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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 24, 2023 and March 19, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 19, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment, filed on March 19, 2026, has been received and made of record. Claims 1-3 & 5-20 are pending. Claim 4 is canceled. Claims 1, 14, 16 & 17 have been amended. Applicant’s amendment to the Claim(s) have overcome each and every objection and every U.S.C. §112(b) rejection(s) set forth in the Final Office Action mailed December 22, 2025, hereafter referred to as the Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 8-9 of Applicant remarks, filed March 19, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended independent claim(s) 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Frake (US 2022/0125110 A1, hereinafter, Frake) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection(s) have been made in view of Chen (US 2023/0115077 A1, hereinafter, Chen), and further in view of Nackaerts (US 2020/0049650 A1, hereinafter, Nackaerts), which teach, suggest, and/or disclose the amended features of the claimed invention, individually and/or in combination, therefore, Applicant’s arguments are rendered moot. Further, the rejection(s) of amended independent claims 1 & 14, and dependent claims 2-3 & 5-17, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claims 1 & 14, are respectively maintained. Updated rejections based on amended features follow.
In response to applicant's argument, see pp. 9-11 of Applicant’s remarks, in regard to canceled dependent claim 4, now amended into independent amended claims 1 & 14, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Independent claims 1 & 14, in light of the amendments and upon further consideration, have new ground(s) of rejection(s) over Frake, in view of Chen, and further in view of Nackaerts, and Applicant’s argument(s) are rendered moot. Therefore, the rejection(s) of amended independent claims 1 & 14, and dependent claims 2-3 & 5-17, to include canceled dependent claim 4 (now incorporated in independent claims 1 & 14), which depend from and incorporate the limitations of amended independent claims 1 & 14, are respectively maintained. Updated rejections based on amended features follow.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 11-12 of Applicant’s remarks, with respect to new independent claim(s) 18, and new dependent claim(s) 19-20, have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection(s) have been made over Frake in view of Chen, in view of Nackaerts, and further in view of Courbat (WO 2017137512 A1), and Applicant’s arguments are rendered moot. Therefore, the rejection(s) of new independent claim(s) 18, and dependent claims 19-20, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of new independent claim(s) 18, are respectively maintained. Rejections based on new claimed features follow.
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 & 8-16 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 "wherein the step of…" in line 1, without previous disclosure, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for this claim limitation. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets this limitation to refer to “wherein a step of…”.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "and outputting a signal to indicate the state of the article or controlling the aerosol generating device in a manner dependent on the state of the article." in ll. 2-4, without previous disclosure of “the article”, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for these claim limitations. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets these limitations to refer to “and outputting a signal to indicate the state of the aerosol generating article or controlling the aerosol generating device in a manner dependent on the state of the aerosol generating article.” Claim 9 is rejected by virtue of dependence to claim 8, which does not rectify the defect.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "is that the article…" in line 2, without previous disclosure of “the article”, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for this claim limitation. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets this limitation to refer to “is that the aerosol generating article...”.
Claim 10 recites the limitations "to determine a change of state of the article;” in ll. 6-7, “ outputting a signal to indicate the change of state of the article…” in line 7, and “in a manner dependent on the change of state of the article." in line 8, without previous disclosure of “the article”, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for these claim limitations. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets these limitations to refer to “to determine a change of state of the aerosol generating article;”, “outputting a signal to indicate the change of state of the aerosol generating article…”, “in a manner dependent on the change of state of the aerosol generating article.” Claims 11-13 are rejected by virtue of dependence to claim 10, which do not rectify the defect.
Claim 11 recites the limitations "the change of state of the article is a depletion of volatile substances in the article.” in ll. 1-2, without previous disclosure of “the article”, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for these claim limitations. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets these limitations to refer to “the change of state of the aerosol generating article is a depletion of volatile substances in the aerosol generating article.” Claims 12-13 are rejected by virtue of dependence to claim 11, which do not rectify the defect.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "the determined change of state of the article…” in line 2, and “inhaled by a user of the device…” in line 3, without previous disclosure of “the article” and “the device”, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for these claim limitations. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets these limitations to refer to “the determined change of state of the aerosol generating article…” and “inhaled by a user of the aerosol generating device…”. Claim 13 is rejected by virtue of dependence to claim 12, which does not rectify the defect.
Claim 13 recites the limitations "the user of the device…” in line 2, and “the determined change of state of the article…” in line 3, without previous disclosure of “the article” and “the device”, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for these claim limitations. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets these limitations to refer to “the user of the aerosol generating device…” and “the determined change of state of the aerosol generating article…”.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "both the conductive component and the capacitive component…” in ll. 14-15, , without previous disclosure of “the conductive component” and “the capacitive component”, resulting in a lack of antecedent basis for these claim limitations. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets these limitations to refer to “both a conductive component and a capacitive component …”. Claims 15-16 are rejected by virtue of dependence to claim 14, which do not rectify the defect.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10-12 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frake (US 2022/0125110 A1, Fil. Date Feb. 14, 2020, hereinafter, Frake), in view of Chen (US 2023/0115077 A1, Fil. Date Jan. 29, 2021, hereinafter, Chen), and further in view of Nackaerts (US 2020/0049650 A1, Fil. Date Feb. 13, 2020, hereinafter, Nackaerts).
Regarding independent claim 1, Frake, teaches:
A method of operating an aerosol generating device ([Abstract] & [0001]-[0005]), the aerosol generating device including: a heating chamber configured to receive an aerosol generating article (Fig. 1; [0005], [0013], & [0142]: aerosol-generating device (110) with a cavity (114) for receiving an aerosol-generating article, cavity refers to “a heating chamber”); and a first terminal and a second terminal (Fig.1; [Abstract], [0005], [0143], & [0145]: first terminal refers to first electrode (128) and a second terminal refers to second electrode (130)), the first and second terminals being disposed in the heating chamber such that (Fig.1; [Abstract], [0005], [0143], & [0145]: first terminal refers to first electrode (128) and a second terminal refers to second electrode (130) disposed in the heating chamber, referred to as the cavity (114)), when the aerosol generating article is received in the heating chamber, the first and second terminals respectively contact different parts of the aerosol generating article (Fig. 3; [0005] & [0145]: describes and shows that when the article (140) is inserted, a portion of the aerosol-forming substrate (142) is positioned between the first terminal or electrode (128) and the second terminal or electrode (130), the arrangement allows the terminals to contact different parts of the article or the substrate within it to form a capacitor), the method comprising:
inserting the aerosol generating article into the heating chamber (Fig. 3; [0145]);
applying an alternating voltage at an applied frequency between the first and second terminals ([0014] & [0043]: teaches measuring capacitance by supplying power in the form of an alternating current, which would require applying an alternating voltage, across the electrodes at a chosen frequency);
using the measured characteristics of the current to determine a dielectric response of the aerosol generating article at the applied frequency ([0011]: teaches determining the dielectric response (relative permittivity/dielectric constant) of the material between the electrodes, capacitance (C) is defined by the geometry and the dielectric constant or permittivity of the material, stating that the measured capacitance is “a function of the relative permittivity of the material arranged between the electrodes of the capacitor”),
wherein the applied frequency is in a range of 100 Hz to 1 MHz (Disclosed in combination: Frake: [0043]: the preferred range of 100 kHz and 1 GHz directly overlaps with the claimed range of 100 Hz to 1 MHz (overlapping between the 100 kHz and 1 MHz); Nackaerts: [0063]: discloses configuring the controller to use frequencies under 100 kHz to evaluate complex impedance, falls into the range and overlaps with the bottom end of Frake’s preferred operating spectrum).
PNG
media_image1.png
572
998
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
597
1001
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
326
1063
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Frake, is silent in regard to:
measuring characteristics of a current that flows between the first and second terminals while the alternating voltage is being applied; and
However, Frake, in combination with Chen, further teach:
measuring characteristics of a current that flows between the first and second terminals while the alternating voltage is being applied (Disclosed in combination: Frake: [0005], [0014] & [0043]: teaches measuring capacitance, where the standard method for measuring capacitances with a controller, involves applying a known AC voltage, measuring the resulting current characteristics (amplitude and phase relative to the voltage flowing in response to the applied AC voltage), the impedance (Z) is calculated from voltage and current measurements, and from this, the capacitance is determined, therefore measuring the characteristics of the current is an inherent and necessary step to “measure the capacitance”; Chen: [0005], [0031], [0054]-[0055], [0098], [0108], [Claim 7], [Claim 8] & [Claim 10]: both references teach measuring electrical characteristics of the signal flowing between the terminals to monitor the capacitor formed by the device and the article); and
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless it 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, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivating experimentation and optimization. Modifying the capacitive measurement of Frake by incorporating the specific temporal measurement technique taught by Chen (i.e., measuring the characteristics of the current by identifying the onset of power as a first time and measuring at a second time), according to known methods. The motivation for doing so would be to improve the accuracy and reliability of the capacitive measurement system taught by Frake. By applying Chen’s technique of establishing a baseline or reference point (at the onset of power) and taking a subsequent measurement at a second time, the system can better account for dynamic changes in the substrate as it heats up or depletes. A POSITA would recognize that integrating Chen’s temporal measurement steps into Frake’s controller would yield the predictable result (KSR) of a more precise evaluation of the measured characteristics of the current, allowing Frake’s device to more accurately determine the dielectric response and apply the most appropriate heating profile to the aerosol generating article.
Frake, in combination with Chen, are silent in regard to:
wherein the determining the dielectric response comprises determining a conductive component and a capacitive component such that both the conductive component and the capacitive component make a non-negligible contribution to the determined dielectric response,
However, Nackaerts, further teaches:
wherein the determining the dielectric response comprises determining a conductive component and a capacitive component such that both the conductive component and the capacitive component make a non-negligible contribution to the determined dielectric response ([Abstract], [0014], [0049], [0055], [0063] & [Claim 13]: teaches evaluating a material by determining a complex impedance that includes both a capacitive component (capacitance) and a conductive/lossy component (conductance), utilizing both metrics to determine the state of the material (e.g., condensation vs. humidity levels)),
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless it 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, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivating experimentation and optimization. Modifying the capacitive sensing controller of Frake, as modified by Chen, to measure a complex dielectric response comprising both a non-negligible capacitive component and a non-negligible conductive component, as taught by Nackaerts. The motivation for this modification is to increase the precision and reliability of the substrate state detection. In an aerosol-generating device like Frake, the substrate undergoes dynamic phase changes (containing both liquid aerosol and generated vapor) as it is heated and depleted. A POSITA, recognizing the limitation of relying solely on capacitance, would look to Nackaerts’s teaching that measuring both the capacitive component and the conductive (lossy) component provides a complete and accurate picture of a material’s moisture and liquid state. Applying this known complex impedance technique to Frake’s heating chamber would yield the predictable result (KSR) of allowing the device’s controller to accurately track the depletion state of the aerosol-generating article, enabling tighter control over the heating power profile and preventing overheating or suboptimal aerosol generation.
Regarding dependent claim 5, Frake, teaches:
The method according to claim 1 ([Abstract], [0001]-[0005], [0043] & [0142]-[0145]),
Frake, is silent in regard to:
wherein the applied frequency is in a range of 1 kHz to 100 kHz.
However, Frake in combination with Nackaerts, further teach:
wherein the applied frequency is in a range of 1 kHz to 100 kHz (Disclosed in combination: Frake: [0043]: touches the upper boundary of the range; Nackaerts: [0063]: teaches that when determining the complex impedance (the conductive and capacitive components) to detect liquid water and humidity, an applied frequency of “less than 100 kHz” is advantageous, falls within the range of 1 kHz to 100 kHz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the modified aerosol-generating device at a frequency within the range of 1 kHz to 100 kHz. The motivation for selecting this frequency range is provided by Nackaerts, teaching that operating the sensing circuit at a frequency “less than 100 kHz” is best able to permit detection of liquid water and humidity phases. Incorporating Nackaerts’s complex impedance measurement into Frake’s controller is to accurately determine the multi-phase (liquid vs. vapor) depletion state of the aerosol-forming substrate. A POSITA would predictably implement Nackaerts’s recommended operating parameters (frequencies <100 kHz) to achieve this result. Furthermore, this selection is consistent with Frake, which establishes “about 100 kHz” as a starting point for its AC frequency range. Routine optimization by a skilled artisan seeking to maximize the moisture detection capabilities of the circuit would lead to operating within the 1 kHz to 100 kHz range (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Frake, teaches:
The method according to claim 1 ([Abstract], [0001]-[0005], [0011], & [0142]-[0145]),
Frake, is silent in regard to:
further comprising using the determined dielectric response to identify a state of the aerosol generating article; and outputting a signal to indicate the state of the article or controlling the aerosol generating device in a manner dependent on the state of the article.
However, Frake in combination with Chen, further teach:
further comprising using the determined dielectric response to identify a state of the aerosol generating article (Disclosed in combination: Frake: [0007] & [0011]: teaches that the measured dielectric response (capacitance) is used to determine a state of the article, the water content present; Chen: [0034]: teaches using the determined dielectric response (capacitance) to identify the state of the aerosol generating article); and outputting a signal to indicate the state of the article (Chen: [0068]-[0069]: teaches support for outputting various signals (visual text displays, auditory sounds, and haptic rumbles) to indicate the identified “low” or “empty” state of the article to the user) or controlling the aerosol generating device in a manner dependent on the state of the article (Disclosed in combination: Frake: [Abstract], [0005], [0015]-[0017], [00023]-[0024], [0029], [0031]-[0032], [0039], [0042], [0120]-[0125], [0146], [Claim 16], [Claim 28], [Claim 29] & [Claim 30]: teaches the controller selects a power profile based on the measured capacitance and capacitance predetermined upper and lower thresholds, indicative of the article’s state (water content); Chen: [0068]-[0071]: both references teach controlling the operations of the device (controlling the heater’s power profile or stopping the heater entirely) dependent upon the identified state of the aerosol generating article).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the capacitive-sensing control method of Frake by incorporating the state-identification and signal outputting steps taught by Chen, according to known methods. The motivation for this modification is to enhance the user experience and improve device safety. Frake teaches controlling the heater power based on the capacitance limits to prevent overheating. A POSITA would recognize that stopping the heater without informing the user can lead to confusion and poor user experience. Applying Chen’s teaching to use the determined dielectric response to identify the article’s depletion state and output a signal (e.g., a visual alert or haptic rumble), the modified Frake device would yield the predictable results (KSR) of warning the user that the substrate is depleted. Prompting the user to replace the aerosol generating article, preventing user frustration and ensuring consistent aerosol delivery.
Regarding dependent claim 10, Frake, teaches:
The method according to claim 1 ([Abstract], [0001]-[0005], [0043], & [0142]-[0145]), comprising: carrying out steps (b) to (d) (Disclosed in combination by Frake, Chen and Nackaerts in independent claim 1) after insertion of the aerosol generating article into the heating chamber to determine a first dielectric response ([0036]: teaches taking a first electrical measurement (determining a first dielectric response (capacitance)) after the article is received in the cavity but before the heating cycle begins);
applying heat to the aerosol generating article in the heating chamber ([0146]);
repeating steps (b) to (d) to determine a second dielectric response ([0037]-38 & [0042]-[0043]: teaches continually repeating the electrical measurements during the heating cycle, which yields second (and subsequent) dielectric responses);
Frake, is silent in regard to:
and comparing the second dielectric response with the first dielectric response to determine a change of state of the article; and
outputting a signal to indicate the change of state of the article or controlling the aerosol generating device in a manner dependent on the change of state of the article.
However, Frake, in combination with Chen, further teach:
and comparing the second dielectric response with the first dielectric response to determine a change of state of the article (Disclosed in combination: Frake: [0008], [0032], & [0036]-[0037]: teaches using the capacitance measurements to determine when the article is depleted, accomplished by comparing a later measurement (second dielectric response) with an earlier one (first dielectric response) to detect the “change of state” from “not depleted” to “depleted”; Chen: [0034]: teaches evaluating the change in the dielectric response (e.g., comparing a relative second measurement to an initial “full” baseline) to determine the changing depletion state of the material); and
outputting a signal to indicate the change of state of the article or controlling the aerosol generating device in a manner dependent on the change of state of the article (Disclosed in combination: Frake: [0005], [0007]-[0008], [0011], [0032] & [0037]: teaches actions based on the state change, controlling the device (adjusting power) based on the periodic tracking of state changes; Chen: [0069]-[0070]: teaches actions based on the state change, outputting signals (notifications) as the material runs out).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control method of Frake by incorporating the step of calculating the relative change between the pre-heating dielectric measurement and the subsequent heating-cycle dielectric measurements to track the changing state of the article, as taught by Chen, according to known methods. The motivation for this modification is to increase the precision of the device’s substrate tracking and power control. A POSITA would look to Chen’s teaching that analyzing “relative changes” or percentage differences between a baseline (“full”) state and subsequent measurements offers a reliable method to determine exact depletion levels. Comparing the second (mid-heating) dielectric response back to the first (baseline/pre-heating) dielectric response, the controller can cancel out parasitic capacitances or initial consumable variations. Applying the comparative logic to Frake’s periodic measurement system yields the predictable result (KSR) of a controller that tracks the true rate of depletion, allowing it to output accurate warning signals (e.g., “cartomizer low” per Chen) and adjusts the heating profile to maintain optimal vapor production.
Regarding dependent claim 11, Frake, teaches:
The method according to claim 10 ([0005], [0008], [0032], & [0036]-[0037]), wherein the change of state of the article is a depletion of volatile substances in the article ([0008] & [0032]: teaches that evaluating the dielectric response (capacitance) across the electrodes is utilized to track the amount of volatile compounds (substances) in the substrate and determines when those volatile substances are depleted).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Frake, teaches:
The method according to claim 11 ([0005], [0008], & [0036]-[0037]),
Frake, is silent in regard to:
further comprising using the determined change of state of the article to estimate an amount of at least one volatile substance inhaled by a user of the device between the determination of the first and second dielectric responses.
However, Frake, in combination with Chen, further teach:
further comprising using the determined change of state of the article (Disclosed in combination: Frake: [0005], [0007]-[0008], [0011], [0032], [0036]-[0038], & [0099]; Chen: [0033]-[0034], [0058], [0094] & [0111]: teaches using the determined change of state (the “change in capacitance”) to determine the amount of material) to estimate an amount of at least one volatile substance inhaled by a user of the device between the determination of the first and second dielectric responses (Disclosed in combination: Frake: [0005], [0007]-[0008], [0011], [0032], [0036]-[0038], & [0099]: teaches that the capacitance measurement provides an indication of the amount of volatile compounds, tracking a measurement change between two points in time (first and second dielectric responses), the system determines the amount of volatile substance that has been depleted, corresponds to the amount inhaled; Chen: [0033]-[0034], [0058], [0094] & [0111]: teaches that the change in dielectric response between two times yields the “absolute amount” of aerosolizable material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control method of Frake and Chen to use the determined change of state (the change in absolute amount of aerosolizable material) to estimate the amount of volatile substance inhaled by the user between the first and second measurements, according to known methods. The motivation for this modification comes from Chen’s teachings, discloses tracking the “absolute amount” of material to notify the user of the article’s depletion state. A POSITA would recognize that Chen’s system gathers all the necessary physical data (the absolute amount of material at Time A vs. Time B) to provide the feature of tracking user consumption (amount inhaled) for dose tracking, usage monitoring, and preventing overconsumption. Subtracting the second determined absolute amount from the first determined absolute amount yields the exact amount of volatile substance that exited the device. This represents a predictable and a matter of routine software engineering (KSR) to configure the device’s controller to output this differential as an “estimated inhaled amount,” providing the user with dosage and consumption metrics without requiring additional hardware sensors.
Regarding independent claim 14, Frake, teaches:
An aerosol generating device comprising (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001]-[0005], & [0142]): a heating chamber configured to receive an aerosol generating article (Fig. 1; [0005], [0013], & [0142]: aerosol-generating device (110) with a cavity (114) for receiving an aerosol-generating article, cavity refers to “a heating chamber”); a first terminal and a second terminal (Fig.1; [Abstract], [0005], [0143], & [0145]: first terminal refers to first electrode (128) and a second terminal refers to second electrode (130)), the first and second terminals being disposed in the heating chamber such that (Fig.1; [Abstract], [0005], [0143], & [0145]: first terminal refers to first electrode (128) and a second terminal refers to second electrode (130) disposed in the heating chamber, referred to as the cavity (114)), when the aerosol generating article is received in the heating chamber, the first and second terminals respectively contact different parts of the aerosol generating article (Fig. 3; [0005] & [0145]: describes and shows that when the article (140) is inserted, a portion of the aerosol-forming substrate (142) is positioned between the first terminal or electrode (128) and the second terminal or electrode (130), the arrangement allows the terminals to contact different parts of the article or the substrate within it to form a capacitor);
a voltage source ([0096], [0120]-[0121] & [0142]: discloses a power supply 126, which is a voltage source); and
a controller configured to ([0005], [0032] & [0043]):
apply an alternating voltage at an applied frequency between the first and second terminals ([0005], [0014] & [0043]: teaches that the controller applies an alternating current/voltage to the terminals at a specific frequency);
use the measured characteristics of the current to determine a dielectric response of the aerosol generating article at the applied frequency ([0011]: teaches measuring the capacitance, the controller calculate the relative permittivity/dielectric response of the substrate, by a direct measure of the dielectric response of the material between the electrodes, capacitance (C) is defined by the geometry and the dielectric constant or permittivity of the material, stating that the measured capacitance is “a function of the relative permittivity of the material arranged between the electrodes of the capacitor”),
wherein the applied frequency is in a range of 100 Hz to 1 MHz (Disclosed in combination: Frake: [0043]: the preferred range of 100 kHz and 1 GHz directly overlaps with the claimed range of 100 Hz to 1 MHz (overlapping between the 100 kHz and 1 MHz); Nackaerts: [0063]: discloses configuring the controller to use frequencies under 100 kHz to evaluate complex impedance, falls into the range and overlaps with the bottom end of Frake’s preferred operating spectrum).
Frake, is silent in regard to:
measure characteristics of a current that flows between the first and second terminals while the alternating voltage is being applied; and
However, Frake, in combination with Chen, further teach:
measure characteristics of a current that flows between the first and second terminals while the alternating voltage is being applied (Disclosed in combination: Frake: [0005], [0014] & [0043]: teaches measuring capacitance, where the standard method for measuring capacitances with a controller, involves applying a known AC voltage, measuring the resulting current characteristics (amplitude and phase relative to the voltage flowing in response to the applied AC voltage), the impedance (Z) is calculated from voltage and current measurements, and from this, the capacitance is determined, therefore measuring the characteristics of the current is an inherent and necessary step to “measure the capacitance”; Chen: [0005], [0031], [0054]-[0055], [0098], [0108], [Claim 7], [Claim 8] & [Claim 10]: both references teach measuring electrical characteristics of the signal flowing between the terminals to monitor the capacitor formed by the device and the article); and
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless it 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, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivating experimentation and optimization. Modifying the capacitive measurement of Frake by incorporating the specific temporal measurement technique taught by Chen (i.e., measuring the characteristics of the current by identifying the onset of power as a first time and measuring at a second time), according to known methods. The motivation for doing so would be to improve the accuracy and reliability of the capacitive measurement system taught by Frake. By applying Chen’s technique of establishing a baseline or reference point (at the onset of power) and taking a subsequent measurement at a second time, the system can better account for dynamic changes in the substrate as it heats up or depletes. A POSITA would recognize that integrating Chen’s temporal measurement steps into Frake’s controller would yield the predictable result (KSR) of a more precise evaluation of the measured characteristics of the current, allowing Frake’s device to more accurately determine the dielectric response and apply the most appropriate heating profile to the aerosol generating article.
Frake, in combination with Chen, are silent in regard to:
wherein the dielectric response is a function of conductance, an angular frequency, and a capacitance such that both the conductive component and the capacitive component make a non-negligible contribution to the determined dielectric response at the angular frequency,
However, Nackaerts, further teaches:
wherein the dielectric response is a function of conductance, an angular frequency, and a capacitance such that both the conductive component and the capacitive component make a non-negligible contribution to the determined dielectric response at the angular frequency ([Abstract], [0014], [0049], [0055], [0063] & [Claim 13]: teaches modifying a controller to determine a complex impedance consisting of both a capacitive component (capacitance) and a conductive/lossy component (conductance). It is an inherent mathematical property well-known in the art that calculating complex impedance in an AC circuit requires utilizing the angular frequency (ω) to process the capacitive reactance (Xc = 1/ωC). The controller configured to determine the complex impedance, inherently calculates a dielectric response that is a function of conductance, angular frequency, and capacitance),
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless it 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, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivating experimentation and optimization. A POSITA designing the controller of an aerosol-generating device, as taught by Frake, as modified by Chen, would recognize the limitations of programming a controller to rely on a simplified capacitance model. To make the device’s hardware controller accurate at discriminating between the physical states (e.g., distinguishing liquid condensation from vapor humidity inside the heating chamber), it would have been obvious to configure the controller to measure a complex dielectric response utilizing both a non-negligible capacitive component and a non-negligible conductive component, as taught by Nackaerts. The motivation for this modification is to increase the precision and reliability of the substrate state detection. A POSITA, performing the modification, would predictably program the controller to utilize standard alternating current signal processing math, which inherently determines the dielectric response as a function of the conductance, the capacitance, and the angular frequency of the applied AC signal. This combination yields the predictable result (KSR) of an accurate sensing apparatus capable of preventing hardware overheating and optimizing aerosol delivery.
Claims 2-3 & 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frake, in view of Chen, in view of Nackaerts, and further in view of Bleloch et al. (US 2022/0225475 A1, Fil. Date Apr. 29, 2020, hereinafter, Bleloch).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Frake, teaches:
The method according to claim 1 ([Abstract], [0001]-[0005], [0043] & [0145]),
Frake, in combination with Chen, and Nackaerts, are silent in regard to:
wherein the step of measuring characteristics of the current comprises measuring an amplitude of the current and measuring a phase shift between the voltage and the current.
However, Bleloch, further teaches:
wherein the step of measuring characteristics of the current comprises ([Abstract], [0002], [0094], [0099], [0121], [0124]-[0131], [0149], [0152]-[0159], [0177], [0180]-[0185], [0200]-[0201], [0204], [0213], [0228], [0234], [0236]-[0240], [0247]-[0249], [0254], [0257], [0259], [0269], [0274], [0276]-[0277], [0279], [0291], [Claim 1], [Claim 26] & [Claim 32]) measuring an amplitude of the current ([0249]) and measuring a phase shift between the voltage and the current ([0130] & [0279]-[0280]: discloses determining a “phase difference” between the phase of the driving current and the phase of the voltage across the electrical components, where a “phase difference” between current and voltage is the definition of a “phase shift”).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless it 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, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivating experimentation and optimization. Modifying the aerosol generating device control methods of Frake, Chen, and Nackaerts by incorporating the signal processing steps of Bleloch (measuring the amplitude of the current and the phase difference/shift between the voltage and current), according to known methods. The motivation for doing so would be to obtain accurate measurements of the complex impedance using Bleloch’s proven technique of utilizing the phase shift and current amplitude to pinpoint the self-resonant frequency and determine the temperature and physical state of the susceptor/aerosol-generating article, yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Frake, teaches:
The method according to claim 1 ([Abstract], [0001]-[0005] & [0142]-[0145]),
Frake, in combination with Chen, are silent in regard to:
wherein the step of determining a dielectric response comprises determining both a conductive component and a capacitive component of the dielectric response.
However, Nackaerts, further teaches:
wherein the step of determining a dielectric response comprises determining both a conductive component and a capacitive component of the dielectric response ([Abstract], [0014], [0049], [0055], [0063] & [Claim 13]: teaches that determining the complex impedance (which is the electrical equivalent of the dielectric response in an AC circuit) involves measuring both the capacitive component (capacitance) and the conductive component (conductance) of the material).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless it 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, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivating experimentation and optimization. Modifying the capacitive sensing method of Frake and Chen by incorporating the complex impedance evaluation by Nackaerts, and to implement that evaluation using the phase shift and amplitude measurement steps taught by Bleloch, according to known methods. The motivation to combine these teachings is to maximize the accuracy and reliability of the substrate-state detection system in an aerosol-generating device. A POSITA would recognize that an aerosol-forming substrate undergoes dynamic, multi-phase changes (liquid to vapor) as it is heating. Further, a POSITA would look to Nackaerts’s teaching that evaluating both conductive and capacitive components provides a complete picture of the liquid vs. vapor state of the material. The POSITA would incorporate the signal processing steps of Bleloch, to implement the dual-component measurement in the vaporizer’s control circuit. Measuring the current amplitude and the phase shift between the voltage and current is the standard, reliable method to mathematically separate an AC signal into its real (conductive) and imaginary (capacitive) components. Combining these known techniques would yield the predictable result (KSR) of an aerosol-generating device capable of tracking the depletion and phase state of the substrate. Allowing the controller to apply a highly optimized heating profile, preventing overheating and ensuring consistent aerosol generation.
Regarding claim 6, Frake, teaches:
The method according to claim 1 ([Abstract], [0001]-[0005], [0011], [0043] & [0142]-[0145]),
Frake, in combination with Nackaerts, are silent in regard to:
comprising carrying out steps (b) and (c) with different applied frequencies; wherein step (d) comprises using the measured characteristics of the current at the different frequencies to determine the dielectric response of the aerosol generating article.
However, Bleloch, further teaches:
comprising carrying out steps (b) ([0257]: teaches applying an alternating current at multiple, different applied frequencies) and (c) with different applied frequencies ([0257]: discloses measuring the electrical characteristics (time delay and resulting phase shift) of the signal at each of the different applied frequencies); wherein step (d) comprises using the measured characteristics of the current at the different frequencies to determine the dielectric response of the aerosol generating article ([0257]: teaches using the characteristics measured across the different frequencies to mathematically determine the overall electrical response (e.g., self-resonant frequency and phase curves) of the article).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless it 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, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivating experimentation and optimization. The motivation to combine the multi-frequency sweeping technique of Bleloch with the complex impedance measurement of Nackaerts in the aerosol-generating device of Frake is to improve the accuracy and resolution of the material state detection. A POSITA would recognize that relying on a single frequency measurement to determine a dielectric response can leave the sensing system vulnerable to noise, parasitic capacitances, or non-linear material behaviors. Applying an alternating voltage at a plurality of different frequencies and analyzing the characteristics across that frequency spectrum, as taught by Bleloch, the device’s controller can mathematically extrapolate a precise dielectric response curve. This predictable modification ensures that the aerosol-generating device tracks the depletion state of the aerosol-forming substrate in varying conditions, optimizing the heating profile, preventing suboptimal aerosol generation, and yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Frake, teaches:
The method according to claim 1 ([Abstract], [0001]-[0005], [0011], [0043] & [0142]-[0145]),
Frake, in combination with Chen, are silent in regard to:
further comprising measuring a temperature of the aerosol generating article; wherein step (d) comprises using the measured characteristics of the current and the measured temperature to determine the dielectric response of the aerosol generating article.
However, Nackaerts, in combination with Bleloch, further teach:
further comprising measuring a temperature of the aerosol generating article (Disclosed in combination: Nackaerts: [0035], [0058], [0063] & [0093]: teaches that the controller measures temperature alongside the complex impedance; Bleloch: [0021], [0038], [0106]-[0111], [0113]-[0114], [0120]-[0123], [0125]-[0127], [0129], [0163]-[0170], [0176], [0178]-[0179], [0181]-[0183], [0185], [0211], [0271], [0288], [0292], [0296], [0352], [0361], [Claim 8], [Claim 9], [Claim 10], [Claim 11], [Claim 12], [Claim 13], [Claim 15], [Claim 16], [Claim 22], [Claim 24], [Claim 25], [Claim 27], [Claim 28], [Claim 29] & [Claim 87]: teaches determining/measuring the temperature of the susceptor element (which forms part of the aerosol generating article)); wherein step (d) comprises using the measured characteristics of the current and the measured temperature (Nackaerts: [0035], [0058], [0063] & [0093]: teaches that the controller utilizes the measured temperature (evaluating the temperature behavior of the materials) alongside the measured electrical characteristics (impedance/capacitance)) to determine the dielectric response of the aerosol generating article (Nackaerts: [0035], [0058], [0063] & [0093]: the dielectric constant (dielectric response) of the material changes with temperature, the controller uses the measured temperature to adjust and determine the dielectric properties of the material being evaluated).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless it 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, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivating experimentation and optimization. Modifying the aerosol generating controller of Frake, as modified by Bleloch, to use both the measured characteristics of the current and the measured temperature to determine the dielectric response of the aerosol generating article, as taught by Nackaerts. The motivation to incorporate this temperature-dependent determination is provided by Nackaerts, stating that “dielectric constants may change with temperature”. In an aerosol generating device where the primary operational function is heating the article to high temperatures, the dielectric properties of the substrate will fluctuate as it heats up. A skilled artisan seeking to accurately measure the moisture or depletion level of the substrate via capacitance (disclosed by Frake), would logically apply Nackaerts’s teaching to factor in the measured temperature into the controller’s logic. Doing so yields the predictable result (KSR) of preventing measurement errors caused by thermal drift, ensuring the calculated dielectric response reflects the depletion state of the article rather than just its thermal state.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frake, in view of Chen, in view of Nackaerts, and further in view of Nicolas et al. (US 2022/0167682 A1, Fil. Date Mar. 31, 2020, hereinafter, Nicolas).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Frake, teaches:
The method according to claim 8 ([Abstract], [0001]-[0005], [0011] & [0142]-[0145]),
Frake, in combination with Chen, and Nackaerts, are silent in regard to:
wherein the identified state of the aerosol generating article is that the article has been inserted incorrectly in the heating chamber.
However, Frake, in combination with Chen, and Nicolas, further teach:
wherein the identified state of the aerosol generating article is that the article has been inserted incorrectly in the heating chamber (Disclosed in combination: Frake: [Abstract], [0032], [0039], [0044], & [0046]; Chen: [0034], [0037], [0052], [0055], [0068], [0106], [0109] & [0121]: Frake and Chen teach using the determined dielectric response (capacitance) to identify the presence and physical state of the article in the chamber; Nicolas: [0002], [0004]-[0007], [0038], [0040]-[0041] & [0053]: teaches identifying a specific error state where the aerosol generating article is not correctly inserted (an “improper position”) into the receiving region (heating chamber)).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless it 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, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivating experimentation and optimization. Modifying the dielectric state-identification methods of Frake and Chen to include identifying whether the article has been inserted incorrectly (an improper position), as taught by Nicolas, according to known methods. The motivation for this modification is provided by Nicolas: to prevent poor aerosol generation and to prevent overheating the device. Nicolas notes that if an article is in an improper position, “the aerosol-generating substrate may not be heated to a sufficient temperature for optimal aerosol generation” and the heating element may “overheat” because it cannot properly transmit heat into the substrate. A POSITA utilizing capacitance to determine the physical state of the substrate as taught by Frake and Chen, would predictably map the dielectric readings to an “incorrectly inserted” state. The capacitance relies on the volume and alignment of the dielectric material between the electrodes, an improperly inserted article would produce a distinguishable dielectric response. Applying Nicolas’s teaching to the Frake/Chen controller would yield the predictable result (KSR) of alerting the user to adjust the article, preventing hardware damage and ensuring a consistent aerosol generation experience.
Claims 13, 15 & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frake, in view of Chen, in view of Nackaerts, and further in view of Courbat et al. (WO 2017/137512 A1, Pub. Date Aug. 17, 2017).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Frake, teaches:
The method according to claim 12 ([0005], [0008], & [0036]-[0037]),
Frake, is silent in regard to:
further comprising recording a number of puffs inhaled by the user of the device between the determination of the first and second dielectric responses; and using the determined change of state of the article and the recorded number of puffs to estimate an amount of the least one volatile substance inhaled by the user per puff.
However, Chen, in combination with Courbat, further teach:
further comprising recording a number of puffs inhaled by the user of the device between the determination of the first and second dielectric responses (Courbat: [Pg. 1, ll. 26-37], [Pg. 4, ll. 8-11 & 29-35], [Pg. 5, ll. 6-10], [Pg. 9, ll. 32-37], [Pg. 10, ll. 12-17] & [Pg. 18, ll. 24-32]: teaches utilizing the electrical control system to detect when the user takes a puff and to record (count) the total number of detected puffs); and using the determined change of state of the article and the recorded number of puffs to estimate an amount of the least one volatile substance inhaled by the user per puff (Disclosed in combination: Chen: [0034]: teaches using the change of state to determine the absolute amount of material consumed (inhaled) over a given period; Courbat: [Pg. 1, ll. 26-37], [Pg. 2, ll. 1-8 & 14-28], [Pg. 3, ll. 23-37], [Pg. 4, ll. 8-11 & 29-35], [Pg. 8, ll. 16-25] & [Pg. 27, ll. 1-5]: teaches using the change of state to determine/tracking the total amount of volatile substance consumed, counting/tracking the exact number of puffs taken during that period to estimate the volatile substance consumed by the user per puff).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control method of Frake and Chen by incorporating the puff-counting step taught by Courbat, and subsequently using the controller to divide the total depleted amount, from Chen, by the recorded number of puffs, from Courbat, to estimate the amount inhaled per puff, according to known methods. The motivation for this modification is to provide the user with detailed, dosage and consumption metrics. A POSITA in the electronic vaporizer field would understand that tracking user consumption (e.g., nicotine delivery per puff) is a desired feature for preventing overconsumption and ensuring consistent device performance. The Frake and Chen systems include the electrodes, the AC voltage supply, and the controller necessary to measure the capacitance changes, therefore a POSITA would recognize that Courbat’s puff-counting logic could be implemented through software/firmware updates without requiring additional hardware sensors (e.g., airflow sensors). Combining these teachings yields the predictable result (KSR) of a “smart” aerosol-generating device capable of estimating the per-puff dosage of volatile substances, improving the user’s ability to monitor their usage.
Regarding dependent claim 15, Frake, teaches:
The aerosol generating device according to claim 14, wherein (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001]-[0005], & [0142]):
Frake, is silent in regard to:
each of the first terminal and the second terminal is generally planar, having a length and a width measured in the plane of the terminal; and
the first and second terminals are disposed in parallel to one another on opposite sides of the heating chamber such that the aerosol generating article may be received between them, and such that the first and second terminals are separated by a perpendicular distance less than the length and the width of the terminals.
However, Frake, in combination with Courbat, further teach:
wherein: each of the first terminal and the second terminal is generally planar, having a length and a width measured in the plane of the terminal (Disclosed in combination: Frake: Fig.1; [0048] & [0050]: teaches the electrodes are configured as plates, where a “plate” is a planar object with a length and width; Courbat: Fig. 9; [Pg. 28, ll. 13-22]: discloses first and second terminals configured as “plate electrodes” (which are inherently planar) having a specifically measured length and width); and
the first and second terminals are disposed in parallel to one another on opposite sides of the heating chamber (Disclosed in combination: Frake: Figs. 1 & 3; [0049]-[0050]: teaches the parallel arrangement on opposite sides of the cavity (heating chamber); Courbat: Fig. 9; [Pg. 28, ll. 13-22]) such that the aerosol generating article may be received between them (Disclosed in combination: Frake: Fig. 3; [0005]: discloses the electrodes are on opposite sides of the cavity and the article is received within the cavity, article is therefore received between the electrodes; Courbat: Fig. 9; [Pg. 28, ll. 13-22]: teaches disposing the parallel plate electrodes on opposite sides of the storage/heating chamber to evaluate the aerosol-generating substrate between them), and such that the first and second terminals are separated by a perpendicular distance less than the length and the width of the terminals (Disclosed in combination: Frake: Fig. 1; [0049]-[0050]: teaches the use of the electrodes as a “parallel plate capacitor”, for a capacitor to function as a parallel plate capacitor for measuring dielectric properties of a material placed between the plates, the separation distance must be less than the dimensions (length and width) of the plates, as illustrated, and a fundamental design principle of a capacitor to work as intended, to ensure the electric field is contained within the material; Courbat: Fig. 9; [Pg. 28, ll. 13-22]: provides dimensions: the perpendicular separation distance is 2 mm to 3 mm, the width is about 5 mm to 7 mm, and the length is 25 mm to 30 mm. The separation distance (maximum 3 mm) is less than both the width (minimum 5 mm) and the length (minimum 25 mm)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural electrode arrangement of Frake by implementing the specific parallel plate geometry and dimensional constraints taught by Courbat, according to known methods. The motivation for this modification is to maximize the sensitivity and accuracy of the capacitive measurement circuit. A POSITA in the electrical arts understands the fundamental equation for a parallel plate capacitor (C = εA/d, where A is the area of the plates and d is the distance between them). To achieve a strong, readable capacitance signal that can track minute changes in the dielectric substrate, as required by Frake, the sensor must maximize the plate area (A, determined by length and width) while minimizing the separation distance (d). Applying Courbat’s teaching, arranging the terminals as parallel plates with a separation distance less than both the length and width of the terminals, yields the predictable result (KSR) of generating a uniform electric field across the aerosol generating article. This prevents signal loss and guarantees that the controller receives an optimized dielectric response to accurately control the device’s heating profile.
Regarding independent claim 18, Frake, teaches:
An aerosol generating device comprising (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001]-[0005], & [0142]):
a heating chamber configured to receive an aerosol generating article (Fig. 1; [0005], [0013], & [0142]: aerosol-generating device (110) with a cavity (114) for receiving an aerosol-generating article, cavity refers to “a heating chamber”),
a voltage source ([0096], [0120]-[0121] & [0142]: discloses a power supply 126, which is a voltage source); and
a controller configured to ([0005], [0032] & [0043]):
apply an alternating voltage at an applied frequency between the first and second terminals ([0005], [0014] & [0043]: teaches that the controller applies an alternating current/voltage to the terminals at a specific frequency);
(c)use the measured characteristics of the current to determine a dielectric response of the aerosol generating article at the applied frequency ([0011]: teaches measuring the capacitance, the controller calculate the relative permittivity/dielectric response of the substrate, by a direct measure of the dielectric response of the material between the electrodes, capacitance (C) is defined by the geometry and the dielectric constant or permittivity of the material, stating that the measured capacitance is “a function of the relative permittivity of the material arranged between the electrodes of the capacitor”),
Frake, is silent in regard to:
measure characteristics of a current that flows between the first and second terminals while the alternating voltage is being applied; and
However, Frake, in combination with Chen, further teach:
measure characteristics of a current that flows between the first and second terminals while the alternating voltage is being applied (Disclosed in combination: Frake: [0005], [0014] & [0043]: teaches measuring capacitance, where the standard method for measuring capacitances with a controller, involves applying a known AC voltage, measuring the resulting current characteristics (amplitude and phase relative to the voltage flowing in response to the applied AC voltage), the impedance (Z) is calculated from voltage and current measurements, and from this, the capacitance is determined, therefore measuring the characteristics of the current is an inherent and necessary step to “measure the capacitance”; Chen: [0005], [0031], [0054]-[0055], [0098], [0108], [Claim 7], [Claim 8] & [Claim 10]: both references teach measuring electrical characteristics of the signal flowing between the terminals to monitor the capacitor formed by the device and the article); and
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless it 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, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivating experimentation and optimization. Modifying the capacitive measurement of Frake by incorporating the specific temporal measurement technique taught by Chen (i.e., measuring the characteristics of the current by identifying the onset of power as a first time and measuring at a second time), according to known methods. The motivation for doing so would be to improve the accuracy and reliability of the capacitive measurement system taught by Frake. By applying Chen’s technique of establishing a baseline or reference point (at the onset of power) and taking a subsequent measurement at a second time, the system can better account for dynamic changes in the substrate as it heats up or depletes. A POSITA would recognize that integrating Chen’s temporal measurement steps into Frake’s controller would yield the predictable result (KSR) of a more precise evaluation of the measured characteristics of the current, allowing Frake’s device to more accurately determine the dielectric response and apply the most appropriate heating profile to the aerosol generating article.
Frake, in combination with Chen, are silent in regard to:
wherein the dielectric response is a function of conductance, an angular frequency, and a capacitance.
However, Nackaerts, further teaches:
(c)wherein the dielectric response is a function of conductance, an angular frequency, and a capacitance ([Abstract], [0014], [0049], [0055], [0063] & [Claim 13]: teaches modifying a controller to evaluate a complex impedance (dielectric response) consisting of both a capacitive component (capacitance) and a conductive/lossy component (conductance). It is an inherent mathematical property well-known in the art that calculating complex impedance in an AC circuit requires utilizing the angular frequency (ω) to process the capacitive reactance (Xc = 1/ωC). The controller configured to determine the complex impedance, inherently calculates a dielectric response that is a function of conductance, angular frequency, and capacitance).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless it 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, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivating experimentation and optimization. A POSITA designing the controller of an aerosol-generating device, as taught by Frake, as modified by Chen, would recognize the limitations of programming a controller to rely on a simplified capacitance model. To make the device’s hardware controller accurate at discriminating between the physical states (e.g., distinguishing liquid condensation from vapor humidity inside the heating chamber), it would have been obvious to configure the controller to measure a complex dielectric response utilizing both a non-negligible capacitive component and a non-negligible conductive component, as taught by Nackaerts. The motivation for this modification is to increase the precision and reliability of the substrate state detection. A POSITA, performing the modification, would predictably program the controller to utilize standard alternating current signal processing math, which inherently determines the dielectric response as a function of the conductance, the capacitance, and the angular frequency of the applied AC signal. This combination yields the predictable result (KSR) of an accurate sensing apparatus capable of preventing hardware overheating and optimizing aerosol delivery.
Frake, in combination with Chen, and Nackaerts, are silent in regard to:
the aerosol generating article comprising a first flat surface and a second flat surface;
a first terminal and a second terminal, the first and second terminals being disposed in the heating chamber such that, when the aerosol generating article is received in the heating chamber, the first and second terminals respectively contact different parts of the aerosol generating article, wherein the first terminal and the second terminal are configured to be adjacent the first flat surface and the second flat surface, respectively;
However, Frake, in combination with Courbat, further teach:
the aerosol generating article comprising a first flat surface and a second flat surface (Courbat: Fig. 9; [Pg. 28, ll. 5-22]: discloses an aerosol generating article (cartridge 350) that comprises planar flat sides);
a first terminal and a second terminal (Disclosed in combination: Frake: Fig.1; [Abstract], [0005], [0143], & [0145]: first terminal refers to first electrode (128) and a second terminal refers to second electrode (130); Courbat: Fig. 9; [Pg. 28, ll. 5-22]), the first and second terminals being disposed in the heating chamber such that (Disclosed in combination: Frake: Fig.1; [Abstract], [0005], [0143], & [0145]: first terminal refers to first electrode (128) and a second terminal refers to second electrode (130) disposed in the heating chamber, referred to as the cavity (114); Courbat: Fig. 9; [Pg. 28, ll. 5-22]), when the aerosol generating article is received in the heating chamber, the first and second terminals respectively contact different parts of the aerosol generating article (Disclosed in combination: Frake: Fig. 3; [0005] & [0145]: describes and shows that when the article (140) is inserted, a portion of the aerosol-forming substrate (142) is positioned between the first terminal or electrode (128) and the second terminal or electrode (130), the arrangement allows the terminals to contact different parts of the article or the substrate within it to form a capacitor; Courbat: Fig. 9; [Pg. 28, ll. 5-22]: confirms that the first and second plate electrodes contact opposite sides of the storage portion of the article), wherein the first terminal and the second terminal are configured to be adjacent the first flat surface and the second flat surface, respectively (Courbat: Fig. 9; [Pg. 28, ll. 5-22]: teaches configuring the terminals as plate electrodes that are arranged at (adjacent to) the opposite planar (flat) sides of the housing);
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless it 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, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivating experimentation and optimization. Modifying the structural arrangement of the aerosol-generating article and chamber of Frake by implementing the flat-sided cartridge and adjacent flat terminals taught by Courbat, and to further program the controller to calculate the dielectric response as a function of conductance, capacitance, and angular frequency as taught by Nackaerts. The motivation for this physical modification is to maximize the sensitivity, accuracy of the device’s sensing capabilities. A POSITA would recognize that measuring the electrical properties of a cylindrical article can result in irregular fringe fields and variable contact patches depending on alignment. By modifying the system to utilize an article with flat surfaces and terminals positioned to those flat surfaces, as taught by Courbat, ensures a highly uniform electric field is generated directly through the substrate. This structural optimization works with Nackaerts’s complex impedance logic. The uniform electric field provided by the flat-plate geometry ensures the controller receives signals, allowing it to accurately parse the conductance, capacitance, and angular frequency without geometry-induced noise. This yields the predictable result (KSR) of a reliable aerosol generating device capable of tracking substrate depletion and phase changes.
PNG
media_image4.png
330
531
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding dependent claim 19, Frake, teaches:
The aerosol generating device according to claim 18 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001]-[0005], & [0142]),
Frake, in combination with Chen, and Nackaerts, are silent in regard to:
wherein the aerosol generating article has a flattened, rectangular form, and
wherein the first flat surface and the second flat surface are opposite one another.
However, Courbat, further teaches:
wherein the aerosol generating article has a flattened, rectangular form (Fig. 9; [Pg. 10, ll. 29-31] & [Pg. 28, ll. 13-22]: discloses that the article (cartridge) can have a rectangular cross-section, further illustrated in Fig. 9), and
wherein the first flat surface and the second flat surface are opposite one another (Fig. 9; [Pg. 28, ll. 13-22]: discloses that the two flat surfaces (which house the planar plate electrodes) are arranged directly opposite to one another across the storage portion to form the parallel capacitor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural electrode arrangement of the aerosol-generating article and chamber of Frake by implementing the flattened, rectangular cartridge shape with opposing flat surfaces taught by Courbat, according to known methods. Courbat notes that the flattened geometry (2-3 mm separation) is “sufficiently narrow that capillary forces act on a liquid aerosol-forming substrate”. Ensures consistent fluid delivery to the heating element regardless of the device’s physical orientation. Forming a parallel-plate capacitor requires two flat plates arranged directly opposite one another. The flattened, rectangular form maximizes the surface area of these opposing plates while minimizing the gap between them, ensuring a sensitive, uniform electric field through the bulk of the substrate. Combining this flattened, rectangular geometry into Frake’s capacitive-sensing heating device yields the predictable result (KSR) of improved fluid mechanics and higher-fidelity dielectric measurements, allowing the controller to accurately prevent dry hits and optimize vapor production.
Regarding dependent claim 20, Frake, teaches:
The aerosol generating device according to claim 18 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001]-[0005], & [0142]),
Frake, in combination with Chen, and Nackaerts, are silent in regard to:
wherein the first terminal and the second terminal are planar and face each other.
However, Courbat, further teaches:
wherein the first terminal and the second terminal are planar (Fig. 9; [Pg. 28, ll. 13-22]: discloses configuring the first and second terminals as “plate electrodes”, where a standard plate electrode is inherently planar) and face each other (Fig. 9; [Pg. 28, ll. 13-22]: teaches arranging the parallel plate electrodes on opposite sides of the liquid storage portion, arranging flat parallel plates on opposite sides of a cavity geometrically requires that the inner active surfaces of those plates face each other to create the electric field through the substrate volume between them).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structural electrode arrangement of the aerosol-generating article of Frake by configuring the first and second terminals as planar plates that face each other as taught by Courbat, according to known methods. The motivation for implementing this specific planar, facing geometry is to maximize the sensitivity and uniformity of the capacitive sensing circuit. A POSITA would recognize that measuring the electrical properties of a substrate between irregular, non-planar, or misaligned contacts introduces variable fringe fields and unpredictable signal noise. Applying Courbat’s teaching of planar plates facing each other forms an ideal parallel-plate capacitor. This structural optimization ensures a uniform, concentrated electric field is generated through the bulk of the aerosol-generating substrate. This yields the predictable result (KSR) of providing the device’s controller with high-fidelity, high-resolution dielectric response readings, enabling precise tracking of substrate depletion and accurate heating profile adjustments.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frake, in view of Chen, in view of Nackaerts, and further in view of NPL: Xu, Xiangdong. Enhancements in dielectric response characterization of insulation materials. Chalmers Tekniska Hogskola (Sweden), 2013.
Regarding dependent claim 16, Frake, teaches:
The aerosol generating device according to claim 14 (Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0001]-[0005], [0043], [0142], & [0173]),
Frake, is silent in regard to:
wherein the dielectric response is calculated as:
Y=G+iωC, wherein Y denotes an admittance, G is the conductance, i2 = -1, ω=2πf is the angular frequency, and C is the capacitance.
However, Nackaerts, in combination with Xu, further teach:
wherein the dielectric response is calculated as:
Y=G+iωC (Xu: [Title], [Abstract] [Pg. 12, Chapter 2, Equation 2.1 & 2.2], & [Pg. 12-13, Chapter 2, Equation 2.3 & Context]: equation 2.2 is the simplified equation in permittivity form), wherein Y denotes an admittance (Xu: [Title], [Abstract] [Pg. 12, Chapter 2, Equation 2.1 & 2.2], & [Pg. 12-13, Chapter 2, Equation 2.3 & Context]: the admittance Y of a capacitor with complex capacitance C* is Y = iωC* = iω (C’-jC”) = ω”" + iωC’), G is the conductance (Disclosed in combination: Nackaerts: [0063]: teaches configuring a controller to determine the complex electrical response of a material using conductance (G) and capacitance (C); Xu: [Title], [Abstract] [Pg. 12, Chapter 2, Equation 2.1 & 2.2], & [Pg. 12-13, Chapter 2, Equation 2.3 & Context]: ωC” represents conductive loss (G)), i2 = -1 (Xu: [Pgs. 12-13, Chapter 2, Sec. 2.1.1 Interpretation of dielectric dynamic properties, Equation 2.3]: establishes that evaluating dielectric properties in the frequency domain requires mathematical calculations using complex numbers (using j or i for √-1) and the angular frequency ω), ω=2πf is the angular frequency (Xu: [Title], [Abstract] [Pgs. 12-13, Chapter 2, Sec. 2.1.1, Equations 2.1 & 2.2], & [Pg. 12-13, Chapter 2, Equation 2.3 & Context]: wC’ represents capacitive susceptance (ωC)), and C is the capacitance (Disclosed in combination: Nackaerts: [0063]: teaches configuring a controller to determine the complex electrical response of a material using conductance (G) and capacitance (C); Xu: [Title], [Abstract] [Pg. 12, Chapter 2, Equation 2.1 & 2.2], & [Pg. 12-13, Chapter 2, Equation 2.3 & Context]: admittance/complex permittivity) comprises both a real part (conductance/storage), the formula Y= G+iωC is the standard equation for this characterization discussed in theory of dielectric response, the admittance Y of a capacitor with complex capacitance C* is Y = iωC* = iω (C’-jC”) = ω”" + iωC’), all simplifies to Y = G + iωC).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of the aerosol generating device, as taught by Frake and Nackaerts, to calculate the dielectric response using the specific mathematical formula Y = G + iωC, according to known methods. When a POSITA programs a digital controller or microprocessor to evaluate the ”complex impedance (i.e. capacitance (µF) and/or conductance (mho))” required by Nackaerts, they must convert that requirement into executable machine math. The equation Y = G + iωC, is the universal, governing equation for admittance in an alternating current circuit. Nackaerts requires measuring conductance (G) and capacitance (C). Programming the controller to calculate the total admittance (Y) using the applied angular frequency (ω) is the direct mathematical translation of Nackaerts’s teachings. Xu demonstrates that when analyzing dynamic dielectric properties under AC voltage in the frequency domain, standard practice is to calculate the response using complex algebra that incorporates the angular frequency (ω) and complex numbers (using j or i for √-1). Furthermore, it is a fundamental rule of electrical engineering that the reciprocal of complex impedance (Z) is complex admittance (Y), and the parallel equivalent circuit formula for admittance is defined as Y = G + iωC. Implementing this standard formula yields the predictable result (KSR) of allowing the device’s processor to quantify the dielectric response of the aerosol-generating article to adjust the heating profile.
Regarding dependent claim 17, Frake, teaches:
The method according to claim 1 ([Abstract] & [0001]-[0005]),
Frake, is silent in regard to:
wherein the dielectric response is calculated as:
Y=G+iωC, wherein Y denotes an admittance, G is a conductance, i2 = -1, ω=2πf is an angular frequency, and C is a capacitance.
However, Nackaerts, in combination with Xu, further teach:
wherein the dielectric response is calculated as:
Y=G+iωC (Xu: [Title], [Abstract] [Pg. 12, Chapter 2, Equation 2.1 & 2.2], & [Pg. 12-13, Chapter 2, Equation 2.3 & Context]: equation 2.2 is the simplified equation in permittivity form), wherein Y denotes an admittance (Xu: [Title], [Abstract] [Pg. 12, Chapter 2, Equation 2.1 & 2.2], & [Pg. 12-13, Chapter 2, Equation 2.3 & Context]: the admittance Y of a capacitor with complex capacitance C* is Y = iωC* = iω (C’-jC”) = ω”" + iωC’), G is a conductance (Disclosed in combination: Nackaerts: [0063]: teaches configuring a controller to determine the complex electrical response of a material using conductance (G) and capacitance (C); Xu: [Title], [Abstract] [Pg. 12, Chapter 2, Equation 2.1 & 2.2], & [Pg. 12-13, Chapter 2, Equation 2.3 & Context]: ωC” represents conductive loss (G)), i2 = -1 (Xu: [Pgs. 12-13, Chapter 2, Sec. 2.1.1 Interpretation of dielectric dynamic properties, Equation 2.3]: establishes that evaluating dielectric properties in the frequency domain requires mathematical calculations using complex numbers (using j or i for √-1) and the angular frequency ω), ω=2πf is an angular frequency (Xu: [Title], [Abstract] [Pgs. 12-13, Chapter 2, Sec. 2.1.1, Equations 2.1 & 2.2], & [Pg. 12-13, Chapter 2, Equation 2.3 & Context]: wC’ represents capacitive susceptance (ωC)), and C is a capacitance (Disclosed in combination: Nackaerts: [0063]: teaches configuring a controller to determine the complex electrical response of a material using conductance (G) and capacitance (C); Xu: [Title], [Abstract] [Pg. 12, Chapter 2, Equation 2.1 & 2.2], & [Pg. 12-13, Chapter 2, Equation 2.3 & Context]: admittance/complex permittivity) comprises both a real part (conductance/storage), the formula Y= G+iωC is the standard equation for this characterization discussed in theory of dielectric response, the admittance Y of a capacitor with complex capacitance C* is Y = iωC* = iω (C’-jC”) = ω”" + iωC’), all simplifies to Y = G + iωC).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller of the aerosol generating device, as taught by Frake and Nackaerts, to calculate the dielectric response using the specific mathematical formula Y = G + iωC, according to known methods. When a POSITA programs a digital controller or microprocessor to evaluate the ”complex impedance (i.e. capacitance (µF) and/or conductance (mho))” required by Nackaerts, they must convert that requirement into executable machine math. The equation Y = G + iωC, is the universal, governing equation for admittance in an alternating current circuit. Nackaerts requires measuring conductance (G) and capacitance (C). Programming the controller to calculate the total admittance (Y) using the applied angular frequency (ω) is the direct mathematical translation of Nackaerts’s teachings. Xu demonstrates that when analyzing dynamic dielectric properties under AC voltage in the frequency domain, standard practice is to calculate the response using complex algebra that incorporates the angular frequency (ω) and complex numbers (using j or i for √-1). Furthermore, it is a fundamental rule of electrical engineering that the reciprocal of complex impedance (Z) is complex admittance (Y), and the parallel equivalent circuit formula for admittance is defined as Y = G + iωC. Implementing this standard formula yields the predictable result (KSR) of allowing the device’s processor to quantify the dielectric response of the aerosol-generating article to adjust the heating profile.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:30-5:00 pm 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/HUGO NAVARRO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858 April 27, 2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 5/1/2026
Prosecution Insights