05DETAILED 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 1-14 are pending and are subject to this office action. Claims 15-31 are withdrawn from consideration. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 01/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that there would not be a serious search and examination burden because the claims define the same essential characteristics of a single disclosed embodiment.
This is not found persuasive because the groups of inventions do not define the same essential characteristics of a single disclosed embodiment. Group I is directed to an aerosol generating device, Group II is directed to a method, and Group III is directed to a computer program product. A serious search and examination burden exists because the examination of the groups would be expected to involve a different field of search and questions of patentability. The Examiner maintains that restriction is proper between Group I claims 1-14, Group II claims 15-29, and Group III claim 30-41.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 9 and 13 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 9 recites the limitation, “the processing circuitry is configured to cause the aerosol delivery device to perform the control function… in response to a puff input” in lines 4-6, whereas claim 1 from which it depends defines the control function by having association with a characteristic of a user input where the user input comprises manipulation of the device. It is unclear if the control function recited in claim 9 is the same control function in claim 1 or if the control function recited in claim 9 is a second control function. The specification appears to disclose multiple control functions that can be performed in response to a puff input or manipulation (Fig. 5, Fig. 6, [0076-0077, 0082]). Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the control function in claim 9 will be interpreted as a second control function that is performed in response to a puff input.
Claim 13 recites the limitation, “wherein the characteristic comprising one or more of a duration of a puff, ….” in lines 3-4, whereas claim 1 from which it depends defines the characteristic as a characteristic of a user input where the user input comprises manipulation. It is unclear if the characteristic recited in claim 13 is the same characteristic in claim 1 or if the characteristic recited in claim 13 is a second characteristic. The specification appears to disclose a characteristic of a user input, where the user input comprises manipulation input and/or a puff input ([0070, 0074-0076]). Therefore, for the purposes of examination, claim 13 will be interpreted as the user input further comprising a puff input, wherein the characteristic of the puff input comprises one or more of a duration of a puff, a total number of puffs in the puff input, an interval between two puffs, a force of a puff, or a detection of a reverse puff.
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 1-3, 4, 6-8, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cohen (US 20110036346 A1, as cited on IDS dated 05/23/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Cohen discloses an inhalation device (10) which delivers a vapor to a user (“an aerosol delivery device”, [0018]), comprising:
An input device (124) comprising an accelerometer (“a motion sensor”) coupled to a logic circuit (126, “processing circuitry), where shaking or tapping (i.e. a user input comprising manipulation of the aerosol delivery device) the inhalation device (10) activates the accelerometer and sends a signal to the logic circuit (126) to achieve the desired programming through a specific sequence of shakes or taps (“a characteristic of the user input”, Fig. 9, [0033, 0035]), and;
The desired programming may comprise setting the maximum dosage discharged with a single puff (i.e. a control function, [0045]).
The Examiner is interpreting a control function as a set of instructions that responds to an input and results in an output that serves the purpose of controlling the aerosol delivery device.
Regarding claim 2, Cohen discloses the manipulation of the inhalation device (10) comprises a specific sequence of shakes or taps ([0035]) which is considered to be one or more of a type of manipulation or a number of repetitively occurring motion patterns.
Regarding claim 3, Cohen discloses an accelerometer used to detect a specific sequence of shakes or taps ([0035]). An accelerometer is a device that measures acceleration forces and therefore the accelerometer disclosed by Cohen is considered to be able to determine a characteristic of the user input, where the characteristic comprises an acceleration of the aerosol delivery device.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Cohen discloses an accelerometer used to detect a specific sequence of shakes or taps ([0035]).
Regarding claim 7, The desired programming may comprise setting the maximum dosage discharged with a single puff (i.e. a control function other than heating or toggling a power/activation state, [0045]).
Regarding claim 8, Cohen discloses the programming instructions can be stored in a memory (120), with the desired programming being selected for use by the logic circuit (126) via the manipulation of an input device (124)/accelerometer ([0033]).
The desired programming may comprise setting the maximum dosage discharged with a single puff (“a control function”, [0045]) in response to a specific sequence of shakes or taps (i.e. a characteristic of the user input, Fig. 9, [0033, 0035]), as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, programming instructions stored in memory is considered to be a data structure having defined associations between control functions and characteristics.
Regarding claim 11, Cohen discloses the desired programming may comprise setting the maximum dosage discharged with a single puff (“a control function”, [0045]) in response to a specific sequence of shakes or taps (i.e. a characteristic of the user input, Fig. 9, [0033, 0035]). Setting the maximum dosage discharged with a single puff is considered to be modifying a configuration setting of the aerosol delivery device.
Regarding claim 12, Cohen discloses setting the maximum dosage discharged with a single puff comprises deactivating the atomization device (108) after a predetermined duration of a puff ([0040, 0045]). Therefore, setting the maximum dosage discharged with a single puff is considered to be modifying a configuration setting for a heating profile configuration setting.
Regarding claim 13, Cohen discloses the logic circuit (126) is connected to one or more input devices (124) where the input devices (124) may include a pressure transducer (38, “puff sensor”, Fig. 3) that is triggered by a specific sequence of inhaling (i.e. a total number of puffs) and/or exhaling (i.e. detection of a reverse puff) to achieve the desired programming ([0032, 0038]).
Regarding claim 14, Cohen discloses:
The logic circuit (126) is connected to one or more input devices (124) where the input devices (124) may include a pressure transducer (38, “puff sensor”, Fig. 3) that is triggered by a specific sequence of inhaling and/or exhaling (i.e. a puff input) to achieve the desired programming ([0032, 0038]),
The desired programming may comprise setting the maximum dosage discharged with a single puff (i.e. a control function, [0045]) which is considered to be a control function other than heating the aerosol precursor composition to form an inhalable substance,
The one or more input devices (124) further comprises a user interface (“another user input) for selecting an operating mode (i.e. change a control mode) where the control modes include a metering mode and a party mode where an indicator light illuminates in different patterns ([0033, 0050]),
The metering mode is a normal operating mode where the device responds to inputs from the one or more input devices (124) comprising a motion sensor and a pressure transducer (38, [0033, 0039-0040, 0045]).
The Examiner notes that the claim does not require a first control mode where the device responds to a puff input and a second control mode where the device responds to manipulation. The claim only requires a control mode where the device responds to a puff input. Therefore, the metering mode where the device responds to both a puff input and a user input comprising manipulation is considered to read on the claim.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 20110036346 A1, as cited on IDS dated 05/23/2023) in view of Cho (KR 20120094400 A, as cited on IDS dated 12/14/2024, hereinafter referring to the English Machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 5, Cohen discloses the inhalation device (10) comprising a motion sensor including an accelerometer ([0033, 0035]).
Cohen does not explicitly disclose the motion sensor includes a gyroscope or inclinometer.
However, Cho, directed to a suction device (800, Fig. 9), discloses
A motion sensor (801) configured to detect movement of the suction device (800) such as tilting and in response to the detection by the motion sensor (801), the suction device (800) displays information from a body measurement sensor (830, [0104-0106]), and;
The motion sensor (810) may comprise an acceleration sensor (accelerometer), a gyro sensor (gyroscope), or a tilt sensor (inclinometer, [0105]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cohen by substituting the accelerometer with a gyroscope or inclinometer and programming the device to responds to input from the gyroscope or inclinometer as taught by Cho because both Cohen and Cho are directed to aerosol generating devices, Cho discloses the motion sensor can be an accelerometer, gyroscope, or inclinometer, and this involves substituting one known motion sensor for another and configuring a device to respond to known inputs (e.g. tilting) from a known motion sensor in a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 20110036346 A1, as cited on IDS dated 05/23/2023) in view of Monsees (US 20140366898 A1, hereinafter referred to as Monsees ‘6898).
Regarding claim 9, Cohen discloses:
The logic circuit (126) is connected to one or more input devices (124) where the input devices (124) may include a pressure transducer (38, “puff sensor”, Fig. 3) that is triggered by a specific sequence of inhaling and/or exhaling (i.e. a puff input) to achieve the desired programming ([0032, 0038])
The inhalation device (10) comprises a cartridge (16) having a reservoir (118) containing a vaporizable medium, where the cartridge (16) is operably engaged with the electronics section (12) of the device (10, Fig. 3, Fig. 8 [0018, 0028]),
The inhalation device further comprises a display (22) for displaying information such as number of remaining doses ([0048]) which is considered to be an indication of a level of precursor composition remaining in a cartridge operably engaged with the aerosol delivery device.
Cohen does not explicitly disclose the inhalation device includes programming which provides an indication of the remaining precursor level in response to the puff input.
However, Monsees ‘6898, directed to a vaporization device (Fig. 4, [0081]), discloses:
The device is configured to communicate information to a user such as a vaporizable material level in response to activation of capacitive sensors ([0015, 0083]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cohen by configuring the device such that the desired programming performed in response to a user input includes displaying an indication of the vaporizable material level as taught by Monsees ‘6898 because both Cohen and Monsees ‘6898 are directed to aerosol generating devices, Cohen disclose the device performs desired programming in response to detecting a puff sensor and Monsees ‘6898 discloses a device configured to display a vaporizable material level in response to activating a sensor to provide the user a means to check the vaporizable level, and this involves applying known programming in response to sensor activation in a similar aerosol generating device to yield predictable results.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen (US 20110036346 A1, as cited on IDS dated 05/23/2023) in view of Monsees (US 20160262459 A1, as cited on IDS dated 05/23/2023, hereinafter referred to as Monsees ‘2459).
Regarding claim 10, Cohen discloses the inhalation device (10) further comprises an indicator light (20) for indicating the power remaining status (i.e. a charge level of the battery, [0046]).
Cohen does not explicitly disclose the control function performed in response to the user input comprises a manipulation of the device, comprises causing the indicator light (20) to indicate a charge level of the battery.
However, Monsees ‘2459, directed to an aerosol generating device (400, Fig. 12), discloses
In response to a motion sensor detecting shaking of the device, an LED (460) indicates current battery level, such as 3 flashes indicating a full charge (Fig. 12, 0152, 0154]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Cohen by configuring the processing circuitry to display battery level information using the indicator light (20) in response to shaking as taught by Monsees ‘2459 because both Cohen and Monsees ‘2459 are directed to aerosol generating devices, Monsees ‘2459 discloses a motion sensor can be used to check the battery level, and this applying a known means of checking a battery level 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 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755