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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-13 are pending and are subject to this office action. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from consideration. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I claims 1-13, without traverse, in the reply filed on 10/13/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-8, 9-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Raichman (US 20190208823 A1, as cited on IDS dated 05/09/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Raichman discloses a vaporizing unit (21, Fig. 6, “smoking device”), comprising:
Electrodes (36, 37, 38, 39) configured to heat a capsule (29) by driving drive electrical current into a capsule (29), where the electrodes are configured to vaporize an active ingredient within the capsule (29, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, [0145, 0151])
Control circuitry (34) configured to measure a resistance of a mesh (30) provided on the capsule (29) to identify the type of capsule (29, Fig. 4A, [0125, 0139]).
The control circuitry (34) may comprise a computer processor (“control component”) and electronic components such as resistors ([0152]).
A sensor is interpreted as a device which measures a physical property. Raichman discloses the control circuitry (34) measures a resistance of a mesh (30) provided on a capsule (29, Fig. 4A, [0139]) which reasonably suggests the control circuitry (34) comprises a sensor.
Regarding claim 6, Raichman discloses a temperature sensor (35) for measuring a temperature of the capsule (29, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, [0153]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Raichman discloses the control circuitry maintains the capsule at a constant temperature in response to the temperature detected from the temperature sensor ([0015-0016, 0153]). Maintaining the capsule at a constant temperature reasonably suggests maintaining the capsule within a tolerance of a target temperature which is a predefined temperature range.
Regarding claim 9, Raichman discloses:
Two pairs of electrodes (36, 37, 38, 39, “two or more electrodes”) configured to heat a capsule (29) by driving electrical current into a capsule (29, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, [0145, 0151])
The control circuitry (34) is configured to calculate an airflow through the vaporizing unit (21) by detecting the amount electrical power required to maintain the temperature of the capsule (29) constant ([0016, 0044]). Electrical power is directly related to the current through the capsule and therefore meets the limitation of detecting an amount of current to maintain a substantially constant temperature.
Each inhalation of the user (i.e. a puff) is detected by detecting airflow through the capsule ([0029]).
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Raichman discloses the control circuitry is configured to calculate the airflow rate through the capsule ([0182]). A depth of the puff is interpreted as the amount of air flowing through the capsule in a given time. Therefore, the control circuity calculating the airflow through the capsule is considered to be a depth of the puff.
Regarding claim 13, Raichman discloses the control circuity determines the amount of active ingredient that has been vaporized from the capsule based on the airflow rate (the amount of flow and time are “parameters of the puffs”) and temperatures that have already been applied to the capsule over a number of puffs (Fig. 27A, Fig. 27B, [0189, 0250-0252]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raichman (US 20190208823 A1, as cited on IDS dated 05/09/2023) in view of Halliday (US 20220183394 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Raichman discloses the vaporizing unit (21) comprises a sensor configured to detect an indication of airflow through the vaporizing unit (21) generated by the user (i.e. when the user draws on the device) and the control circuitry (34) is configured to vaporize the plant material in response to detecting an airflow rate ([0027-0033]). When no air flows through the capsule (29) the plant material is heated below a vaporization temperature ([0179]).
The control circuitry configured to vaporize the plant material when a user draws on the device/air flow is detected and heating below a vaporization temperature when no airflow is detected is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second mode where the control circuity heats a smoking material to the vaporization temperature only when receiving an active input from the user (i.e. while drawing on the device).
Raichman does not explicitly disclose the control component is configured receive a first mode or second mode indication from a user.
However, Halliday, directed to an aerosol provision device (100, Fig. 1), discloses:
The device comprises a plurality of operating modes and an input interface (112, Fig. 1) that allows the user to select an operating mode ([0026, 0036, 0123-0124]).
A controller (302) controls the heater assembly (304) to heat the aerosol generating material in response to the operating mode selected by the input interface (112, [0123-0124]).
The operating modes may comprise two different heating modes, where each heating mode may heat the aerosol generating material for a different length of time (i.e. a predefined period of time/first mode, [0045]).
The device only begins heating after the controller detects a mode selection which results in the device being more energy efficient ([0027-0028]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Raichman by configuring the control circuitry to operate in a plurality of heating modes selectable by a user, where a heating mode may heat the aerosol generating material for a predetermined time (“first mode”) after a mode is selected, as taught by Halliday because both Raichman and Halliday are directed to aerosol generating devices, Halliday teaches configuring the controller to only begin heating after a mode selection results in increased energy efficiency, and this involves configuring a controller in a known manner in a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raichman (US 20190208823 A1, as cited on IDS dated 05/09/2023) in view of Halliday (US 20220183394 A1), as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Besso (US 20220369705 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Raichman discloses the capsule is initially heated to a temperature below the vaporization temperature prior to detecting airflow through the capsule ([0179]).
Halliday discloses the input interface used to select an operating mode may be a sensor that detects the insertion of the aerosol generating material ([0037]) which is considered to be prior to the user selecting a first or second mode.
Raichman or Halliday do not explicitly disclose preheating the capsule below the vaporization temperature prior to receiving indication of selecting a first or second mode.
However, Besso, directed to An aerosol generating device (100, Fig. 1), discloses:
An aerosol generating device (100) comprising a mouthpiece (25) and a docking station (300), where the docking station (300) comprises a switch (400) coupled to a controller (30) and the switch (400) sends a signal to the controller (30) indicating a presence or absence of the mouthpiece (25, Fig. 3A, Fig. 3B, [0106]).
The controller maintains a heating element at a standby temperature in response to detecting the presence of the mouthpiece on the docking station ([0029, 0055, 0112])
The standby temperature may be lower than the aerosol generating temperature (“below the vaporization temperature of one or more active agents”, [0042]).
The standby mode allows the device to conserve energy ([0023]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Raichman, in view of Halliday, by configuring the control circuitry to operate at a standby temperature below the vaporization temperature in response to inserting a capsule, as taught by Besso and Halliday, because both Raichman and Besso are directed to aerosol generating devices, Besso teaches configuring the controller to heat to a standby mode conserves energy, and this involves configuring a controller in a known manner in a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, a capsule being inserted into the device is considered to be an input from a user. Therefore configuring the control circuitry to operate at a standby temperature below the vaporization temperature (Besso: [0029, 0055, 0042]) in response to inserting a capsule (Halliday: [0037]) is considered to meet the claim.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raichman (US 20190208823 A1, as cited on IDS dated 05/09/2023) in view of Murray (US 20250057249 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Raichman discloses the control circuitry is configured to calculate the airflow rate through the capsule ([0182])
Raichman does not explicitly disclose the control circuitry is configured to determine a length of a puff.
However, Murray, directed to an aerosol delivery system (Abstract), discloses:
An airflow sensor comprising a timer for measuring the duration of an inhalation (“length of a puff”, [0143]).
A controller that activates the vaporizer only when length of the puff exceeds a predefined duration threshold to prevent a child from using the device ([0021, 0156]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Raichman, in view of Halliday and Besso, by configuring the control circuitry to measure a length of a puff and activate the heater when the length of the puff exceeds a predetermined threshold, as taught by Murray because both Raichman and Murray are directed to aerosol generating devices, Murray teaches the controller configuration prevents children from using the device, and this involves configuring a controller in a known manner in a similar device to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORGAN FAITH DEZENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-0155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-430pm 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, Philip Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1241. 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.F.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755