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
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 3/27/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/14/2026.
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 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the elongated cavity” (line 11) in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required the cavity to be elongated. Claims 2-8 are indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 6 it is unclear what states are “under an over-humidification condition.” Does that mean that the environmental humidity is too high around the device, that liquid is leaking and evaporating within the device, that the heater is operating incorrectly and generating a humid vapor rather than an aerosol, or something else entirely? The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required a leak detector.
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)(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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fujuki (US 2024/0334983).
Regarding claim 1, Fujuki discloses an aerosol generation device for generating an aerosol (abstract) having a holding part (figure 8, reference numeral 140) that accommodates a stick type base material (figure 1, reference numeral 150) in an inner space ([0055], figure 1, reference numeral 141), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a cavity. The holding part is a component of an aerosol generation device having an outer surface ([0045], figure 1, reference numeral 100), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a housing. A controller is located within the device and has a CPU (central processing unit) ([0052], figure 1, reference numeral 116), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a processor. Two sensors are located at different heights along the holding part ([0083], figure 8, reference numerals 117a, 117b), which are considered to meet the claim limitations of first and second sensors.
Regarding claim 2, Fujuki discloses that the stick type base material has a base material part having a liquid aerosol source that is heated to generate an aerosol ([0057], figure 1, reference numeral 151), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a liquid composition. The generated aerosol passes through a filter of the stick ([0056], figure 1, reference numeral 152), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of emitting aerosol toward the aerosol generating article.
Regarding claim 3, Fujuki discloses that the sensors detect capacitance [0093], and are therefore considered to be capacitive sensors.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujuki (US 2024/0334983) in view of Mizuguchi (US 11,122,837).
Regarding claim 6, Fujuki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Fujuki does not explicitly disclose d0etermining an over-humidification condition.
Mizuguchi teaches an aerosol suction device and a power supply unit (abstract) that has an electrostatic capacitance sensor in a supply unit case that detects leaks from both inside and outside the device (column 6, lines 55-67, column 7, lines 1-3) by measuring the time it takes for a specific capacitance change to occur (column 10, lines 4-20). The leakage is detected as part of a first diagnosis process (column 16, lines 13-26) that results in stopping aerosol generation if a failure state is detected to improve safety (column 15, lines 30-43).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the capacitive sensors of Fujuki with the leak detection of Mizuguchi. One would have been motivated to do so since Mizuguchi teaches detecting leaks to improve safety.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujuki (US 2024/0334983) in view of Wang (US 2024/0349793).
Regarding claim 8, Fujuki discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Fujuki does not explicity teach determining a type of article.
Wang teaches an aerosol generation device that receieves an aerosol generation article in a chamber that detects the article using a capacitor that measures a duration to reach a specific capacitance (abstract). The duration can be used to determine whether the article is counterfeit [0056], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a type, and therefore stop heating [0054].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the capacitors of Fujuki with the counterfeit detection of Wang. One would have been motivated to do so since Wang teaches a device that prevents heating when a counterfeit article is inserted.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 7 are would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Reevell (US 11,602,019) teaches a cartridge for an aerosol generating system that determines the amount of aerosol forming substrate using a measured capacitance from first and second capacitor plates (abstract). The capacitance indicates whether the cartridge is new or not (column 3, lines 58-67, column 4, lines 1-6). However, Reevell does not teach or suggest taking measurements using two capacitance sensors that measure the capacitance at different points.
Fujuki (US 2024/0334983) teaches an aerosol generation device for generating an aerosol (abstract) having a holding part (figure 8, reference numeral 140) that accommodates a stick type base material (figure 1, reference numeral 150) in an inner space ([0055], figure 1, reference numeral 141), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a cavity. The holding part is a component of an aerosol generation device having an outer surface ([0045], figure 1, reference numeral 100), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a housing. A controller is located within the device and has a CPU (central processing unit) ([0052], figure 1, reference numeral 116), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a processor. Two sensors are located at different heights along the holding part ([0083], figure 8, reference numerals 117a, 117b), which are considered to meet the claim limitations of first and second sensors. However, Fujuki does not teach or suggest taking measurements using two capacitance sensors that measure the capacitance at different points.
The prior art does not teach or suggest an aerosol device having a cavity having a first sensor configured to measure a state of the aerosol generating article at a first position in the elongated cavity, and a second sensor configured to measure a state of the aerosol generating article at a second position in the elongated cavity, the first position and the second position spaced apart in a longitudinal direction along the elongated cavity, and determining whether the aerosol generating article is reused based on a difference between a first capacitance measured by the first capacitive sensor and a second capacitance measured by the second capacitive sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 pm.
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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights