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 1-17, and 19-20 are pending and are subject to this office action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on 04/03/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Dagnello discloses a general machine learning process for many users rather than a process that identifies a preference for a specific user based on that user’s responses. The Examiner finds the argument persuasive because Dagnello does not appear to disclose obtaining user response data from a plurality of aerosol generation substrates as required by the shared technical feature between Groups I-III. However, the shared technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Sur (US 20200337382 A1), as presented in the prior art rejection below. The shared technical feature linking Groups I-III lacks novelty or inventive step and does not make a contribution over the prior art. Therefore, no single general inventive concept exists and the restriction requirement is appropriate.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 19 and 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/03/2026.
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)(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.
(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, 6 ,10-11, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sur (US 20200337382 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sur discloses an aerosol delivery device (100, Fig. 1, [0074], 900, Fig. 9, [0124-0125]), comprising:
A plurality of aerosol production components (910) configured to produce aerosol from a plurality of aerosol precursor compositions ([0153-0155]), and
Processing circuitry (906) configured to build a machine learning model (“preference identification system”) by recording data from a plurality of uses by means of one or more sensors (916, “feedback interface”), such as times and durations of puffs (“user response data”, [0143-0145]).
In one embodiment, the processing circuitry is configured to measure times and durations of use (“user response data”) of a plurality of flavors (“for each of the plurality of aerosol generation substrates”) over a time period and identify the preferred aerosol precursor compositions for the user based on the times and durations of use (“user response data”, Table pg. 19, [0155-0158]).
The aerosol generating device (900) is part of a communications system (1000, “an aerosol generating system”, Fig. 9, Fig. 10, [0130]).
Regarding claim 2, Sur discloses processing circuitry is configured to measure times and durations of use (“user response data”) of a plurality of flavors over an initial time period such as 30 days and identify a preferred aerosol based on data collected in the initial 30 day period (Table pg. 19, [0155-0158]).
Sur discloses the aerosol production component and aerosol precursor composition may be housed in a cartridge (i.e. a pack, [0077]) and the aerosol delivery device may comprise a plurality of aerosol production components (910) configured to produce aerosol from a plurality of aerosol precursor compositions ([0153-0155]). Therefore, the plurality of aerosol precursor compositions are considered to be provided in a cartridge/pack.
The user generates aerosol from a portion/sample of each precursor composition with each puff. Therefore, the model built from data collected over an initial 30 day period and identifying a preferred aerosol based on the model is considered to be obtaining an initial user response data from a sample of aerosol generation substrates and identifying a preferred aerosol based on the initial user response data.
Regarding claim 3, Sur discloses the plurality of aerosol precursor compositions may include a plurality of flavors (Menthol, Crema, Chai and Tropicana, Table pg. 19, [0155-0158]). Therefore, the aerosols generated from the different flavored precursor compositions are considered be across a sensory range of compositions.
Regarding claim 6, Sur discloses the processing circuitry is configured to identify a plurality of preferred aerosol precursor compositions, such as identifying Menthol and Chai from a group of Menthol, Crema, Chai, and Tropicana (Table pg. 19, [0155-0158]). The preferred aerosol precursor compositions are used by the device to form an aerosol and therefore are considered to be indicative of preferred aerosols.
The Examiner is interpreting a plurality of candidate preferred aerosols as a plurality of aerosol precursor compositions that may be preferred by the user.
The preferred aerosol precursor compositions may be accessible from a service platform (1014, “user interface”) by a marketing team ([0157-0158]). The Examiner notes that the claim does not required the candidate preferred aerosols are displayed on an user interface of the aerosol generation device. Therefore, the candidate preferred aerosols being accessible in an external service platform (1014) which is able to accessed/interfaced with users is considered to be presenting the plurality of candidate preferred aerosols in a user interface.
Regarding claim 10, Sur discloses the processing circuitry is configured to identify the preferred aerosol precursor compositions for the user based on a model relating the times and durations of use to aerosol precursor compositions preference (Table pg. 19, [0155-0158]).
Regarding claim 11, Sur discloses:
The processing circuitry (906) is configured to build a machine learning model (“preference identification system”) to predict a target variable, by recording data from a plurality of uses by means of one or more sensors (916, “feedback interface”) such as times and durations of puffs (“user response data”, [0143-0145]).
The target variable is a user profile that depends on the times and durations of puffs of a specific user (“based on user response data”, [0009, 0016-0017, 0145]).
The aerosol delivery device may be configured to receive times and durations of a puffs of a second user (“a plurality of training users”), the processing circuitry is configured to build/train a second machine learning model to predict a second user profile based on the times and durations of a puffs ([0020, 0166]).
Regarding claim 15, Sur discloses one or more sensors (916, “feedback interface”) comprises a pressure sensor (“voluntary response interface”) that measures the flow of air through the device, where the pressure measurement is indicative of the puff strength (“an indication of the voluntary response”, [0126, 0147]).
Regarding claim 16, Sur discloses one or more sensors (916, “feedback interface”) comprises a pressure sensor that measures the flow of air through the device when the user inhales (“an air flow sensor”), where the pressure measurement is indicative of the puff strength (“an indication of the aerosol inhalation”, [0126, 0147]).
Regarding claim 17, Sur discloses the sensor (916) may include a resistance sensor (“substrate identification readable material”) for measuring the resistance (“an indication of the received aerosol generating substrate”) of the plurality of aerosol precursor compositions to identify the aerosol precursor composition from its resistivity ([0016, 0153-0154]).
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sur (US 20200337382 A1) in view of Brannon (US 20150257451 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Sur discloses the plurality of aerosol precursor compositions may include a plurality of flavors (Menthol, Crema, Chai and Tropicana, Table pg. 19, [0155-0158]) and the precursor composition may comprise nicotine ([0043]).
Sur does not explicitly disclose the plurality of aerosol precursor compositions is a range of strengths of an aerosol component.
However, Brannon, directed to an electronic vapor device (1, Fig. 1, [0021]), discloses:
Multiple containers (4) containing vaporizable liquid each holding a different concentration (i.e. strength) of nicotine (“an aerosol component”) which allows a user to easily switch between different amounts of nicotine to satisfy different levels of nicotine cravings (Fig. 1, [0003, 0008, 0024]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sur by providing the plurality of precursor compositions with a range of nicotine concentrations as taught by Bannon because both Sur and Bannon are directed to aerosol generating devices, Bannon teaches the range of concentrations allows a user to easily change the amount of nicotine to satisfy different nicotine cravings, and this involves applying a known variation of aerosol precursor compositions to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sur (US 20200337382 A1) in view of Kim (US 20220287378 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Sur discloses processing circuitry is configured to measure times and durations of use (“user response data”) of a plurality of flavors over an initial time period such as 30 days and identify a preferred aerosol based on data collected in the initial 30 day period (Table pg. 19, [0155-0158]).
Sur does not explicitly disclose identifying an updated preferred aerosol based on subsequent user response data and the initial preferred aerosol.
However, Kim, directed to an aerosol generating device (410, Fig. 5, [0087]), discloses:
A cartridge recommendation model configured to recommend a cartridge capable of adjusting an emotional state of the user, the model may be updated based on the last replacement cartridge used to find the most suitable cartridge corresponding to the emotional state of the user ([0107-0109]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sur by updating the model by collecting additional user response data after the initial time period as taught by Kim because both Sur and Kim are directed to aerosol generating devices, Kim teaches updating the model helps find the most suitable cartridge for the user, and this involves updating a model in a known manner in a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sur (US 20200337382 A1) in view of Hopps (US 20150047662 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Sur discloses a plurality of aerosol production components (910) configured to produce aerosol from a plurality of aerosol precursor compositions ([0153-0155]).
Sur does not explicitly disclose the device is configured to receive at least 2 aerosol generation substrates simultaneously.
However, Hopps, directed to an electronic cigarette (10, Fig. 1, [0038]), discloses
An electronic cigarette comprising a valve (15) allowing the user to select a mixture of liquids from two reservoirs (20, 21) at the time of inhalation to prevent negative aging of the mixture (Fig. 3C, [0020, 0038]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sur by feeding the plurality of composition to mixer and providing the composition mix to a single heater as taught by Hopps because both Sur and Hopps are directed to aerosol generating devices, Hopps teaches vaporizing the mixture of compositions prevents adverse aging of the mixture, and this involves applying a known means of mixing an aerosol precursor composition to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Sur discloses the processing circuitry may be configured to automatically select an aerosol precursor composition for vaporization based on the user profile, where the user profile determines the preferred aerosol precursor composition ([0017, 0155-0158]).
Regarding claim 9, Hopps discloses a valve (15, “substrate mixing element”) which allows selection of a mixture of liquids from two reservoirs (20, 21), the mixture is supplied to a transfer element/wick (5, “heating chamber”, Fig. 3C, [0038]). The area surrounding the heating coil (33) and transfer element/wick (5) where the aerosol is generated is considered to be an aerosol generation chamber.
Claims 12-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sur (US 20200337382 A1) in view of Moloney (US 20230284708 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Sur discloses one more sensors (916, “feedback interface”) configured to produce measurements of properties during use of the aerosol delivery device (900, [0126-0128]).
Sur does not explicitly disclose the sensors (916) measure an involuntary response the user.
However, Moloney, directed to a user feedback system (2) for an aerosol generating device (abstract, Fig. 5, [0326]), discloses:
The user feedback system comprises a sensor platform for detecting a property related to the user’s state/mood, the sensor platform comprises one or more of a galvanic skin response sensor or heart rate sensor (“a sensor for measuring an involuntary response of a user”, [0326, 0337]).
Data from the heart rate sensor may include an average heart rate or variability of the heart rate (“an indication of the involuntary response”, [0154]).
Data from a galvanic skin response sensor may include measuring skin conductivity which is related to user perspiration (“an indication of the involuntary response”, [0152]).
The user feedback system improves responsiveness to the user’s state/mood ([0008-0009, 0023, 0065]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Sur by including a heart rate or galvanic sensor as the one or more sensors employed by the model as taught by Moloney because both Sur and Moloney are directed to aerosol generating devices, Moloney teaches the biometric sensors can be used to improve responsiveness to the users mood, and this involves applying a known sensor to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, Moloney discloses the sensor comprises a heart rate sensor which measures a heart rate ([0154]) or a galvanic skin response sensor which measures a galvanic skin response ([0152]).
Regarding claim 14, Moloney discloses the galvanic skin response sensor or heart rate sensor may be positioned on the grip part of the device where the user holds the device ([0151]) which is considered to be an exterior surface of a housing.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights