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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the user interface to output a notification of detection of the puff in claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2 and 3 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 2 recites the limitation "a puff" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and gives rise to confusion if the mentioned a puff is a second puff or still the same puff of claim 1. In the interest of compact prosecution examiner will treat the “a puff” as “the puff”, i.e. the same puff as set forth in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henry, Jr. (US Application 2015/0282527) hereafter referred to as Henry.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Henry teaches (Figure 1) an aerosol device (100) with an air flow passage (128), (Figure 4) a flex bend sensor (465) deformable by an air flow, the sensor has a resistance ,which makes it a resistor, that changes relative to the degree of flexing or bending of the extension [0082], where the signal can be used by a microprocessor [0092] and the airflow is detected based on the bending of the flex bend sensor (465) as it is deformable via air flow.
Regarding claims 2, Henry teaches (Figure 7) that the steps processes (710) through (760) occur repeatedly and with a predetermined frequency throughout the duration of draw on the device [0097], which inherently requires at least a second time interval and a second threshold value for that second time interval.
Regarding claim 6, Henry teaches (Figure 7) a heater or heating element (134) that vaporizes components for the aerosol precursor composition when airflow is detected by the sensor (108) [0044].
Regarding claim 7, Henry teaches (Figure 7) that the heating ends upon the cession of draw, or the puff, on the device (770), requiring the detection of the puff to be active while the heater operates in order to detect the cessation or end of the puff.
Regarding claim 9, Henry teaches (Figure 4) that the flex bend sensor (465) is a cantilever and protrudes from an inner side of the air flow passage.
Regarding claim 13, Henry teaches that in some embodiments, strain gauges or flex/bend sensors may be used [0069].
Regarding claim 14, Henry teaches that the sensor (365) can comprise an electrically conductive array (373) [0074].
Regarding claim 15, Henry teaches measuring the resistance of a flex bend sensor (465) [0082] that is deformable by an air flow in the air flow passage (Figure 4) to detect a puff based on the measured value of the sensor (108) [0044].
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.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry in view of Fedele (US Publication 2019/0104968) and Hatton et al (US Publication 2017/0231281) hereafter referred to as Hatton.
Note: For the rejection of claim 3, examiner has reinterpreted what Henry teaches as compared to the anticipatory rejection of claims 1 and 2 above.
Henry teaches (Figure 1) an aerosol device (100) with an air flow passage (128), (Figure 4) a flex bend sensor (465) deformable by an air flow, the sensor has a resistance ,which makes it a resistor, that changes relative to the degree of flexing or bending of the extension [0082], where the signal can be used by a microprocessor [0092] and the airflow is detected based on the bending of the flex bend sensor (465) as it is deformable via air flow.
Henry does not teach a first and second time interval with a first and second threshold values where the first time interval is longer than the second time interval and the first threshold value is larger than the second threshold value.
Hatton teaches a vaporizer device with a draw detection logic or algorithm (Figures 26 and 27) that records the draw or puff starts when the measured pressure, which is inversely related to air speed, passes a threshold value and that the puff or draw stops when it passes a second threshold value and that those two threshold values can be different [0313], which means that the second threshold value could be greater or lesser than the first threshold value.
Because both Henry and Hatton teach a system for detecting a puff or draw for use in electronic cigarettes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one method for the other to achieve the predictable result of measuring a puff or draw.
Fedele teaches a system for controlling assistive technologies to improve relatability of control systems that includes increasing the selection time interval, Ts, or the interval time required to the user to maintain the action beyond a given selection threshold, in order to avoid false positives [0085] or accidental triggers by extending the selection time interval.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the selection time interval disclosed in Fedele to the puff start detection of the aerosol delivery device of Henry to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Fedele, the motivation for the combination would be to reduce false positives or accidental triggers. The combination would therefore include a first interval of a longer duration to verify the puff and prevent the false positive and a second shorter duration interval to then proceed with activating the heating element.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry in view of Morgan et al. (US Patent 5249586) hereafter referred to as Morgan.
Henry teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach that a processor is configured to output a notification of detection of the puff, specifically a visual, auditory, or tacticle notification.
Morgan teaches that it is known in electronic cigarettes to include (Figure 2) visual indicators (26) that could be light-emitting diodes, that reflect the status of the various heaters (23) which are controlled by a push button (25) or a puff-actuated sensor. [Column 4, Lines 56-61].
As Henry teaches an electronic cigarette, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the visual indicators as taught in Morgan to improve the electronic cigarette of Henry for the predictable result of enabling the user to visually see the status of the various heaters during use to ensure the device was functioning properly.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry in view of Powers et al. (US Publication 2015/0068523) hereafter referred to as Powers.
Henry teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 and that the base covers at least a portion of the air flow passage (Figure 4), but does not teach that the base has holes in it.
Powers teaches an electronic inhalation device (100) e.g. an electronic cigarette [0036] that contains (Figure 7B) a pressure sensitive sensor device (210) which measures pressure that contains a pattern of holes (226) to permitting pressure to dissipate [0049], otherwise known as allow air to pass through.
Because both Henry and Powers teach a sensor for detecting air flow for use in electronic cigarettes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one sensor for the other to achieve the predictable result of measuring air flow and allow the pressure to dissipate within the inhalation device.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry in view of Wrenn et al. (US Publication 2004/0020500) hereafter referred to as Wrenn.
Henry teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 but does not teach a chamber branched from the airflow passage such that the air flow enters the chamber from the air flow passage and exits the chamber to the air flow passage.
Wrenn teaches (Figure 2) an electric smoking system (21) with a puff-actuated sensor (45) located within the front housing portion (33) of the lighter (25) and is communicated with a space inside the heater fixture (39) adjacent the cigarette (23) via a port (45a) extending through a side wall portion (182) of the heater fixture (39) [0057], and as the sensor has to be mounted somewhere inside the chamber, it will cover at least a portion of the chamber.
Because both Henry and Wrenn teach a location for placing a sensor for detecting air flow for use in electric smoking system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one sensor location for the other to achieve the predictable result of measuring air flow.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Slivestrini et al (US Publication 20190082739) teaches an aerosol-generating system with an indication means which may comprise lights, audible indication means, and vibrating means.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Drew J Mitchum whose telephone number is (571)272-5610. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/D.J.M./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights