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 § 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.
(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) 1-5 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frake (WO 2020/165450).
Regarding claim 1, Frake discloses, and aerosol-generating device with a hosing comprising
an insertion space (cavity 114),
a capacitance sensor adjacent to the insertion space (electrodes 128, 130 inside the cavity 114),
a memory configured to store a plurality of temperature profiles (i.e. power profiles, controller 124 and page 4, line 25, 26: "The predetermined power profiles may be stored on a memory of the controller.”),
a heater (coil 122) configured to heat a stick inserted into the insertion space,
a controller configured to:
regarding the limitation, “determine the amount of moisture contained in the stick based on a signal received from the capacitance sensor”, “... the controller 124 measures the capacitance of the capacitor formed from the first electrode 128, a portion of the aerosol-forming substrate 142 and the second electrode 130. The measured capacitance provides an indication of the amount of water that is in the portion of the aerosol-forming substrate 142 between the first electrode 128 and the second electrode 130. (page 27, lines 3-7)
Regarding the limitation, “determine a target temperature of the heater based on a temperature profile selected among the stored plurality of temperature profiles based on the determined amount of moisture,” the controller of Frake determines a power profile based on the power profiles based on the determined about of moisture. Frake discloses
a normal power profile applied in a normal operating level (page 5, lines 4-8),
a low power profile which is applied when capacitance measurements indicate the water content are above a normal operating level (page 5, lines 9-25),
A high power profile which is applied in the event when capacitance measurements indicate that the water content of the aerosol-forming substrate is below a normal operating level (page 5, lines 26-33).
Although Frake uses the term power profile and not temperature profile or target temperature, the terms are inherently the same. Frake discloses that:
Controlling the temperature of the heater heating the substrate to generate the aerosol may be achieved by controlling the supply of power to the heater based on the capacitance measurements (page 3, lines 31-33).
Regarding the limitation, “wherein among the stored plurality of temperature profiles, a first target temperature for an initial heating period based on a first temperature profile corresponding to a first moisture amount”, Frake discloses that the moisture amount which has been determined in view of the high power profile, i.e. the capacitance measurements indicated that the water content of the aerosol forming substrate is below a normal operating level, see page 5, lines 26-33. As explained in view of the previous feature, said high power profile is accompanied by a comparatively high temperature, see page 5, lines 29-33: "Increasing the power supplied to the heater to heat a dry aerosol forming substrate may increase the temperature of the aerosol generated from the dry aerosol-forming substrate above the temperature of an aerosol generated from a non-dry aerosol-forming substrate heated by a heater supplied with the normal power profile.
Regarding the limitation, “exceeds a second target temperature for the initial heating period based on a second temperature profile corresponding to a second moisture amount”, Frake discloses that the second moisture amount is represented by the moisture amount which has been determined in view of the low power profile, i.e. the capacitance measurements indicated that the water content of the aerosol-forming substrate is above a normal operating level, see page 5, lines 9-25. As explained in view of the previous features, said low power profile is accompanied by a comparatively low temperature.
Regarding the limitation, “wherein the second moisture amount is larger than the first moisture amount”, the general disclosure of Frake (see discussions above) are based on the second moisture amount, being determined in view of the low power profile, exceeds the first moisture amount, being determined in view of the high power profile.)
Regarding claim 2, Frake discloses that the capacitance is proportional to the moisture content by disclosing that, “A relatively high measure capacitance may be indicative of a relatively high water content. A relatively low measured capacitance may be indicative of a relatively low water content.” (page 2, 21-24).
Regarding claim 3-5, Frake discloses that, “The controller may be configured to vary the supply power from the power supply to the heater [i.e. target temperature] continuously as a function of the measured capacitance. This inherently indicates that the difference in moister between a first and second target temperate are proportional to a difference between the first moisture amount and a second moisture amount as controller would not be able to continuously relate capacitance/moisture to target temperature/power without the parameters being proportional. Please note that proportional is not interpreted as being linear, but instead mathematically related in some way.
Regarding claim 9, Frake discloses that the capacitance sensor can have an annular electrode circumscribing the inner surface (page 26, 13-15).
Regarding claim 10, Frake illustrates that housing 262 shiels the electrode (230).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frake (WO 2020/165450) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaufman et al. (US 20180049469A1).
Regarding claim 6, Frake does not disclose that the capacitance sensor is used to determine if a smoking article is inserted into the device. However, it is known in the art to use capacitance to determine the presence or absence of a smoking article. Kaufman et al. disclose a heating device and smoking article where the apparatus, “has a capacitive sensor arranged to sense a change in capacitance when an article of smokeable material is associated with a housing of the apparatus in use.” (Abstract). The variation in level of the capacitance signal and predetermined thresholds are used to determine if the correct article is present [0067]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention/filing to use the capacitive sensor of Frake to determine if a smoking article is present by using the detection controller functions disclosed by Kaufman et al.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frake (WO 2020/165450) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Benning et al. (WO2021105463A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Frake does not disclose that a light emitting element emits light corresponding to a change of an aerosol in response to the determined amount of moisture being equal to or larger than a predetermined reference amount or a display that outputs a message from the controller related to the use of the stick in response to a determined amount of moisture being equal to or larger than a predermined reference amount and determined whether to supply power to the heater in response to a user input related to the use of the stick.
However, light emitting displays are well known in the art. For instance, Benning et al. disclose a touch-sensitive panel including illuminating elements which has one or more indicators that display the state of the heating element and where the intensity or color of the light indicates the current state (page 22, lines 19-27) including low power states, high power states, etc. (page 22, line 1-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the display of Benning et al. to inform the user of the status of the system, including the change in aerosol in response to moisture as disclosed by Frake, which would change the power level of the heater which Benning et al. teach is displayed. Furthermore, a user would be able to responds to the power level displayed (i.e. moisture level) and would be able to determine whether to supply power to the heater by use input (i.e. turning it off).
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