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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 16-31 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claims 1-15 are canceled. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg. 33, Line 33: "airflow channel 108" should read "airflow channel 102"
Pg. 38, Line 20: "heater element 210" should read "heating element 211"
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3: "predetermined range of values" should read "predetermined ranges of values"
Lines 2-3: “values for the or each characteristic” should read “values for the at least one characteristic”
Line 3: “values for the or each characteristic” should read “values for the at least one characteristic”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3: "predetermined range of values" should read "predetermined ranges of values"
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 12: "predetermined range of values" should read "predetermined ranges of values"
Lines 11-12: “values for the or each characteristic” should read “values for the at least one characteristic”
Line 12: “values for the or each characteristic” should read “values for the at least one characteristic”
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.
Claim 28 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.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the aerosol generating device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examining, "the aerosol generating device" will be interpreted as "the aerosol generating system".
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.
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.
Claims 16, 19, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (EP 3085250 A1, as cited in IDS dated 07/10/2024), and further in view of Slurink (WO 2016039625 A1, as cited in IDS dated 07/10/2024).
PNG
media_image1.png
300
403
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 16, Smith, directed to a process of testing an electronic smoking device teaches, (i) an intake chamber (14) that extends from an inlet port (12), wherein the inlet port (12) comprises an opening into which a mouth end side of a cigarette (2) is inserted [0038, 0044]. Aerosol passes from the inlet port (12) through an optical measurement device (20) toward the intake chamber (14, [0038]). The flow of air from the inlet port (12), through the optical measurement device (20), to the intake chamber (14) meets the claim limitation of an airflow channel. (ii) The device comprises a first detector (26) which can sense a light emitted by a light source (24) in the form of a laser or LED [0038]. The light is emitted through aerosol (22) which passes through the inlet port (12, [0038]). A second detector (28) receives and detects the light emitted by the light source (24) and scattered by the aerosol [0038].
(iii) Smith further teaches a piston (16), meeting the claim limitation of a pump assembly. When a first pinch valve is open and a second pinch valve is closed, the piston (16) is moved to increase the volume of an intake chamber (14), producing a vacuum that causes the e-cigarette to general aerosol [0045], meeting the claim limitation of a first configuration. The aerosol is drawn from the mouth-sided end of the cigarette (2) at the inlet port (12) and passes through the optical measurement device (20) toward the intake chamber (14, [0045-0047 & 0036-0038]. (iv) The optical measurement device (20), meeting the claim limitation of a controller, may be used to measure at least one optical property of the device [0028]. The optical measurement device (20) includes the first and second detectors (26 & 28), wherein an output signal of the second detector (28) can produce a scattered result and be corrected by the first detector (26) to provide a measurement of aerosol visibility [0055].
(v) The device further comprises a silicone tube opening as the casing of the optical measurement device (20) to permit controlled exhaust of aerosol and first and second pinch valves [0039], meeting the claim limitation of a valve assembly. (vi) When the second pinch valve opens, the piston (16) decreases the volume of the intake chamber (14) and causes residual aerosol in the chamber to be expelled back into the optical measurement device [0048], relating to the claim limitation of a second configuration. (vii) During the first configuration, the first pinch valve in communication with the inlet port (12, [0039]) is opened and the second pinch valve in communication with the silicon tube mounted at the casing of the optical measurement device (20) is closed while the piston (16) creates a vacuum [0045]. (viii) After inhalation, the first pinch valve is closed and at the end of a hold period, the second pinch valve opens before the piston (16) reverses flow through the device [0047-0048]. Smith teaches all the limitations as set forth above, however Smith is silent to:
Wherein the pump assembly is configured to draw purge air through the airflow channel
Wherein the pump assembly, in a third configuration of the testing apparatus, is configured to draw purge air through the airflow channel in the first direction
When the testing apparatus is in the third configuration, the first channel opening is closed and the second channel opening is open
Slurink, directed to a testing apparatus and method of vaporizers, teaches (i) wherein environmental air is drawn into a duct and flushes and removes previously drawn vapor from a sensing region (Pg. 5, Lines 24-28) to promote stabilization of flow characteristics (Pg. 6, Lines 3-4). (ii) A fluid pump creates flow from an inlet port through the fluid duct (60, Pg. 14, Lines 10-16). When a second channel is aligned, environmental air is drawn through the same duct in the same normal flowing direction (Pg. 5, Lines 15-32). (iii) One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the configuration of Slurink and the valve operation of Smith to prevent or minimize turbulence in the fluid duct, allowing operation of the sensor to be more accurate (Pg. 6, Lines 3-5).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the testing apparatus of Smith to wherein the pump assembly is configured to draw purge air through the airflow channel, wherein the pump assembly, in a third configuration of the testing apparatus, is configured to draw purge air through the airflow channel in the first direction, and when the testing apparatus is in the third configuration, the first channel opening is closed and the second channel opening is open because both Smith and Slurink are directed to testing apparatuses for aerosol generating devices. Slurink teaches using a second channel to draw environmental air through a fluid duct after testing, flushing residual vapor to promote stabilization of flow characteristics (Pg. 6, Lines 3-4) and prevent or minimize turbulence in the fluid duct and this merely involves the use of a known airflow technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
With regard to Claim 19, Smith teaches wherein the optical measurement device includes a light source and detectors to measure the attenuation of light emitted from the light source and passing through aerosol [0016].
With regard to Claim 24, Smith teaches wherein the optical measurement device may include a light source that is an LED source [0016].
PNG
media_image1.png
300
403
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 25, Smith, directed to a process of testing an electronic smoking device teaches, (i) receiving a mouth-end side of a cigarette (2) at an inlet port (12, [0044]). Aerosol passes from the inlet port (12) through the optical measurement device (20) toward an intake chamber (14, [0038]). The flow of air from the inlet port (12), through the optical measurement device (20), to the intake chamber (14) meets the claim limitation of an airflow channel. (ii) Smith further teaches a piston (16), meeting the claim limitation of a pump assembly. When a first pinch valve is open and a second pinch valve is closed, the piston (16) is moved to increase the volume of an intake chamber (14), producing a vacuum that causes the e-cigarette to general aerosol [0045], meeting the claim limitation of a first configuration. The aerosol is drawn from the mouth-sided end of the cigarette (2) at the inlet port (12) and passes through the optical measurement device (20) toward the intake chamber (14, [0045-0047 & 0036-0038].
(iii) The optical measurement device (20), including the first and second detectors (26 & 28), may be used to measure at least one optical property of the device [0028], wherein an output signal of the second detector (28) can produce a scattered result and be corrected by the first detector (26) to provide a measurement of the aerosol visibility [0055]. (iv) When the second pinch valve opens, the piston (16) decreases the volume of the intake chamber (14) and causes residual aerosol in the chamber to be expelled back into the optical measurement device [0048], relating to the claim limitation of a second configuration. (v) During the first configuration, the first pinch valve in communication with the inlet port (12, [0039]) is opened and the second pinch valve in communication with the silicon tube mounted at the casing of the optical measurement device (20) is closed while the piston (16) creates a vacuum [0045]. (vi) During the second configuration, after inhalation, the first pinch valve is closed and at the end of the hold period, the second pinch valve opens before the piston (16) reverses flow through the device [0047-0048]. Modified Smith teaches all the limitations as set forth above, however Smith is silent to:
Drawing purge air through the airflow channel in the opposite direction
Using the pump assembly, in a third configuration of the testing apparatus, drawing purge air through the airflow channel in the first direction
When the testing apparatus is in the third configuration, the first channel opening is closed and the second channel opening is open
Slurink, directed to a testing apparatus and method of vaporizers, teaches (i) wherein environmental air is drawn into a duct and flushes and removes previously drawn vapor from a sensing region (Pg. 5, Lines 24-28) to promote stabilization of flow characteristics (Pg. 6, Lines 3-4). (ii) A fluid pump creates flow from an inlet port through the fluid duct (60, Pg. 14, Lines 10-16). When the second channel is aligned, environmental air is drawn through the same duct in the same normal flowing direction (Pg. 5, Lines 15-32). (iii) One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the configuration of Slurink and the valve operation of Smith to prevent or minimize turbulence in the fluid duct, allowing operation of the sensor to be more accurate (Pg. 6, Lines 3-5).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of using the testing apparatus of Smith to comprise drawing purge air through the airflow channel, using the pump assembly, in a third configuration of the testing apparatus, to draw purge air through the airflow channel in the first direction, and when the testing apparatus is in the third configuration, the first channel opening is closed and the second channel opening is open because both Smith and Slurink are directed to testing apparatuses for aerosol generating devices. Slurink teaches using a second channel to draw environmental air through a fluid duct after testing, flushing residual vapor to promote stabilization of flow characteristics (Pg. 6, Lines 3-4) and prevent or minimize turbulence in the fluid duct and this merely involves the use of a known airflow technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
Claims 17, 18, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (EP 3085250 A1, as cited in IDS dated 07/10/2024) and Slurink (WO 2016039625 A1, as cited in IDS dated 07/10/2024), as applied to claims 16 and 25 above, and further in view of Xiang (US 20140300480 A1, as cited in IDS dated 07/10/2024).
With regard to Claim 17, modified Smith teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Smith is silent to:
Wherein the controller is configured to compare the at least one determined characteristic to one or more predetermined values for the or each characteristics or one or more predetermined range of values for the or each characteristic
Xiang, directed to a tester for an electronic cigarette, teaches a control device that receives a test result from a test device, determines a value of pumped smoke amount from the test result, and compares the received value with a minimum smoke amount [0009]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the comparison testing of Xiang to the controller of modified Smith to provide a quantified and reliable evaluation of the electronic cigarette's smoke output and ensure product quality [0005-0006].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller of Smith to wherein the controller is configured to compare the at least one determined characteristic to one or more predetermined values for the or each characteristics or one or more predetermined range of values for the or each characteristic because both Smith and Xiang are directed to testing apparatuses for aerosol generating devices. Xiang teaches a control device that compares a tested result with a minimum value to provide a quantified and reliable evaluation of the electronic cigarette's smoke output and ensure product quality [0005-0006] and this merely involves the use of a known measuring technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
With regard to Claim 18, modified Smith teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Smith is silent to:
Wherein the controller is configured to determine that the aerosol-generating system is defective if at least one of the determined characteristics is not equal to one of the predetermined values for that characteristic or does not fall within one of the predetermined ranges of values for that characteristic
Xiang teaches wherein the control device determines the smoke amount from a test result from a light receive and compares it with minimum smoke amount [0016]. If the predetermined minimum amount is not met, Xiang recognizes that there may be a quality problem in the electronic cigarette [0043] and further identifies the product as failing testing [0033]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the comparison testing of Xiang to the controller of modified Smith to provide a quantified and reliable evaluation of the electronic cigarette and ensure good product quality [0005-0006].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller of Smith to wherein the controller is configured to determine that the aerosol-generating system is defective if at least one of the determined characteristics is not equal to one of the predetermined values for that characteristic or does not fall within one of the predetermined ranges of values for that characteristic because both Smith and Xiang are directed to testing apparatuses for aerosol generating devices. Xiang teaches a control device that compares a tested result with a minimum value to determine if an electronic cigarette has a quality problem to provide a quantified and reliable evaluation of the electronic cigarette and ensure product quality [0005-0006] and this merely involves the use of a known measuring technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
With regard to Claim 26, modified Smith teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Smith is silent to:
Comparing the at least one determined characteristic to one or more predetermined values for the or each characteristics or one or more predetermined range of values for the or each characteristic
Xiang, directed to a tester for an electronic cigarette, teaches a control device that receives a test result from a test device, determines a value of pumped smoke amount from the test result, and compares the received value with a minimum smoke amount [0009]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the comparison testing of Xiang to the controller of modified Smith to provide a quantified and reliable evaluation of the electronic cigarette's smoke output and ensure product quality [0005-0006].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of the testing apparatus of Smith to compare the at least one determined characteristic to one or more predetermined values for the or each characteristics or one or more predetermined range of values for the or each characteristic because both Smith and Xiang are directed to testing apparatuses for aerosol generating devices. Xiang teaches a control device that compares a tested result with a minimum value to provide a quantified and reliable evaluation of the electronic cigarette's smoke output and ensure product quality [0005-0006] and this merely involves the use of a known measuring technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
With regard to Claim 27, modified Smith teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Smith is silent to:
Determining that the aerosol-generating system is defective if at least one of the determined characteristics is not equal to one of the predetermined values for that characteristic or does not fall within one of the predetermined ranges of values for that characteristic
Xiang teaches wherein the control device determines the smoke amount from a test result from a light receive and compares it with minimum smoke amount [0016]. If the minimum is not met, Xiang recognizes that there may be a quality problem in the electronic cigarette [0043] and further identifies the product as failing testing [0033]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the comparison testing of Xiang to the controller of modified Smith to provide a quantified and reliable evaluation of the electronic cigarette and ensure product quality [0005-0006].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Smith to determine that the aerosol-generating system is defective if at least one of the determined characteristics is not equal to one of the predetermined values for that characteristic or does not fall within one of the predetermined ranges of values for that characteristic because both Smith and Xiang are directed to testing apparatuses for aerosol generating devices. Xiang teaches a control device that compares a tested result with a minimum value to determine if an electronic cigarette has a quality problem to provide a quantified and reliable evaluation of the electronic cigarette and ensure product quality [0005-0006] and this merely involves the use of a known measuring technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (EP 3085250 A1, as cited in IDS dated 07/10/2024) and Slurink (WO 2016039625 A1, as cited in IDS dated 07/10/2024), as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Leadley (US 20210392957 A1).
With regard to Claim 20, modified Smith teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Smith is silent to:
Wherein the sensing assembly further comprises a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of a portion of the airflow channel
Leadley, directed to a temperature regulating system, teaches a temperature sensor located in or adjacent to the air path [0039]. In an embodiment, Leadley teaches a temperature sensor thermally coupled to the vapor flow path at the mouthpiece [0079] to alleviate problems of vapor being too hot for a user and provide feedback to mitigate the problem [0005-0006].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensing assembly of modified Smith further comprise a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of a portion of the airflow channel because both Smith and Leadley are directed to sensing in aerosol generating devices. Leadley teaches a temperature sensor to alleviate the problem of vapor being too hot and provide feedback to mitigate the problem [0005-0006] and this merely involves the use of a known sensing device to improve a similar device in the same way.
With regard to Claim 21, modified Smith teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Smith is silent to:
Wherein a second characteristic of the aerosol determined by the controller is temperature
Leadley teaches a processor that reduces a vapor temperature at the mouthpiece based on sensor data from the temperature sensor [0079-0080] to alleviate the problem of vapor being too hot and provide feedback to mitigate the problem [0005-0006].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the testing apparatus of modified Smith a second characteristic of the aerosol determined by the controller is temperature because both Smith and Leadley are directed to sensing in aerosol generating devices. Leadley teaches a processor that reduces a vapor temperature based on data received from a temperature sensor to alleviate the problem of vapor being too hot and provide feedback to mitigate the problem [0005-0006] and this merely involves the use of a known sensing device to improve a similar device in the same way.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (EP 3085250 A1, as cited in IDS dated 07/10/2024) and Slurink (WO 2016039625 A1, as cited in IDS dated 07/10/2024), as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Slayford (“A Device to Measure A Smokers Puffing Topography”, as cited in IDS dated 10/17/2024).
With regard to Claim 22, modified Smith teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Smith is silent to:
Wherein the sensing assembly further comprises a pressure sensor configured to measure a pressure in a portion of the airflow channel
Slayford, directed to a device measuring topography and delivery, teaches pressure transducers that measures a pressure difference across and orifice within a holder and a second pressure transducer measures the pressure within the holder relative to the atmosphere (Pg. 77, "Description of the SA7", Para. 1, Lines 1-10). One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the holder function as an airflow passage and would have been motivated to modify the testing apparatus of modified Smith to help explain anomalies and provide a second reliable estimate (Pg. 74, "Summary", Lines 24-27).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sensing assembly of modified Smith to further comprise a pressure sensor configured to measure a pressure in a portion of the airflow channel because both Smith and Slayford are directed to sensing mechanisms in aerosol related delivery. Slayford teaches pressure transducers that measure a pressure within a flow path to help explain anomalies and provide a second reliable estimate (Pg. 74, "Summary", Lines 24-27) and this merely involves the use of a known sensing technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
With regard to Claim 23, modified Smith teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Smith is silent to:
Wherein a third characteristic determined by the controller is a pressure drop
Slayford teaches measuring the difference in pressure across an orifice inside a cigarette holder with a pressure transducer (Pg. 77, "Description of the SA7", Para. 1, Lines 1-10). The pressure differences are measured repeatedly and converted to flow values by the data acquisition system and processed for calculation of the pressure information (Pg. 77, "Description of the SA7", Para. 2, Lines 1-4). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the sensing techniques of Slayford to the controller of modified Smith to help explain anomalies in the device and provide a reliable estimate (Pg. 74, "Summary", Lines 24-27).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the testing apparatus of modified Smith to wherein a third characteristic determined by the controller is a pressure drop because both Smith and Slayford are directed to sensing mechanisms in aerosol related delivery. Slayford teaches pressure transducers that measure a pressure difference within a flow path to help explain anomalies and provide a second reliable estimate (Pg. 74, "Summary", Lines 24-27) and this merely involves applying a known sensing technique to a known aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (EP 3085250 A1, as cited in IDS dated 07/10/2024) and Slurink (WO 2016039625 A1, as cited in IDS dated 07/10/2024), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Xiang (US 20140300480 A1, as cited in IDS dated 07/10/2024).
PNG
media_image1.png
300
403
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 28, Smith, directed to a process of testing an electronic smoking device teaches, (i) receiving a mouth-end side of a cigarette (2) at an inlet port (12, [0044]). Aerosol passes from the inlet port (12) through the optical measurement device (20) toward an intake chamber (14, [0038]). The flow of air from the inlet port (12), through the optical measurement device (20), to the intake chamber (14) meets the claim limitation of an airflow channel. (ii) Smith further teaches a piston (16), meeting the claim limitation of a pump assembly. When a first pinch valve is open and a second pinch valve is closed, the piston (16) is moved to increase the volume of an intake chamber (14), producing a vacuum that causes the e-cigarette to general aerosol [0045], meeting the claim limitation of a first configuration. The aerosol is drawn from the mouth-sided end of the cigarette (2) at the inlet port (12) and passes through the optical measurement device (20) toward the intake chamber (14, [0045-0047 & 0036-0038].
(iii) The optical measurement device (20), including the first and second detectors (26 & 28), may be used to measure at least one optical property of the device [0028], wherein an output signal of the second detector (28) can produce a scattered result and be corrected by the first detector (26) to provide a measurement of the aerosol visibility [0055]. (iv) When the second pinch valve opens, the piston (16) decreases the volume of the intake chamber (14) and causes residual aerosol in the chamber to be expelled back into the optical measurement device [0048], relating to the claim limitation of a second configuration. (v) During the first configuration, the first pinch valve in communication with the inlet port (12, [0039]) is opened and the second pinch valve in communication with the silicon tube mounted at the casing of the optical measurement device (20) is closed while the piston (16) creates a vacuum [0045]. (vi) During the second configuration, after inhalation, the first pinch valve is closed and at the end of the hold period, the second pinch valve opens before the piston (16) reverses flow through the device [0047-0048]. Modified Smith teaches all the limitations as set forth above, however Smith is silent to:
Comparing the at least one determined characteristic to one or more predetermined values for the or each characteristics or one or more predetermined range of values for the or each characteristic
Determining that the aerosol-generating system is defective if at least one of the determined characteristics is not equal to one of the predetermined values for that characteristic or does not fall within one of the predetermined ranges of values for that characteristic
Drawing purge air through the airflow channel in the opposite direction
Using the pump assembly, in a third configuration of the testing apparatus, drawing purge air through the airflow channel in the first direction
When the testing apparatus is in the third configuration, the first channel opening is closed and the second channel opening is open
In regards to i. and ii., Xiang, directed to a tester for an electronic cigarette, teaches (i) a control device that receives a test result from a test device, determines a value of pumped smoke amount from the test result, and compares the received value with a minimum smoke amount [0009]. (ii) If the minimum is not met, Xiang recognizes that there may be a quality problem in the electronic cigarette [0043] and further identifies the product as failing testing [0033]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the comparison testing of Xiang to the controller of modified Smith to provide a quantified and reliable evaluation of the electronic cigarette and ensure product quality [0005-0006].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Smith to compare the at least one determined characteristic to one or more predetermined values for the or each characteristics or one or more predetermined range of values for the or each characteristic and determine that the aerosol-generating system is defective if at least one of the determined characteristics is not equal to one of the predetermined values for that characteristic or does not fall within one of the predetermined ranges of values for that characteristic because both Smith and Xiang are directed to testing apparatuses for aerosol generating devices. Xiang teaches a control device that compares a tested result with a minimum value and determines the quality of a device to provide a quantified and reliable evaluation of the electronic cigarette's smoke output and ensure product quality [0005-0006] and this merely involves the use of a known measuring technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
In regards to iii., iv., and v., Slurink, directed to a testing apparatus and method of vaporizers, teaches (iii) wherein environmental air is drawn into a duct and flushes and removes previously drawn vapor from a sensing region (Pg. 5, Lines 24-28) to promote stabilization of flow characteristics (Pg. 6, Lines 3-4). (iv) A fluid pump creates flow from an inlet port through the fluid duct (60, Pg. 14, Lines 10-16). When the second channel is aligned, environmental air is drawn through the same duct in the same normal flowing direction (Pg. 5, Lines 15-32). (v) One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the configuration of Slurink and the valve operation of Smith to prevent or minimize turbulence in the fluid duct, allowing operation of the sensor to be more accurate (Pg. 6, Lines 3-5).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of using the testing apparatus of Smith to comprise drawing purge air through the airflow channel, using the pump assembly, in a third configuration of the testing apparatus, to draw purge air through the airflow channel in the first direction, and when the testing apparatus is in the third configuration, the first channel opening is closed and the second channel opening is open because both Smith and Slurink are directed to testing apparatuses for aerosol generating devices. Slurink teaches using a second channel to draw environmental air through a fluid duct after testing, flushing residual vapor to promote stabilization of flow characteristics (Pg. 6, Lines 3-4) and prevent or minimize turbulence in the fluid duct and this merely involves the use of a known airflow technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
With regard to Claim 29, Smith teaches a light source that emits lights through the first detector positioned opposite the light source to measure attenuation of the light passing through the aerosol [0016, 0031, 0038].
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (EP 3085250 A1, as cited in IDS dated 07/10/2024) and Slurink (WO 2016039625 A1, as cited in IDS dated 07/10/2024), and Xiang (US 20140300480 A1, as cited in IDS dated 07/10/2024), as applied to claims 16, 28, and 29 above, and further in view of Leadley (US 20210392957 A1).
With regard to Claim 30, modified Smith teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Smith is silent to:
Wherein the at least one characteristic comprises a second characteristic that is the temperature of the aerosol
Leadley, directed to a temperature regulating system, teaches a temperature sensor located in the air path and used to measure a temperature of the air path [0039, 0079]. A processor reduces a vapor temperature at the mouthpiece based on sensor data from the temperature sensor [0079-0080] to alleviate the problem of vapor being too hot and provide feedback to mitigate the problem [0005-0006].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of modified Smith to wherein the at least one characteristic comprises a second characteristic that is the temperature of the aerosol because both Smith and Leadley are directed to sensing in aerosol generating devices. Leadley teaches a temperature sensor to alleviate the problem of vapor being too hot and provide feedback to mitigate the problem [0005-0006] and this merely involves the use of a known sensing device to improve a similar device in the same way.
With regard to Claim 31, modified Smith teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Smith is silent to:
Wherein the at least one characteristic comprises a second characteristic that is the temperature of the aerosol
Leadley, directed to a temperature regulating system, teaches a temperature sensor located in the air path and used to measure a temperature of the air path [0039, 0079]. A processor reduces a vapor temperature at the mouthpiece based on sensor data from the temperature sensor [0079-0080] to alleviate the problem of vapor being too hot and provide feedback to mitigate the problem [0005-0006].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of modified Smith to wherein the at least one characteristic comprises a second characteristic that is the temperature of the aerosol because both Smith and Leadley are directed to sensing in aerosol generating devices. Leadley teaches a temperature sensor to alleviate the problem of vapor being too hot and provide feedback to mitigate the problem [0005-0006] and this merely involves the use of a known sensing device to improve a similar device in the same way.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWATOSIN O DIYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 am - 6 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.
/O.O.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights