DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7-28-2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 7-28-2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 and 8 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 4 discloses the term “respective” in disclosing “the first and second sensors detect respective ones of”. However it is unclear what limitation is required and added to the existing phrase with the usage of “respective”. It is not clear if a certain order of detection is required from the list, or if the sensors detection has an order that is required, or if the first or second sensor is required to make a detection before the other sensor, or if the order of the detectable options must be detected in a certain order or if the claim merely requires that the first and second sensor merely separately detect one option each from the list. For the purposes of compact prosecution and this office action the claim limitation is interpreted to require that each sensor separately detects one option from the list, which is consistent with the claim.
Claim 8 discloses the term “respective” e.g., the control processor is operable to place the aerosol delivery device in a respective predetermined state in response to the detection of a respective combination of first interaction and second interaction being calculated to meet the at least a first predetermined criterion. (emphasis added for clarity). However it is not clear what claim 8 requires that is not already required by claim 7. The specification does not clarify the usage of respective. The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this office action and compact prosecution, respective is understood to have its broadest reasonable interpretation and is therefore interpreted to mean “a given”, e.g., a given predetermined state or a given combination of first interaction and second interaction…
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) which requires view numbers to be preceded by the abbreviation “FIG.” where multiple views are used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, (e.g., Figure 1 should be FIG. 1… etc.).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dickens (US20180184711A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Dickens teaches an aerosol delivery system, comprising:
an aerosol delivery device [0021];
a first sensor (560) configured to detect a first interaction related to subsequent use of the aerosol delivery device (e.g., motion/tapping from accelerometer 560, see [0050]);
a second sensor (215) configured to detect a second, separate interaction related to subsequent use of the aerosol delivery device (e.g., see [0050] the first sensor picks up accelerometer data/motion/tapping/etc, and after the airflow sensor 215 detects when an airflow event corresponding to a flow of air being detected in the device, e.g., because user inhales on the mouthpiece 35 [0050];
a two-factor detection processor operable to calculate when detection of the first interaction and second interaction meet at least a first predetermined criterion (e.g., see [0050] the control circuitry 550 is configured to determine if the accelerometer and airflow sequence from the first and second sensors has occurred within the predetermined period/criterion and is configured to engage active mode which is configured to operate the device and heater etc); and
a control processor operable to alter one or more operational parameters of the aerosol delivery device in response to the detection of the first interaction and second interaction being calculated to meet the at least first predetermined criterion (e.g., control circuitry 550 switches e-cigarette 10 from safe mode to active mode and supplies power to heating element 365 after the operational parameters of the device in response to the detected on the first and second interactions being calculated to meet the first predetermined criterion[0050]).
Regarding Claim 2, Dickens discloses a companion device (e.g., communicatively coupled smart phone [0084]).
Regarding Claim 7, Dickens discloses the control processor is operable to place the aerosol delivery device in a predetermined state in response to the detection of the first interaction and second interaction being calculated to meet the at least a first predetermined criterion. (e.g., control circuitry 550 places e-cigarette 10 in active mode after the qualifying tapping plus airflow sensor sequence [0050], e.g., see FIG 5, S5-S6)
Regarding Claim 8, Dickens discloses the control processor is operable to place the aerosol delivery device in a respective predetermined state in response to the detection of a respective combination of first interaction and second interaction being calculated to meet the at least a first predetermined criterion. (e.g., the tapping event and airflow event combination causes control circuitry 550 to place e-cigarette 10 in active mode, [0050], see also FIG 5, S3-S4)
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation is optional as it “may include one or more selected from the list”, although not required Dickens discloses the predetermined state may include a higher power heating than in a preceding state (control circuitry 550 changes e-cigarette 10 from a safe mode, with no heating power, to active mode, supplying power to heating element 365, [0050], FIG 5 S4.
Regarding Claim 10, Dickens discloses the criterion can be the two interactions occurring within an interval of predetermined length. (control circuitry 550 determines whether tapping events and an airflow event occur within the predefined period the express example is two taps followed by airflow within three seconds, see [0050] and FIG 5 S3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickens (US20180184711A1) in view of Anderson (US20200000143A1)
Regarding Claim 3, Dickens discloses a smartphone companion device can be coupled to the device for pin based locking [0084] but fails to explicitly disclose the companion device comprises the control processor.
Anderson teaches an aerosol generating device in the same field of endeavor and teaches a companion device 305 (e.g., smartphone etc [0254]) as an external vaporizer controller that influences operating parameters [0006], including heating on/off operation ([0355] and FIG 23-27, e.g., control processor) and heating temperatures and teaches user device 305 communicatively coupled to a vaporizer device and comprising a processor, memory, and executable program code [0075]. Anderson teaches that a connected companion device enables the user to program dose control, personalize settings, monitor the device and device lockout. [0270]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to configure Dickens’ already coupled smartphone device to execute Anderson’s known companion device application and thereby provide processor based control of Dickens’ aerosol delivery device because both references are drawn to electrically controlled vapor systems using a companion smartphone to communicate with and control or secure the device. Anderson’s processor based app control would predictably provide Dickens’ existing companion phone with user selectable operational control/settings in addition to its disclosed unlocking function.
Claims 4-6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickens (US20180184711A1) in view of Anderson (US20200000143A1) and Lee (US20230148675A1).
Regarding claim 4, Dickens teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However Dickens fails to explicitly disclose first and second sensors detecting respective interactions selected from claim 4’s list. Dickens’ accelerometer 560 detects tapping etc and its airflow sensor 215 detects airflow/inhalation [0050]. Dickens also teaches that various modifications to the apparatus may be implemented [0081] and that in some examples a user may be provided with the ability to select their own preferred activation sequence [0082] and that a device in accordance with some embodiments may also support other modes of operation, and that an ordinary artisan could use other activation sequences, thus Dickens suggests other modes of operation for sensing and sensor configurations. [0083], such as motion sensing [0089], and fault detection of heating elements [0090], but is silent to other suitable modes of operation.
However, Anderson teaches a vaporizer device with other suitable modes of operation and teaches the first and second sensors detect respective ones of an insertion of a consumable payload (e.g., insertion of a cartridge the cartridge is the consumable payload used by the vaporizer device [0056] and [0066], and
However, Anderson fails to explicitly disclose the other specific modes of operation/interactions.
Lee teaches an aerosol generating device with other suitable modes of operation and teaches a proximity sensor (See abstract) and teaches a proximity to a user's mouth (e.g., face) [0120], e.g., when the device recognizes the distance to the users mouth is less than or equal to a reference value the controller may heat the heater 420.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Anderson’s cartridge insertion detected as Dickens’ first sensor input and Lees mouth proximity detection as Dickens’ second sensor input while retaining Dickens’ controller 550 evaluation of whether both inputs satisfy the criterion as taught by Dickens. Both substitute inputs are known indicators of likely upcoming use and Dickens’ combined event logic is expressly directed to avoid unintended activation which is consistent with Anderson and Lee which both contribute to unintended activation sensing (e.g., intending that activation is desired by the user).
Regarding Claim 5, Dickens teaches the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Dickens fails to explicitly disclose in which: the first and second sensors respectively do not detect a single interaction that causes activation of the aerosol delivery device.
However, Anderson teaches a vaporizer device and teaches the first and second sensors detect respective ones of an insertion of a consumable payload (e.g., insertion of a cartridge the cartridge is the consumable payload used by the vaporizer device [0056] and [0066], and
Lee teaches an aerosol generating device with a proximity sensor (See abstract) and teaches a proximity to a user's mouth (e.g., face) [0120], e.g., when the device recognizes the distance to the users mouth is less than or equal to a reference value the controller may heat the heater 420.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Anderson’s cartridge insertion detected as Dickens’ first sensor input and Lees mouth proximity detection as Dickens’ second sensor input while retaining Dickens’ controller 550 evaluation of whether both inputs satisfy the criterion as taught by Dickens. Both substitute inputs are known indicators of likely upcoming use and Dickens’ combined event logic is expressly directed to avoid unintended activation which is consistent with Anderson and Lee which both contribute to unintended activation sensing (e.g., intending that activation is desired by the user).
e.g., Both the insertion of consumable payload and proximity sensor requirements would need to be met under this modification to cause activation of the device. Neither singular interaction would activate the device which meets the claim. Dickens’ retained controller logic waits until both first and second detections meet the criterion before altering the device state, see FIG 5, S3-S4.
Regarding Claim 6, Dickens teaches the claim limitations as set forth above, However, Dickens fails to explicitly disclose the first and second sensors do not detect any selected from the list consisting of: i. a button press to activate the aerosol delivery device; and ii. an inhalation action on a mouthpiece of the aerosol delivery device.
Anderson teaches detecting insertion of a consumable cartridge in a vaporizer device [0056] and [0066]. A cartridge-insertion sensor detects that physical insertion event, rather than a button press or inhalation action (see also rejection of claim 5 above).
Lee teaches a proximity sensor that recognizes a user’s mouth proximity and measures the distance between the users mouth and the aerosol generating device [0120] rather than button press or an inhalation action.
Therefore Dickens as modified by Anderson and Lee teaches the first and second sensors do not detect any selected from the list consisting of i. a button press to activate the aerosol delivery device; and ii. an inhalation action on a mouthpiece of the aerosol delivery device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael T Fulton whose telephone number is (703)756-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 - 4:30 ET.
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.
/M.T.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights