CTNF 18/564,397 CTNF 97508 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 4/22/2026 is acknowledged. 08-06 AIA Claim s 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 4/22/2026 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 11/27/2023, 1/2/2025, 5/8/2025, 3/2/2026 have been considered by the Examiner. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 121 of the originally filed specification states “…For example, the heater 650 may include a suspector that heats…”. This should read “susceptor”. Paragraph 161 of the originally filed specification states “the second preheating period P2” in line 9 of the paragraph. This should instead say “second preheating period P3 ” to be in line with the rest of the paragraph. Paragraph 176 2 nd page line 7 states “…in which the third preheating period P3…”. This should instead read “…in which the third preheating period P5 ” to be in line with the rest of the paragraph. The first sentence of paragraph 176 is grammatically incorrect and appears to be missing a word. “The third preheating period P5 of the second correction profile CP2 may a third preheating increase period…” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 6-10 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 6 final 2 lines recites “...determines whether the first correction profile was used during heating by the heater immediately before ”. It is not clear from this wording what is being considered immediately before what ? Is it immediately before insertion of the cigarette (as the claim earlier specifies this portion), or does it simply mean during the previous most recent heating period/usage of the aerosol generating device? Applicant is asked to amend and clarify without the addition of new matter. Claims 7-10 are rejected for relying upon a rejected claim. It is noted that the same verbiage “immediately before” is utilized in claims 7 and 10, and those claims are similarly rejected for ambiguity as to the meaning thereof. The claims will be examined such that “immediately before” refers to the previous most recent heating of the device. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an aerosol generating device comprising: “a controller configured to determine a humidity state of the cigarette by calculating a temperature increase time of the cigarette by using the temperature sensor and comparing the calculated temperature increase time of the cigarette with a preset threshold”. Claim 1 is rejected based on the following analysis: Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the law of nature/natural phenomenon/abstract ideas. The examiner finds that the quoted sections above of claim 1 (“determine”, “calculate”, and “comparing”) recites a mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Determining a humidity state of the cigarette, calculating an increase time, and comparing temperature increase times are evaluations taken. A human may observe the sensor output and choose a profile based on said output. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Step 2A, Prong Two: Has the abstract idea been integrated into a particular practical application? Lines 9-13 of claim 1 recite the limitations of “wherein the controller supplies power to the heater according to a basic temperature profile when the temperature increase time is less than the threshold, and supplies power to the heater according to a first correction profile when the temperature increase time is greater than or equal to the threshold”, and lines 1-4 generally recite conventional components of an aerosol generating device including a heater and a temperature sensor. See MPEP 2106.05(h). A claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Also see Parker v. Flook , wherein, the additional element in Flook regarding the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons was not sufficient to make the claim eligible, because it was merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that did not alter or affect how the process steps of calculating the alarm limit value were performed. In this particular case, these additional claim limitations merely link the invention (determining the humidity state, calculating and comparing increase times of the cigarette to determine which temperature profile to use) to the field of aerosol generating devices so as to have the controller supply heat to the device. These additional limitations do not alter or affect how the process steps of the determination of deciding which temperature profile to use. "Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception". MPEP 2106.05(g). An example of "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. An example of a post-solution activity is "an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent" MPEP 2106.05(g). The final paragraph in this case are an example of "extra-solution activity" which are insignificant post-solution steps. The addition of the limitations of supplying power to the heater according to either a basic temperature profile or a first correction profile (depending on the evaluations made in the determining and comparing steps) are merely post-solution activities that are not integrated to the claim as a whole. In the same way the Flook merely output the results of the fraudulent transactions, these limitations merely output the determined heating profile to the device. As detailed in MPEP 2106.05(g), the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post-solution activity"). In a similar way, the instant applications limitations tied to supplying power to the heater dependent upon the determinations/calculations/comparisons made by evaluating which heating profile to use is considered post-solution activity which does not transform this unpatentable principle into a patentable process. As detailed in MPEP 2106.05(b): the claim recites a generic aerosol-generating device which does not amount to a particular machine. The aerosol-generating device is generic to the recreational smoking art (as discussed further below). As detailed in MPEP 2106.05(f): the claim recites a controller as a tool to apply the mental process of observing a sensor and choosing a temperature profile which amounts to mere application. The courts have held that using a computer in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See Affinity Labs V. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016); TLI Communications LLC V. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Step 2B: Does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea? No. As noted above, the extra elements in the claim do not lend itself to being significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are considered to be merely adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception MPEP 2106.05(g), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use 2106.05(h). Additionally, it is noted that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the smoking art to design an aerosol-generating device with a heater, a temperature sensor, and to supply heat according to a profile. Frake (WO2020165450A1), for example, teaches an aerosol-generating device (title) with a heater “116”, a temperature sensor (pg. 9), and where the controller may supply a normal power profile or a modified profile to the heater dependent on sensor measurements indicating if the water level is high or low (pg. 5). Regarding claims 2-5, these claims are directed towards further specifying the determined profiles. These do not constitute integration into a practical application or significantly more than the mental process of determining/calculating/comparing the state of the device and adjusting operation thereof. Regarding claim 6, this claim is directed towards determining whether the first correction profile was used immediately before. This is an additional example of an abstract idea (“determines whether the first correction profile was used…”, and there is no further action taken once the determination is taken, nor integration into a practical application. Regarding claim 7, this claim is directed to a further abstract idea, for when it is determined that the first profile was used, the controller measures the temperature. There is only the action taken of measuring data, such that there is no integration into a practical application nor inclusion of additional elements to amount to significantly more. Regarding claim 8, this claim is directed to further abstract ideas of determining the humidity state again, comparing temperatures, and supplying power to the heater according to a second correction profile. As in the rejection of claim 1, it is not considered that the step of applying heat according to a determined profile amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea, as this is a general linkage of the abstract idea to a field of technology and an insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding claim 9, this claim further specifies the determined profiles. These do not constitute integration into a practical application or significantly more than the mental process of determining/calculating/comparing the state of the device and adjusting operation thereof. Regarding claim 10, this claim is directed to further abstract ideas of determining the last profile used and determining the humidity again. There is only the action taken of measuring data, such that there is no integration into a practical application nor inclusion of additional elements to amount to significantly more. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-3, 6-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and 102(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Kim (WO2023/277438, citing to English Equivalent US2024/0251875A1) . Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches an aerosol generating device (“10” as in Figs. 1-2), comprising: a heater configured to heat the cigarette (heater “130” applies heat to the cigarette “200” when inserted, see Figs. 1 and [0044-0048]), a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the heater (the device may include a temperature sensor [0064]. Also, the receiver may receive information for determining a wet cigarette from a sensor adjacent to the cigarette insertion hole [0164]), a controller configured to determine a humidity state of the cigarette by calculating a temperature increase time of the cigarette by using the temperature sensor and comparing the calculated temperature increase time of the cigarette with a preset threshold (controller “110” [0044]. The controller may be utilized to determine whether a cigarette mounted in the device is a wet cigarette or not [0131], where “wet” is considered akin to “humidity state”. The controller may determine this based on a “temperature increase rate when a first time has elapsed since the heater started to be heated” [0131]. The controller may measure the slope of the graph (temperature increase rate) so as to determine whether a wet cigarette is mounted based on comparing the value of the measured slope with a preset threshold value [0131-0132]), wherein the controller supplies power to the heater according to a basic temperature profile when the temperature increase time is less than the threshold, and supplies power to the heater according to a first correction profile when the temperature increase time is greater than or equal to the threshold (Kim teaches that when it is determined that the cigarette is a regular (not excessively wet cigarette), the controller may control the temperature of the heater according to a preset basic temperature profile [0155]. When it is determined that the cigarette is wet, the controller will supply a different heating profile to the cigarette [0156+], which is considered to be the first correction profile. The profile for the wet cigarette has the initial temperature increase time longer than the basic profile [0156]. See also Fig. 9, wherein 910 is for a basic heating profile and 930 is the heating profile for the wet cigarette, wherein the wet cigarette heating profile clearly has the greater temperature increase time [0129+]. Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the basic temperature profile includes a first preheating period and a first smoking period, the first correction profile includes a second preheating and smoking period, and the second preheating period is longer than the first preheating period (as in Fig. 9, the basic temperature profile may be considered to be that shown by the normal cigarette 910, and the first correction profile may be that as shown by the wet cigarette 930. The respective preheating periods may be considered to be the initial heating of the profile as in Fig. 9, for example, and the smoking period may be considered to be any portion after this where smoking may occur and be controlled by PID [0123]. As in Fig. 9, the wet cigarette profile clearly has a longer preheating period to get up to temperature. The temperature increase (preheating) period is made longer in the wet cigarette profile [0156+]). Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches that the preheating periods have increase, maintenance, and drop periods (see Fig. 9, wherein each of the profiles have an initial temperature increase, maintenance of the temperature, and then followed by a drop in temperature), and the first preheating increase period is shorter than the second preheating increase period (see Fig. 9, wherein the increase period for the basic profile 910 is clearly shorter compared to that of the correction/wet profile 930). Regarding claims 6-8, Kim teaches that when insertion of the cigarette is detected (aerosol article insertion detecting sensor [0064]), the controller determines whether the first correction profile was used during heating immediately before (the controller is able to determine the most recent use of the cigarette, see Claims 7-9, Fig. 10-11, 0149+. See also paragraphs 0019 and 0138, wherein the device detects the recent usages of the cigarette), wherein the controller measures the temperature of the heater and determines the humidity state and supplies power to the heater according to a second correction profile (the controller measures the temperature of the heater to determine the recent usage of the cigarette [claims 7-9]. The humidity state is determined so as to determined whether the cigarette is a wet cigarette or not [Fig. 11, 0136+]. The controller may then utilize a second dedicated temperature profile which is different from the other profiles [0019, Fig. 11, Claims 7-9]. The second dedicated profile may be used when the temperature of the heater is shown to be higher than that of a reference temperature [0136]. The second correction profile is different because it is tied to run when there is continuous usage of the device [0136+], and it has separate conditions from the other profiles). Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches that when the first correction profile was not used, the controller determines the humidity state of the cigarette again (the controller measures the slope during operation to determine the humidity status based upon the temperature increase rate compared to present values, such that the controller would clearly determine the humidity state of the cigarette [0131+] . 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and 102(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Uthurry (US2021/0235770A1) . Regarding claim 1, Uthurry teaches an aerosol generating device (“10” as in Figs. 1), comprising: a heater configured to heat the cigarette (heater “18” applies heat to the article [Figs. 1-2]), a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the heater (the device may include a temperature sensor 29 [0101]), a controller configured to determine a humidity state of the cigarette by calculating a temperature increase time of the cigarette by using the temperature sensor and comparing the calculated temperature increase time of the cigarette with a preset threshold (the controller is arranged to determine a rate of increase in temperature of the electrical heater during a first time period [0006]. The rate of increase may be indicative of a water content, such that a high rate of increase is indicative of a high water content [0006]. Based on the determined rate of increase in temperature, the controller varies a supply of power to the electrical heater during a subsequent second time period [0006]. The controller is arranged to supply power according to a first or second rate depending on the determined rate of increase in temperature [0015]. If there is a slow rate of increase (long temperature increase time), this is indicative of a high water content based on comparisons with the threshold [0015+]. If there is a normal temperature rates, then a normal water content is present and a standard heating is applied [0015+]. The controller may utilize a time threshold for a predetermined increase in temperature to make this determination [0017]), wherein the controller supplies power to the heater according to a basic temperature profile when the temperature increase time is less than the threshold, and supplies power to the heater according to a first correction profile when the temperature increase time is greater than or equal to the threshold (as noted above, Uthurry teaches that depending on the determination made either a first or second heating rate will be applied during a second time period [0015]. When a high water/moisture content is determined, based upon a time threshold for a predetermined increase in temperature for example [0017], there may be applied a first rate. And when this is not determined, there may be supplied a second rate [0015-0017]. The first rate may be considered the first correction profile and the second rate the basic profile). Regarding claim 2, Uthurry teaches the basic temperature profile includes a first preheating period and a first smoking period, the first correction profile includes a second preheating and smoking period, and the second preheating period is longer than the first preheating period (it is considered that both a first and second rates as defined above would result in a preheating and smoking periods. It being noted that no specific temperature/timing limitations are tied to what each of these periods are considered, such that a first heating period of each of the first/second rate may be considered the preheating period and the temperature during smoking of the device would be considered a smoking period. Regarding the difference in length of the preheating period, it is noted that the first rate has a lower heating rate compared to that of the second rate [0015]. Because the first rate has a slower heating up to temperature, the preheating length would take longer to get to temperature, such that the second preheating period would be longer than the first preheating period [0062-0064]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO2023/277438, citing to English Equivalent US2024/0251875A1) , as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yoon (KR20210105256A1) and Lee (KR20220090216A) . Regarding claim 4, Kim does not explicitly show the second preheating maintenance period longer than the first preheating maintenance period, and a temperature change in the second preheating drop greater than a temperature change in the first preheating drop period. Yoon discloses an aerosol generating apparatus, wherein temperature vs. time graphs are shown in Figs. 4-5 with various heating profiles according to different profiles tuned to different humidity (wetness) environments. Fig. 5 shows that the memory may store different target temperatures of the smoking section, wherein this temperature would be the final “drop” temperature from the preheating maintenance temperature. When there is a humidity above a predetermined humidity value, the controller may select profile Pb3 which utilizes a lower target temperature of the smoking section [pg. 11 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a lower smoking target temperature for the high humidity profile as suggested by Yoon. One would have been motivated so as to set the profile conditions to target the specific humidity/wetness conditions, so as to provide an optimal feeling of smoking [pg. 11 of machine translation]. Because the smoking target temperature is lower in the high humidity profile, and because the target temperature preheating temperatures are the same (see Fig. 9 of Kim), there would clearly be a larger temperature drop in the second (high humidity) preheating drop period compared to that of the first (normal) period. Kim does not show the second preheating maintenance period being longer than the first preheating maintenance period. Lee teaches a system for heating an aerosol. Fig. 10 provides a view of temperature vs time for different heating profiles, wherein P1 as shown is considered akin to a preheating maintenance period length of the preheating temperature. This preheating maintenance period may be set different depending upon the humidity. When the humidity is higher than the reference value, the length may be set to P1’ which is longer than P1 [Fig. 10, pgs. 10-11 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a longer preheating period in the high humidity profile as suggested by Lee. One would have been motivated so as to properly set the conditions of the cigarette, such that the moisture is effectively removed from the system to improve smoking performance [pgs. 10-11 of machine translation] . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO2023/277438, citing to English Equivalent US2024/0251875A1) , as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yoon (KR20210105256A1) . Regarding claim 5, Yoon further teaches an aerosol generating apparatus. A temperature vs time graph is shown in Fig. 4-5 showing various heating profiles. Section A1 is a preheating section and section A2 is a smoking section. In the smoking section, there is a maintenance section where the temperature of the heater is maintained for a predetermined amount of time, and a section wherein the temperature drops [pg. 9 of machine translation, Figs. 4-5] according to the users puffs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the profiles of Kim so as to have a smoking drop period and smoking maintenance periods respectively. One would have been motivated because Kim does not explicitly show a full heating profile during the smoking/puff phase, and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing Yoon’s drop/maintenance portions so as to enhance the smoking heating profiles [pgs. 9-10 of machine translation] . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO2023/277438, citing to English Equivalent US2024/0251875A1) , as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Lee (KR20220090216A) . Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches that the second correction profile would have each of the defined steps. See Fig. 9 “930” for the wet condition, for example, wherein the second preheating period may be considered from t0-t5 (for example), and the smoking period would be located after that. There would then be the initial preheating period from t0 to t3, maintenance to t4, and a drop and additional maintenance periods between t4 and t5. Kim does not explicitly show the second correction profile (second dedicated temperature profile which is utilized in situations of continuous smoking conditions). However, as this is still a heating profile for an aerosol generating product, the general heating profile would look very similar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it reasonable that the second correction profile would possess these sections of the profile including an increase period, maintenance, drop, and maintenance temperatures. The exact temperatures of these periods would be different, but there would still be these periods such that the profile would reasonably define these separate periods. Kim does not explicitly have a sum of each of the second preheating periods being greater than that of the sum of the third preheating periods. However, it is known in the art that for high humidity conditions, the time may be extended so as to ensure that the proper humidity conditions are reached. Lee teaches a system for heating an aerosol. Fig. 10 provides a view of temperature vs time for different heating profiles, wherein P1 as shown is considered akin to a preheating maintenance period length of the preheating temperature. This preheating maintenance period may be set different depending upon the humidity. When the humidity is higher than the reference value, the length may be set to P1’ which is longer than P1 [Fig. 10, pgs. 10-11 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a longer preheating period in the high humidity profile as suggested by Lee. One would have been motivated so as to properly set the conditions of the cigarette, such that the moisture is effectively removed from the system to improve smoking performance [pgs. 10-11 of machine translation]. And as there is set longer preheating periods to ensure that moisture is removed, it would thus be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art that the sum of the second preheating periods would be greater than that of the third preheating periods . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uthurry (US2021/0235770A1) , as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Jeong (KR20180085365A) . Regarding claim 3, Uthurry does not explicitly show the rest of the heating profile of its first or second profiles (high humidity and normal conditions). However, smoking/heating profiles are extremely well-known within the art. Jeong, for example, teaches an aerosol generating device wherein Fig. 7 shows a standard temperature profile for operation of the heater. In Fig. 7, the preheating period may be considered to encompass 710-740 from the left side of the graph up until the first puff is taken 750. The initial heating period 710 is the preheating section for getting up to temperature, 720 is the holding period where the temperature is maintained, 730 is a falling period wherein there is no user puff and the temp is lowered to the minimum vaporization temperature, and 740 is the minimum vaporization temperature maintenance period [pg. 9 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Uthurry’s heating profile to have all of the steps as suggested by Jeong, as Uthurry is silent as to the total picture of the heating profile and only specifies the initial heating steps. Doing so would enable a workable device of Uthurry so as to ensure heating throughout the preheating and smoking stages. In having each of the steps 710- 740, one would have been motivated so as to ensure that the temperature rises to vaporization levels and maintains temperatures at minimum levels to be ready for the users puffs to have sufficient flavors [pg. 9 of machine translation]. In modifying Uthurry’s profile to have these 4 steps, each of the first and second preheating periods would clearly include the increase period (710), maintenance period (720), drop (730), and maintenance period (740). And as in the rejections of claims 1-2 above, because Uthurry’s first rate supplies a lower heat and takes longer for the temperature to rise up (0015-0017, 0062-0064], the first preheating period would clearly be shorter. Regarding claim 5, modified Uthurry makes obvious the smoking period including a first drop period and a maintenance period (as noted above in the rejection of claim3, Uthurry is silent as to the total heating profile throughout the smoking session, and it would have been obvious to utilize a profile such as Jeong so as to obtain a working device which is able to vaporize the material. Jeong’s profile includes puff sections 750, wherein the power information is adjusted so that the same or larger power can be applied to the heater so as to keep consistent vaporization [pg. 9-10 of machine translation]. The drop in temperature during a puff may be considered to be the drop period, and the maintenance temperature between puffs may be considered to be the maintenance period [see Fig. 7 of Jeong]. Therefore, it would have been reasonably suggested by Jeong so as to provide the basic profile and the first correction profile with a drop period and maintenance period so as to keep temperatures consistent for smoking) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uthurry (US2021/0235770A1) in view of Jeong (KR20180085365A) , as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yoon (KR20210105256A1) and Lee (KR20220090216A) . Regarding claim 4, Uthurry does not explicitly show the second preheating maintenance period longer than the first preheating maintenance period, and a temperature change in the second preheating drop greater than a temperature change in the first preheating drop period. Yoon discloses an aerosol generating apparatus, wherein temperature vs. time graphs are shown in Figs. 4-5 with various heating profiles according to different profiles tuned to different humidity (wetness) environments. Fig. 5 shows that the memory may store different target temperatures of the smoking section, wherein this temperature would be the final “drop” temperature from the preheating maintenance temperature. When there is a humidity above a predetermined humidity value, the controller may select profile Pb3 which utilizes a lower target temperature of the smoking section [pg. 11 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a lower smoking target temperature for the high humidity profile as suggested by Yoon. One would have been motivated so as to set the profile conditions to target the specific humidity/wetness conditions, so as to provide an optimal feeling of smoking [pg. 11 of machine translation]. Because the smoking target temperature is lower in the high humidity profile, there would clearly be a larger temperature drop in the second (high humidity) preheating drop period compared to that of the first (normal) period. Uthurry does not show the second preheating maintenance period being longer than the first preheating maintenance period. Lee teaches a system for heating an aerosol. Fig. 10 provides a view of temperature vs time for different heating profiles, wherein P1 as shown is considered akin to a preheating maintenance period length of the preheating temperature. This preheating maintenance period may be set different depending upon the humidity. When the humidity is higher than the reference value, the length may be set to P1’ which is longer than P1 [Fig. 10, pgs. 10-11 of machine translation]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a longer preheating period in the high humidity profile as suggested by Lee. One would have been motivated so as to properly set the conditions of the cigarette, such that the moisture is effectively removed from the system to improve smoking performance [pgs. 10-11 of machine translation] . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 6-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uthurry (US2021/0235770A1) in view of Jeong (KR20180085365A) , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoon (KR20210105256A1) . Regarding claim 6, Uthurry does not explicitly have a cigarette insertion detection sensor. However, it is extremely common to have such a sensor in aerosol generating devices. Yoon, for example, its tied to an aerosol generating apparatus, and the device may include at least one sensor such as a cigarette insertion detection sensor [pg. 6-7 of machine translation]. The sensor may check on the presence/absence of puffs and count the history of puffs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Uthurry so as to have an insertion sensor, and one would have been motivated to determine whether the cigarette is inserted into the device. As the sensors may determine the history of puffs, it is clear that the device would determine the history of profiles as well. Regarding claim 7, modified Uthurry makes obvious the controller measuring the temperature of the heater after the first correction profile was used (the temperature is constantly determined as in Uthurry [0009+], such that the temperature would clearly be used to measure the temperature of the heater). Regarding claim 8, modified Uthurry makes obvious when the temperature is less than a reference temperature, the controller determines the humidity state (the temperature is constantly determined during the heating of the vaporizer of Uthurry [0009+], such that the temperature rate increases and temperature time components would similarly be measured so as to determine humidity states) and the controller supplies power according to a second correction profile according to the temperature of the heater being higher than the reference (it is noted that no specific characteristics are required for the second correction profile, such that any applied temperature/profile would read on the claim of a second correction profile. It being noted that the second correction profile as claimed may be the same as the first correction profile or the basic temperature profile). Regarding claim 10, modified Uthurry constantly determines the heating of the vaporizer of Uthurry [0009+], such that the temperature rate increases and time components would similarly be measured so as to determine humidity. Therefore, regardless of what was sensed to be run before, the temperature and thus humidity state would be determined. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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. /T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749 /KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/564,397 Page 2 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/564,397 Page 3 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/564,397 Page 4 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/564,397 Page 5 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/564,397 Page 6 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/564,397 Page 7 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/564,397 Page 8 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/564,397 Page 9 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/564,397 Page 10 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/564,397 Page 11 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/564,397 Page 12 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/564,397 Page 13 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/564,397 Page 15 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/564,397 Page 16 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/564,397 Page 17 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/564,397 Page 18 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/564,397 Page 19 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/564,397 Page 20 Art Unit: 1749 Application/Control Number: 18/564,397 Page 21 Art Unit: 1749
Prosecution Insights