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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s arguments concerning the drawings have been addressed in prior office actions (see Non-Final Rejection mailed 4/01/2026). The structure is not clearly described or illustrated.
The applicant argues that the prior art does not, “…describe circuitry configured to monitor a resonant behavior of the piezoelectric transducer, and they do not describe controlling drive circuitry based on monitored resonant behavior.” First, claim 1 does not include limitations to indicate what constitutes “a resonant behavior” or what circuitry structure meets the limitation. The examiner maintains that Mazur discloses control circuitry that monitors resonant behavior and controls the drive circuitry in response the monitored behavior.
Mazur discloses a flow sensor connected to the control circuit configured to control fluid flow in the micropump [0015], and as disclosed by Mazur, displacement of the pump (i.e. fluid flow) is related to the amplitude of the controller voltage used to drive the pump. In other words, the resonant state of the micropump is monitored through fluid flow. Mazur states:
The aerosol-generating device may further comprise a flow sensor configured to control a fluid flow in the common outlet of the micropump. The flow sensor is connected to the control electronics which are configured to control the fluid flow by, for example, keeping the fluid flow constant, and/or by changing the micropump parameters if required. The device may thus comprise a controlled loop system. [0055]
As disclosed above, the control circuitry can change the micropump parameters (i.e. drive circuitry) if required based on the monitored fluid flow.
The applicant argues that Mazur and Litherland do not address the limitation in claim 15 as discussed above and that the combination does not, “…supply the missing relationship between the claimed liquid-pump transducer assembly and control circuitry configured to monitor resonant behavior of that pump transducer and control drive circuit operation based on that monitored pump transducer behavior.” The examiner maintains that Mazur teaches a control circuitry configured to monitor “a resonant behavior” of the pump as discussed above and drive circuitry based on the behavor. Furthermore, the arguments do not appear to point to a structural difference between the prior art and the instant claim, nor is it clear as to what the specific “resonant behavior” is that is supposedly missing from the prior art teaching. The examiner suggests adding specific structures capable of performing the monitoring of the resonant behavior to the claimed circuit.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the adjacent liquid valve, and the transducer assembly configured to drive the membrane or surface into vibration, the vibration of the membrane or surface forcing the liquid through an adjacent liquid valve in the liquid pump must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
The applicant argues that no adjacent liquid valve is disclosed in the prior art. However, no adjacent liquid valve is present in the instant drawings. In particular, no structure appears to be illustrated that can be driven by vibration for the membrane or surface forcing the liquid through an adjacent liquid valve in the liquid pump. No internals of the liquid pump are shown. These features must be shown in the drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 15, 23, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mazur (US 20180066645 A1).
Regarding claim 15, 23, and 26, Mazur discloses an aerosol generating device (i.e. electronic cigarette) with a reservoir containing an aerosol-forming liquid, a micropump to pump the fluid from the reservoir to an atomizer (heating element) [0002-0005]. The actuators in the micropump are piezo membranes and are driven by connected control electronics where the rising amplitude of a controller voltage (i.e. oscillating current [0068]), raises the flow rate. The flow rate is also a function of frequency (i.e. of the oscillating current), where the frequency determines the number of pump strokes per unit of time which reaches a maximum flow rate at the resonant frequency, and then decreases at high frequencies above the resonant point [0035]-[0039]. Mazur further discloses that, the combination of signal, amplitude, and frequency (i.e. oscillating current) defines the performance of the micropump, indicating that the controller controls these parameters.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 16-20 and 23-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazur (US 20180066645 A1) as applied to claims 15, 23, and 26 above, in further view of Litherland et al. (US 6,546,927).
Regarding claims 19, and 20, although Mazur discloses a control system and the relation of voltage amplitude and frequency, Mazur does not specifically disclose the circuit type and specific control parameters.
However, Litherland et al. discloses a related aerosol producing device that uses a piezoelectric transducer to force liquid from a liquid reservoir through a plate with apertures (similar to forcing liquid through a valve) along with phase locked loop (PLL) control circuitry to monitor the current, voltage, and the phase difference between them and adjust the resonant behavior of the piezoelectric transducer (col. 3, line 55—col. 4, line 33 and col. 6, line 14—col. 10, line 12). Measuring voltage and current is inherently the same as measuring power.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the control system of Litherland et al. to control the piezoelectric membrane of Mazur so that the piezoelectric membrane of Mazur could be effectively controlled. One of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in light of the teachings by Mazur that voltage and frequency are used to control the piezo electric actuator.
Regarding claims 16-18, Litherland et al. disclose that, “In some embodiments, the desired frequency is the instantaneous resonant frequency of the plate, while in other embodiments, the desired frequency is an offset from the instantaneous resonant frequency. In some embodiments, the desired frequency is the anti-resonant frequency.” (col. 2, 34-38). The above disclosure along with the monitoring disclosure in the rejection above, results in the monitoring of resonant behavior at a plurality of resonant frequencies corresponding to different modes of vibration.
Regarding claim 24, Mazur discloses that the liquid is mixture of an aerosol former (e.g. propylene glycol or glycerol) and a liquid additive such as tobacco extract or flavor [0059]-[0064].
Regarding claims 25, Litherland et al. disclose measuring and analyzing changes in impedance to detect the end of aerosolization and then reduce energization of the piezoelectric element. In other words, the change in impedance can detect a reduction in fluid for aerosolization.
Regarding claims 27, Litherland et al. disclose monitoring voltage, current, and the phase difference between voltage and current. The measurement occurs at a first frequency where there is no vibration and a second frequency where there is significant vibration (col. 1, 60-67).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4805. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Thursday-Friday 7:00-4:30, Wednesday 7:00-1:00.
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 J Felton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights