DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/10/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 03/10/2026.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10 and 12 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 2, 6 and 11 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10, filed 03/10/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-8 the Applicant argues that Hajaligol does not appropriately teach the heating temperature as claimed. The Applicant argues that Hajaligol teaches that a heater should be able to convey a temperature of about 200C to 900C rather than "up to" that range. The Applicant further argues that the Examiner's argument to manner of operating is incorrect, as the claim recites a computer-implemented function rather than a manner of operating the device.
The Examiner disagrees.
First, regarding the teachings of Hajaligol, the Examiner acknowledges that Hajaligol explicitly teaches a range of about 200C to 900C. However, the Examiner maintains that Hajaligol would make obvious the functioning of the heater at any temperature up to that range, as any heater capable of heating to a temperature of about 200C to 900C would also be capable of heating to any value below that range, such as to a temperature of about 50C to about 130C.
Second, regarding a manner of operating the device, the Examiner maintains that the computer's function is to control the temperature. The prior art sufficiently reads on a controller controlling the temperature of a heating element. However, the precise temperature range would still be considered a manner of operating the device.
Thus, the claim limitation to the precise temperature range is limited to a manner of operating the device and falls within the purview of MPEP § 2114 (II). In the instant case, operating the device at any given temperature does not differentiate the claimed device from the prior art, as all structural components used to perform this function are present (including the control function of the controller), and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect any heater configured to vaporize a substance in a smoking device to be capable of heating to about 50C and above).
On pages 8-10 the Applicant argues that Hajaligol does not appropriately teach heating the heating element for the determined time period.
The Examiner agrees with the Applicant that in the context of the recited claim, Hajaligol does not teach heating for a determined time after the end of the smoking of the smoking article. However, the Examiner maintains that in the modified rejection, Bowen is interpreted to make obvious the claim limitation. Bowen paragraphs [0166]- [0167] teach that the device may heat for a determined time period. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to determine the heating time dependent on the time difference between ignition and an end of smoking, as a longer smoking period would produce more residue and thus require more cleaning.
Thus, the rejection is maintained.
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments to the claims.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gidding (US 20090007926 A1) in view of Hajaligol et al. (US 5665262 A) and Bowen et al. (US 20180199627 A1),
Regarding claim 1, Gidding teaches a sidestream smoke removal device (smoking unit; Fig. 1; [0063]) comprising:
a housing (housing 1; [0063]) in which a smoking space (combustion space 15; [0064]) is formed;
an article insertion portion (holding ring 10; [0064]) which is disposed at one end of the housing and forms an opening for insertion of a smoking article into the smoking space (Figs. 1, 3; [0064]) to initiate a smoking of the smoking article;
an ignition portion (filaments 45) configured to ignite the smoking article inserted into the smoking space ([0066-0067]);
a sidestream smoke processing portion (filter 26) configured to process sidestream smoke generated from the smoking article inserted into the smoking space ([0071]); and
a controller (control circuit) configured to detect an end of the smoking ([0077]).
Gidding does not teach (I) a heating portion disposed inside the housing and configured to heat the smoking space or (II) that the controller is configured to control the ignition portion to initiate the smoking of the smoking article, detect an end of the smoking of the smoking article, determine a heating time for heating the smoking space based on a time difference between the initiation and the end of the smoking article, and in response to detecting the end of the smoking of the smoking article, operate the heating portion to heat the smoking space.
Regarding (I), Hajaligol, directed to a smoking device (lighter 25; Fig. 1; col. 5) comprising a housing (housing 31) in which a smoking space (cylindrical receptacle; Fig. 3) is formed and an article insertion portion (orifice 27 for cigarette 23), teaches a heating portion (heating fixture 39; col. 5, line 52) disposed inside the housing and configured to heat the smoking space to remove a smell generated due to by-products of smoking (Hajaligol teaches reducing sidestream smoke, which would be expected by one having ordinary skill in the art to reduce smell). Hajaligol teaches that this heater may be used to reduce the creation of undesired sidestream smoke.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gidding by adding the heating portion as taught by Hajaligol because both Gidding and Hajaligol are directed to smoking devices, Hajaligol teaches that using a heating portion to heat the heating space may reduce sidestream smoke and therefore smell, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding (II), Bowen, directed to a smoking device (vaporizer 100; [0063]) comprising heating portion (heating elements 120 or 1335; [0071], [0089]) and a controller ([0089]), teaches that the controller is configured to detect an end of the smoking of the smoking article ([0166], [0168]), determine a heating time for heating the smoking space based on a time difference between the initiation and the end of the smoking the smoking article ([0166]; it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to determine the heating time dependent on the time difference, as a longer smoking period would produce more residue and thus require longer cleaning), and initiate automatic cleaning upon detection of an end of the smoking ([0039]; [0166]; [0168]). Bowen teaches that the cleaning may comprise heating the heating portion ([0039]). Bowen further teaches that it is known to configure the controller to control initiation of the smoking of the smoking article by igniting the smoking article ([0089]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gidding by configuring the controller to control ignition, detect an end of smoking, determine a heating time, and operate the heating portion to heat the smoking space as taught by Bowen because both Gidding and Bowen are directed to smoking device, Bowen teaches that the device may be more efficiently managed and better cleaned by configuring the controller to regulate these functions, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that Hajaligol teaches that a heating temperature of a heating portion may be about 50C to about 130C (col. 21, lines 27-29 teaches a range of about 200C to 900C. Therefore, it would be expected that the heating portion would be capable of a heating temperature of about 50C to about 130C. Furthermore, the claim is limited to a manner of operating the device. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches ass the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP § 2114 (II). In the instant case, operating the device at any given temperature does not differentiate the claimed device from the prior art, as all structural components used to perform this function are present, and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect any heater configured to vaporize a substance in a smoking device to be capable of heating to about 50C and above). It would be expected that, upon modification with Bowen, this heating temperature would be controlled by the controller and it would be obvious to modify the controller to heat to a desired range that is within the capabilities of the heater.
Regarding claim 3, Hajaligol teaches an operation start time point of the heating portion is determined based on a smoking end time point (col. 16, lines 43-44 teaches a minimum time between the end time point of one heating operation and another operation start time point of a heating portion).
Regarding claim 4, Hajaligol teaches that an operation start time point of the heating portion is determined based on a puff start time point (col. 6, lines 10-29).
Regarding claim 7, Gidding does not explicitly teach that a heating temperature of the heating portion is determined based on a smoking time.
However, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that a smoking time would influence the selected temperature of the heating portion, as a longer smoking time would require a lower temperature than a shorter smoking time (e.g., a higher temperature will burn an article more quickly and a lower temperature will burn an article more slowly).
Regarding claim 8, Gidding teaches a temperature sensor (sensor 31; [0077]) disposed to measure a temperature near a downstream end of a smoking material portion constituting the inserted smoking article; wherein the controller (control circuit; [0077]) is further configured to, based on the temperature measured by the temperature sensor, determine whether the smoking has ended ([0077]).
Regarding claim 9, Gidding teaches a vent (openings 12, 13) through which outside air enters is formed in the housing ([0075]).
Regarding claim 12, Gidding teaches that the ignition portion (Gidding 45) is arranged to correspond to an end of the smoking article in the smoking space (Gidding Fig. 12), and wherein the heating portion is downstream of the ignition portion (Hajaligol Fig. 1, wherein the heating portion 39 is downstream (e.g., in the direction of the smoke flow through the smoking article) of the end of the inserted smoking article 23).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gidding, Hajaligol and Bowen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bessant et al. (US 20180146710 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Gidding does not explicitly teach that a heating temperature of the heating portion is determined based on a puff duration or a puff intensity.
Bessant, directed to a smoking device (aerosol generating system; Fig. 1; [0070]) comprising a housing (housing 2; [0070]) and a heating portion (heating element 14) disposed inside the housing and configured to heat a smoking substrate (substrate 6), teaches that a heating temperature of the heating portion may be determined based on a puff intensity to provide better user experience ([0043], [0074]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gidding by determining a heating temperature of the heating portion based on puff intensity as taught by Bessant because both Gidding and Bessant are directed to smoking devices comprising heating portions, Bessant teaches that determining heating temperature based off puff intensity may improve user experience, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gidding, Hajaligol and Bowen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ensor (US 4066088 A).
Regarding claim 10, Gidding teaches that
a vent (openings 12, 13) through which outside air enters is formed in the housing ([0075]);
the sidestream smoke processing portion includes an exhaust fan (fans 21, 22) configured to exhaust the sidestream smoke ([0070], [0075]);
and the sidestream smoke removal device further comprises a controller (control circuit) configured to, in response to detection of an end of smoking, stop an operation of the exhaust fan ([0077]).
Gidding does not teach that the controller is configured to, in response to detection of an end of smoking, close the vent.
Ensor, directed to a sidestream smoke removal device (smoke reducer or invention 10; Fig. 1; col 1, line 49) comprising a housing (housing 12) in which a smoking space (tube 18) is formed, an article (cigarette C) insertion portion (toothed clip 20), an ignition portion (electric lighter), and a vent (vent 16) through which outside air enters is formed in the housing, teaches that in response to an end of smoking, the vent may be closed to help extinguish the article (claim 1).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Gidding by adding the ability to close the vent as taught by Ensor and further configuring the controller to close the vent at an end of smoking, because both Gidding and Ensor are directed to sidestream smoke removal devices, Ensor teaches that a vent may be closed at an end of smoking to help extinguish the article, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charlotte Davison whose telephone number is (703)756-5484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights