DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “determine a predetermined storage space” should be “determine a storage space”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2-3 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim requires the processor to be configured to “based on the predetermined event corresponding to the predetermined error event: restrict the changing of the setting of the storage area”. However, claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, requires the processor to be configured such that “the setting of the storage area is changed by the at least one processor, based on the predetermined event corresponding to a predetermined error event.” As such, claim 2 appears contradictory as it requires the processor to be configured to both change and restrict the changing of the setting of the storage area based on the predetermined event corresponding to the predetermined error event. One having ordinary skill in the art would not understand how to resolve this apparent contradiction. For the purpose of this Office action, claim 2 is interpreted as “The aerosol-generating device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine an area of the plurality of areas other than a restricted area to be the storage area.”
Claim 3 is indefinite due to its dependence from claim 2.
Further regarding claim 3, the claim requires the processor to be configured to “based on the changing of the setting of the storage area being restricted . . . determine the storage area”. “Changing of the setting of the storage area being restricted” implies that the setting of the storage area cannot be changed which is contradictory to claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, which requires the processor to be configured such that “the setting of the storage area is changed”. One having ordinary skill in the art would not understand how to resolve this apparent contradiction. For the purpose of this Office action, claim 3 is interpreted as “The aerosol-generating device according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to change the setting of the storage area based on previous events.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariacher et al. (US 2024/0054042 A1) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2010/0088541 A1, corresponding to JP 2010/092107 A provided by applicant with IDS filed 7/14/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Mariacher discloses an aerosol-generating device (“aerosol-generating device 200A”, Fig. 2A, ¶ 0117) comprising:
a heater (“heating element 230”, Fig. 2A, ¶ 0118) configured to heat an aerosol-generating substance (“The heating element 230 is configured to heat the aerosol forming substrate to form an aerosol”, ¶ 0118);
a memory (“memory 280”, Fig. 2A, ¶ 0123) configured to store histories of events occurring in the aerosol-generating device (“save an error data entry associated with the error occurrence in memory 280”, ¶ 0123); and
at least one processor (“control unit 120”, Fig. 2A, ¶ 0123) configured to:
based on an occurrence of a predetermined event, store a history of the predetermined event in the memory (“control unit 120 is configured to receive an indication of an error occurrence in aerosol-generating device 200A, 200B and to save an error data entry associated with the error occurrence in memory 280”, ¶ 0123).
However, Mariacher does not disclose that the memory is configured to store histories at a plurality of areas, wherein each of the plurality of areas comprises a plurality of storage spaces for storing the histories and that the processor is configured to store the history of the predetermined event at a predetermined area of the plurality of areas that is set to a storage area wherein the setting of the storage area is changed by the at least one processor based on the predetermined event corresponding to a predetermined error event.
Tanaka, in the field of storing errors in memory, discloses that memories may be formed to have a plurality of areas (“plurality of lower storage areas”, ¶ 0010), wherein each of the plurality of areas comprises a plurality of storage spaces for storing histories (“free spaces”, ¶ 0081) and a processor (“failure information processing unit 5” which includes “a data extracting unit 51, a failure classification unit 52, an area control unit 53, and a data storage unit 54”, ¶ 0032) configured to, based on an occurrence of a predetermined event, store a history of the predetermined event at a predetermined area of the plurality of areas that is set to a storage area (“The data storage unit stores the extracted failure information in the determined storage location”, ¶ 0010),
wherein the setting of the storage area is changed by the at least one processor, based on the predetermined event corresponding to a predetermined error event (“when the failure level is a serious level (S1 Yes) . . . . the area control unit 53 selects one of the free lower storage areas from one of the upper storage areas, assigns the lower storage area to the own storage area, and sets the usage information of the selected lower storage area to used (step S5)”, ¶ 0093-0097). Tanaka discloses a benefit for this memory allocation process in that it better preserves the histories of error events (“it is possible prevent overwriting other failure information by the new failure information”, ¶ 0025). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the processor and memory configuration of Tanaka for the processor and memory of Mariacher, in order to obtain this benefit.
Although Tanaka is in the field of storing errors in memory, it is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which Mariacher (and the current application) was concerned (i.e., storing errors in memory). One of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to prior art concerning storing errors in memory because Mariacher teaches using storing errors in memory (see MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I)).
Regarding claim 2, Mariacher in view of Tanaka discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 1, as discussed above. Tanaka further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine an area of the plurality of areas other than a restricted area to be the storage area (“the area control unit 53 selects one of the free lower storage areas from one of the upper storage areas” and “assigns the lower storage area to the own storage area”, ¶ 0097).
Regarding claim 3, Mariacher in view of Tanaka discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 2, as discussed above. Tanaka further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to change the setting of the storage area based on previous events (when previous error events have been stored in the storage spaces such that there is insufficient storage space in the storage area, Tanaka discloses changing the setting of the storage area; “When there is free space in the own storage area . . . . The failure information can be stored in the memory without overwriting the failure information previously stored in the lower storage area, since there is a free space in the lower storage area corresponding to the failure information.”, ¶ 0094, and “When there is no free space in the own storage area corresponding to the failure information . . . . the area control unit 53 selects one of the free lower storage areas from one of the upper storage areas, assigns the lower storage area to the own storage area, and sets the usage information of the selected lower storage area to used”, ¶ 0095-0097).
Regarding claim 4, Mariacher in view of Tanaka discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 1, as discussed above. Tanaka further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
based on a history of a previous event being present at a predetermined storage space of the predetermined area, remove the history of the previous event from the predetermined storage space; and store the history of the predetermined event at the predetermined storage space (“When the failure level is not a serious level (S1 No), the area control unit 53 ends the processing. The storage area is not changed regardless of whether there is any free space in the storage area. Therefore, there is a possibility that the failure information previously stored in the storage area is overwritten and lost. However, the overwritten failure information is not important, and does not affect the failure analysis”, ¶ 0092).
Regarding claim 5, Mariacher in view of Tanaka discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 1, as discussed above. Mariacher further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
based on histories of events being present at all of the storage spaces of the predetermined area, determine a storage space for storing the history of the predetermined event according to an order in which the histories were stored (“Error data log 118 may be configured as a ring buffer such that a fixed number of error data entries are kept and older data entries are overwritten by newer error data entries”, ¶ 0083).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mariacher et al. (US 2024/0054042 A1) in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2010/0088541 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujita et al. (US 2022/0071300 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Mariacher in view of Tanaka discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 1, as discussed above. However, Mariacher in view of Tanaka does not disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to interrupt supply of power to the heater based on at least a predetermined number of histories of error events being stored at the plurality of areas.
Fujita, in the same field of endeavor, discloses storing histories of error events in memory (“the memory 80 stores electric-power-source use history information including the total number of times of supply of electric power and the number of times of normal supply of electric power that are counted by the controller 50 and used for judging the state of the electric power source part 20. Further, it stores electric-power-source abnormality information that is determined based on the total number of times of supply of electric power, when the state of the electric power source part 20 is judged as ‘electric-power-source abnormality.’”, ¶ 0062) and interrupts the supply of power based on at least a predetermined number of histories of error events being stored (“the controller 50 judges whether a difference (the number of times of non-counted cases) between the total number of times of supply of electric power and the number of times of normal supply of electric power has reached a predetermined threshold number of times. That is, the state of the electric power source part 20 is judged as ‘electric-power-source abnormality’”, ¶ 0100, and “the controller 50 prohibits the electric power supplying operation, that is performed by the electric power source part 20, in the case of ‘electric-power-source abnormality’”, ¶ 0087). Fujita also discloses a benefit to this configuration in that it improves safety (“The controller in the inhaler can improve safety relating to a user, by prohibiting the electric power supplying operation of the electric power source part”, ¶ 0014). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to interrupt the supply of power to the heater based on at least a predetermined number of histories of error events being stored at the plurality of areas, in order to obtain this benefit.
Regarding claim 7, Mariacher in view of Tanaka discloses the aerosol-generating device according to claim 1, as discussed above. However, Mariacher in view of Tanaka does not disclose an output device wherein the at least one processor is further configured to output a message indicating an abnormal state of the aerosol-generating device through the output device based on at least a predetermined number of histories of error events being stored at the plurality of areas.
Fujita, in the same field of endeavor, discloses storing histories of error events in memory (“the memory 80 stores electric-power-source use history information including the total number of times of supply of electric power and the number of times of normal supply of electric power that are counted by the controller 50 and used for judging the state of the electric power source part 20. Further, it stores electric-power-source abnormality information that is determined based on the total number of times of supply of electric power, when the state of the electric power source part 20 is judged as ‘electric-power-source abnormality’”, ¶ 0062) and outputs a message indicating an abnormal state of the device through an output device (“LED”, ¶ 0080) based on the predetermined number of histories (“in the case that the state of the electric power source part 20 is judged as “electric-power-source abnormality” in step S18, it is possible to make the notifier 60 perform notification according to a range in which the total number of times of supply of electric power (N) is included. Specifically, the LED is activated to emit red light in the case of 1≤N<100”, ¶ 0080). Fujita also discloses a benefit to this configuration in that it allows a user to better understand the operating state of the device (“by providing notification representing the states of the electric power source part 20 in various modes, it becomes possible to make a user be able to intuitively grasp the state of the electric power source part”, ¶ 0082). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include an output device in the aerosol-generating device of the combination of Mariacher and Tanaka and to configure the processor to output a message indicating an abnormal state of the aerosol-generating device through the output device based on at least a predetermined number of histories of error events being stored at the plurality of areas, as taught by Fujita, in order to obtain this benefit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY G CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0874. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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.
/COURTNEY G CULBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights