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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the controller is configured to: accumulate… the amount of impact.” It is unclear how the controller accumulates an amount of impact. The amount impact is not a physical object or objects that could be accumulated in a physical sense, nor is it a tally that being incremented in the memory of the device. The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required the controller to store data related to the fall in memory.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bessant (US 2021/0007406).
Regarding claim 1, Bessant discloses an aerosol generating device having a body ([0116], figure 2, reference numeral 14), a heater that heats a substrate to generate an aerosol [0044], and an accelerometer that measures acceleration to describe acceleration force applied to the device [0062]. The measured acceleration indicates when a fall of the device begins [0079] and ends [0081]. The acceleration values are received by a controller [0070] that determines whether a fall occurs [0071] and has a memory that stores a fall in it [0128]. The device has a power source that provides power to the various components [0059].
Regarding claim 7, Bessant discloses storing fall height data [0104].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sur (US 2017/0156397) in view of Bessant (US 2021/0007406).
Regarding claim 1, Sur discloses an aerosol delivery device including a housing [0003], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a body, a heater ([0043], figure 2, reference numeral 222), a motion sensor that detects defined movement of the device ([0059], figure 2, reference numeral 248) such as freefall [0062], and a memory component [0041]. Data from the motion sensor is communicated to a control component ([0059], figure 2, reference numeral 208) that recognizes a vulnerability of the device [0060] and shuts off the device after detecting the vulnerability [0063]. The defined movement indicates the vulnerability [0059]. The device comprises a power source that supplies power to the device [0008]. Sur does not explicitly disclose storing information regarding a fall in memory.
Bessant teaches an aerosol generating device having a heater that heats a substrate to generate an aerosol [0044] and an accelerometer that measures acceleration to describe acceleration force applied to the device [0062]. The measured acceleration indicates when a fall of the device begins [0079] and ends [0081]. The acceleration values are received by a controller [0070] that determines whether a fall occurs [0071] and has a memory that stores a fall in it [0128] to facilitate continued use of the device after a fall by diagnosing any damage caused by the fall [0104].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Sur with the data storage of Bessant. One would have been motivated to do so since Bessant teaches that storing fall data in memory facilitates continued use of the device.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sur (US 2017/0156397) in view of Bessant (US 2021/0007406) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gurin (US 12,672,826).
Regarding claim 2, modified Sur teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Sur additionally discloses that the motion sensor may be a MEMS sensor [0059]. Modified Sur does not explicitly teach the motion sensor having a barometric pressure sensor.
Gurin teaches a wearable structure (abstract) having a motion sensor (column 4, lines 66-67, column 5, lines 1-14) which is barometric pressure sensor in the form of a capacitive MEMS sensor that measures changes in height as a change in barometric pressure (column 9, lines 61-67, column 10, lines 1-9).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the barometric pressure sensor of Gurin as the motion sensor of modified Sur. One would have been motivated to do so since Sur discloses a device that has a motion sensor to detect a fall and Gurin teaches a MEMS based sensor that determines a change in height.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessant (US 2021/0007406).
Regarding claim 6, Bessant discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Bessant additionally discloses that the memory stores a fall count [0104], and that the fall count has a threshold used as part of a diagnostic routine by customer care [0105]. The processor is coupled to a display that displays information to the user [0118], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an output unit. The display displays information as part of the diagnostic routine after a fall that is used by customer care [0107]. Bessant does not explicitly disclose displaying information when during a customer care diagnostic routine when the fall count is exceeded.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display information when during a customer care diagnostic routine when the fall count is exceeded. One would have been motivated to do so since Bessant discloses both displaying information during a diagnostic routine and reviewing the fall count during a diagnostic routine.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessant (US 2021/0007406) in view of Zominy (US 2021/0169150).
Regarding claim 8, Bessant discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Bessant does not explicitly disclose two batteries.
Zominy teaches an electronic cigarette having a first battery, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second power supply, that supplies power to control circuitry, and a second heater that supplies power to an electrical heater, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first power supply. The control system includes a sensor [0035]. Zominy additionally teaches that the control circuit battery uses a lower voltage than the heater battery so that the cigarette can be produced with a wider range of battery types [0009].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Bessant with the multiple batteries of Zominy. One would have been motivated to do so since Zominy teaches an electronic cigarette that can be made with a variety of battery types.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessant (US 2021/0007406) in view of Gallagher (US 2022/0015447).
Regarding claim 9, Bessant discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Bessant does not explicitly disclose a FIFO buffer memory.
Gallagher teaches an electronic vaping device (abstract) in which a plurality of resistance values of a heater (abstract) in which the resistance values are stored in order in a FIFO memory [0007]. The controller accesses the most recent value [0190].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the memory of Bessant with the FIFO memory of Gallagher. One would have been motivated to do so since Gallagher teaches a memory that enables access to the most recently recorded data.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessant (US 2021/0007406) in view of Courbat (US 11,388,932).
Regarding claim 11, Bessant discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Bessant additionally discloses that the heater operates by induction [0044]. Bessant does not explicitly disclose the body comprising an insertion space having an open end and a heater protruding into the insertion space.
Courbat teaches an aerosol generating device having a housing that defines a chamber for insertion of an aerosol generating article and a susceptor element disposed in the insertion space that is heated by induction (abstract). Courbat additionally teaches that this design is robust and inexpensive to manufacture (column 4, lines 8-13).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Bessant with the design of Courbat. One would have been motivated to do so since Courbat teaches a robust and inexpensive design for an induction heater for an aerosol generating device.
Regarding claim 13, Bessant discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Bessant additionally discloses that the heater operates by induction [0044]. Bessant does not explicitly disclose the body comprising an insertion space having an open end and a heater protruding into the insertion space.
Courbat teaches an aerosol generating device having a housing that defines a chamber for insertion of an aerosol generating article and a susceptor element disposed in the insertion space that is heated by induction (abstract). Courbat additionally teaches that this design is robust and inexpensive to manufacture (column 4, lines 8-13). The induction coil is a helical induction coil that surrounds the chamber (column 12, lines 49-63, figure 5, reference numeral 131).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Bessant with the design of Courbat. One would have been motivated to do so since Courbat teaches a robust and inexpensive design for an induction heater for an aerosol generating device.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessant (US 2021/0007406) in view of Ferrie (US 2022/0095692).
Regarding claim 12, Bessant discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Bessant additionally discloses that the aerosol generating substrate is in the form of cartridge [0040] containing a liquid that is heated to form an aerosol [0044]. Bessant does not explicitly disclose the cartridge being contained in a hollow section and being surrounded by the heater.
Ferrie teaches a smoking substitute device (abstract) having an elongate body that receives a consumable [0058] and has a tubular heating element that surrounds the cavity and the aerosol generating article in the cavity [1388]. Ferrie additionally teaches that this design enables heat to be radially transferred to the consumable [0066].
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Bessant with the tube heater of Ferrie. One would have been motivated to do so since Ferrie teaches a heater that radially heats a consumable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 3-5, Prior (US 2009/0121863) teaches a medical alert system (abstract) having a piezo sensor [0060] that functions as a fall detector by detecting severe acceleration forces when a patient falls [0064]. However, Prior does not teach or suggest measuring the force of an impact, but rather the force during a fall.
Sur (US 2017/0156397) teaches an aerosol delivery device including a housing [0003], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a body, a heater ([0043], figure 2, reference numeral 222), a motion sensor that detects defined movement of the device ([0059], figure 2, reference numeral 248) such as freefall [0062], and a memory component [0041]. Data from the motion sensor is communicated to a control component ([0059], figure 2, reference numeral 208) that recognizes a vulnerability of the device [0060] and shuts off the device after detecting the vulnerability [0063]. The defined movement indicates the vulnerability [0059]. The device comprises a power source that supplies power to the device [0008]. The motion sensor may be any number of sensors that detect the defined motion [0059]. However, Sur does not explicitly teach detecting a fall using a piezo sensor.
Steinhauser (EP 3428912, machine translation relied upon) teaches an electric basin device that has a touch sensitive piezo element that forms an additional sensor [0010] that changes its resistance under the influence of pressure and/or force [0045]. However, Steinhauser does not teach or suggest the sensor detecting an impact that does not directly impact it as would be necessary if the device since the orientation upon landing is not predictable.
The prior art does not teach or suggest an aerosol generating device comprising a piezo sensor that determines an amount of impact of the body and, upon determining that the amount of impact is greater than or equal to a second reference value, determine that the body has fallen and store the fall history information in memory.
Regarding claim 10, Sur (US 2017/0156397) an aerosol delivery device including a housing [0003], which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a body, a heater ([0043], figure 2, reference numeral 222), a motion sensor that detects defined movement of the device ([0059], figure 2, reference numeral 248) such as freefall [0062], and a memory component [0041]. Data from the motion sensor is communicated to a control component ([0059], figure 2, reference numeral 208) that recognizes a vulnerability of the device [0060] and shuts off the device after detecting the vulnerability [0063]. The defined movement indicates the vulnerability [0059]. The device comprises a power source that supplies power to the device [0008]. However, Sur does not teach or suggest determining whether the heater is operating prior to shutting off the device.
Bessant (US 2021/0007406) teaches an aerosol generating device having a heater that heats a substrate to generate an aerosol [0044] and an accelerometer that measures acceleration to describe acceleration force applied to the device [0062]. The measured acceleration indicates when a fall of the device begins [0079] and ends [0081]. The acceleration values are received by a controller [0070] that determines whether a fall occurs [0071] and has a memory that stores a fall in it [0128] to facilitate continued use of the device after a fall by diagnosing any damage caused by the fall [0104]. The device may initiate a soft shutdown in which power to some device components is stopped upon detecting a fall [0098]. However, Bessant does not teach or suggest determining whether the heater is operating prior to shutting off power.
The prior art does not teach or suggest an aerosol generating device that determines whether a body has fallen, then determines whether the heater is operating, and only then controls the battery to interrupt the supply of power to the heater.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 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, 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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights