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 in the reply filed on 6/22/2026 is acknowledged.
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(s) 1-3, 8, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THORENS (US 2017/0318861) in view of HEIDL et al. (US 2019/0289915).
With respect to claims 1-3, THORENS discloses an aerosol generating device (Abstract; Paragraph [0001], [0045]-[0050]) comprising a heater, 119 (Paragraph [0072], [0080]) configured to heat the aerosol; a battery, 107, configured to supply electric power to the heater (Paragraph [0072], [0080]); a sensor (Paragraphs [0035], [0042], [0057]-[0062], [0072] and [0091]) configured to sense inhalation by a user; memory (Paragraph [0052]-[0057], [0082], [0083]) and a controller configured to control the electric power supplied to the heater (Paragraph [0035]-[0045], [0080]). The controller is further configured to determine an inhalation pattern associated with the inhalation by the user based on the signal from the sensor (Paragraphs [0081]-[0084]), and determine operational parameters of the device, for a given inhalation pattern (Paragraphs [0087]-[0089]). Then the controller selects the amount of power supplied to the heater during user puffs, based on the selected puff signature (e.g., inhalation pattern).
THORENS doesn’t explicitly disclose that the control parameters, such as power to the heater, represents a particular temperature profile. HEIDL et al. discloses a vaporizer device (Abstract). The device includes a plurality of selectable temperature profiles, for a given user provide (Paragraphs [0004]-[0006], [0043], [0046], [0098]-[0103]; Figures 11-14B). The profiles are then stored in memory and generated upon selection (as required by claim 3) (Paragraphs [0098]-[0099], [0046]-[0047], [0050], [0054]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to associate a temperature profile with each selected operational profile of THORENS, as taught by HEIDL et al., so that the user can select between a plurality of predefined popular temperature profiles for a given cartridge.
It is noted that by selecting a different inhalation pattern, the controller of THORENS is configured to select a corresponding temperature profile, different than the last, with the profiles being stored in the memory and are selected amongst the selection (as required by claim 2)
With respect to claim 8, HEIDL et al. discloses an input device, 108, and an output device, 1212A-1212H (Paragraphs [0097]-[0103]; Figures 12A-12B) that is configured to output a suggestion message (e.g., the actual set-point graph that can be modified) suggesting changing a setting and in response to receiving the input to change the setting, the temperature profile is set for the particular user profile.
THORENS discloses that different operation parameters are set by providing a different inhalation pattern (Paragraphs [0081]-[0089]) to thereby set up various inhalation patterns to be associated with respective temperature profiles.
With respect to claim 10¸ HEIDL et al. discloses an input device, 108, and an output device, 1212A-1212H (Paragraphs [0097]-[0103]; Figures 12A-12B) that is configured to output a suggestion message (e.g., the actual set-point graph that can be modified) suggesting changing a setting and in response to receiving the input to change the setting, the temperature profile is set for the particular user profile.
HEIDL et al. further discloses that the output device can output an estimation (e.g., calculation) of the puffs remaining from the cartridge (e.g., maximum number of puffs) (Paragraphs [0056], [0097]; Figure 11).
With respect to claim 12¸ HEIDL et al. discloses an input device, 108, and an output device, 1212A-1212H (Paragraphs [0097]-[0103]; Figures 12A-12B) that is configured to output a suggestion message (e.g., the actual set-point graph that can be modified) suggesting changing a setting and in response to receiving the input to change the setting, the temperature profile is set for the particular user profile.
HEIDL et al. further discloses that the output device can output an estimation (e.g., calculation) of the puffs remaining from the cartridge (e.g., maximum number of puffs) (Paragraphs [0056], [0097]; Figure 11).
The “predetermined number of puffs” in which the “pattern associated with the inhalation by the user” is simply represented by the pattern of each puff being associate with the user.
The limitations in which “omit determination of the inhalation pattern” is a conditional limitation. Thus, if the condition is not met, the remaining limitations are not necessarily.
_____________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 4-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THORENS (US 2017/0318861) in view of HEIDL et al. (US 2019/0289915) as applied to claims 1-3, 8, 10 and 12 above, and further in view of TREMBLAY (US 2015/0181945)
With respect to claim 4, THORENS does not explicitly disclose that the inhalation intensity is calculated based on the signal from the sensor, and then the inhalation pattern is determined based on the calculation.
TREMBLAY discloses an electronic vaping device (Abstract) wherein the controller measures an intensity of the draw (e.g., inhalation intensity) and compares this to a stored value (Paragraphs [0183]-[0185] (e.g., calculate) to determine the inhalation pattern of the user (Paragraphs [0187]-[0190]) and allows the controller to identify the user of the device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to calculate the inhalation intensity of THORENS, as taught by TREMBLAY in order to determine the inhalation pattern that is associated with a given user.
With respect to claim 5, THORENS does not explicitly disclose that the inhalation intensity is calculated based on the signal from the sensor, and then the inhalation pattern is determined based on the calculation.
TREMBLAY discloses an electronic vaping device (Abstract) wherein the controller measures an intensity of the draw (e.g., inhalation intensity), or a variation of the intensity over a duration of the draw, and compares this to a stored value (Paragraphs [0183]-[0185] (e.g., calculate) to determine the inhalation pattern of the user (Paragraphs [0187]-[0190]) and allows the controller to identify the user of the device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to calculate the inhalation intensity of THORENS, as taught by TREMBLAY in order to determine the inhalation pattern that is associated with a given user.
By calculating the intensity over duration of the puff, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to calculate the slope using the puff start and stop times and then calculating the intensity over this duration.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, THORENS does not explicitly disclose that the inhalation intensity is calculated based on the signal from the sensor, and then the inhalation pattern is determined based on the calculation.
TREMBLAY discloses an electronic vaping device (Abstract) wherein the controller measures an intensity of the draw (e.g., inhalation intensity) and compares this to a stored value (Paragraphs [0183]-[0185] (e.g., calculate) to determine the inhalation pattern of the user (Paragraphs [0187]-[0190]) and allows the controller to identify the user of the device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to calculate the inhalation intensity of THORENS, as taught by TREMBLAY in order to determine the inhalation pattern that is associated with a given user.
THORENS also discloses that the target temperature is modified (e.g., determined) and controlled based on the airflow sensor (e.g., inhalation intensity of TREMBLAY) (Paragraphs [0058], [0094]-[0097]).
With respect to claim 9, THORENS discloses that a puff pattern is previously recorded and then compared with the current puff pattern, as measured by the sensor (Paragraphs [0013], [0014], [0019]-[0023]). TREMBLAY discloses that the puff patterns are measured by inhalation intensity (Paragraphs [0183]-[0185]).
___________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THORENS (US 2017/0318861) in view of HEIDL et al. (US 2019/0289915)as applied to claims 1-3, 8, 10 and 12 above, and further in view of SUZUKI et al. (US 2018/0220711).
With respect to claim 11, THORENS does not explicitly disclose calculating an amount of electric power consumed during a puff and then comparing the calculated amount to a max charge capacity to calculate the remaining puffs.
SUZUKI et al. discloses a flavor inhaler and atomizing unit (Abstract; Title) wherein the amount of power supplied to the resistive heating element, during a single puff is calculated according to an equation (Abstract; Paragraphs [0026]-[0030]). The increased number of puffs taken results in a drop in output voltage of the battery, which is corrected as more puffs are taken (Paragraphs [0087]) and the power consumption of the battery is calculated and compared to a reference voltage (paragraphs [0011], [0076], [0086]) to determine the number of puffs remaining based on the amount of aerosol material is left (Paragraphs [0098]-[0109]; Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the manner of calculating the number of puffs according to SUZUKI et al. in the device of THORENS, so that the device can determine when to stop voltage to the heater when there aren’t enough puffs remaining for the user to inhale.
___________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THORENS (US 2017/0318861) in view of HEIDL et al. (US 2019/0289915) as applied to claims 1-3, 8, 10 and 12 above, and further in view of TU (US 2020/0237017).
With respect to claim 13, THORENS does not explicitly disclose the claimed learning model.
TU discloses a controllers for a smoking apparatus (Abstract) comprising a flow sensor. The self-learning function uses said flow sensor to automatically extract inhalation data and determines the heating temperature profile (Paragraphs [0057]-[0059]). This profile can then be repeated for subsequent cycles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the learning model in the controller of THORENS, as taught by TU, so that the controller can develop the temperature profile that can be repeated for subsequent puffs.
With respect to claim 14, HEIDL et al. discloses a communication interface comprising an antenna (Paragraphs [0058], [0067], [0085]); the controller is configured to transmit data to a server (132/144) (Paragraphs [0039], [0042], [0043]; Figure 1).
Modified THORENS does not explicitly disclose the claimed learning model. TU discloses a controllers for a smoking apparatus (Abstract) comprising a flow sensor. The self-learning function uses said flow sensor to automatically extract inhalation data and determines the heating temperature profile (Paragraphs [0057]-[0059]). This profile can then be repeated for subsequent cycles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the learning model in the controller of THORENS, as taught by TU, so that the controller can develop the temperature profile that can be repeated for subsequent puffs.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX B EFTA whose telephone number is (313)446-6548. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights