DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1, 4–6, 8, 10, 11, 14–16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Bleloch et al. (US 2015/0320116 A1) in view of Miao et al. (CN 104095295 A, English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Bleloch teaches a method of operating an electronic vapour inhaler comprising an induction heating arrangement (vaporizer device 100 having induction element assembly 105, ¶ [0044]); the induction heating arrangement comprising an induction coil for generating an alternating electromagnetic field (induction coil excited by an oscillating circuit, ¶ [0074]) to heat an induction-heatable element and thereby heat a non-liquid flavour-release medium (inductively heated metal container or mesh holding plant material from which extracts are vaporized, ¶ [0062]); and selecting a predetermined heating profile from two or more predetermined heating profiles (selection among multiple lookup tables defining different heating operations, ¶ [0102]).
Bleloch does not clearly teach intermittently energizing the induction coil according to the selected predetermined heating profile to generate an intermittent alternating electromagnetic field providing pulsed heating and cooling of the induction-heatable element.
Miao teaches supplying alternating current to solenoid coil 11 to generate an alternating magnetic field that inductively heats iron core 10 and thereby heats tobacco material (¶ [0013]). Miao further teaches stopping induction heating upon reaching a predetermined preheat temperature and restarting heating when the temperature falls below that temperature, using a conventional temperature-control circuit (¶ [0020]). Taken together, Miao’s induction-heating mechanism and stop-and-restart operation establish intermittent coil energization and corresponding interruptions of the alternating magnetic field (¶¶ [0013], [0020]). During these interruptions, the heated element dissipates heat to the material and surroundings; restarting induction heating reheats the element. This pulsed heating and cooling follows from the induction-heating mechanism and intervening cooling described in Miao (¶¶ [0013], [0020]).
Both Bleloch and Miao concern controlled induction heating in vapour-inhalation devices (Bleloch, ¶ [0043]; Miao, ¶ [0013]). Bleloch’s heating profiles may specify temperature and timing constraints (¶ [0069]), and its preheat operation maintains a predetermined temperature before higher-power heating during a draw (¶ [0098]). Miao implements that same temperature-maintenance function through conventional stop-and-restart control and likewise increases heating power upon inhalation (¶ [0020]).
The proposed modification would implement the preheat-maintenance portion of Bleloch’s selected heating profile using Miao’s stop-and-restart technique, incorporating the temperature criterion into that profile, based on Bleloch’s temperature-and-timing profile parameters (¶ [0069]), its selectable lookup tables (¶ [0102]), and Miao’s temperature-responsive control (¶ [0020]). Bleloch’s sensor-responsive processor (¶ [0066]) and modifiable heating algorithm (¶ [0067]) provide the control framework for implementing that modification. Accordingly, in modified Bleloch, the selected profile would govern the temperature criterion used to determine when the induction coil is energized and deenergized (Bleloch, ¶¶ [0069], [0102], as modified by Miao, ¶ [0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Miao’s conventional stop-and-restart technique (¶ [0020]) for Bleloch’s preheat-temperature-maintenance control (¶ [0098]) to predictably maintain the temperature prescribed by the selected heating profile while retaining higher-power heating during a draw. This constitutes substitution of a known control technique for the same temperature-maintenance function to obtain predictable results, consistent with MPEP §2143, I.B.
Regarding claim 4, modified Bleloch further teaches varying a duty cycle of the power supplied to the induction coil (pulse-width modulation control of the induction-heater power supply, Bleloch, ¶ [0088]). PWM varies the energized proportion of the power cycle and therefore provides the claimed variation in duty cycle.
Regarding claim 5, modified Bleloch further teaches a first operating phase in which the induction coil is intermittently energised to generate an intermittent alternating electromagnetic field providing pulsed heating and cooling of the induction-heatable element to heat the non-liquid flavour-release medium to a temperature in an operating temperature range (initial maximum-power pulse bringing the vaping material to operating temperature, Bleloch, ¶ [0101]). The intermittent induction-heating operation is provided by the modification discussed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Bleloch further teaches the first operating phase having a predetermined duration (the duration of the initial heating pulse is obtained from the applicable lookup table, ¶ [0101]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Bleloch further teaches a second operating phase in which the induction coil is intermittently energised to generate an intermittent alternating electromagnetic field providing pulsed heating and cooling of the induction-heatable element to maintain an average temperature of the non-liquid flavour-release medium within the operating temperature range. Bleloch teaches reducing heating after the initial pulse to a subsequent steady-state heating level (¶ [0101]), while Miao teaches maintaining a predetermined temperature by stopping heating when the temperature is reached and restarting heating when the temperature falls below that temperature (¶ [0020]). Accordingly, modified Bleloch employs Miao’s intermittent temperature-maintenance technique during Bleloch’s subsequent operating phase.
Regarding claim 10, Bleloch teaches an electronic vapour inhaler comprising
an induction heating arrangement (vaporizer device 100 having induction element assembly 105, ¶ [0044]);
the induction heating arrangement comprising an induction coil for generating an alternating electromagnetic field (induction coil excited by an oscillating circuit, ¶ [0074]) to heat an induction-heatable element and thereby heat a non-liquid flavour-release medium (inductively heated metal container or mesh holding plant material, ¶ [0062]);
a control arrangement configured to control operation of the induction heating arrangement (processor controlling power supplied to the induction coil, ¶ [0066]); and according to a predetermined heating profile selected from two or more predetermined heating profiles (selection among multiple lookup tables defining different heating operations, ¶ [0102]).
Bleloch does not clearly teach the control arrangement intermittently energizing the induction coil according to the selected predetermined heating profile to generate an intermittent alternating electromagnetic field providing pulsed heating and cooling of the induction-heatable element. Miao teaches stopping and restarting induction heating in response to temperature (¶ [0020]). It would have been obvious to configure Bleloch’s control arrangement to perform Miao’s stop-and-restart technique for the same reasons set forth regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Bleloch teaches a method of operating an electronic vapour inhaler comprising an induction heating arrangement (vaporizer device 100 having induction element assembly 105, ¶ [0044]); the induction heating arrangement comprising an induction coil for generating an alternating electromagnetic field (¶ [0074]) to heat an induction-heatable element and thereby heat a non-liquid flavour-release medium (inductively heated metal container or mesh holding plant material, ¶ [0062]); and selecting automatically a predetermined heating profile based on a detected characteristic related to the non-liquid flavour-release medium (material or compound information is detected and used with an applicable lookup table to select heat-cycle settings, ¶ [0101]).
Bleloch does not clearly teach intermittently energizing the induction coil according to the automatically selected predetermined heating profile to provide pulsed heating and cooling of the induction-heatable element. Miao teaches temperature-responsive stopping and restarting of induction heating (¶ [0020]). For the reasons set forth regarding claim 1, it would have been obvious to implement Bleloch’s automatically selected heating profile using Miao’s stop-and-restart induction-heating technique to predictably maintain the temperature prescribed by that profile.
Regarding claim 14, modified Bleloch further teaches varying a duty cycle of the power supplied to the induction coil (pulse-width modulation control of the induction-heater power supply, Bleloch, ¶ [0088]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Bleloch further teaches a first operating phase in which the induction coil is intermittently energised to generate an intermittent alternating electromagnetic field providing pulsed heating and cooling of the induction-heatable element to heat the non-liquid flavour-release medium to a temperature in an operating temperature range (initial maximum-power pulse bringing the vaping material to operating temperature, Bleloch, ¶ [0101]). The intermittent induction-heating operation is provided by the modification discussed regarding claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, Bleloch further teaches the first operating phase having a predetermined duration (the initial heating pulse duration is obtained from the applicable lookup table, ¶ [0101]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Bleloch further teaches a second operating phase in which the induction coil is intermittently energised to generate an intermittent alternating electromagnetic field providing pulsed heating and cooling of the induction-heatable element to maintain an average temperature of the non-liquid flavour-release medium within the operating temperature range. Bleloch teaches reducing heating after the initial pulse to a subsequent steady-state heating level (¶ [0101]), while Miao teaches stopping and restarting induction heating to maintain the predetermined temperature (¶ [0020]).
Regarding claim 20, Bleloch teaches an electronic vapour inhaler comprising an induction heating arrangement (vaporizer device 100 having induction element assembly 105, ¶ [0044]); the induction heating arrangement comprising an induction coil for generating an alternating electromagnetic field (¶ [0074]) to heat an induction-heatable element and thereby heat a non-liquid flavour-release medium (inductively heated metal container or mesh holding plant material, ¶ [0062]); a control arrangement configured to control operation of the induction heating arrangement according to a predetermined heating profile (processor controlling the heating profile, ¶ [0066]); and the predetermined heating profile being selected automatically based on a detected characteristic related to the non-liquid flavour-release medium (material or compound information is detected and used with the applicable lookup table to select heat-cycle settings, ¶ [0101]).
Bleloch does not clearly teach the control arrangement intermittently energizing the induction coil according to the automatically selected predetermined heating profile to provide pulsed heating and cooling of the induction-heatable element. Miao teaches temperature-responsive stopping and restarting of induction heating (¶ [0020]). It would have been obvious to configure Bleloch’s control arrangement to implement Miao’s stop-and-restart technique for the same reasons set forth regarding claims 1 and 11.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 12, 13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Bleloch et al. (US 2015/0320116 A1) in view of Miao et al. (CN 104095295 A, English translation), and further in view of Cadieux et al. (US 2015/0245669 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, modified Bleloch does not teach varying pulse frequency of the power supplied to the induction coil. Bleloch, however, teaches controlling the induction-heater power supply using pulse-width modulation (¶ [0088]), providing a control framework in which characteristics of the pulsed power supplied to the induction heater are controlled. Cadieux teaches an induction-heating device in which the power cycle supplied to the induction source is divided into phases having different frequencies, including embodiments in which only the frequency is varied (¶ [0141]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pulsed power control of modified Bleloch to vary the pulse frequency as taught by Cadieux in order to provide another known manner of controlling the heating response of the induction-heated element, with predictable results.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, modified Bleloch does not teach varying pulse amplitude of the power supplied to the induction coil. Bleloch teaches processor control of the power supplied to the induction coil as part of the heating operation (¶ [0066]). Cadieux teaches a power cycle having a first phase employing a higher magnitude of oscillation and a second phase employing a more moderate magnitude, and expressly teaches that the power-cycle phases may be configured such that only the amplitude is varied (¶ [0141]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the power control of modified Bleloch to vary pulse amplitude as taught by Cadieux to control the amount of induction heating during operation, with predictable results.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, modified Bleloch teaches a first operating phase having a predetermined duration, but does not teach that the duration of the first operating phase does not exceed 10 seconds (duration of the initial heating pulse obtained from the applicable lookup table, Bleloch, ¶ [0101]). Cadieux teaches an induction-heating power cycle in which the susceptor is heated for less than about 10 seconds, with the power cycle having a duration of about 2 seconds to about 10 seconds (¶ [0145]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select Cadieux’s known duration of 10 seconds or less for the predetermined first operating phase of modified Bleloch to provide a known short induction-heating period suitable for rapidly heating the material during operation, with predictable results.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, modified Bleloch does not teach the strength of the alternating electromagnetic field being lower during the second operating phase than during the first operating phase. Bleloch, however, teaches an initial maximum-power heating pulse followed by reduction to a lower steady-state power level (¶ [0101]), thereby providing a direct basis for using different levels of induction heating between the initial and subsequent operating phases. Cadieux teaches a first operating phase T1 employing a higher magnitude of oscillation to provide rapid heating and a second operating phase T2 employing a more moderate magnitude of oscillation to provide steady heating (¶ [0141]). Thus, Cadieux teaches reducing the magnitude applied to the induction source during the second phase, thereby reducing the strength of the generated alternating electromagnetic field.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Bleloch’s lower-power second operating phase using Cadieux’s lower-magnitude induction field to provide rapid heating during the first phase followed by lower-energy maintenance heating during the second phase, with predictable results.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2–9 and are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1—5, 7—9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 of US 11,033,056 in view of Bleloch et al. (US 2015/0320116 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the reasons set forth below.
Regarding claim 1, claims 1, 14, and 15 of US 11,033,056 recite operating an electronic vapor inhaler by intermittently energizing an induction coil to generate an intermittent alternating electromagnetic field that provides pulsed heating and cooling of an induction-heatable element, wherein the induction coil is intermittently energized according to a predetermined heating profile selectable by a user.
The patented claims do not expressly recite selecting the predetermined heating profile from two or more predetermined heating profiles. However, the patented claims already provide a user-selectable predetermined heating profile. Bleloch teaches selection among a number of predetermined lookup tables defining different heating operations and optimized for different materials or vaping experiences (¶ [0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the user-selectable predetermined heating profile of claims 1, 14, and 15 of US 11,033,056 as a profile selected from the plurality of predetermined heating profiles taught by Bleloch, thereby predictably permitting the user to select an appropriate predefined heating operation for the desired material or vaping experience. The omission from claim 1 of the pulse-length, operating-temperature-range, and operating-phase limitations recited by the patented claims merely broadens the remaining subject matter and does not render claim 1 patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 2, patented claim 2 recites varying the pulse frequency of the power supplied to the induction coil.
Regarding claim 3, patented claim 3 recites varying the pulse amplitude of the power supplied to the induction coil.
Regarding claim 4, patented claim 4 recites varying the duty cycle of the power supplied to the induction coil.
Regarding claim 5, patented claims 5 and 7 recite a first operating phase in which the induction coil is intermittently energized to generate an intermittent alternating electromagnetic field that provides pulsed heating and cooling of the induction-heatable element to heat the non-liquid flavor-release medium to a temperature within an operating temperature range.
Regarding claim 6, patented claim 8 recites that the first operating phase has a predetermined duration.
Regarding claim 7, patented claim 9 recites that the duration of the first operating phase does not exceed 10 seconds.
Regarding claim 8, patented claim 11 recites a second operating phase in which the induction coil is intermittently energized to generate an intermittent alternating electromagnetic field that provides pulsed heating and cooling of the induction-heatable element to maintain the average temperature of the non-liquid flavor-release medium within the operating temperature range.
Regarding claim 9, patented claim 12 recites that the strength of the alternating electromagnetic field is lower during the second operating phase than during the first operating phase.
Claims 11–19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–5, 7—9, 11—12, 14 and 16 of US 11,033,056. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the reasons set forth below.
Regarding claim 11, patented claims 1, 14, and 16 recite operating an electronic vapor inhaler by intermittently energizing the induction coil according to a predetermined heating profile, wherein the predetermined heating profile is selected automatically based on a detected characteristic related to the non-liquid flavor-release medium. The omission from claim 11 of the pulse-length, operating-temperature-range, user-selectability, and operating-phase limitations incorporated into patented claim 16 merely broadens the claimed method and does not render claim 11 patentably distinct from the patented subject matter.
Regarding claim 12, patented claim 2 recites varying the pulse frequency of the power supplied to the induction coil.
Regarding claim 13, patented claim 3 recites varying the pulse amplitude of the power supplied to the induction coil.
Regarding claim 14, patented claim 4 recites varying the duty cycle of the power supplied to the induction coil.
Regarding claim 15, patented claims 5 and 7 recite a first operating phase in which the induction coil is intermittently energized to provide pulsed heating and cooling of the induction-heatable element and heat the non-liquid flavor-release medium to a temperature within an operating temperature range.
Regarding claim 16, patented claim 8 recites that the first operating phase has a predetermined duration.
Regarding claim 17, patented claim 9 recites that the duration of the first operating phase does not exceed 10 seconds.
Regarding claim 18, patented claim 11 recites a second operating phase in which the induction coil is intermittently energized to provide pulsed heating and cooling of the induction-heatable element and maintain the average temperature of the non-liquid flavor-release medium within the operating temperature range.
Regarding claim 19, patented claim 12 recites that the strength of the alternating electromagnetic field is lower during the second operating phase than during the first operating phase.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, and 13 of US 12,082,616 in view of Bleloch et al. (US 2015/0320116 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the reasons set forth below.
Regarding claim 10, patented claims 1, 12, and 13 recite an electronic vapor inhaler comprising an induction heating arrangement having an induction coil and a control arrangement configured to intermittently energize the induction coil according to a predetermined heating profile selectable by a user.
The patented claims do not expressly recite the predetermined heating profile being selected from two or more predetermined heating profiles. However, the patented claims already provide a control arrangement implementing a user-selectable predetermined heating profile. Bleloch teaches selection among a number of predetermined lookup tables defining different heating operations and optimized for different materials or vaping experiences (¶ [0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the control arrangement of claims 1, 12, and 13 of US 12,082,616 to select its user-selectable predetermined heating profile from the plurality of predetermined heating profiles taught by Bleloch, thereby predictably permitting selection of an appropriate predefined heating operation for the desired material or vaping experience. The omission from claim 10 of the microprocessor and operating-temperature-range limitations recited by patented claim 1 merely broadens the remaining device and does not render claim 10 patentably distinct.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, and 14 of US 12,082,616. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the reasons set forth below.
Regarding claim 20, patented claims 1, 12, and 14 recite an electronic vapor inhaler comprising an induction heating arrangement having an induction coil and a control arrangement configured to intermittently energize the induction coil according to a predetermined heating profile, wherein the predetermined heating profile is selected automatically based on a detected characteristic related to the non-liquid flavor-release medium. The omission from claim 20 of the microprocessor and operating-temperature-range limitations recited by patented claim 1, and the user-selectability limitation incorporated into patented claim 14, merely broadens the claimed device and does not render claim 20 patentably distinct from the patented subject matter.
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
Prosecution Insights