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 and are subject to this office action. This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 7/7/26.
Claims 1, 3, 8, and 9 are amended.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments filed 7/7/26, the Examiner withdraws the objections to Claims 3, 8, and 9 for minor informalities.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 7/7/26, pages 6-10) with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendment to Claim 1. Specifically, Applicant’s amendment substantially limits the first and second abnormal heating conditions. In applicant’s Claims dated 12/28/23, Claim 1 requires the first and second abnormal heating condition to be based on information received from the temperature sensor without specifying the type of abnormal heating condition and/or error that was to be determined. As such, the various abnormal heating conditions disclosed in Beidelman constitute errors which were determined by the controller.
Here, in Applicant’s amended Claim 1, the abnormal heating conditions have been limited such that: the first abnormal heating condition requires determining whether an error has occurred in the detection of the aerosol generating substrate; and the second abnormal heating condition requires determining whether an error has occurred in temperature detection by the temperature sensor. Thus, the first abnormal heating condition is a result of an error in substrate detection and the second abnormal heating condition is a result of an error in temperature detection. Neither type of error was previously presented as a limitation in applicant’s Claims dated 12/28/23. While Beidelman discloses detecting an abnormal heating condition resulting from an error in temperature detection ([0211], observed in Applicant’s Remarks dated 7/7/26, page 7), Beidelman does not explicitly disclose detecting an abnormal heating condition resulting from an error in substrate detection. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Horrod (US 20220160045 A1).
The following rejections are modified where necessary based on Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beidelman (US 20220183392 A1), and/or in the alternative in view of Horrod (US 20220160045 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Beidelman discloses an aerosol generating device (aerosol provision device 100. [0052]) comprising:
a battery (The device may comprise a power source, such as a battery. [0061]);
an induction coil configured to generate an alternating magnetic field based on power supplied from the battery ("An induction heating assembly may comprise an inductive element, for example, one or more inductor coils, and a device for passing a varying electric current, such as an alternating electric current, through the inductive element." [0063]);
a susceptor configured to heat an aerosol generating substrate by using heat generated by the alternating magnetic field (The varying magnetic field penetrates a susceptor and thereby generates heat in the susceptor. [0063]);
a temperature sensor arranged adjacent to the susceptor and configured to output a temperature sensing value as detection information (A temperature sensor, such as a thermocouple, may be attached to a zone of the susceptor arrangement. [0018]); and
a controller ("The battery is electrically coupled to the heating assembly to supply electrical power when required and under control of a controller... to heat the aerosol generating material." [0061]),
[the controller] configured to determine, based on the detection information of the temperature sensor, an abnormal heating condition for determining an error in temperature detection by the temperature sensor is satisfied (“the device 100 is configured to cut off heating of the susceptor 132 in the event of an indication that either of the susceptor thermocouples 183a, 183b is not correctly measuring the temperature of the susceptor 132.” [0211]); and
cut off power supplied to the induction coil based on whether the abnormal heating condition is satisfied (The device may cut power to the induction coil when the controller determines that there is an error in temperature detection by the temperature sensor. [0211]).
Beidelman does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to determine whether there is an error in detection of the aerosol generating substrate, based on the information of the temperature sensor. However, Beidelman discloses wherein the device generates heat to heat a replaceable article comprising the aerosol generating substrate to generate an aerosol ([0052]) and wherein the device utilizes target temperatures of the susceptor zones to determine whether the aerosol-generating substrate is properly heated ([0160]-[0164]). Where the device comprises a target temperature for generating aerosol and heat is transferred from the susceptor to the aerosol generating substrate to generate an aerosol, a temperature exceeding the target temperature could be used to determine that the heat which was expected to be transferred from the susceptor to the replaceable article was not transferred. Where heat is not transferred from the susceptor to the replaceable article, it can be determined that no replaceable article is present in the device and/or an incorrect article is present in the device. Therefore, the temperature sensor of Beidelman could be used to detect the presence of a replaceable article, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the controller may be configured to then determine an error in detection of the aerosol generating substrate based on the detection information of the temperature sensor.
Additionally, Horrod teaches a similar aerosol generating device ([0004]) comprising:
a substrate detection sensor (an article may be detected using an appropriate sensor. [0063]) and
a temperature sensor (the device may comprise a temperature sensing arrangement for measuring the temperature of the heating arrangement. [0087]),
wherein the device is configured to determine a first abnormal heating condition for determining an error in detection of the aerosol generating substrate based on the detection information of the temperature sensor (A fault condition may be detected, such as whether a removable article is inserted in the aerosol generating device in a correct manner or whether the removable article is in a good condition. [0085]. A current sensor and temperature sensor may be used in conjunction to determine if overheating has occurred which may be related to the removal of the removable article. [0087]. Wherein a fault is detected that overheating has occurred due to the absence of the removable article but a removable article is still detected by the substrate detection sensor, the fault determined is at least in part due to an error in detection of the aerosol generating substrate by the substrate detection sensor, based on the detection information received from the temperature sensor).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the aerosol generating device of Beidelman with the substrate detection sensor and the corresponding substrate detection sensor fault determination as taught by Horrod because Beidelman and Horrod are both directed to aerosol-generating devices comprising temperature sensors and current sensors used to determine fault detection, Horrod teaches that the device may comprise a substrate detection sensor and may further comprise a determination as to whether the substrate detection sensor has errored in the detection of a substrate based on information received from the temperature sensor, and this merely involves applying a known component to a similar aerosol-generating device to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Horrod discloses an aerosol generating device
wherein the controller is configured to control the power supplied to the induction coil, according to a temperature profile including a preheating section and a smoking section (The device may be configured to reduce heating if required. [0129]), and
in at least a partial section of the preheating section, cut off the power supplied to the induction coil, based on the first abnormal heating condition (The device may be configured to terminate operations if an article is not detected. [0132]).
Regarding Claim 3, Beidelman discloses an aerosol generating device wherein the controller is configured to cut off the power supplied to the induction coil, based on the second abnormal heating condition, in the preheating section and the smoking section (The controller may be configured to turn off the supply of power to a single susceptor zone, or both susceptor zones, based on the respective temperature readings exceeding threshold values. [0190]).
Regarding Claim 4, Horrod discloses an aerosol generating device wherein the controller is configured to cut off the power supplied to the induction coil, according to the first abnormal heating condition, when a temperature acquired from the temperature sensor within a preset reference time reaches a preset heating temperature (the heating and sensing operating may occur over a predetermined period of time. [0128]. Wherein the sensing occurs over a period of time and the device determines an article is not detected, power may be reduced or terminated. [0129]-[0132]).
Regarding Claim 5, Beidelman discloses an aerosol generating device
wherein the second abnormal heating condition includes a first sub-condition and a second sub-condition (The controller may determine that a fault has occurred with the first and/or second thermocouple, such as if the controller determines that energy has been supplied to heat the susceptor over a given period but a reduction in temperature has been measured by the first and/or second thermocouple over that same period. [0226]), and
the controller is configured to cut off the power supplied to the induction coil, when at least one of the first sub-condition and the second sub-condition is satisfied (The controller may take over the device and cut the supply of power to the induction coil if a fault is detected. [0198]).
Regarding Claim 6, Beidelman discloses an aerosol generating device wherein the controller is configured to cut off the power supplied to the induction coil, according to the first sub-condition, when the temperature acquired from the temperature sensor is less than or equal to a preset maintenance temperature (Wherein the controller determines that a fault has occurred because the temperature measured by the first and/or second thermocouple reduced during a period of time that energy was supplied to the induction coil, the supply of power is cut because the temperature acquired from the sensor is below a predetermined threshold. [0226]).
Regarding Claim 7, Beidelman discloses an aerosol generating device wherein the preset maintenance temperature is set to be lower than a target temperature of the susceptor according to a temperature profile (Wherein the controller determines that a fault has occurred because the temperature measured by the first and/or second thermocouple reduced during a period of time that energy was supplied to the induction coil, the supply of power is cut because the temperature acquired from the sensor is below a predetermined threshold which is lower than the expected temperature for heating. [0226]).
Regarding Claim 8, Beidelman discloses an aerosol generating device wherein the controller is configured to cut off the power supplied to the induction coil, according to the second sub-condition, when the power supplied to the induction coil is greater than or equal to a preset reference power ("the controller 1001 is configured to stop the supply of power to heat the susceptor 132 if the ratio of energy supplied to heat the susceptor 132 to the temperature rise measured by one of the first and second thermocouples 183a, 183b is greater than a predetermined amount" [0215]).
Regarding Claim 9, Beidelman discloses an aerosol generating device wherein the preset reference power is set to be higher than a target power to be supplied to the induction coil, to allow a temperature of the susceptor to reach a target temperature (The controller may cut the supply of power where the measured power ratio exceeds a threshold which is above the expected power ratio expected to reach the target temperature. [0216]).
Regarding Claim 10, Beidelman discloses an aerosol generating device wherein the susceptor is formed to surround an outer circumferential surface of a cavity into which the aerosol generating substrate is inserted (Susceptor 132 is hollow and defines a receptacle within which aerosol generating material is received. [0068], Fig 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Beidelman discloses an aerosol generating device wherein the temperature sensor includes:
a first wire (Constantan wire 1704. [0201], Fig 17);
a second wire (Iron wire 1705. [0201], Fig 17); and
a contact element contacting the first wire and the second wire (First measurement junction 1706. [0201], Fig 17).
Regarding Claim 12, Beidelman discloses an aerosol generating device
wherein the first wire and the second wire are spaced apart from each other and in contact with the contact element (Constantan wire 1704 and iron wire 1705 are spaced apart from each other and in contact with first measurement junction 1706. [0201], Fig 17), and
the contact element is in contact with an outer circumferential surface of the susceptor ("the first measurement junction 1706 is attached to the first susceptor zone 132a by spot-welding to the surface of the susceptor 132" [0201], Fig 17).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beidelman in view of Horrod as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Halliday (US 20220183394 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Beidelman discloses an aerosol generating device wherein a user inserts an article into the device opening and operates controls to begin heating the aerosol generating material ([0059]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the device further comprises a substrate detection sensor. Horrod teaches an aerosol generating device ([0004]) comprising a substrate detection sensor ([0063]) but does not explicitly disclose a substrate detection sensor of which inductance varies when the aerosol generating substrate including an electromagnetic inductor is inserted into a cavity.
However, Halliday teaches a similar aerosol generating device further comprising
a substrate detection sensor of which inductance varies when the aerosol generating substrate including an electromagnetic inductor is inserted into a cavity ("The input interface may be a sensor to detect the insertion of aerosol generating material. The sensor may determine the type of article that is inserted, and an operating mode is determined based on the detected type of article." [0037]),
wherein the controller is configured to determine whether or not the aerosol generating substrate is inserted into the cavity, on the basis of a detection result of the substrate detection sensor (The input interface may send one or more signals, such as the signal from the sensor to detect insertion of the aerosol generating material, to the controller. [0036]-[0037]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the control mechanism of Beidelman and/or the substrate detection sensor of Horrod with the article detection sensor taught by Halliday because Beidelman, Horrod, and Halliday are all directed to aerosol generating devices, Halliday teaches the use of a detection sensor to automatically generate heat upon the insertion of an article into the device, and this merely involves applying a known component to a similar aerosol generating device to yield predictable results.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beidelman in view of Horrod as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Thorton (US 20230032298 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Beidelman discloses an aerosol generating device further comprising an output unit configured to output a first user warning and a second user warning, when the power supplied to the induction coil is cut off according to an abnormal heating condition (The controller may issue a warning signal indicating that a fault has occurred. [0198]. The controller may determine that a fault has occurred with either the first or second thermocouple. [0226]), but does not explicitly disclose further comprising an output unit configured to output a first user notification and a second user notification.
Thorton teaches a similar aerosol generating device comprising an output unit configured to output a first user notification and a second user notification, respectively, when the power supplied to the induction coil is cut off according to the first abnormal heating condition and the second abnormal heating condition ("The aerosol provision device may further comprise a sensor to measure the property of the heating chamber as sensor data" [0049]. "The aerosol provision device may comprise a notification element configured to provide a notification that the change in the property satisfies the criterion." [0050]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the warning mechanism of Beidelman with a first and second user notification as taught by Thorton because Beidelman, Horrod, and Thorton are all directed to aerosol generating devices, Thorton teaches the use of notifications to warn the user of heating conditions within the aerosol generating device, and this merely involves applying a known component to a similar aerosol generating device to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 15, Thorton further teaches an aerosol generating device wherein output patterns of the first user notification and the second user notification are set to be different from each other ("the notification element may be a speaker, a light, or a motor, where these are configured to generate a sound, light or haptic feedback, respectively to indicate to a user that the change in the property satisfies the criterion." [0050]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Buckman whose telephone number is (571)270-0888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-4:00.
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.
/JEFFREY A. BUCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights