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 of Group I (Claims 21-34) in the reply filed on 7/22/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 35-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 1/8/2024, 2/17/2026, 6/11/2026, 8/3/2026 has been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
There are numerous typos of “comprsing” instead of “comprising” throughout the specification. The location of each of the found examples is listed below. The applicant is asked to review the specification and correct any other typos present.
Pg. 4 two instances in the large full paragraph
Pg. 5 4 instances in the first partial paragraph
Pg. 5 1 instance in the 1st full paragraph
Pg. 5 final paragraph line 2
Pg. 6 2nd full paragraph line 3
Pg. 7 first full paragraph, line 4
Pg. 7 2nd full paragraph line 3
Pg. 19, 3 instance in the final paragraph
Pg. 20, 2 instances in the 2nd full paragraph
Pg. 21, 1 instance in the paragraph "Example Ex2"
Pg. 21, 1 instance in the paragraph "Example Ex3"
Pg. 22, 1 instance in the first paragraph
Pg. 22, 1 instance in the paragraph "Example Ex9"
Pg. 22, 1 instance in the paragraph "Example Ex10"
Pg. 24, 1 instance in the paragraph "Example Ex16"
Pg. 24, 1 instance in the paragraph "Example Ex17"
Pg. 24, 1 instance in the paragraph "Example Ex18"
Pg. 24, 1 instance in the paragraph "Example Ex19"
Pg. 24, 1 instance in the paragraph "Example Ex21"
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 lines 11-12 should read “…the value depending on the article with the susceptor being present in or absent”, as the article and susceptor were previously introduced in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-26, 31-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12501937B2 in view of Horrod (WO2020260886A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0160045A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant independent claim 21 is merely broader than the patented claim 1. Patented claim 1 claims “An aerosol-generating device to heat an aerosol-forming substrate configured to form an aerosol when heated, the aerosol-generating device comprising: a cavity configured to removably receive at least a portion of an aerosol-generating article, the aerosol-generating article including the aerosol-forming substrate and an inductively heatable susceptor configured to heat the aerosol-generating substrate… an inductive heating arrangement connected to the DC power supply and configured to generate an alternating magnetic field within the cavity to inductively heat the inductively heatable susceptor in a heating operation when the aerosol-generating article is received in the cavity… control circuitry configured to operate the device… detect whether a change of the at least one property of the inductive heating arrangement has occurred as compared to one or more previous power pulses due to the inductively heatable susceptor becoming present within or absent from the cavity when the aerosol-generating article is inserted into or extracted from the cavity”. Patented claim 1 therefore contains every limitation from pending claim 21 (along with additional other limitations). The only exception is the limitation in pending claim 21 that “based on the determined value and a predetermined threshold value”. It is routine in electronic applications to compare a value to some predetermined threshold to determine the status thereof. Horrod (WO2020260886A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0160045A1) for example teaches an apparatus for an aerosol generating device wherein there is an algorithm as depicted in Fig. 9, where a current measurement is compared with a threshold level, and whether the measured current is above/below the level determines the presence or absence of the susceptor [0082-0083]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply this comparison of the value with some threshold to make the determination, as suggested by Horrod, so as to make a reliable determination of the presence/absence of the susceptor based on the current.
Regarding claims 22-26, Horrod suggests the measured variable being compared to the predetermined threshold which is set as necessary. The inclusion of a scaling factor or offset value at the amounts given would have been an obvious optimization of the threshold level as suggested by Horrod.
Regarding claim 31, Horrod suggests that whether the measured current is above or below the threshold determines whether the susceptor is present or absent from the cavity, such that the features of claim 31 are well-known and obvious in the art.
Regarding claim 32, Horrod suggests that a measured current may be utilized for the determination of the presence/absence of the article/susceptor, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found utilizing the current as the “at least one property” have been obvious.
Claim 33 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12501937B2 in view of Horrod (WO2020260886A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0160045A1). Claim 14 of the US Patent further specifies that the control circuitry comprises a measurement device to determine the current, which is the same as the limitations of instant claim 33.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-34 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) a device comprising a control circuitry configured “to determine during one or more power pulses a value of at least one property of the inductive heating arrangement… and to detect at least one of the insertion of the article into the cavity or the extraction of the article from the cavity based on the determined value and a predetermined threshold value”.
Claim 21 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 of claim 21 (“to determine” and “to detect”) recites mathematical operations, and also a mental process because the processes may be performed by a human using pen and paper. 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 within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Has the abstract idea been integrated into a particular practical application?
No. Once the evaluation takes place (including the steps of “determine” and “detect”), there is no additional action that takes place. This is merely an evaluation to determine whether an article is present in a cavity. The remainder of the claim elements are either generic computer components (control circuitry) or the general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite any elements which are significantly more than the abstract idea?
No. The claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim’s additional elements of: an aerosol-generating device, aerosol forming substrate, a cavity, and an article with a susceptor are all well understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) within the art of aerosol-forming devices. See
Butin (WO2021037403A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0369714A1) or Horrod (WO2020260886A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0160045A1). See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional components may also be considered either adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding dependent claims 22-26, these merely further detail information relating to the “detect” phase based on the determined and predetermined threshold values, such that these limitations do not rise to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 27-30, these merely detail limitations requiring reference values to be stored and to be updated periodically, where this is still linked to making the determination/detection and does not amount to significantly more.
Regarding claims 31-34, these limitations further specify the determinations (detailing the comparisons that are being made, and the type of data that is used in the determination), such that this would not amount to significantly more.
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.
(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.
Claims 21-22, 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Butin (WO2021037403A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0369714A1).
Regarding claim 21, Butin teaches an aerosol generating device (Aerosol generating device "100" [Figs. 1-2]) for heating aerosol substrate ("21", [0305], Figs. 1-2) to form an inhalable aerosol when heated [0002, 0305]), the aerosol-generating device comprising;
A cavity (cavity "103" [0307, Figs. 1-2]) to removably receive at least a portion of an aerosol generating article (article "10" [0307, Figs. 1-2]) including the aerosol-forming substrate (substrate "21") and an inductively heatable susceptor (susceptor "30" [0306]) to heat the substrate;
An inductive heating arrangement (device comprises an inductive heating arrangement "110" [0307]) configured to generate an alternating magnetic field within the cavity for inductively heating the susceptor of the article when received (the inductive heating arrangement generates an alternating magnetic field within the cavity to heat the susceptor in the article when in the cavity [0307]),
A control circuitry configured to generate power pulses for intermittently powering on the inductive heating arrangement ("a control circuitry configured to generate power pulses for intermittently powering on the inductive heating arrangement" [0013]),
to determine during one or more power pulses a value of at least one property of the inductive heating arrangement, the value depending on the article with the susceptor being present or absent from the cavity, and to detect at least one of the insertion of the article into the cavity or the extraction of the article from the cavity based on the determined value and a predetermined threshold value (Figs. 4-5 provides views of graphs wherein a series of current pulses are generated. Based on these current pulses, the lower measurement of I_NA results in a determination of no article being inserted, while I_A is the current when the article is inserted due to the increase in resistance (and thus decrease of current). Fig. 5 depicts both the detection of the insertion of the article (left side) and extraction of the article (right side). [0319-0322]. Therefore the threshold value may be considered to be a value inbetween I_A and I_NA, such that the value measurement (of being I_A or I_NA) determines whether the article is present of not. And additionally, as shown in Figs. 4-5, during the insertion detection mode the threshold value may be considered ΔI_DC (which would equal 0 when the article is not present), and the determined value would be lower than this when the article is inserted with the value of I_A. And in the extraction detection mode, the threshold value may be considered ΔI_DC (which would equal 0 when the article is present) and the determined value would be greater than this and have a value of I_NA once the article is removed from the device).
Regarding claim 22, Butin teaches a device wherein the predetermined threshold value is a predefined function of a reference value of the at least one property of the inductive heating arrangement predetermined when the susceptor is absent or present (as noted in the rejection of claim 21 above, the threshold value is the a value inbetween I_A and I_NA and/or may be considered to be the difference between the two depending on whether the device is in insertion mode or extraction mode. As such, this would be considered to be a predefined function of a reference value between these values of I_A and I_NA such that the claim would be satisfied).
Regarding claim 31, Butin teaches an aerosol-generating device wherein the predetermined threshold value is between a value of the property when it is present and a value of the property when the article is absent (as in the rejection of claim 21 above, the threshold value may be considered a value between I_NA and I_A, such that when the value is I_NA there would be no article inserted and when the value if I_A there would be the article present in the cavity).
Regarding claim 32, Butin teaches an aerosol-generating device wherein the at least one property of the arrangement is a current, voltage, resistance, etc. (as in the rejection of claim 21 above, the value may be a measured current [0319-0322]).
Regarding claim 33, Butin teaches an aerosol-generating device wherein the control circuitry comprises a measurement device configured to determine at least one of a current or a voltage indicative of the property (the current measuring device “140” measures the current which determines whether the article is present of absent [0319-0322]).
Regarding claim 34, Butin teaches an aerosol-generating device wherein the control circuitry comprises a current measurement device and voltage measurement device, wherein a value of electrical conductance is used to determine a value (Butin teaches that the at least one property which is used to determine the presence/absence of the susceptor which may be in the article may be current, voltage, resistance [0017]. Butin specifies that the current and voltage properties would be obtained from the DC power supplies [0100-0101]. It is known in the art that the resistance and conductance are merely inverses, such that when the property is based on resistance (and thus the current and voltage), the property would also be dependent upon the conductance thereof which would be a ratio of current and voltage [0101]. Instead of saying that the presence of an article means a high value, it would instead be the opposite and be a low value (for example), such that Butin would still be teaching such properties).
Claims 21-22, 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Horrod (WO2020260886A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0160045A1).
Regarding claim 21, Horrod teaches an aerosol-generating device (Fig. 3) for heating an aerosol forming substrate (substrate “33” [0067]) to form an inhalable aerosol when heated [0067-0068]), comprising:
a cavity configured to removably receive at least a portion of an aerosol-generating article, where the article includes the substrate and inductively heatable susceptor (article “30” is shown inserted into the mouthpiece as in Fig. 5. As in Figs. 3-4 the article is inserted into the body of the device, and the cavity would thus be the portion of the device which the article is inserted into. The article “30” comprises aerosol generating material “33”, and a susceptor may be provided as part of the article so as to inductively heat the article through the susceptor [0063]),
an inductive heating arrangement configured to generate an alternating magnetic field within the cavity for inductively heating the inductively heatable susceptor of the aerosol-generating article when the aerosol-forming article is received in the cavity (the device may use alternating current to cause inductive heating of the susceptor arrangement [0008, 0055-0056], wherein this is clearly heated via the varying magnetic field via induction [0074-0075]),
a control circuitry configured to generate power pulses for intermittently powering on the inductive heating arrangement (control circuit “18” runs the inductive heating arrangement which generates the pulses for powering [0073]),
to determine during one or more power pulses a value of at least one property of the inductive heating arrangement, the value depending on the article with the susceptor being present or absent from the cavity, and to detect at least one of the insertion of the article into the cavity or the extraction of the article from the cavity based on the determined value and a predetermined threshold value (Fig. 12 shows an impulse generation circuit “302” which is provided with a pulse width modulation circuit [0092-0093]. The processor may determine characteristics of the circuit and susceptor, such as the presence or absence of the article [0094]. Horrod further teaches in Fig. 9 that in such a circuit, there may be a measured current in the inductive element which is then compared to a threshold level to determine whether the current is above or below the threshold level. Dependent on this, it is thus determined whether the susceptor is present or absent from the device [0082-0084, Fig. 9]. Therefore, Horrod teaches the determined value (measured current) compared to the predetermined threshold value as the means for detecting the insertion/extraction of the article from the device).
Regarding claim 22, Horrod teaches a device wherein the predetermined threshold value is a predefined function of a reference value (as noted in the rejection of claim 21 above, the threshold value is set so as to be in-between the measured current values when the susceptor is inserted and absent from the cavity. As such, this would be considered to be a predefined function of a reference value between the current amounts associated with the insertion and absence of the susceptor).
Regarding claim 31, Horrod teaches a device wherein the predetermined threshold value is between a value when the article is present and a value when the article is not present (as in Fig. 9, the determination of whether the susceptor is present or absent is determined on whether the measured current is above or below a threshold level, such that the predetermined threshold would necessarily be in the middle).
Regarding claim 32, Horrod teaches an aerosol-generating device wherein the at least one property of the arrangement is a current, voltage, resistance, etc. (as in the rejection of claim 21 above, the property may be current).
Regarding claim 33, Horrod teaches an aerosol-generating device wherein the control circuitry comprises a measurement device to determine a current or voltage (the current may be measured by a current sensor of the inductive element [0081-0083]).
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 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butin (WO2021037403A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0369714A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Horrod (WO2020260886A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0160045A1) and White (WO2020260884A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0225681A1).
Regarding claims 22-26, Butin details that the aerosol-generating device as detailed in the rejection of claim 21 above. Horrod is similarly tied to aerosol-generating devices, wherein Fig. 9 of Horrod shows a circuit wherein a measured current in the inductive element is compared to a threshold level to determine whether the current is above or below the threshold level. In this manner, Horrod specifically suggests the presence of a “threshold level” wherein the presence/absence of the article/susceptor is determined on whether the relevant property is above or below that line [0082-0083]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious so as to use an explicit threshold level located between a high and low point (associated with presence/absence of the article) as suggested by Horrod. One would have been motivated so as to efficiently determine whether the article/susceptor is present in the device [Horrod, 0082-0083]. This would clearly be a predefined function of the property (such as current in Horrod’s Fig. 9 example) such that the threshold level would be located between high and low current levels dependent upon the absence/presence of the article/susceptor.
White teaches an apparatus for an aerosol-generating device, wherein the impulse response processor 64 determines one or more performance metrics of the circuit/susceptor based on these impulse responses, such as the presence or absence of the article [0101]. White teaches that offset values may be applied to the signal conditions so as to ensure that the proper readings are obtained [0016, 0132-0133], and that scaling factors may be applied [0013, 0148]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Butin so as to utilize scaling factors and offset values as suggested by White. One would have found it obvious so as to ensure that the impulse data is properly aligned with the goals of reading the presence/absence of the article [0132-0133, 0016, 0013, 0148]. And given the obviousness of applying these offset and/or scaling factors, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the specific scaling factors and offset values for Butin’s threshold value for determining the presence/absence of the susceptor, so as to ensure that the data may reliably make the correct determination so that consistent results may be obtained. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05. The specific scaling factors of 0.8 to 0.98 and offset value of 2%-20% would have been no more than the optimization of these values in the determination of the threshold value.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butin (WO2021037403A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0369714A1), in view of Horrod (WO2020260886A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0160045A1) and White (WO2020260884A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0225681A1), as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Akko (US2020/0281276A1).
Regarding claim 27, Butin may have predetermined-thresholds/characteristics for verify the insertion/extraction of the cavity [0039, 0319-0322], in addition to the suggested threshold predetermined details suggested by Horrod/White as above. Butin does not specifically state that this is stored during the manufacturing of the device. However, it is conventional/typical to store information such as threshold data during the manufacturing period. Akko, for example, is tied to an aerosol generation device, wherein there are various “threshold” values for a variety of control operations. The threshold values are preferably set during the time of manufacture, so as to prevent the threshold value from being uncalibrated during the initial turning on of the device, and as setting the threshold value during manufacture ensures that the value is properly initially set [0233, 0248, 0250]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Butin so as to have the threshold beset during the manufacture of the device as suggested by Akko, for the rationale of ensuring that the value is properly initially set and to ensure that the initial powering on of the device does not affect this [Akko, 0233, 0248, 0250].
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butin (WO2021037403A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0369714A1), in view of Horrod (WO2020260886A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0160045A1) and White (WO2020260884A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0225681A1), as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Jung (US2021/0007393A1) or Takeuchi (US2019/0380395A1), and in view of Gouin (WO2021219791A1).
Regarding claims 28-30, Butin does not specifically state that the reference value is updated at predefined regular intervals, such as every tenth user experience, and redetermining the properties and storing the redetermined value as the updated reference value. However, it is generally well-understood in the art the phenomenon of current/voltage drift over the life time of electronic devices, such that having updating means would have been an obvious inclusion.
Jung, for example, teaches an aerosol generating apparatus. The apparatus includes a reference current characteristic value and a measured current characteristic value, wherein the reference current value may be updated and changed periodically because of changes in external factors [0144]. When the measured current characteristic values decrease, it is then necessary to update the reference current characteristic values based on the measured current values, such that the reference current characteristic value may be maintained at a value between a measured value of a cigarette insertion state and a cigarette separation state [0145]. In other words, the reference characteristics will be updated and changed to ensure that the reference stays at a value between the current when the cigarette is inserted and removed [0145]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Butin to have the reference value updated and changed periodically to have the redetermined value as the updated reference value as suggested by Jung. One would have been motivated so as to ensure that the reference value stays meaningful so as to determine whether the cigarette has been inserted or not [0143-0145].
Alternatively, Takeuchi teaches an aerosol generating device, wherein it is taught that the electrical characteristics of the power source/device change over time [0143]. The output voltage of the power source decreases over time as the power source/device deteriorates over time, due to decrease in the electric storage capacity due to irreversible decomposition of the electrolyte, changes internal resistances due to aggregation of active materials, etc. [0143-0144]. In other words, Takeuchi describes that it is well-known that the threshold values will need to be changed due to deteriorating conditions of the battery/device over time [0143-0144]. As such, the threshold values of Takeuchi are made to be updated/changed over time (such that the decrease in value because of this degradation) [0143-0146]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Butin so as to have the reference values updated and changed periodically to have the redetermined value as the updated reference value as suggested by Takeuchi. One would have been motivated so as to combat the drifting/deteriorating conditions over a lifetime of the device [0143-0144].
Jung/Takeuchi do not explicitly give a frequency for which the values are to be updated. Gouin, tied to an aerosol generating device, has its predetermined motion information updated at regular intervals, such as every nth time the user utilizes the devices, or at a set time frame set as daily, weekly, monthly, etc. [pg.21 lines 20-31]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to updated the reference values of Butin at such a frequency, so as to provide a balance between maintaining accurate information over the lifetime of the device while also reducing a processing burden from having it updated too often [pg. 21 lines 20-31]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to update the reference values of Butin at periodic regular time intervals (such as every 10th user experience, or daily, or any other regular frequency) as suggested by Gouin, and one would have found it obvious to update the values of Butin because of the known factors of changing electrical characteristics over the lifetime of the device as suggested by Jung/Takeuchi. The utilization of any other specific time frame would merely be “obvious to try” given the teachings of Gouin, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to update these values at any given frequency of time or use given the suggestions of Gouin to update the values periodically.
Claims 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horrod (WO2020260886A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0160045A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Horrod, and optionally in view of White (WO2020260884A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0225681A1).
Regarding claims 22-26, Horrod teaches the aerosol-generating device as detailed in the rejection of claim 21 above. Horrod details that the insertion/extraction of the article/susceptor from the device may be detected by the measured current being above or below a threshold level [0083], wherein the current/threshold levels may be according to a predefined arrangements [0005, 0013]. Horrod does not specifically define a scaling factor and offset values of its threshold value for determining the presence/absence of the susceptor. However, such offset/scaling factors are ubiquitous within the art of controls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the specific threshold values of Horrod’s device for determining the presence/absence of the article from the device, and in this routine optimization/experimentation would have found it obvious to utilize a scaling factor and offset values as suggested. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05. The landing upon a scaling factor and offset value in the given range would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art so as to obtain the working device using the threshold values of Horrod so as to determine the presence/absence of the article in accordance with the differing current values which are expected at these different values [0092-0093].
Optionally applied, White teaches an apparatus for an aerosol-generating device, wherein the impulse response processor 64 determines one or more performance metrics of the circuit/susceptor based on these impulse responses, such as the presence or absence of the article [0101]. White teaches that offset values may be applied to the signal conditions so as to ensure that the proper readings are obtained [0016, 0132-0133], and that scaling factors may be applied [0013, 0148]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Horrod so as to utilize scaling factors and offset values as suggested by White. One would have found it obvious so as to ensure that the impulse data is properly aligned with the goals of reading the presence/absence of the article [0132-0133, 0016, 0013, 0148]. And given the obviousness of applying these offset and/or scaling factors, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the specific scaling factors and offset values for Horrod’s threshold value for determining the presence/absence of the susceptor, so as to ensure that the data may reliably make the correct determination so that consistent results may be obtained. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05. The specific scaling factors of 0.8 to 0.98 and offset value of 2%-20% would have been no more than the optimization of these values in the determination of the threshold value.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horrod (WO2020260886A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0160045A1) and optionally in view of White (WO2020260884A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0225681A1), as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Akko (US2020/0281276A1).
Regarding claim 27, Horrod may have predetermined-threshold levels such that measured currents above/below this threshold level determines the insertion/extraction of the cavity. Horrod does not specifically state that this is stored during the manufacturing of the device. However, it is conventional/typical to store information such as threshold data during the manufacturing period. Akko, for example, is tied to an aerosol generation device, wherein there are various “threshold” values for a variety of control operations. The threshold values are preferably set during the time of manufacture, so as to prevent the threshold value from being uncalibrated during the initial turning on of the device, and as setting the threshold value during manufacture ensures that the value is properly initially set [0233, 0248, 0250]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Horrod so as to have the threshold beset during the manufacture of the device as suggested by Akko, for the rationale of ensuring that the value is properly initially set and to ensure that the initial powering on of the device does not affect this [Akko, 0233, 0248, 0250].
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horrod (WO2020260886A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0160045A1) and optionally in view of White (WO2020260884A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0225681A1), as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Jung (US2021/0007393A1) or Takeuchi (US2019/0380395A1), and in view of Gouin (WO2021219791A1).
Regarding claims 28-30, Horrod does not specifically state that the reference value is updated at predefined regular intervals, such as every tenth user experience, and redetermining the properties and storing the redetermined value as the updated reference value. However, it is generally well-understood in the art the phenomenon of current/voltage drift over the life time of electronic devices, such that having updating means would have been an obvious inclusion.
Jung, for example, teaches an aerosol generating apparatus. The apparatus includes a reference current characteristic value and a measured current characteristic value, wherein the reference current value may be updated and changed periodically because of changes in external factors [0144]. When the measured current characteristic values decrease, it is then necessary to update the reference current characteristic values based on the measured current values, such that the reference current characteristic value may be maintained at a value between a measured value of a cigarette insertion state and a cigarette separation state [0145]. In other words, the reference characteristics will be updated and changed to ensure that the reference stays at a value between the current when the cigarette is inserted and removed [0145]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Horrod to have the reference value updated and changed periodically to have the redetermined value as the updated reference value as suggested by Jung. One would have been motivated so as to ensure that the reference value stays meaningful so as to determine whether the cigarette has been inserted or not [0143-0145].
Alternatively, Takeuchi teaches an aerosol generating device, wherein it is taught that the electrical characteristics of the power source/device change over time [0143]. The output voltage of the power source decreases over time as the power source/device deteriorates over time, due to decrease in the electric storage capacity due to irreversible decomposition of the electrolyte, changes internal resistances due to aggregation of active materials, etc. [0143-0144]. In other words, Takeuchi describes that it is well-known that the threshold values will need to be changed due to deteriorating conditions of the battery/device over time [0143-0144]. As such, the threshold values of Takeuchi are made to be updated/changed over time (such that the decrease in value because of this degradation) [0143-0146]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Horrod so as to have the reference values updated and changed periodically to have the redetermined value as the updated reference value as suggested by Takeuchi. One would have been motivated so as to combat the drifting/deteriorating conditions over a lifetime of the device [0143-0144].
Jung/Takeuchi do not explicitly give a frequency for which the values are to be updated. Gouin, tied to an aerosol generating device, has its predetermined motion information updated at regular intervals, such as every nth time the user utilizes the devices, or at a set time frame set as daily, weekly, monthly, etc. [pg.21 lines 20-31]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to updated the reference values of Horrod at such a frequency, so as to provide a balance between maintaining accurate information over the lifetime of the device while also reducing a processing burden from having it updated too often [pg. 21 lines 20-31]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to update the reference values of Horrod at periodic regular time intervals (such as every 10th user experience, or daily, or any other regular frequency) as suggested by Gouin, and one would have found it obvious to update the values of Horrod because of the known factors of changing electrical characteristics over the lifetime of the device as suggested by Jung/Takeuchi. The utilization of any other specific time frame would merely be “obvious to try” given the teachings of Gouin, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to update these values at any given frequency of time or use given the suggestions of Gouin to update the values periodically.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horrod (WO2020260886A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0160045A1), as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Butin (WO2021037403A1, citing to English Equivalent US2022/0369714A1).
Regarding claim 34, Horrod teaches that the current may be measured by a current sensor of the inductive element [0081-0083]), and that DC voltage may be supplied to cause heating of the susceptor [0058] and that there would necessarily be a voltage measurement device as the voltage may be compared to reference voltages [0115]. Horrod does not explicitly determine a value of conductance as a ratio of current to voltage. Butin teaches an aerosol generating device wherein the inductive heating arrangement have utilize any property to compare to a stored value to determine whether the article is present or absent, including current, voltage, resistance, etc. [0017]. The resistance is merely the inverse of conductance (well-known electrical relationship) such that they are directly related [0017-0018]. The conductance being determined in this manner would be no difference from the resistance thus being determined. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize resistance/conductance in the device of Horrod as in the device of Butin. One would have been motivated so as to have a property of the inductive heating arrangement to determine the presence of the article/susceptor [0017, 0100-0101].
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
Prosecution Insights