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 .
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 1-15 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.
The term “suitable state” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suitable state” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Although Applicant's as-filed specification discuses that a suitable state may relate to reducing output inconsistencies or allowing successive puffs to not have "significant changes", the specification does not provide an objective standard, quantitative threshold or testable condition for determing what degree of change is considered "significant" or what state is "suitable".
The term “gradual increases” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradual increases” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Although Applicant's as-filed specification provides examples describing that a time between a second and third puff may be longer than a time between a first and second puff, such examples do not establish objective boundaries for determining the scope of "gradual increases". The specification therefore fails to provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of increase. discuses that a suitable state may relate to reducing output inconsistencies or allowing successive puffs to not have "significant changes", the specification does not provide an objective standard, quantitative threshold or testable condition for determing what degree of change is considered "significant" or what state is "suitable".
Claims 2-15 depends from claim 1 and are thereby indefinite for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and incorporates the limitation that the waiting time “gradually increases” and thereby indefinite for the reasons set forth above for claim 4.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US20160316821).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches an aerosol generation device in the form of an electronic cigarette comprising:
an aerosol generation unit (atomizer 4) arranged for transforming an aerosol-forming substance into an aerosol configured to be inhaled by a user through successive puffs during a vaping session (¶¶ [0001], [0003], [0033]; Figs. 1–5);
a notification unit including a warning module (6) and associated visual indicators arranged to notify information about the aerosol generation device to the user during operation (¶¶ [0048], [0051], [0052]; Fig. 5);
a control unit (control module 2 including main control sub-module 22) arranged to monitor operating conditions associated with successive puffs, including puff timing and puff count, and to determine whether conditions for a subsequent puff are satisfied (¶¶ [0017], [0020]–[0022], [0041]–[0044]; Figs. 1–5, 7).
Liu further teaches that, during the vaping session, the control unit causes the notification unit to notify the user based on the determination of whether puffing conditions are satisfied or violated, including when puff timing requirements are not met (¶¶ [0041]–[0044], [0048], [0057]–[0060]; Figs. 5, 7).
Liu does not expressly teach causing the notification unit to notify the user when the aerosol generation unit reaches a suitable state for a next puff, as recited in claim 1. Rather, Liu primarily teaches notifying the user when puffing conditions are not satisfied.
However, Liu already teaches monitoring puff timing and puff conditions (¶¶ [0017], [0020]–[0022], [0041]–[0044]), determining whether conditions for a subsequent puff are satisfied (¶¶ [0041]–[0044], [0057]–[0060]), and notifying the user based on that determination using existing notification hardware (¶¶ [0048], [0051], [0052], [0057]–[0060]).
Providing a notification when puffing conditions are satisfied, rather than only when they are violated, would have been a predictable variation of Liu’s disclosed system using known elements according to their established functions (MPEP §§2143(I), 2143.03).
Such a modification involves routine programming or configuration of existing control logic and notification units, without requiring new hardware or changes to device architecture, and therefore would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP §2144.04(IV)).
Moreover, because Liu already teaches evaluating puffing conditions and generating user notifications based on that evaluation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing a notification triggered when puffing conditions are satisfied (MPEP §2143.02).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu such that the control unit causes the notification unit to notify the user when conditions for a subsequent puff are satisfied, i.e., when the aerosol generation unit has reached a suitable state for a next puff.
Regarding claim 2, Liu teaches that the control unit monitors puff-related parameters, including elapsed time since a previous puff and elapsed time during a vaping session, and determines whether conditions for a subsequent puff are satisfied based on those parameters (¶¶ [0017], [0020]–[0022], [0041]–[0044], [0057]–[0060]). Liu further teaches that the parameters used to regulate puffing behavior vary as the vaping session progresses, such that puff timing conditions change as elapsed session time increases (¶¶ [0041]–[0044], [0057]–[0060]).
Although Liu does not expressly refer to the aerosol generation unit reaching a “suitable state for a next puff,” determining whether puffing conditions are satisfied based on time-related parameters corresponds to determining when the device is ready to permit a subsequent puff. Accordingly, claim 2 would have been obvious over Liu.
Regarding claim 3, Liu teaches that the control unit causes the notification unit to notify the user based on puff timing conditions, including notifying the user when puffing is restricted due to insufficient time having elapsed since a previous puff (¶¶ [0041]–[0044], [0048], [0057]–[0060]). Such notifications communicate to the user that a delay must occur before a subsequent puff is permitted.
Notifying the user of a required delay before puffing corresponds to notifying a waiting time before the aerosol generation unit reaches a state in which a subsequent puff is allowed.
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches adjusting puff timing restrictions as a vaping session progresses, such that the conditions governing successive puffs change based on elapsed time during the session (¶¶ [0041]–[0042]). Liu further teaches enforcing longer delays between puffs as usage continues in order to regulate puff frequency and prevent improper operation later in the session (¶¶ [0043]–[0044], [0057]–[0058]).
Although Liu does not expressly state that a waiting time “gradually increases,” one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to implement Liu’s time-based puff restrictions as a progressive or incremental increase in waiting time as elapsed session time increases. A gradually increasing waiting time represents a predictable refinement of Liu’s disclosed control strategy because it provides a straightforward way to continuously moderate puff frequency as use continues, rather than relying on abrupt or fixed changes.
Such an approach would have predictably improved control over aerosol generation consistency and device operation without altering Liu’s fundamental puff-regulation scheme. Applying a known technique (time-based puff restriction) in a progressively increasing manner to achieve predictable results is a recognized rationale for obviousness. (See MPEP §§ 2141 and 2143).
Regarding claim 5, Liu teaches regulating puff behavior in order to control device operation and user intake, including adjusting puff-related conditions as aerosol generation and usage progress during a vaping session (¶¶ [0017], [0041]–[0042], [0057]–[0058]). Liu therefore teaches that puff timing restrictions are selected and adjusted based on operational considerations associated with aerosol generation and continued use.
Although Liu does not expressly teach determining the increase in waiting time based on a “type of suitable state,” such as a suitable flavor or a suitable generated aerosol volume, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select aerosol-related criteria when determining how puff timing restrictions should increase. Aerosol output volume and user-experience targets (such as maintaining acceptable flavor) are well-known result-effective variables in aerosol devices, and puff spacing directly influences heating behavior, aerosol amount, and sensory output. Once Liu teaches varying puff timing to regulate use, basing the degree of increase on aerosol-related criteria would have been a matter of routine optimization and design choice within Liu’s disclosed control framework, yielding predictable effects on aerosol delivery and user experience. Optimization of result-effective variables to tune known systems is a recognized rationale for obviousness. (See MPEP §§ 2143 and 2144).
Regarding claim 12, Liu teaches an aerosol generation device including a notification (warning) module arranged for notifying a user of device operating conditions. Liu teaches that the warning module provides visual notifications, such as displayed or illuminated indicators (e.g., LEDs), and audio notifications, such as audible alarms or buzzer signals, to inform the user of device status and usage conditions (¶¶ [0045], [0051], [0052], Fig. 5).
Claim 12 recites that the notification unit is arranged for notifying the user by a displayed message and/or an audio message and/or a haptic feedback. Because the claim is written in the alternative, Liu need only teach at least one of the recited notification modes. Liu clearly teaches both displayed messages and audio messages, and therefore meets the limitation of claim 12. See MPEP § 2111 (broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding claim 13, Liu teaches a control unit configured to control the warning module such that user notifications are maintained for a predetermined period of time. Liu discloses that when a usage threshold or operating condition is reached, the warning module continues to notify the user until a defined condition is satisfied, such as resetting the device or ending the vaping session (¶¶ [0048]–[0051], [0084]). This disclosure teaches continuing notification for a predetermined duration, as recited in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Liu teaches varying device control behavior based on usage-related conditions during a vaping session, such as cumulative puff counts and operating states (¶¶ [0047], [0050], [0083]–[0085]). However, Liu does not explicitly teach that the predetermined period of time for continued notification varies specifically according to an elapsed time since the beginning of the vaping session.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu such that the duration of continued notification varies based on elapsed session time. Elapsed time is a well-known and readily available control parameter in electronic cigarette devices, and varying notification duration based on elapsed time represents a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, involving routine programming of the control unit without requiring structural modification. (See MPEP §§ 2143, 2144.04(IV)).
Regarding claim 15, Liu teaches that the aerosol generation device includes a rechargeable power source, such as a battery, configured to store electrical energy and supply power to the control unit, warning module, and aerosol generation components (¶¶ [0039]–[0042], Figs. 1–5).
Claim(s) 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US20160316821) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsuji et al. (US 2020/0245687).
Regarding claim 6, Liu teaches an aerosol generation device including an aerosol generation unit and a control unit configured to control device operation during a vaping session, including regulating puff timing and determining when conditions for a subsequent puff are satisfied (¶¶ [0045]–[0052], [0060]–[0066]). Liu further teaches that the control unit causes a notification unit to notify the user when conditions for a next puff are met (¶¶ [0067]–[0073]).
However, Liu does not teach or disclose a measurement unit arranged for determining a value representative of a temperature of the aerosol generation unit, as specifically required by claim 6. Liu’s control logic is based on timing, puff detection, or session parameters, but Liu does not describe measuring or determining the temperature of the aerosol generation unit via a temperature sensor or equivalent measurement unit.
Tsuji remedies this deficiency. Tsuji discloses an aerosol generation device that includes a measurement unit configured to determine a value representative of a temperature of an aerosol generation unit, such as a heater. In particular, Tsuji discloses a temperature sensor positioned to detect the temperature of the heater used to generate aerosol and further discloses that the detected temperature value is provided to a control unit for use in controlling device operation (¶¶ [0032]–[0036], [0045]–[0048]). Tsuji additionally discloses that the control unit processes the measured temperature value to regulate aerosol generation and device operation based on thermal conditions of the aerosol generation unit (¶¶ [0050]–[0056]).
Liu and Tsuji are in the same field of endeavor, namely aerosol generation and electronic vaping devices, and both are directed to controlling operation of an aerosol generation unit based on detected or determined operating conditions. Accordingly, Tsuji is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by Liu. (See MPEP § 2141.01(a)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include the temperature measurement unit disclosed by Tsuji, such that the control unit determines a value representative of a temperature of the aerosol generation unit. Doing so would have predictably improved device control accuracy, operational safety, and consistency of aerosol generation by allowing the control unit to account for thermal conditions of the aerosol generation unit when determining device operation and user notification. The combination merely applies a known sensing technique to a known aerosol generation device and yields predictable results. (See MPEP §§ 2143 and 2144.04(IV)).
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites that the control unit is configured to cause the notification unit to notify the user when the determined value reaches a chosen value since a last puff, wherein the chosen value varies according to an elapsed time since the beginning of the vaping session.
Liu teaches a control unit that tracks conditions relative to a last puff and varies control thresholds based on elapsed time during a vaping session to determine when a subsequent puff is permitted and when to notify the user (¶¶ [0048]–[0052], [0060]–[0066]).
However, Liu does not teach determining a temperature-based value of the aerosol generation unit or notifying the user when such a temperature-based value reaches a chosen threshold.
As discussed with respect to claim 6, Tsuji discloses determining a temperature value representative of the aerosol generation unit and providing that value to the control unit (¶¶ [0032]–[0036], [0045]–[0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the temperature value disclosed by Tsuji as the “determined value” in Liu’s control scheme and to compare that value to a chosen threshold that varies with elapsed session time, as this represents a predictable application of known control logic. (See MPEP §§ 2143, 2144.04(IV)).
Regarding claim 8, the claim further recites that the control unit causes the notification unit to notify the user when a chosen time duration has elapsed since the determined value has reached a chosen value since a last puff.
Liu teaches tracking elapsed time durations following a last puff and using those durations to control when a user is notified that a next puff is available (¶¶ [0045]–[0052], [0067]–[0073]).
However, Liu does not teach initiating such a time duration based on a temperature-based determined value of the aerosol generation unit.
Tsuji discloses determining such a temperature value (¶¶ [0032]–[0036], [0045]–[0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to initiate Liu’s known timing logic once the temperature value disclosed by Tsuji reaches a chosen value, since delaying notification until thermal conditions are satisfied predictably improves device operation and safety. (See MPEP § 2143).
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites that the chosen time duration varies according to an elapsed time since the beginning of the vaping session.
Liu teaches varying timing thresholds and control parameters as a function of elapsed session time (¶¶ [0050]–[0052], [0063]–[0066]).
Although Liu does not teach applying this variation specifically to a temperature-based condition, once the temperature determination disclosed by Tsuji is incorporated, varying the chosen time duration based on session time would have been an obvious design choice representing routine optimization of known control parameters. (See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)).
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites that the control unit causes the notification unit to notify the user when the determined value corresponds to a chosen value increase since a last puff.
Liu teaches comparing values determined since a last puff and using changes in such values to control device operation and user notification (¶¶ [0048]–[0052], [0060]–[0066]).
However, Liu does not teach determining an increase in temperature of the aerosol generation unit.
Tsuji discloses determining temperature values of the aerosol generation unit (¶¶ [0032]–[0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to evaluate an increase in the determined temperature value since a last puff and to notify the user based on that increase, as this is a predictable use of known sensor data within Liu’s existing control framework. (See MPEP § 2143).
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites that the chosen value increase varies according to an elapsed time since the beginning of the vaping session.
Liu teaches varying thresholds and control criteria based on elapsed session time (¶¶ [0050]–[0052], [0063]–[0066]).
Applying this known variation to the chosen value increase of claim 10, once temperature determination is provided by Tsuji, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and represents routine optimization rather than a technical advance. (See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. 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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747