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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 3/24/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Regarding claims 1-6, the phrase "type" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1, this shows up as both “cigarette type” and “a type of the cigarette.”
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 5, this shows up as “the type of the cigarette.”
For purposes of examination for all claims, any aerosol generating substrate will be considered a “type” of cigarette.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected for depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim 1 repeats the limitation "an aerosol-generating substrate " (emphasis added) in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The prior ‘aerosol generating substrate’ of line 1 is also noted as ‘an’, so is the substrate of line 7 the same or different than that of line 1. Further it introduces a lack of clarity as it is unclear if the aerosol generating substrate of line 1 is part of the recited cigarette or a separate element. For purposes of examination, both aerosol generating substrates will be treated as the same element, and as part of the cigarette.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "a user" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the instant case it is unclear if this is to be the same or a different user than the “a user” in line 5 of claim 1. For purposes of examination, these will be treated as the same user.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "cut tobacco type" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "granular type" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "liquid type" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando et al. (US 2016/0302488) in view of Anderson et al. (US 2020/0000143).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Fernando teaches heating an aerosol-generating substrate (Fernando para 35) performed by an electronic device (Fernando para 93, 97) and thereby constitutes a ‘method of heating’. Fernando further teaches detecting the presence of an inserted aerosol-generating substrate, such as a cigarette (Fernando para 40, 70, 96), displaying information (Fernando para 96), determining a corresponding heating profile based on user input, such as a button (Fernando para 12, 45, 60), and heating the aerosol-generating substrate, including cigarettes, based on the heating profile (Fernando para 12, 60).
Fernando is silent with respect to the display showing specifically an icon relating to a supported cigarette type.
Fernando and Anderson are related in the field of heating aerosol-generating substrates. Anderson teaches using a display to show an icon relating to a supported aerosol-generating substrate, including, but not limited to information about the inserted substrate/cartridge, battery information, draws remaining, etc. (Anderson para 660). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the information displayed by the display of Fernando to include an icon correlating to the cigarette inserted.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Fernando in view of Anderson teaches a method of heating an aerosol-generating substrate as above for claim 1. Fernando further teaches detecting an inserted cigarette, including if it is cut tobacco, granular, or liquid, that is, potential ‘types’, via a sensor (Fernando para 17, 35, 36, 37).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Fernando in view of Anderson teaches a method of heating an aerosol-generating substrate as above for claim 1. Fernando further teaches that a heating profile may be altered by a user (e.g. via a program) and that heating profiles comprise at least one of heating time and temperature (Fernando para 57, 60).
4Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/LAURA B FIGG/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 8/8/26
Prosecution Insights