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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 132 and 134, shown in Fig. 1.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-25 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courbat (WO 2021/037403 A1, of record, provided in IDS dated 10/16/2024) in view of Atkins (US 2018/0042306 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Courbat discloses an aerosol-generating device which receives an aerosol-generating article (Abstract) (which reads on “[a]n aerosol-generating device for generating an aerosol from an aerosol-generating article”), which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention:
The device includes a cavity (“cavity”) for receiving the article (Abstract);
The device includes an inductive heating arrangement (“heater assembly”) for heating a susceptor of the article (Abstract);
The device includes a DC power supply (“power supply”) and control circuitry (“controller”) for supplying power to the inductive heating arrangement (Abstract). The control circuitry may place the device in an article detection mode (“low power mode”) wherein probe power pulses are sent to detect the article (p. 3 l. 29-p. 5 l. 15) (which reads on “a low power mode in which aerosol is not generated”). After detecting an article, the control circuitry switches to a heating mode (“high power mode”) wherein the article is heated to generate aerosol (p. 3 l. 29-30, p. 4 l. 14-34);
The control circuitry automatically starts the article detection mode upon detecting device movements or detecting the device being removed from a charging unit (p. 6 l. 11-18, p. 7 l. 21-31, p. 19 l. 11-15) (which reads on “wherein the controller is configured to control the power supply to operate in the low power mode initially”);
In the article detection mode, the control circuitry detects a change of at least one property of the inductive heating arrangement, such as a change in current, voltage, or resistance (Abstract, p. 2 l. 31-p. 3 l. 28, p. 47 l. 3-17), which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize are parameters “related to a…change of temperature” as claimed. However, Courbat is silent on detecting a rate of change of a temperature specifically, and thus fails to disclose “wherein, in the low power mode, the controller is further configured to measure a parameter related to a rate of change of a temperature of the heater assembly or a rate of change of a temperature of the aerosol-generating article received in the cavity, and wherein the controller is further configured to switch from the low power mode to the high power mode only if the measured parameter satisfies a predetermined criterion”.
Atkins is directed to anemometric-assisted control of a vaporizer (Title), which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Atkins discloses a control mechanism which places an idle vaporizer into a standby mode at a low temperature wherein aerosol is not generated (Abstract, [0008, 0031-32]). Upon detecting a user puff, the vaporizer is switched into a vaporization mode at a higher temperature to generate aerosol (Abstract, [0037]). The vaporizer may detect the puff by monitoring a first derivative of temperature of the heating element (“rate of change of a temperature of the heating assembly”), and detecting a decrease which exceeds a pre-set differential [0039] (which reads on “wherein, in the low power mode, the controller is further configured to measure a parameter related to a rate of change of a temperature of the heater assembly…and wherein the controller is further configured to switch from the low power mode to the high power mode only if the measured parameter satisfies a predetermined criterion”). Atkins discloses that this advantageously allows for puff detection without additional sensors [0030]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Atkins’ puff detection could advantageously be incorporated into Courbat, particularly because one would recognize that Courbat’s article detection mode and Atkins’ standby mode similarly perform low-power functions before heating, because such puff detection would provide additional user control over heating start, because Atkins discloses utilizing alternative sensing mechanisms [0049], and because Courbat is capable of detecting puffs (see Courbat p. 11 l. 15-18). Specifically, one would be motivated to modify Courbat such that the article detection mode requires both Courbat’s article detection and Atkins’ temperature-drop-based puff detection before switching to Courbat’s heating mode, the puff detection being based on either the first derivative of temperature of Courbat’s inductive heating assembly or the susceptor, which reads on the claim language.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Courbat by incorporating Atkins’ temperature-based puff detection into Courbat’s article detection mode, because both Courbat and Atkins are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantages noted immediately above, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 17, it would be a simple and obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art to further configure Courbat’s to switch from the article detection mode to an “error mode” as claimed, in the event that an article is detected but a puff is not detected due to Atkins’ first derivative of temperature not exceeding the pre-set differential, because notifying a user of an error and/or preventing heating in an error state are well-known controller features in the art of electronic vaporization devices, and because Atkins further discloses a diagnostic mode wherein the vaporizer indicates a failed operation to a user when the puff-detecting pressure sensor fails to properly signal ([0079], Fig. 11).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Atkins discloses detecting the puff by comparing the first derivative of temperature to the pre-set differential [0039, 0082-85], which reads on the claim language.
Regarding claim 19, it would be a simple and obvious design choice to further modify Courbat to switch to the heating mode only when the first derivative of temperature both exceeds the pre-set differential as taught by Atkins [0039, 0082-85] and is below a maximum value (which reads on the claim language, such maximum value being the “predetermined threshold”), at least because Atkins discloses a maximum amount of airflow across the heating element [0036, 0056]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a maximum airflow would correspond to a maximum temperature derivative, and a value exceeding that maximum could represent an abnormal operation, and thus heating should not be started in such case.
Regarding claim 21, Courbat discloses verifying the article detection by sending a second probe power pulse a pre-determined period of time after a first detection (which reads on “wherein the controller is further configured to control the power supply to operate the heater assembly in the low power mode for a predetermined time…following detection of the aerosol-generating article received in the aerosol- generating device”) (p. 34 l. 30-35).
Regarding claim 22, the pre-determined period of time is between 0.5 and 3 seconds (p. 35 l. 1-2), which reads on the claim language.
Regarding claim 23, Courbat discloses the article including a susceptor (“susceptor element”) which is inductively heated by an induction coil (“inductor coil”) by receiving power to generate an alternating magnetic field (which reads on “wherein the power supply is further configured to provide an oscillating current to the inductor coil”) (Abstract, p. 12 l. 1-13).
Regarding claim 24, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the claimed “conductance” is a physical property equivalent to resistance. Courbat discloses monitoring current absorbed by a second susceptor as a proxy for temperature (p. 17 l. 9-23), Courbat discloses monitoring resistance of the inductive heating arrangement to detect the article insertion (p. 3 l. 5-16), and Atkins discloses that resistance is dependent upon temperature and thus a relationship between them can be obtained [0028]. From these disclosures, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Atkins’ temperature-based puff detection could similarly be performed by monitoring the first derivative of the susceptor resistance, which reads on the claim language.
Regarding claim 25, it would be obvious to configure Courbat to switch to the heating mode only when the first derivative of resistance both exceeds a pre-set differential and is below a maximum value (which reads on the claim language, such maximum value being the “predetermined threshold”), for the same reasons as set forth above with regard to claim 19.
Regarding claim 27, the claim language is rendered obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 16. Claim 27 recites “a parameter related to a rate of change of a temperature of the heater element”, which narrows the two options presented in claim 16 to a single option, but this claim language is met by modified Courbat as set forth above, wherein the first derivative of temperature of the inductive heating arrangement is used for the puff detection.
Regarding claim 28, Courbat discloses that the article includes an aerosol-forming substrate (Abstract), which reads on “an aerosol-generating article comprising an aerosol-forming substrate”.
Regarding claim 29, Courbat discloses that the article includes a susceptor (p. 12 l. 1-13), which reads on a “susceptor element”.
Regarding claim 30, Courbat discloses an aerosol-generating device which receives an aerosol-generating article and a method for operating such a device (Abstract, p. 1 l. 6-7) (which reads on “[a] method of controlling a heater assembly of an aerosol-generating device”), which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention:
The device includes an inductive heating arrangement (“heater assembly”) for heating a susceptor of the article received in a cavity (“cavity”) of the device (Abstract). Control circuitry may place the device in an article detection mode (“low power mode”) wherein probe power pulses are sent to detect the article (p. 3 l. 29-p. 5 l. 15) (which reads on “a low power mode in which aerosol is not generated”). After detecting an article, the control circuitry switches to a heating mode (“high power mode”) wherein the article is heated to generate aerosol (p. 3 l. 29-30, p. 4 l. 14-34);
The control circuitry automatically starts the article detection mode upon detecting device movements or detecting the device being removed from a charging unit (p. 6 l. 11-18, p. 7 l. 21-31, p. 19 l. 11-15) (which reads on “controlling power supplied to the heater assembly so that the heater assembly operates in the low power mode initially”);
In the article detection mode, the control circuitry detects a change of at least one property of the inductive heating arrangement, such as a change in current, voltage, or resistance (Abstract, p. 2 l. 31-p. 3 l. 28, p. 47 l. 3-17), which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize are parameters “related to a…change of temperature” as claimed. However, Courbat is silent on detecting a rate of change of a temperature specifically, and thus fails to disclose “measuring, while operating the heater assembly in the low power mode, a parameter related to a rate of change of a temperature of the heater assembly or a rate of change of a temperature of the aerosol-generating article received in the cavity of the aerosol-generating device; and switching from the low power mode to the high power mode only if the measured parameter satisfies a predetermined criterion”.
Atkins is directed to anemometric-assisted control of a vaporizer (Title), which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Atkins discloses a control mechanism which places an idle vaporizer into a standby mode at a low temperature wherein aerosol is not generated (Abstract, [0008, 0031-32]). Upon detecting a user puff, the vaporizer is switched into a vaporization mode at a higher temperature to generate aerosol (Abstract, [0037]). The vaporizer may detect the puff by monitoring a first derivative of temperature of the heating element (“rate of change of a temperature of the heating assembly”), and detecting a decrease which exceeds a pre-set differential [0039] (which reads on “measuring, while operating the heater assembly in the low power mode, a parameter related to a rate of change of a temperature of the heater assembly or a rate of change of a temperature of the aerosol-generating article received in the cavity of the aerosol-generating device; and switching from the low power mode to the high power mode only if the measured parameter satisfies a predetermined criterion”). Atkins discloses that this advantageously allows for puff detection without additional sensors [0030]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Atkins’ puff detection could advantageously be incorporated into Courbat, particularly because one would recognize that Courbat’s article detection mode and Atkins’ standby mode similarly perform low-power functions before heating, because such puff detection would provide additional user control over heating start, because Atkins discloses utilizing alternative sensing mechanisms [0049], and because Courbat is capable of detecting puffs (see Courbat p. 11 l. 15-18). Specifically, one would be motivated to modify Courbat such that the article detection mode requires both Courbat’s article detection and Atkins’ temperature-drop-based puff detection before switching to Courbat’s heating mode, the puff detection being based on either the first derivative of temperature of Courbat’s inductive heating assembly or the susceptor, which reads on the claim language.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Courbat by incorporating Atkins’ temperature-based puff detection into Courbat’s article detection mode, because both Courbat and Atkins are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantages noted immediately above, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Courbat (WO 2021/037403 A1, of record, provided in IDS dated 10/16/2024) in view of Atkins (US 2018/0042306 A1) as applied to claim 16, further in view of Bilat (CA 3102143 A1).
Courbat and Atkins fail to disclose “wherein, in the low power mode, the controller is further configured to control the power supply to supply a current with a duty cycle of less than 2 %”. Courbat discloses supplying power in pulses in the article detection mode to advantageously reduce power consumption (p. 2 l. 28-30, p. 6 l. 34-p. 7 l. 5).
Bilat is directed to a method of controlling heating in an aerosol-generating system (Title), which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Bilat discloses a controller which provides power to a heater via pulses of electrical voltage, and the power can be varied by varying the duty cycle of the pulses (p. 11 l. 20-28). Bilat explains that the duty cycle is the ratio of time that the power is switched on to the time the power is switched off, and that a low duty cycle of 5% will provide much less power than 95% (p. 11 l. 20-28). One of ordinary skill in the art reading Bilat would recognize that the duty cycle is a result-effective variable with regard to the amount of power supplied to the heater. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the duty cycle in Courbat to reduce power consumption, and would therefore arrive at the claimed range by routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05(II); see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Courbat by optimizing the duty cycle to reduce power consumption as taught by Bilat, because both Courbat and Bilat are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Courbat teaches reducing power consumption and Bilat teaches that the duty cycle determines the power supply, and this would involve the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
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 16-20, 23, 25 and 27-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, and 14-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,501,937 (“Courbat”) in view of Atkins (US 2018/0042306 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Courbat discloses an aerosol-generating device which receives an aerosol-generating article (claim 1) (which reads on “[a]n aerosol-generating device for generating an aerosol from an aerosol-generating article”), which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention:
The device includes a cavity (“cavity”) for receiving the article (claim 1);
The device includes an inductive heating arrangement (“heater assembly”) for heating a susceptor of the article (claim 1);
The device includes a DC power supply (“power supply”) and control circuitry (“controller”) for supplying power to the inductive heating arrangement (claim 1). The control circuitry may place the device in an article detection mode (“low power mode”) wherein power pulses are sent to detect the article (claim 1) (which reads on “a low power mode in which aerosol is not generated”). After detecting an article, the control circuitry switches to a heating mode (“high power mode”) wherein the article is heated to generate aerosol (claims 1 and 4);
The control circuitry automatically starts the article detection mode upon detecting device movements or detecting the device being removed from a charging unit (claims 1, 5-6, and 8-9) (which reads on “wherein the controller is configured to control the power supply to operate in the low power mode initially”);
In the article detection mode, the control circuitry detects a change of at least one property of the inductive heating arrangement, such as a change in current (claims 1 and 14), which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize is a parameter “related to a…change of temperature” as claimed. However, Courbat is silent on detecting a rate of change of a temperature specifically, and thus fails to disclose “wherein, in the low power mode, the controller is further configured to measure a parameter related to a rate of change of a temperature of the heater assembly or a rate of change of a temperature of the aerosol-generating article received in the cavity, and wherein the controller is further configured to switch from the low power mode to the high power mode only if the measured parameter satisfies a predetermined criterion”.
Atkins is directed to anemometric-assisted control of a vaporizer (Title), which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Atkins discloses a control mechanism which places an idle vaporizer into a standby mode at a low temperature wherein aerosol is not generated (Abstract, [0008, 0031-32]). Upon detecting a user puff, the vaporizer is switched into a vaporization mode at a higher temperature to generate aerosol (Abstract, [0037]). The vaporizer may detect the puff by monitoring a first derivative of temperature of the heating element (“rate of change of a temperature of the heating assembly”), and detecting a decrease which exceeds a pre-set differential [0039] (which reads on “wherein, in the low power mode, the controller is further configured to measure a parameter related to a rate of change of a temperature of the heater assembly…and wherein the controller is further configured to switch from the low power mode to the high power mode only if the measured parameter satisfies a predetermined criterion”). Atkins discloses that this advantageously allows for puff detection without additional sensors [0030]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Atkins’ puff detection could advantageously be incorporated into Courbat, particularly because one would recognize that Courbat’s article detection mode and Atkins’ standby mode similarly perform low-power functions before heating, because such puff detection would provide additional user control over heating start, and because Atkins discloses utilizing alternative sensing mechanisms [0049]. Specifically, one would be motivated to modify Courbat such that the article detection mode requires both Courbat’s article detection and Atkins’ temperature-drop-based puff detection before switching to Courbat’s heating mode, the puff detection being based on either the first derivative of temperature of Courbat’s inductive heating assembly or the susceptor, which reads on the claim language.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Courbat by incorporating Atkins’ temperature-based puff detection into Courbat’s article detection mode, because both Courbat and Atkins are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantages noted immediately above, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 17, it would be a simple and obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art to further configure Courbat’s to switch from the article detection mode to an “error mode” as claimed, in the event that an article is detected but a puff is not detected due to Atkins’ first derivative of temperature not exceeding the pre-set differential, because notifying a user of an error and/or preventing heating in an error state are well-known controller features in the art of electronic vaporization devices, and because Atkins further discloses a diagnostic mode wherein the vaporizer indicates a failed operation to a user when the puff-detecting pressure sensor fails to properly signal ([0079], Fig. 11).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Atkins discloses detecting the puff by comparing the first derivative of temperature to the pre-set differential [0039, 0082-85], which reads on the claim language.
Regarding claim 19, it would be a simple and obvious design choice to further modify Courbat to switch to the heating mode only when the first derivative of temperature both exceeds the pre-set differential as taught by Atkins [0039, 0082-85] and is below a maximum value (which reads on the claim language, such maximum value being the “predetermined threshold”), at least because Atkins discloses a maximum amount of airflow across the heating element [0036, 0056]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such a maximum airflow would correspond to a maximum temperature derivative, and a value exceeding that maximum could represent an abnormal operation, and thus heating should not be started in such case.
Regarding claim 23, Courbat discloses the article including a susceptor (“susceptor element”) which is inductively heated by an inductive heating arrangement (“inductor coil”) by receiving power to generate an alternating magnetic field (which reads on “wherein the power supply is further configured to provide an oscillating current to the inductor coil”) (claim 1).
Regarding claim 25, it would be obvious to configure Courbat to switch to the heating mode only when the first derivative of resistance both exceeds a pre-set differential and is below a maximum value (which reads on the claim language, such maximum value being the “predetermined threshold”), for the same reasons as set forth above with regard to claim 19.
Regarding claim 27, the claim language is rendered obvious for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 16. Claim 27 recites “a parameter related to a rate of change of a temperature of the heater element”, which narrows the two options presented in claim 16 to a single option, but this claim language is met by modified Courbat as set forth above, wherein the first derivative of temperature of the inductive heating arrangement is used for the puff detection.
Regarding claim 28, Courbat discloses that the article includes an aerosol-forming substrate (claims 1 and 15), which reads on “an aerosol-generating article comprising an aerosol-forming substrate”.
Regarding claim 29, Courbat discloses that the article includes a susceptor (claims 1 and 15), which reads on a “susceptor element”.
Regarding claim 30, Courbat discloses an aerosol-generating device which receives an aerosol-generating article and a method for operating such a device (claim 1) (which reads on “[a] method of controlling a heater assembly of an aerosol-generating device”), which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention:
The device includes an inductive heating arrangement (“heater assembly”) for heating the article received in a cavity (“cavity”) of the device (claim 1). Control circuitry may place the device in an article detection mode (“low power mode”) wherein probe power pulses are sent to detect the article (claim 1) (which reads on “a low power mode in which aerosol is not generated”). After detecting an article, the control circuitry switches to a heating mode (“high power mode”) wherein the article is heated to generate aerosol (claims 1 and 4);
The control circuitry automatically starts the article detection mode upon detecting device movements or detecting the device being removed from a charging unit (claims 1, 5-6, and 8-9) (which reads on “controlling power supplied to the heater assembly so that the heater assembly operates in the low power mode initially”);
In the article detection mode, the control circuitry detects a change of at least one property of the inductive heating arrangement, such as a change in current, voltage, or resistance (claims 1 and 14), which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize are parameters “related to a…change of temperature” as claimed. However, Courbat is silent on detecting a rate of change of a temperature specifically, and thus fails to disclose “measuring, while operating the heater assembly in the low power mode, a parameter related to a rate of change of a temperature of the heater assembly or a rate of change of a temperature of the aerosol-generating article received in the cavity of the aerosol-generating device; and switching from the low power mode to the high power mode only if the measured parameter satisfies a predetermined criterion”.
Atkins is directed to anemometric-assisted control of a vaporizer (Title), which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Atkins discloses a control mechanism which places an idle vaporizer into a standby mode at a low temperature wherein aerosol is not generated (Abstract, [0008, 0031-32]). Upon detecting a user puff, the vaporizer is switched into a vaporization mode at a higher temperature to generate aerosol (Abstract, [0037]). The vaporizer may detect the puff by monitoring a first derivative of temperature of the heating element (“rate of change of a temperature of the heating assembly”), and detecting a decrease which exceeds a pre-set differential [0039] (which reads on “measuring, while operating the heater assembly in the low power mode, a parameter related to a rate of change of a temperature of the heater assembly or a rate of change of a temperature of the aerosol-generating article received in the cavity of the aerosol-generating device; and switching from the low power mode to the high power mode only if the measured parameter satisfies a predetermined criterion”). Atkins discloses that this advantageously allows for puff detection without additional sensors [0030]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Atkins’ puff detection could advantageously be incorporated into Courbat, particularly because one would recognize that Courbat’s article detection mode and Atkins’ standby mode similarly perform low-power functions before heating, because such puff detection would provide additional user control over heating start, because Atkins discloses utilizing alternative sensing mechanisms [0049]. Specifically, one would be motivated to modify Courbat such that the article detection mode mode requires both Courbat’s article detection and Atkins’ temperature-drop-based puff detection before switching to Courbat’s heating mode, which reads on the claim language.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Courbat by incorporating Atkins’ temperature-based puff detection into Courbat’s article detection mode, because both Courbat and Atkins are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantages noted immediately above, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,501,937 (“Courbat”) in view of Atkins (US 2018/0042306 A1) as applied to claim 16, further in view of Bilat (CA 3102143 A1).
Courbat and Atkins fail to disclose “wherein, in the low power mode, the controller is further configured to control the power supply to supply a current with a duty cycle of less than 2 %”.
Bilat is directed to a method of controlling heating in an aerosol-generating system (Title), which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Bilat discloses a controller which provides power to a heater via pulses of electrical voltage, and the power can be varied by varying the duty cycle of the pulses (p. 11 l. 20-28). Bilat explains that the duty cycle is the ratio of time that the power is switched on to the time the power is switched off, and that a low duty cycle of 5% will provide much less power than 95% (p. 11 l. 20-28). One of ordinary skill in the art reading Bilat would recognize that the duty cycle is a result-effective variable with regard to the amount of power supplied to the heater. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the duty cycle in Courbat to reduce power consumption, and would therefore arrive at the claimed range by routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05(II); see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Courbat by optimizing the duty cycle to reduce power consumption as taught by Bilat, because both Courbat and Bilat are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, Courbat teaches reducing power consumption and Bilat teaches that the duty cycle determines the power supply, and this would involve the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H. Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights