19Notice 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 with respect to claim(s) 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
On pages 8-11 applicant argues against Muller and Zarifian, independently. Applicant does not consider the combination of references and the reason for the combination.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim 17 recites associated with an identity of the cartridge. This language is broad and not structure of functional language. “Associated is a vague term and identity is also a vague term.” There is no definitive language to suggests how the resonant frequency is associated with an identity of the cartridge. Limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims. The claims do not indicate how the RC is configured to resonate, what the association is, or what the identity is. It can be argued the RC being configured at a resonant frequency would meet the limitations of any cartridge inserted.
On pages 10-11, applicant discusses the Muller reference. However, applicant’s discussion of this reference is based on feature for which it is not relied up on to show. Muller is simply used to show RFID labels have a widespread application to identify articles. The use of Muller and in turn Zarifian seemed straightforward. Muller disclose the RFID used to identify items. Zarifian discloses operating a vaping device at the resonant frequency of cartridge containing a liquid. (See Paragraphs [0039] and [0041]) The resonant frequency of the cartridge is determined via an RFID tag. (See Paragraph [0041])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 17-25, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korus et al (WO 2020/043901) with references made to (US 2021/0186108) in view of Fursa et al. (US 2017/0055585) Muller (US 2003/0169153) and Zarifian et al (US 2019/0307170).
Regarding claim 1, Korus discloses, "A consumable 120 (equivalent to a cartridge) for an aerosol-generating device comprising an induction heating component 110 and an aerosol generating material 116 is inserted into the main body 112 to configure the device 100 for use, the induction heating component 110 being arranged to heat the aerosol generating material 116, for example by conductive, convective and/or radiant heating, to generate an aerosol in use. The aerosol-generating device further comprises a resonant circuit 150 comprising an inductive element 158 and a capacitor 156 connected in parallel "(see page 9, line 19 to page 12, line 9, Fig. 1-2). Korus fails to disclose, the predetermined resonant frequency is associated with an identity of the cartridge.
While the RC circuit is considered to be in parallel with the heating element as they both share an induced current traveling in the same “direction”, they are not directly connected by the same nodes, even though the claim does not require a direct connection.
However, Fursa discloses an aerosol generating delivery system having a RC in parallel with the heating element. (See Fig 4). The resistor and capacitor of the resonant circuit are in series. It would have been obvious to provide the RC in parallel with the heating element as Fursa shows this is an obvious alternative when the heating element is not being power by inductance.
Muller discloses RFID labels have a widespread application to identify articles (see paragraph [0003]). RFID labels comprise an electrical resonant circuit with a coil and a capacitor that resonate at a predetermined resonant frequency (see paragraph [0002)). Hence, the use of an RFID label to identify a cartridge would fall within the scope of the customary practice followed by persons skilled in the art. It would have been obvious to adapt Korus in view of Muller to provide the resonant frequency associated with an identity of the cartridge for setting the appropriate resonant frequency for the material or for most effectively moving a certain type of liquid as described by Zarifian which discloses, operating a vaping device at the resonant frequency of cartridge containing a liquid. (See Paragraphs [0039] and [0041]) The resonant frequency of the cartridge is determined via an RFID tag. (See Paragraph [0041]). (See Paragraph [0041], [0042])
Korus discloses, regarding claims 18-19, Fig 2 shows the circuit having a capacitor and inductor. They may be connected in either series or parallel. (See Paragraph [0031]) Regarding claim 20, this claim is true. Applicant is claiming a law of physics. Every LC circuit would have its resonant frequency by changing the capacitance of the capacitor.
Regarding claims 21-23, Korus fails to disclose the claims frequency and capacitance. However, it would have been obvious to have the predetermined resonant frequency is in a range of 10 kHz to 100 MHz, wherein the predetermined resonant frequency is in a range of 1MHz to 11 MHz, wherein a capacitance of the capacitor is in a range of 0.1 nF to 10 nF since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claim 24, Placing multiple capacitors in parallel is conventional in the art and can be routinely selected by those skilled in the art and the resonant circuit can be obtained according to practical adjustments based on the desired operation or intended use. Multiple capacitors could also be used to control the frequency by switching which capacitors are connected to change the capacitance. Regarding claim 25, the circuit is on a PCB. (See Paragraph [0053])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-35 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: allowance of claims 31-35 is indicated as none of the cited prior art discloses, or suggests, determine when resonance occurs in the resonant circuit by detecting when the output signal reaches a predetermined threshold value, determine a frequency at which resonance occurs, and identify the cartridge based on the determined resonant frequency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 1/22/2026