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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Liu is directed only to counting the total number of puffs and warning or permanently disabling the electronic cigarette when a preset puff count is approached or reached. Applicant further argues that Liu does not teach monitoring puff timing or puff conditions during a vaping session and does not teach notifying the user when the aerosol-generation unit has reached a predetermined state for a next puff.
These arguments are not persuasive because they do not address the rejection as presented. The rejection expressly acknowledges that Liu does not expressly teach notifying the user when the aerosol-generation unit reaches a predetermined state for a next puff. Rather, the rejection relies on Liu’s disclosure of monitoring puff-related operating conditions, evaluating those conditions using predetermined criteria, and controlling existing notification hardware based on the monitored information.
In particular, Liu teaches receiving smoking-trigger signals, recording puff count, monitoring trigger-hold time, detecting battery condition, determining whether monitored conditions satisfy predetermined criteria, and controlling a warning module that may provide visual, audio, or displayed notifications to the user (¶¶ [0017], [0020]–[0022], [0041]–[0052], [0057]–[0060]). Thus, Liu already provides the controller, monitoring functions, decision logic, and notification hardware necessary to evaluate puff-related operating conditions and communicate information to the user.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Liu because Liu is concerned with limiting the service life of an electronic cigarette and preventing a degraded smoking experience once a preset number of puffs has been reached. This argument is not persuasive. A reference is not limited to its stated principal objective, and the proposed modification does not require changing Liu’s basic operating principle. Liu would continue to monitor puff-related operating conditions and provide notifications through its existing warning module. The modification merely configures the existing controller to provide a notification when a predetermined puff-related condition is satisfied, rather than providing a notification only when a monitored condition indicates an invalid operation, an approaching limit, or another undesirable condition.
Applicant also argues that Liu’s disclosure of warning the user when the puff count approaches a preset value does not amount to notifying the user that the device is ready for a next puff. This argument is likewise not persuasive because the rejection does not equate Liu’s disclosed end-of-life warning with the claimed notification. Instead, the rejection identifies the missing notification and explains that providing a positive notification upon satisfaction of a predetermined condition would have been a predictable variation of Liu’s disclosed system. Such a modification would have required only routine programming or configuration of Liu’s existing control logic and notification hardware, without requiring new hardware or a change in device architecture. One of ordinary skill in the art therefore would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the modification.
Applicant further argues that Liu does not determine whether conditions for a subsequent puff are satisfied. To the extent the prior rejection characterized Liu in that manner, Liu more precisely teaches determining whether monitored puff-related operating conditions satisfy predetermined criteria. The obviousness determination does not depend on Liu expressly identifying those criteria as “conditions for a subsequent puff.” Rather, it is based on Liu’s existing monitoring, threshold-based decision making, and notification functionality, and the predictable use of those established functions to notify the user when a predetermined state for a next puff has been reached.
Finally, the amendment replacing “suitable state” with “predetermined state” does not overcome the rejection. The amended language does not require an optimal thermal condition, complete recovery, or an express determination that the device is “ready” in the manner argued by Applicant. The claim broadly requires a state established in advance for a next puff, and the proposed modification of Liu’s existing monitoring and notification system would have satisfied that limitation.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not show error in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The rejection is therefore maintained. Applicant’s arguments concerning claims 2–15 are also not persuasive because they rely on the asserted patentability of claim 1 and do not separately overcome the additional teachings applied to those claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US20160316821).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches an aerosol generation device (electronic cigarette, ¶ [0003]) comprising:
an aerosol generation unit (atomizer 4, ¶ [0036]) arranged for transforming an aerosol-forming substance into an aerosol configured to be inhaled by a user through successive puffs during a vaping session (atomizer 4 heats e-liquid to generate vapor in response to a smoking-trigger signal, ¶ [0039]);
a notification unit (warning module 6, ¶ [0048]) arranged for notifying information about said device (warning module 6 provides a warning through an LED, display, buzzer, speaker, or voice prompt, ¶¶ [0049]–[0052]); and
a control unit (control module 2 including main control sub-module 22, ¶ [0036]) arranged for causing said notification unit, during said vaping session, to notify said user (main control sub-module 22 transmits a control signal to warning module 6 to provide a warning, ¶ [0048]).
However, Liu does not expressly teach causing said notification unit, during said vaping session, to notify said user when said aerosol generation unit reaches a predetermined state for a next puff.
Liu nevertheless teaches monitoring puff-related operating conditions (main control sub-module 22 receives a monitoring signal from smoking trigger module 5, ¶ [0038]), determining whether a monitored condition satisfies a predetermined criterion (anti-interference sub-module 23 determines whether the trigger-hold time is less than a preset value, ¶ [0043]), comparing a monitored puff count with a preset value (counting sub-module 21 determines whether the recorded puff count reaches a preset puff-count value, ¶ [0061]), and causing the notification unit to notify the user based on the comparison (warning module 6 provides a warning when the recorded puff count is close to the preset puff-count value, ¶ [0062]). Thus, Liu teaches using its existing controller to monitor operating conditions, compare the monitored conditions with predetermined criteria, and notify the user based on the comparison.
Therefore, 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 by configuring the control unit (main control sub-module 22, ¶ [0036]) to cause the notification unit (warning module 6, ¶ [0048]) to notify the user when the aerosol-generation unit reaches a predetermined operating state for a next puff. The modification would have applied Liu’s existing monitoring, comparison, and notification technique to another puff-related operating condition so that the user would be affirmatively informed when the predetermined state for the next puff had been reached. Such a modification would have been a predictable use of Liu’s existing control and notification components according to their established functions, would have required only routine programming of the condition that triggers the notification, and would have improved communication of the device’s operating status to the user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Liu already monitors operating conditions, compares them with predetermined criteria, and generates a user notification based on the comparison.
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).
Regarding claim 16, modified Liu, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, teaches said successive puffs during said vaping session (successive smoking operations detected by smoking trigger module 5, ¶ [0039]) comprising a first puff, a second puff, and a third puff (counting sub-module 21 records each puff upon receipt of each monitoring signal and successively adds one to the stored puff count, ¶ [0060]).
Modified Liu does not expressly teach the control unit being arranged for causing said notification unit, during said vaping session, to notify said user when said aerosol generation unit reaches a predetermined state for each of the first puff, the second puff, and the third puff.
However, Liu teaches separately detecting each successive puff (smoking trigger module 5 detects each smoking operation and generates a corresponding monitoring signal, ¶ [0059]) and separately recording each detected puff (counting sub-module 21 adds one to the puff count each time a monitoring signal is received, ¶ [0060]). Liu further teaches causing a notification unit to provide a notification in response to a control signal from the control unit (warning module 6 provides a warning in response to a control signal from main control sub-module 22, ¶ [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure modified Liu to repeat the notification associated with the predetermined next-puff state for each successive puff, including the first, second, and third puffs. Liu already detects and processes each puff individually, and the modification would merely repeat the same notification operation for each successive puff detected during the vaping session. Such repetition would have been an obvious duplication of Liu’s existing monitoring and notification operation to provide the user with the same device-status information before each successive puff, with a reasonable expectation of success because Liu already detects each puff separately and controls the warning module through programmable control logic.
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)).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. in view of Bowen et al. (U.S. 2018/0093054).
Regarding claim 17, modified Liu, as set forth in the rejection of claim 16, does not expressly teach wherein each of the first puff, the second puff, and the third puff comprises at least one of a predetermined flavor or a predetermined generated aerosol volume.
Bowen teaches a predetermined generated aerosol volume (a user setting specifying vapor or aerosol volume, Bowen, ¶ [0152]) and a predetermined flavor (a user setting specifying taste and/or flavor-related settings, Bowen, ¶ [0152]). Because these settings are selected or specified before operation of the vaporizer, the resulting aerosol volume or flavor is predetermined.
Bowen further teaches controlling a sequence of successive puffs according to stored operating parameters (a user profile may specify operation at a first temperature for five puffs followed by operation at a second temperature for four puffs, Bowen, ¶ [0170]) and replaying the stored operational profile (the recorded operational profile may subsequently be played back, Bowen, ¶ [0172]).
Bowen is analogous art because, like Liu, Bowen is directed to controlling the operation of an electronic vaporizer during successive inhalations using programmable control. Liu teaches recording successive puffs (counting sub-module 21 adds one to the stored number of puffs each time a monitoring signal is received, Liu, ¶ [0060]) and controlling the electronic cigarette according to puff-related information (main control sub-module 22 controls the electronic cigarette according to the number of puffs and the monitoring signal, Liu, ¶ [0061]). Bowen teaches providing selectable aerosol-volume and flavor settings (user settings may specify vapor or aerosol volume and taste or flavor-related settings, Bowen, ¶ [0152]) and applying an operating profile over a sequence of puffs (the vaporizer operates at a first temperature for five puffs and thereafter at a second temperature for four puffs, Bowen, ¶ [0170]). Bowen’s teachings are therefore reasonably pertinent to Liu’s control of electronic-cigarette operation based on successive puff events and would have suggested applying a selected aerosol characteristic to each successive puff.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Liu in view of Bowen by applying Bowen’s predetermined aerosol-volume or flavor setting to each of the individually detected first, second, and third puffs. The modification would have combined Liu’s detection and recording of successive puffs with Bowen’s selectable aerosol characteristics and sequential puff-profile control to provide controlled and repeatable aerosol characteristics during successive puffs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Liu already detects and processes successive puffs, while Bowen teaches using programmable vaporizer settings and stored operating profiles to control vaporizer operation over a sequence of puffs.
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 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
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights