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
Claims 2 and 12-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/22/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1–11, and Species B, claims 1 and 3–11 in the reply filed on September 22, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Reevell does not teach determining that a puff has been initiated based on an activation period exceeding a threshold because Reevell uses the activation-duration threshold only to determine whether a detected activation should be counted as a valid event for purposes of determining a usage profile.. This is not found persuasive because Reevell teaches determining whether an activation has an activation duration T1 greater than a minimum activation-duration threshold T1min (¶ [0124]). Reevell further teaches that only activations exceeding the minimum activation-duration threshold are stored as valid events, thereby avoiding counting activations that do not correspond to a normal draw (¶ [0126]). Thus, Reevell uses the activation-duration threshold to distinguish valid draw-associated activation events from activations that do not correspond to a normal draw. The subsequent use of those valid events in determining a usage profile does not negate Reevell’s teaching. Accordingly, the common technical feature of determining puff initiation based on an activation period exceeding a threshold does not constitute a special technical feature making a contribution over the prior art..
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reevell et al. (US 2017/0238610 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Reevell teaches an aerosol generating device, comprising:
a heater element (heater 119 comprising at least one heating element; ¶ [0113]);
a temperature sensor (the temperature of the electric heater may be determined by measuring the electrical resistance of the electric heater, which is temperature dependent; ¶ [0103]); and
a control system including thermostatic heater control (electric circuitry configured to control the supply of power to the electric heating element and maintain the electric heater at a desired or predetermined operating temperature based on temperature information; ¶ [0108]).
With respect to the thermostatic heater control configured to activate and deactivate the heater element based on an output of the temperature sensor and thereby maintain the temperature of the heater element within an operating temperature, Reevell teaches that the electrical resistance of the heater is temperature dependent and is monitored by the electric circuitry to determine heater temperature, and that the circuitry controls the supply of power to the heater dependent on the measured resistance, with power supplied intermittently or in pulses (¶ [0103]). Reevell further teaches that temperature information is communicated to the electric circuitry to enable the circuitry to maintain the electric heater at a desired or predetermined operating temperature (¶ [0108]). Thus, Reevell's circuitry activates and deactivates power to the heater based on temperature information to maintain the heater at the desired operating temperature.
Reevell further teaches the control system configured to determine that a puff has been initiated based on determining when an activation period exceeds a threshold (the sensor and electric circuitry determine whether an activation has an activation duration T1 greater than a minimum activation-duration threshold T1min; ¶ [0124]). Reevell teaches that only activations exceeding the minimum activation-duration threshold are treated as valid events, thereby avoiding counting activations that do not correspond to a normal draw (¶ [0126]). Accordingly, Reevell determines a valid draw-associated activation based on the activation period exceeding the threshold, as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Reevell teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1 as set forth above and further teaches wherein the control system is configured to use the determination that a puff has been initiated to control a further function of the aerosol generating device (valid activation events are stored and used to build a usage profile for operation of the aerosol-generating system; ¶ [0126]).
Thus, Reevell uses the determination of a valid draw-associated activation to perform the further function of determining and applying a usage profile of the aerosol-generating device.
Regarding claim 8, Reevell teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 7 as set forth above and further teaches wherein the control system comprises a count function configured to count a number of determinations that a puff has been initiated (the electric circuitry calculates the total number or count C1 of valid activation events stored in the usage log during the monitoring period; ¶ [0127]).
Regarding claim 9, Reevell teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 8 as set forth above and further teaches wherein the count function is configured to be reset at the end of a smoking session.
Reevell teaches calculating count C1 as the total number of valid activation events occurring during the monitoring period (¶ [0127]). Reevell further teaches determining when the usage-profile determination procedure is to end based on the inactivity duration following the previous valid activation (¶ [0129]). Upon termination of that procedure, a subsequent activation begins a new determination procedure and is treated as a new first draw. Accordingly, because count C1 is the count of valid activation events for the particular monitoring procedure, termination of that procedure and initiation of a new procedure necessarily results in a new count for the new smoking session.
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 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell et al. (US 2017/0238610 A1) in view of Moloney et al. (US 2020/0163387 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Reevell teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1 as set forth above, including the control system configured to determine a puff has been initiated based on determining when an activation period exceeds a threshold (the sensor and electric circuitry determine whether an activation has an activation duration T1 greater than a minimum activation-duration threshold T1min; ¶ [0124]).
Reevell does not expressly teach wherein the threshold is based on an average of preceding activation periods. Specifically, although Reevell's sensor and electric circuitry determine whether activation duration T1 exceeds minimum activation-duration threshold T1min (¶ [0124]), Reevell does not teach configuring the electric circuitry to determine T1min based on an average of preceding activation durations.
Reevell and Moloney are in the same field of endeavor, as both concern electronic aerosol-generating devices having control circuitry that monitors user activation duration and uses the activation duration in operation of the device. Moloney teaches a control unit operable to learn a user's expected puff duration by storing the length of time the user activates the device (¶ [0024]). Moloney further teaches calculating an average puff duration by calculating the cumulative total duration of the puffs and dividing by the total number of puffs (¶ [0025]). Thus, Moloney teaches determining an expected puff duration based on an average of preceding activation periods, providing the manner of determining the activation-duration threshold that Reevell lacks.
It has been held that applying a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way supports a conclusion of obviousness where the results would have been predictable. MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the programming of Reevell's electric circuitry such that T1min is based on Moloney's learned average puff duration, thereby making Reevell's threshold responsive to the user's usage behavior (¶ [0025]). Modified Reevell would thus determine whether activation duration T1 exceeds a threshold based on an average of preceding activation periods, as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, modified Reevell teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 3 as set forth above, but does not expressly teach wherein the average is an average of a fixed number of preceding activation periods.
Moloney teaches that the average puff duration may be calculated using a limited number of preceding puffs, such as the last 100 puffs or the last 10 puffs, with the memory storing the last N puff durations (¶ [0025]). Thus, Moloney teaches calculating the average using a fixed number of preceding activation periods, as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the programming of Reevell's electric circuitry according to Moloney such that the average used to determine T1min is calculated from a fixed number of preceding activation periods, thereby making the learned puff duration responsive to the user's recent usage behavior (¶ [0025]). Modified Reevell would thus determine the threshold based on an average of a fixed number of preceding activation periods, as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, modified Reevell teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 3 as set forth above, but does not expressly teach wherein the threshold is determined as a fixed offset from the average of preceding activation periods.
Moloney teaches determining an expected puff duration from the user's average puff duration and setting the period for which power is supplied to the heater to a predetermined period shorter than the expected puff duration, for example, 0.3 seconds shorter (¶ [0026]). Thus, Moloney teaches deriving a duration value using a fixed temporal offset from the learned average puff duration.
It has been held that applying a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way supports a conclusion of obviousness where the results would have been predictable. MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the programming of Reevell's electric circuitry according to Moloney such that T1min is determined using a fixed temporal offset from the learned average puff duration, thereby providing a predetermined relationship between the threshold and the user's learned puff duration (¶ [0026]). Modified Reevell would thus determine the threshold as a fixed offset from the average of preceding activation periods, as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, modified Reevell teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 3 as set forth above, but does not expressly teach wherein the threshold is determined as a percentage increase of the average of preceding activation periods.
Moloney teaches calculating an average puff duration by calculating the cumulative total duration of preceding puffs and dividing by the total number of puffs (¶ [0025]). Moloney further teaches deriving another duration relative to the learned expected puff duration by applying a predetermined offset to that duration (¶ [0026]). Thus, Moloney teaches both calculating the average of preceding puff durations and deriving an operating duration relative to that calculated value.
Although Moloney expresses the offset as a fixed temporal amount rather than a percentage, calculating the offset as a percentage of the already-calculated average would have been a routine mathematical implementation of the same relative-duration relationship. Expressing the offset proportionally would predictably cause the magnitude of the offset to vary with the user's learned average puff duration rather than remain constant.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the programming of Reevell's electric circuitry according to Moloney to calculate T1min using an offset expressed as a percentage increase of the calculated average rather than as a fixed temporal amount. Such a modification would have involved a routine mathematical calculation using values already calculated by the controller and would predictably provide an offset proportional to the user's average activation duration. Modified Reevell would thereby determine the threshold as a percentage increase of the average of preceding activation periods, as claimed.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Reevell et al. (US 2017/0238610 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2023/0098940 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Reevell teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 9 as set forth above, including a control system that calculates a total count C1 of valid activation events stored in the usage log during the monitoring period (¶ [0127]). Reevell further teaches comparing total count C1 with threshold count C2 to determine the usage profile (¶ [0128]).
Reevell does not expressly teach wherein if a minimum count has not been reached during the smoking session, the control system is configured to extend the smoking session. Specifically, although Reevell determines whether count C1 has reached threshold count C2, Reevell does not teach using failure to reach C2 to extend the smoking session.
Reevell and Lee are in the same field of endeavor, as both concern aerosol-generating devices having controllers that regulate operation based on user smoking behavior. Lee recognizes that when operation is based on a preset smoking time, heating may end regardless of the number of puffs taken, such that the smoking time may end before the aerosol-generating material has been exhausted (¶ [0003]). Lee further teaches that users may not smoke sufficiently during a predetermined first time period because puff patterns differ between users and, in response, provides the user with an additional smoking time after expiration of the first time period (¶ [0088]). Lee's controller continues heating during the additional period (¶ [0090]). Thus, Lee teaches extending a smoking session when the ordinary smoking period would otherwise terminate before sufficient smoking has occurred.
It has been held that applying a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way supports a conclusion of obviousness where the results would have been predictable. MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the programming of Reevell's electric circuitry such that, when count C1 has not reached threshold count C2, the smoking session is extended according to Lee's additional smoking period, thereby permitting further smoking before termination of the session (¶ [0088]). Modified Reevell would thus extend the smoking session when a minimum count has not been reached, as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Reevell teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1 as set forth above, but does not expressly teach wherein the device comprises an elongate body and an end of the body configured for engagement with an aerosol-forming article, and wherein the heater is configured for insertion into the aerosol-forming article.
Reevell and Lee are in the same field of endeavor, as both concern aerosol-generating devices having a heater for heating an aerosol-forming article. Lee teaches an aerosol-generating device 1 into which cigarette 2 is inserted (¶ [0027]), and Figures 1-3 show the aerosol-generating device as an elongate body receiving cigarette 2 at an end thereof. Lee further teaches that heater 13 may include a needle-type or rod-type heating element (¶ [0035]). Lee expressly teaches an arrangement in which heater 13 is inserted into cigarette 2 (¶ [0036]). Thus, Lee teaches the claimed elongate body, end configured for engagement with the aerosol-forming article, and heater configured for insertion into the aerosol-forming article.
It has been held that applying a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way supports a conclusion of obviousness where the results would have been predictable. MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reevell's aerosol-generating device according to Lee such that the device includes an elongate body having an end configured to receive the aerosol-forming article and a heater configured for insertion into the article. Modified Reevell would thereby provide the body and heater configuration recited in claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
