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 .
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 1-4 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.
Claims 1 and 2 contain the phrase: “outputs the determination using the LED”. It is not clear what it is meant to output the determination using the LED. For purpose of examination, the Examiner assumes the controller uses the LED to notify the user about the information of the supply.
Furthermore, it seems the Applicant meant to recite the controller “configured to”. However, the claimed invention does not positive recite this limitation. Therefore, the claims could be construed as having both product and process limitations, which would be indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(p) Product and Process in the same claim).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: “the temperature sensor configured to output a temperature of the power supply”. Claim 3 contain the phrase: “the controller obtains information on the temperature of the power supply from the power supply”. It seems the information is from the temperature sensor configured to output a temperature of the power supply. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 2 recites the limitation "the determination" in multiple times to refer back to different determinations. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the control unit" in the instant claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03.
Independent claim 1 is drawn to an aerosol generating device. Thus, claim 1 and its dependents pass Step 1 because they are drawn to an article of manufacture or a machine, which are statutory categories of invention.
Independent claim 2 is drawn to an aerosol generating device. Thus, claim 1 and its dependents pass Step 2 because they are drawn to an article of manufacture or a machine, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility Life Sciences & Data Processing Examples (“October 2019 Update”), a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. Please see discussion below:
Claim 1’s “if a current value detected from the power supply is greater than a threshold, makes a determination that a current amount of the power supply is abnormal and outputs the determination using the LED, if a voltage value detected from the power supply is less than a threshold, makes a determination that a voltage amount of the power supply is abnormal and outputs the determination using the LED, and if a temperature detected by the second temperature sensor is higher than a threshold, makes a determination that temperature of a body of the inhalation device is abnormal and outputs the determination using the LED”.
Claim 2’s “if a current value detected from the power supply is greater than a threshold, makes a determination that a current amount of the power supply is abnormal and outputs the determination using the LED, if a voltage value detected from the power supply is less than a threshold, makes a determination that a voltage amount of the power supply is abnormal and outputs the determination using the LED, and if a temperature of the power supply is higher than a threshold, makes a determination that temperature of the power supply is abnormal and outputs the determination using the LED, and if a temperature detected by the second temperature sensor is higher than a threshold, makes a determination that temperature of a body of the inhalation device is abnormal and outputs the determination using the LED”.
The above limitation falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)).
The dependent claims also fail to recite any additional features which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether claim(s) as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract idea identified above, claim 1 also recites:
“a power supply”, “a heater”, “a first temperature sensor”, “a second temperature sensor”, “a LED”, “a controller”.
See MPEP § 2106 (explaining “[a]n abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment”). The courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis. MPEP § 2106.05(I).
See MPEP § 2106.05(g) (explaining mere data gathering is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity).
Therefore, Step 2A, Prong Two is satisfied because the claims fail to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Analysis under Step 2B may be found in the following section.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim(s) as a whole amount(s) to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP § 2106.05.
While similar to Step 2A Prong Two, Step 2B goes further by taking into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Features recited in addition to the abstract idea(s): “a power supply”, “a heater”, “a first temperature sensor”, “a second temperature sensor”, “a LED”, “a controller” remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration because the features were well-known, routine, and conventional at the time of filing (EP 3698657A1 as applied rejection below).
As demonstrated above, those features recited in addition to the abstract idea remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration because the features were well-known, routine, and conventional at the time of filing.
Accordingly, claims 1-4 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited exceptions identified above.
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(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akao et al. (EP3698657) in view of Hawes et al. (UA122407).
Regarding claims 1-2, Akao discloses an inhalation device (100, fig. 1), comprising:
a power supply (10, fig. 1);
a heater (121R, fig. 2) that heats an aerosol source [0060];
a first temperature sensor that contacts with the heater and detects a temperature of the heater [0095];
a second temperature sensor that does not contact with the heater (170, fig. 4 [0077]);
a LED [0086];
and a controller (51, fig. 4), wherein the controller:
if a voltage detected from the power supply (using the voltage sensor 15, fig. 4) is less than a threshold, makes a determination that a current amount of the power supply is abnormal and outputs the determination using the LED (Abstract and [0164-0165]), and
a temperature detected by the second temperature sensor (170, fig. 4 and [0077]. Akao discloses that when the temperature is less than a threshold, the controller does not necessarily perform the failure diagnosis function because the power supply has not been degraded [0179]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if the detected temperature is higher than a threshold, the controller makes a determination that temperature of a body of the inhalation device is abnormal and outputs the determination using the LED.
wherein the control unit outputs the determination using the LED in a manner that allows a user of the inhalation device to understand how to attend to the determined abnormality [0086].
Akao does not expressly disclose a current sensor. Hawes discloses the device comprises power supply current sensor (2125). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add a current sensor to the device of Akao so that if the detected current is greater than a threshold, the controller makes a determination that a current amount of the power supply is abnormal and outputs the determination using the LED.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the discussion above for claim 1, Akao discloses a temperature of the power supply is outputting by the temperature sensor and the controller is configured to be capable of acquiring the output and performs various types of control using the output [0077]. Furthermore, Akao discloses that when the temperature is less than a threshold, the controller does not necessarily perform the failure diagnosis function because the power supply has not been degraded [0179]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if the detected temperature is higher than a threshold, the controller makes a determination that temperature of a body of the inhalation device is abnormal and outputs the determination using the LED.
Regarding claim 3, Akao discloses the controller obtains information on the temperature of the power supply from the power supply (see fig. 4 and [0077]).
Regarding claim 4, Akao discloses the controller outputs the determination using the LED in a manner that allows a user of the inhalation device to understand how to attend to the determined abnormality [0086-0087].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHU H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5931. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 5712703882. 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.
/PHU H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights