Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group II (claims 23-30) in the reply filed on 7/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse as noted above.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features
Temperature sensor arranged to measure a temperature of the power supply electronics.
Controller (structure for controlling power, measuring)
Resistance measurement sensor or circuit to determine a resistance value associated with the susceptor
Controller structures capable of decreasing the target resistance value by multiplying by a drift compensation value. No controller is shown. No processor, memory, or computer is shown and no connections between the simple induction circuit are shown. No algorithms are provided.
Structure for detecting current, conductance or resistance
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a controller performing the steps in a calibration set up, it does not reasonably provide enablement for a controller performing these steps in the device as claimed. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to perform the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The instantly claimed device does has an inductive heating arrangement and associated induction heater, power supply, and power supply electronics, a controller comprising at least one temperature sensor. Claim 29 introduces the limitation, “wherein the controller is further configured to determine the drift compensation value performing steps comprising: i) controlling the power provided to the power supply electronics to cause the susceptor to have a first known temperature.
The device as claimed cannot determine if the susceptor is at a known temperature. First, the susceptor is not part of the claimed device. Second, there is no structure presently claimed that is capable of determining that the susceptor is at a known temperature. Taurino et al. disclose that, “…it may not be possible for a device to accurately determine the absolute temperature of the susceptor based on measurements of the apparent resistance of the susceptor alone, without calibrating the device for each cartridge.” [0059]. Calibration would require directly measuring the temperature of the susceptor which is outside the scope of the claimed invention and the prior art of Taurino et al. The prior art then teaches that the process of determining resistance of the susceptor and determining a temperature of the controller (i.e. power supply electronics) is used, “…to more accurately estimate the absolute temperature of the susceptor.” ([0059] emphasis added). This differs significantly from claim 29 where, “the susceptor is at the first known temperature”. The specification provides no direction as to how the device, with or without the susceptor, can be heated to a first known temperature as claimed. The claimed controller also lacks the programming steps or physical structures required to determine that the susceptor is at a first known temperature. The applicant also lacks drawings of key elements of the invention (temperature sensor, resistance measurement, etc.), further providing a lack of direction.
In this case, scope of enablement is being applied because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use additional elements and programming to make the operation possible. For instance, including a temperature sensor within the aerosol generating article susceptor and somehow connecting it to the controller and programming the controller to use the temperature would enable the claim.
The applicant also discusses using the curie temperature of a specific second susceptor to enable the determination of a known temperature. However, the susceptor, the structure of the susceptor, and the programming steps to use the curie temperature are not claimed and are clearly outside the scope of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 23-30 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 23 recites structural or functional language concerning the controller and it’s configuration. However, there is insufficient structure or programming claimed for the controller to perform the intended use or achieve it with programming. Claim 23 includes the limitation, “control the power provided to the power supply electronics to cause the susceptor to have a target temperature”.
As claimed, the controller cannot determine the temperature of the susceptor. First, the susceptor is not part of the device. Second, determining the temperature of the susceptor requires either specific circuitry not claimed (i.e. measuring current, voltage, or frequency) of the induction coil (also not claimed).
Claim 24 recites structural or functional language concerning the controller and it’s configuration. However, there is insufficient structure or programming claimed for the controller to perform the intended use or achieve it with programming. Claim 24 includes the limitation, “control the power provided to the power supply electronics to maintain a resistance value associated with the susceptor at a target value that corresponds to the target temperature.” No structures are present that measure resistance associated with a susceptor (also not claimed) and therefore a controller cannot perform these functions even if it has the required programming.
Claim 29, recites that the controller performs several steps. These steps do not have claimed structures that can perform the required functions. Specifically, there is no claimed structure or function to cause, (a) the susceptor to have a first known temperature through the controlling of power, or (b) circuitry to determine the conductance, current, or resistance associated with the susceptor (the susceptor is not part of the device as claimed, and no circuits are present to determine these values).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 23, 24, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Butin et al. (EP 3646670 A1, published 6 May 2020, US 2021/0145071 used as the US equivalent).
Regarding claims 23 and 30, Butin et al. disclose an aerosol generating device with an induction heating arrangement that heats a susceptor in an article that contains an aerosol forming substrate. The device has a DC power supply that provides DC current and voltage, power supply electronics, and that power supply electronics are adapted to control the duration of a the time interval between successive heating pulses based on the measurement of the current delivered by the DC power supply during a testing or “poll” pulse (see abstract).
The probing or poll pulses indirectly measures the apparent resistance of the susceptor from which the temperature can be determined [0009].
Claim(s) 23-26 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taurino et al. (WO 2020/008008 A1, published 09 January 2020, with US 20210137170 A1 as the US equivalent).
Regarding claims 23 and 30, Taurino et al. disclose an aerosol generation device with a induction coil, power supply, power supply circuitry, and a controller (i.e. microprocessor [0023]) comprising a temperature sensor [0023]. The temperature sensor inherently measures the temperature of the power supply electronics because it is a controller comprises at least one temperature sensor as instantly claimed. The controller controls the power supply to heat the susceptor to a target temperature [0110]- [0113] and adjusts the power provided to the power supply electronics (i.e. inductor) by adjusting the target value based on the measured temperature of the power supply electronics (i.e. ambient temperature compensation [0114], see also claims 16-18).
Regarding claim 24, the relationship between an inductor and susceptor is well known and as described by Taurino et al. uses the circuity to determine the apparent resistance of the susceptor to determine the temperature of the susceptor [0057]. This allows the circuitry to use target resistance to correspond to target temperature of the susceptor [0057]-[0071].
Regarding claim 25-26, Taurino et al. disclose that a range of resistance changes [0068] based on temperature value or range and apparent resistance value or range ([0067]). Taurino et al. also disclose that the target value may be increased or decreased based on the ambient temperature readings from the sensor and the magnitude of the adjustment (i.e. amount of change) varies as a function of the temperature [0042]. Therefore, the “adjustments” disclosed concern both increases and decreases and vary by an amount based on a measured temperature.
Regarding claim 27, Taurino et al. disclose adjusting to 75% of the normal target value. This is inherently multiplying by a compensation value (i.e. 0.75)[0048].
Regarding claim 28, the compensation value may be constant over specific temperature ranges and may be incremental, discrete or stepwise [0043].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taurino et al. (WO 2020/008008 A1, published 09 January 2020, with US 20210137170 A1 as the US equivalent) as applied to claim 27 above.
Regarding claim 29, Taurino et al. disclose that the invention can be calibrated for each cartridge by determining the absolute temperature of the susceptor (the inverse of what is described in [0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, that the adjustment of target temperature as disclosed by Taurino et al. is based on measuring the difference between the actual temperature, the power supplied (i.e. current or voltage) and measuring the temperature of the electronics.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4805. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Thursday-Friday 7:00-4:30, Wednesday 7:00-1:00.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 571-270-3882. 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.
/Michael J Felton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights