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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1, the claim 1 recites a system with an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim recites an abstract idea which is determining the amount of useable aerosol-generating material remaining in the system and can be performed by mere receiving input about the aerosol generating material is being depleted and receiving input from a detector for detecting a user interaction with the system (a mental process of receiving data/input).
Step 2A, Prong 2, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The abstract idea is merely stated and is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B, The claim does not recite additional elements that would integrate the exception into a practical application. The only additional elements are a controller and an additional (abstract) step of determining the operating state of the system. Merely reciting that the method is performed on a controller (a generic computer component) is not sufficient. MPEP 2016.05(f). Also the claim merely makes a determination (metal process). The determination is not used in any way be the claims to result in a useful improvement.
The dependent claims do not solve the issues with claim 1. Please see the below summary:
Claims 2-4, 6-12 recites additional mental processes of determining.
Claim 5 recites another mental process of receiving data.
Claim 13 recites another mental process of sending data.
Claim 20 recites another mental process of sending data.
Claim 21 recites another mental process of determining the value indicative of the amount of usable aerosol-generating material remaining in the system.
Claim 22 recites a type of data includes a temperature of a heater assembly.
Claim 23 recite a type of data includes a temperature of the aerosol-generating material.
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(s) 1-13 and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell (U.S Pub. 20170245553).
Regarding claim 1, Reevell discloses a controller configured to determine a value indicative of an amount of usable aerosol-generating material in a non-combustible aerosol provision system, wherein the controller is configured to:
determine an operating state of the non-combustible aerosol provision system based on a first input received from the non-combustible aerosol provision system for indicating that the aerosol generating material is being depleted and based on a second input received from a detector for detecting a user interaction with the system [0104] and [0060].
Reevell discloses a controller configured to determine a value indicative of an amount of usable aerosol-generating material in a non-combustible aerosol provision system and whether the system is being operated by a user to deliver generated aerosol to the user [0060]. Since, Reevell discloses estimating when the liquid will be depleted and the consumption while also detect the airflow [0104]. Furthermore, Reevell discloses a switch or button may activate the aerosol generator enable the operator to turn the system on/off (in the off position, the aerosol-generating material is not being depleted and that the system is not being operated by a user to deliver generated aerosol to the user) [0083]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that the controller of Reevell can determine the value indicative of the amount of usable aerosol-generating material remaining in the system by a first process based on a requirement that the system is in a first operating state in which the aerosol generating material is being depleted and the system is not being operated by a user to deliver generated aerosol to the user, the requirement being met by the controller receiving the first input from the aerosol provision system indicating that the aerosol generating material is being depleted and the controller receiving the second input form the detector detecting that the system is not being operated by a user to deliver generated aerosol to the user, and wherein the controller is require to distinguish between the fist operating state in which the aerosol generating material is being depleted and that the system is not being operated by a user to deliver generated aerosol to the user and another operating state in which the aerosol generating material is not being depleted and that the system is not being operated by a user to deliver generated aerosol to the user.
Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that the controller of Reevell [0053-0055 and 0060] can determine the value indicative of an amount of usable aerosol-generating material remaining in the system by a second process different from the first process if the controller determines that the system is in a second operating state indicative that the system is being operated by a user to deliver generated aerosol to a user (when the sensor detect air flow indicative a puff being taken).
Regarding claim 4, Reevell discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine the operating state of the system by determining from the input received from the detector if a user is inhaling on the system [0060].
Regarding claim 5, Reevell discloses the controller is configured to receive from the detector data indicative of one or more parameters of a detected inhalation on the system [0060].
Regarding claim 6, Reevell discloses the controller is configured to determine an operational parameter relating to an aerosol generating element in the system; and determine when the system is in the first state based on the operational parameter relating to the aerosol generating element [0060].
Regarding claim 7, Reevell discloses wherein the first process comprises determining an initial value indicative of an amount of usable aerosol- generating material in the system and applying a first rate of depletion to the initial value for a time in which the system is determined to be in the first state [0053-0055].
Regarding claim 8, Reevell discloses the first rate of depletion is based on one or more characteristics of one or more of : the non-combustible aerosol provision system; the aerosol-generating material; and a consumable in which the aerosol-generating material is comprised [0053-0055].
Regarding claim 9, Reevell discloses the controller is configured to determine the first rate based on one or more current usage parameters of the system, such as a temperature of a heater assembly configured to heat the aerosol-generating material or a temperature of the aerosol-generating material [0050].
Regarding claim 10, Reevell discloses the second process comprises determining an initial value indicative of an amount of usable aerosol-generating material in the system and applying a second rate of depletion to the initial value for a time in which the system is determined to be in the second state [0050].
Regarding claim 11, Reevell discloses the controller is configured to determine the second rate of depletion based on the data indicative of one or more parameters of the detected inhalation received from the detector [0053-0055 and 0060].
Regarding claim 12, Reevell discloses the second process comprises determining an initial value indicative of an amount of usable aerosol-generating material in the system and reducing the initial value by a pre-determined amount when an inhalation on the system by the user is detected [0053 and 0060].
Regarding claim 13, Reevell discloses the controller is configured to send the value indicative of the amount of aerosol-generating material remaining in the system to an indicator to be displayed to a user [0057].
Regarding claim 20, Reevell discloses wherein the controller is configured to send an updated value indicative of the amount of aerosol-generating material remaining in the system as a usage session progresses and as the aerosol-generating material is depleted to an indicator to be displayed to a user [0104] [0125].
Regarding claim 21, Reevell discloses wherein the determining the value indicative of the amount of usable aerosol-generating material remaining in the system by a first process is conducted whether the aerosol-generating material is or is not visible to a user of the system [0060] [0104].
Regarding claim 22, Reevell discloses wherein the one or more current usage parameters of the system include a temperature of a heater assembly configured to heat the aerosol- generating material [0109].
Regarding claim 23, Reevell discloses wherein the one or more current usage parameters of the system include a temperature of the aerosol-generating material [0104].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant essentially argues that the amended claim 1 clarify that the controller is required to distinguish between the first operating state in which the aerosol-generating material is being depleted and that the system is not being operated by a user to deliver generated aerosol to the user and another operating state in which the aerosol-generating material is not being depleted and that the system is not being operated by a user to deliver generated aerosol to the user; the Applicant further submits that a user cannot visually ascertain an amount of usable aerosol-generating material remaining as it is located inside the receptacle. Therefore, the Applicant submits that the currently presented claims do not recite a judicial exception and the claims do not fall within one of the enumerated judicial exceptions. This argument is not persuasive because, as explained above, mere receiving input about the aerosol generating material is being depleted and receiving input from a detector for detecting a user interaction with the system is a mental process of receiving data/input.
Applicant further argues that Reevell does not discloses or suggest depletion determination in a non-use state in which the system is not being operated by a user. This argument is not persuasive because the claimed not being operated by a user to deliver generated aerosol to the user does not mean to system is off, this feature is corresponding to the non-puffing stage that can be detected by puff sensor [0104] (also corresponding to between puffs). Furthermore, Reevell also discloses a stage wherein the aerosol-generating material is not being depleted and that the system is not being operated by a user to deliver generated aerosol to the user [0083].
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 PHU H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5931. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 5712703882. 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.
/PHU H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights