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 1-15 are pending.
Claims 5,7-8 and 11-15 have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5,7-8 and 11-15 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/7/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Species 1A in the reply filed on 7/7/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 5-8 merely define different implementation options of the same inventive concept disclosed in Claim 4, rather than distinct and independent species. Specifically, the Applicant argues that Claim 4 broadly defines the concept of tuning the determined temperature profile based on the difference value, and Claims 5 to 8 merely recite alternative implementations of such tuning. This is not found persuasive because the species election was done in view of the requirement for unity of invention. The species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, the technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bessant (US 20210145068).
Regarding Claim 1, Bessant teaches an aerosol generating device (abstract) comprising:
a heater configured to heat an aerosol generating article (“substrate”) (abstract);
a gas sensor configured to sense a concentration of a particular gas (abstract and [0013]); and
a controller configured to control a supply of power to the heater ([0048]), wherein the controller is configured to determine any one temperature profile from among a plurality of temperature profiles based on a sensing value of the gas sensor (abstract and [0049]-[0053]).
Regarding Claim 2, Bessant teaches that the controller is configured to:
accumulate, for a first period, the concentration of the particular gas sensed by the gas sensor ([0033] and [0049], wherein the one or more air readings in “the controller may be configured to control the power supplied to the heating assembly based on one or more of the ambient air quality readings” reads on “accumulate, for a first period, the concentration of the particular gas” because more than one reading is gathered thus the readings are accumulated); and
determine any one temperature profile from among the plurality of temperature profiles, based on a value of the accumulated concentration of the particular gas ([0052] &[0059] teaches two different temperature profiles based on the concentration of carbon monoxide).
Regarding Claim 3, Bessant teaches that the controller is configured to tune the determined temperature profile based on a sensing value of the gas sensor ([0067]-[0068]).
Regarding claim 4, Bessant teaches that the controller is configured to:
accumulate, for a first period, the concentration of the particular gas sensed by the gas sensor ([0033] and [0049]); and
tune the determined temperature profile based on a difference value between a value of the accumulated concentration of the particular gas and a preset cumulative gas concentration expected value ([0067]-[0068]).
Regarding claim 6, Bessant teaches that the controller is configured to adjust a second period after the first period to be shorter than a preset period when the difference value is a positive number ([0059]-[0060], wherein “a second period” is the period when the controller prevents power from being sent to the heater, which is after the “first period” which is the period when the controller supplies a decreased power from the power supply to the heating assembly. A “preset period” reads on any period of time.)
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) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessant as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sur (US 20180007968) and further in view of Park (KR20200007438).
A machine translation is applied for KR20200007438. All citations to ‘Park’ refer to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 9, Bessant teaches that the gas sensor may be an infrared sensor ([0014] and [0017]) but does not expressly teach the specific gas sensor.
Sur teaches aerosol delivery devices that contain a control body that includes a gas sensor configured to detect a presence of gas in an environment of the control body, and the gas sensor or control component are further configured to control operation of at least one functional element of the aerosol delivery device in response to the presence of gas so detected (abstract). Sur teaches that the gas sensor is a non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) sensor ([0005]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a NDIR sensor of Sur as the infrared sensor of Bessant with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results given that the NDIR sensor serves as a gas sensor configured to detect a presence of gas for an aerosol delivery device (Sur, abstract).
Modified Bessent does not expressly teach the specific components of the NDIR sensor.
Park teaches a NDIR gas sensor with excellent reliability and high gas measurement accuracy (abstract), wherein the NDIR gas sensor includes:
a light emitting device configured to emit light (abstract);
a light receiving device configured to receive the light (abstract); and
an optical waveguide located between the light emitting device and the light receiving device, and configured to allow the light to travel therethrough and allow the particular gas to be injected thereinto (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the specific components of the NDIR gas sensor of Park and applied them to the NDIR sensor of modified Bessent because the NDIR gas sensor of Park has excellent reliability and high gas measurement accuracy (Park, abstract).
Regarding claim 10, modified Bessant teaches that the heater includes: a coil configured to generate an alternating magnetic field; and a susceptor configured to heat an aerosol generating article inserted into an accommodation space, by generating heat by the alternating magnetic field generated by the coil (Bessent, [104]-[106]).
Modified Bessant does not expressly teach that the susceptor is configured to form one surface of the optical waveguide.
Park teaches that the optical waveguide has a metal layer formed on at least a portion of an inner surface into which the detection target material is injected, positioned between the light emitting unit and the light receiving unit (abstract). Park teaches that the metal layer is preferably aluminum (Al), which is a susceptor material (page 3, paragraph 7). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the susceptor configured to form one surface of the optical waveguide since it enables the same surface to be utilized for multiple purposes thereby increasing efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANA B KRINKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
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.
YANA B. KRINKER
Examiner
Art Unit 1755
/YANA B KRINKER/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights