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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 8, and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0245686 to Gill (hereinafter Gill).
With respect to claims 1, 4, and 15, Gill teaches a method for controlling a heating system for an aerosol generation assembly 1, the aerosol generation assembly 1 comprising a storage portion 20 for storing a vaporizable material 22, the heating system comprising a susceptor 24 arranged in the storage portion 20 and a heating temperature sensor 11 arranged adjacent to the storage portion 20 or inside the storage portion, and configured to measure the temperature of the vaporizable material. See paras [0091, 0092, 0096]; Figure 1. Notably, the temperature sensor 11 of Gill is located in precisely the same location as the temperature sensor 78 of the instant invention. For example, the instant specification discloses “heating temperature sensor 78 can be adjacent to at least one wall of the cartridge housing 51, for example to one of the parallel walls 61,62” and in this position the temperature sensor is disclosed to “measure the temperature of the vaporizable material.” See page 12, lines 31-35 of the instant specification. Thus, because the temperature sensor 11 of Gill is in the same location as that of the instant invention, it must inherently measure the temperature of the vaporizable material through the wall of cartridge 20.
Gill controls the temperature of the susceptor during a pre-heating phase 32, based on at least one vaporizable material characteristic inherent to the vaporizable material (e.g. the age of the storage portion and the contents thereof; see para [0074] describing the loss of moisture over time) or based on at least one device characteristic inherent to the aerosol generation assembly (e.g. the “type” of
PNG
media_image1.png
544
210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
cartridge; see para [0130]). See paras [0108, 0109]. The temperature of the susceptor is controlled during a heating phase 36, based on temperature measurements provided by the temperature sensor (which inherently measures the temperature of the vaporizable material in the same manner disclosed by the instant specification) and a predetermined offset between the temperature measured by the sensor and the temperature of the susceptor. For example, Gill teaches the controller 13 monitors the amount of power supplied to the induction coil 16 (para [0097]) and uses a feedback loop to control the heat produced thereby.
With respect to the heating phase, the instant specification discloses that “the controller 36 controls the operation of the heating system 34 basing [sic] on temperature measurements provided by the heating temperature sensor 78 and a predetermined offset.” See page 16, lines 13-15. This is achieved by controlling the amount of power transmitted to the coil 72, which acts on the susceptor 74 to produce heat. Gill teaches in the heating phase 36 the system “maintains the monitorable temperature within a predetermined temperature range for the remainder of the time of the session 42.” See para [0117]. By maintaining the temperature within a “predetermined” range (i.e. an “offset”) the controller 13 is necessarily comparing the measured temperature of the sensor with a known and predetermined offset within memory 28 and changing the amount of power supplied to the induction coil 16 (and thus the temperature of the susceptor 24), accordingly. See paras [0096-0098].
As to claims 7, 8, and 16, Gill discloses the pre-heating phase occurs “within three seconds of the trigger 40 being received.” See para [0121].
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Gill teaches “based in the detected condition, the controller changes the heating profile…of a later part of the first power supply mode…and/or the second power supply mode 36” (paras [0110,0121]) and the temperature applied is determined by the amount of power supplied to the induction coil to energize the susceptor. See paras [0095-0098].
As to claims 12 and 14, Gill discloses once the cartridge type and age are detected during the pre-heating phase, a look-up table may be used “to compare the monitored temperature ramp rate to a maximum power allowed for later heating of the cartridge.” The maximum power level to provide heating is adjusted based on the condition of the cartridge as it changes during use. See paras [0130-0132].
With respect to claim 13, Gill teaches if the cartridge detected “is not appropriate for the device…heating is stopped.” See para [0131].
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 9, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill.
As to claims 2 and 3, Gill discloses age and type of the storage container 20 are detected (para [0098]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use dimensions of the storage container 20 as it relates to the dimensions (i.e. design) of the storage portion 12 as a means of ascertaining/recognizing the “type” of container 20 placed within device 1, as a container having improper dimensions would not properly fit into the storage portion 12.
With respect to claim 9, it is taught by Gill that the controller “maintains the monitorable temperature within a predetermined temperature range for the remainder of the time of the session 42” (para [0117]), which necessarily requires comparing the monitored temperature to an offset temperature. Gill doesn’t disclose that the offset changes during the session. Thus, it would have been obvious to maintain a constant offset temperature so that the device is always operable to produce a “puff” as desired.
As to claim 17, Gill teaches the predetermined time interval is “within three seconds.” It has been held that "a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2019/129845 to Parry et al. (hereinafter Parry).
Gill discloses controlling the temperature of the susceptor during the pre-heating phase based on a vaporizable material characteristic (i.e. age as it relates to moisture content) or a device characteristic, but not both. See para [0074].
Parry teaches a similar method and device wherein activation of the device and thus, heating occurs upon detection by a sensor or switch that a body has been placed in the heating compartment. See page 10, lines 1-14. Thus, a device characteristic (i.e. a sensor) controls the temperature of a heating device, which is disclosed by Parry to be a susceptor 24.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide redundancy in the aerosol generating device of Gill, thereby assuring that the susceptor is not activated unless an acceptable container has been placed in the storage/heating compartment.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gill and Parry as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of WO 2020/008008 to Taurino et al. (hereinafter Taurino).
The above combination is silent to also using an ambient characteristic during the preheating phase. Taurino teaches an inductively heated aerosol generating device similar to that of Gill and Parry that uses an ambient temperature sensor in order to determine the air temperature in the vicinity of the device (Abstract; page 4, lines 4-6). Taurino notes that “the ambient temperature in the vicinity of an aerosol-generating system can affect the ability of the system to raise the temperature of the cartridge to the desired operating temperature and to maintain the temperature of the cartridge at a desired operating temperature. See page 2, lines 29-32. Control circuitry is “configured to control the supply of power from the power supply to the inductor coil based on one or more readings from the ambient temperature sensor” in order to maintain the temperature of the cartridge at the desired operating temperature. See page 3, line 9 to page 4, line 3. As Taurino indicates preheating time is affected by ambient temperature, it would have been obvious to modify Gill so as to include an ambient temperature sensor in communication with the controller in order to maintain the temperature of the cartridge at a desired temperature. See Taurino, page 6, lines 11-25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gill fails to teach modeling a predetermined offset between the temperature of the susceptor and the temperature of the vaporizable material during the heating phrase. However, Gill specifically teaches that the controller monitors the temperature information from the sensor and adjusts power supplied to the coil to maintain the temperature “within levels that are safe.” See paras [0023-0024]. Maintaining the temperature within safe levels would have required determining a required offset between the measured temperature and the amount of power supplied to the coil (i.e. the temperature to which the susceptor is heated).
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 ELIZABETH L MCKANE whose telephone number is (571)272-1275. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6:30a-4:30p 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, Patricia Engle can be reached at 571-272-6660. 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.
/ELIZABETH L MCKANE/Specialist, Art Unit 3991