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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/5/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 16-23 and 25-36 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claims 28-30 and 33 have been withdrawn. Claims 34-36 are newly added.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 2/5/2026 containing
remarks and amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, the Applicant argues that Ahn does not contain any indication of the magnitude of the temperature increase imparted by way of thermal feedback or relate to an aerosol-generating device. Rather, Ahn describes sensing a user’s touch on a contact type touch input unit and adjusting a temperature of the touch input unit to a response temperature when a user’s touch is detected. The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive because as Memari teaches an aerosol-generating device (personal vaporizer 1) with an indication means by heat ([0537]), but is silent to the structure, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to look to the art for other indication means by heat, such as the contact input unit and temperature control unit of Ahn. As both Memari and Ahn are directed to devices with an indication means through heat, Ahn is considered to be analogous art. Further, Ahn teaches the control unit can control the temperature control unit according to the measured temperatures (page 8), and while the prior art doesn’t explicitly limit the change to no more than 10 degrees, since the temperature can be set or controlled, one of ordinary skill could reasonably select any change in temperature to limit the circuit to, such as no more than 10 degrees Celsius. The claimed limitation is just a design choice and programming of the circuit which is shown to be within the abilities of one of ordinary skill based on the prior art teaching.
On page 8, the Applicant further argues that Ahn only discloses applying this concept to electronic display screen and mobile phones, both being applications where the response temperature generated by the touch input unit does not have to compete with other significant temperature sources. The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive because a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. See MPEP § 2141.03.I. As such, it is within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a heat indication means taught in the art (i.e. the teaching of Ahn of a temperature control unit that provides a user with tactile feedback on temperature changes through a contact input unit) to an aerosol-generating device taught in the art that comprises an indicating means through heat (i.e. the personal vaporizer of Memari).
On pages 8-9, the Applicant further argues that there is no teaching or suggestion of how to integrate Ahn’s apparatus with Memari’s personal vaporizer so that the user perceptible temperature change arising from operation of the apparatus would be distinguishable from the temperature change arising from the personal vaporizer operating to heat and vaporize the e-liquid referred to in Memari. The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive. First, as discussed previously, a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. Further, the claim does not require the user perceptible change arising from the operation of the thermal output element to be distinguishable from the temperature change arising from the aerosol-generating element. Rather, the claim requires the thermal output element being distinct from the aerosol-generating element and the thermal output element generating a user-perceptible temperature change, of which Memari in view of Ahn teaches.
On page 9, the Applicant further argues that there is no teaching or suggestion of how to integrate the teaching of Ahn with Memari so that a temperature increase in the touch input unit of the apparatus would be limited to no more than 10 degrees Celsius. The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive because Ahn teaches the control unit can control the temperature control unit according to the measured temperatures (page 8), and when modifying Memari to incorporate the heat indication means of Ahn, it would be obvious of one having ordinary skill in the art that the temperature of the thermal output element can be set or controlled and could reasonably select any change in temperature to limit the circuit to, such as no more than 10 degrees Celsius. The claimed limitation is just a design choice and programming of the circuit which is shown to be within the abilities of one of ordinary skill based on the prior art teaching.
On page 9-10, the Applicant further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been able to arrive at the Applicant’s claim features based on the asserted combination of the cited references without the impermissible benefit of hindsight knowledge of the Applicant’s claimed invention. The Examiner does not find this to be persuasive as it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Therefore, as Memari teaches a personal vaporizer with an indication means through heat (i.e. thermal output element), and Ahn teaches an indication means by heat (i.e. the contact input unit and temperature control unit) and Ahn further teaches the control unit can control the temperature control unit according to the measured temperatures (page 8), one of ordinary skill could reasonably select any change in temperature to limit the circuit to as the claimed limitation is just a design choice and programming of the circuit which is shown to be within the abilities of one of ordinary skill based on the prior art teaching.
The following is a modified rejection based on the newly added claims.
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.
Claim(s) 16-23, 26-27, and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memari (US2015/0245668) in view of Ahn (KR2010/0051386, citations will refer to the English translation provided).
Regarding claim 16, Memari discloses:
An aerosol-generating device (personal vaporizer 1 and re-filling case, [0321], figure 7) comprising:
A housing (tube body 56) comprising an air inlet, air outlet, and an airflow path extending therebetween ([0357]: centrally positioned aperture and vents through which vapor is inhaled and [0352]: air is drawn through the PV. It is evident there is an air inlet, air outlet, and an airflow path extending therebetween).
An aerosol-generating element disposed within the housing and configured to generate an aerosol ([0352]: coil and wick assembly that heats the vaping fluid soaked wick, giving off vapor which entrains into the air stream).
A light on the PV flashes or glows when the PV is ready to use, as shown schematically by the small circle with the radial lines (figure 58C, [0551]), showing that the indicating means is coupled to the housing. Further, the means of indicating may be by…heat…when the device has sufficiently heated the substance to a predetermined temperature ([0537]). Therefore, this reads on the claim limitation a thermal output element coupled to the housing, the thermal output element being distinct from the aerosol-generating element.
Memari does not appear to explicitly disclose the structure of the thermal output element, and therefore does not disclose a circuit coupled to the output element and configured to cause the thermal output element to generate a user-perceptible temperature change, the circuit being further configured to limit a user-perceptible temperature change to no more than 10 degrees Celsius.
Ahn, directed to a device and method for providing tactile feedback, teaches:
A tactile feedback providing device 100 that includes a contact input unit 110, a contact detection unit 120, a temperature control unit 130, a temperature measurement unit 140, and a control unit 150 (page 4, figure 1).
The temperature control unit 130 is connected to the contact input unit 110 and the control unit 150, and the temperature control unit 130 can adjust the temperature of the contact input unit 110 to a response temperature to a user’s contact (page 6). As such, temperature control unit 130 defines a thermal output element and control unit 150 defines a circuit coupled to the thermal output element and configured to cause the thermal output element to generate a user-perceptible temperature change.
The control unit 150 can control the temperature control unit 130 according to the measured temperatures (page 8).
This device provides a user with tactile feedback on temperature changes (page 2).
While the prior art doesn’t explicitly limit the change to no more than 10 degrees, since the temperature can be set or controlled, one of ordinary skill could reasonably select any change in temperature to limit the circuit to, such as no more than 10 degrees Celsius. The claimed limitation is just a design choice and programming of the circuit which is shown to be within the abilities of one of ordinary skill based on the prior art teaching.
Therefore, as Memari is silent to the structure of the thermal output element, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to look other known teachings of thermal output elements that one of ordinary skill could apply to Memari with a reasonable expectation of success in the thermal output element being suitable for use in an aerosol-generating device.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the thermal output element of Memari by incorporating the thermal output element and circuit as taught by Ahn, because both Memari and Ahn are directed to thermal output elements, Memari is silent to the structure of the thermal output element and Ahn teaches this provides a user with tactile feedback on temperature changes, and this merely involves incorporating a known thermal output element to a similar device with heat indication to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, modified Memari further teaches a sensor coupled to the circuit and configured to output to the circuit a temperature change of the thermal output element (Ahn, temperature measuring unit 140 that provides the initial temperature, contact temperature, and response temperature to the control unit, page 8).
Regarding claim 18, modified Memari further teaches wherein the circuit is further configured to adjust the operation of the thermal output element (Ahn, the control unit 150 can control the temperature control unit 130 according to the measured temperatures, page 8).
Regarding claim 19, modified Memari further teaches wherein the thermal output element is a resistive element (resistor) or a thermoelectric device (thermoelectric semiconductor element) (Ahn, page 7).
Regarding claims 20-21, modified Memari further teaches wherein the user-perceptible temperature change comprises cooling and heating (Ahn, temperature control unit may include heating and cooling elements, page 7).
Regarding claim 22, modified Memari further teaches:
An input element configured to generate an input signal (Ahn, contact input unit 110 that includes one surface that can be touched by a user and can receive an operation signal for executing functions of the device, page 4).
Wherein the circuit is further configured to cause the thermal output element to generate the user-perceptible temperature change responsive to the input signal (Ahn, the control unit 150 can transmit the processing result to the contact input unit 110 and control the temperature control unit 130 depending on whether or not the contact detection unit 120 detects it, page 5).
Regarding claims 23 and 26, modified Memari further teaches wherein the input element is user-actuatable (the contact input unit 110 may include a button, a key pad, a touch pad, a scroll wheel, or a touch screen, page 4, which reads on wherein the input element is a mechanical button, a dial, and a touchscreen as recited in claim 26.
Regarding claim 25, modified Memari further teaches wherein the input element and the thermal output element are arranged in a stack (Ahn, as is evident by figure 5 and that the temperature control unit 130 can change the temperature of the front surface of the contact input unit 110, page 6).
Regarding claim 27, modified Memari further teaches:
The means of indicating by heat when the PV is ready for use [0537], and therefore the input signal corresponds to a condition of the aerosol-generating device.
Regarding claim 31, Memari further teaches:
The PV has a fluid chamber (reference numeral 48) that stores e-liquid ([0348], figure 20). An e-liquid is a vaping substance from which vapor for inhalation can be generated ([0003]), and is therefore considered to be an aerosol-forming substrate.
Regarding claim 32, Memari further teaches that the e-liquid may comprise nicotine ([0003]- [0004]).
Regarding claim 34, modified Memari further teaches
Wherein the circuit is further configured to determine a status of the aerosol-generating device, and wherein the user-perceptible temperature change indicates the determined status of the aerosol-generating device ([0537] of Memari: the PV automatically indicates when it has reached the correct operating temperature and that indicating means is through heat. Further, modified Memari comprises the heat indicating means as taught by Ahn which comprises the circuit).
Regarding claim 35, modified Memari further teaches wherein the circuit is further configured to actuate the thermal output element in response to one or more of:
a user turning on the aerosol-generating device,
the user turning off the aerosol-generating device,
a reservoir of the aerosol-generating device or of an aerosol-generating article when coupled with the aerosol-generating device containing sufficient liquid or gel for a user experience,
the reservoir containing insufficient liquid or gel for a user experience,
the aerosol-generating element heating up,
the aerosol-generating element being sufficiently heated to generate an aerosol ([0537] of Memari: the PV automatically indicates when it has reached the correct operating temperature and that indicating means is through heat. Further, modified Memari comprises the heat indicating means as taught by Ahn which comprises the circuit).
and a battery of the aerosol-generating device level being sufficient for a user experience.
Regarding claim 36, modified Memari further teaches wherein the circuit is further configured to actuate the thermal output element to generate and complete the user-perceptible temperature change (Ahn, page 5: the control unit can transmit the processing result to the contact input unit and control the temperature control unit, page 10: the temperature control unit provides a temperature change to the contact input unit according to contact detection in the contact detection unit and the user can feel the temperature change as tactile feedback on contact).
Ahn does not appear to explicitly disclose the length of the time period to actuate and generate the user-perceptible temperature change.
However, Ahn teaches when a user touches the contact input portion of the device, the temperature of the contact input portion changes and the user can feel the temperature change (page 3, line 15-17). As such it would be expected that some amount of time is needed to change the temperature for the user to perceive the temperature change.
As the temperature change occurs so that the user can feel it when in contact with the device, it would be obvious that you would want to notify the user quickly and thus would try to actuate the output element optimally in a short period of time. Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine an optimum or workable range of the length of the time period to actuate and generate the user-perceptible temperature change and arrive at the claimed range or ranges overlapping the claimed range, as one of ordinary skill would know to optimize the time so that the use can feel the temperature change when in contact with the device as taught by Ahn, and it has been held that discovering an optimum or workable range of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicole A Szumigalski whose telephone number is (703)756-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 4:30 EST.
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.
/N.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755