada to meet at least partially covers the opening for delivering the aerosolizable material. However, Glaser fails to teach or suggest the remaining quality sensor at least partially covers the opening for delivering the aerosolizable material.
Mazur (WO2018108430) teaches fluid sensors in the aerosol forming substrate fluid pathway on the walls of the pathway but fails to explicitly disclose covering the opening for delivering the aerosolizable material (see page 8 lines 29-36). However, Mazur fails to teach or suggest the remaining quality sensor at least partially covers the opening for delivering the aerosolizable material.
Hon (US20170340009a1) teaches an electronic cigarette liquid detection and measurement system (See title) and a liquid storage element 10 (see [0019]) having a first wall 15 a second wall 25 and a through hole 30 in the first wall (see FIG 1 and [0019]). Hon teaches liquid level sensing (remaining quality sensor) positioned on the walls of the liquid storage element (See FIG 4 and [0031]). However, Hon fails to teach or suggest the remaining quality sensor at least partially covers the opening for delivering the aerosolizable material.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, and most specifically claim amendments filed 4-23-2026 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to the arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the claim limitation recited cannot be performed in the mind:
PNG
media_image2.png
122
569
media_image2.png
Greyscale
To support this conclusion applicant relies upon Example 47 in the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (see Remarks p7-8). However, this conclusion is not found persuasive because the example relied upon, e.g., Ex. 47 is related to a neural network, the reason that claim 3 in Ex. 47 is not eligible in the example is that malicious network packet detecting across a neural network requires extensive processing, extensive calculations etc, which Examiner agrees is not something that a human mind reasonably could do, whereas in the instant case the determining of an aerosolizable liquid level quantity in a liquid reservoir in relation to two thresholds and taking one of two corresponding actions for each respective threshold is something far simpler that a human mind could reasonably accomplish, unlike the numerous comparisons required in example 47.
Secondly Applicant argues that the claims are not an abstract idea because they integrate an exception into practical application at step 2A Prong two. Applicant further argues that the invention addresses the technical problem of coordinating the replacement of consumable parts having different consumption rates in an aerosol provisioning system which represents an improvement in the technology of such systems, and applicant arguments this is patent eligible because the additional claimed elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application which improves the technical field.
This is not found persuasive because the coordinating of the replacement of consumable parts having different consumption rates in an aerosol provision system is not a requirement of the claim and therefore fails to integrate a claimed element into practical application, because the only think that the claim requires to do in response to the measuring is outputting a signal or indication which fails to improve the functionality of the device or indicate an improvement.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks and Claim amendments, filed 4-23-2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, necessitated by the amendment to the claims, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yamada and Flick as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael T Fulton whose telephone number is (703)756-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 - 4:30 ET.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 571-270-3882. 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.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights