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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 03/04/2026.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8 and 16-18 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 2-3, 6 and 9-16 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 03/04/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claim 1, have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Claim 1 has been amended to include newly presented limitations to a molding “covering at least part of an exterior of the SIP to dissipate internal heat of the SIP” previously presented in claim 6. Prior art references Wang, Craven and Cameron do not teach the molding configuration as claimed. However, upon further consideration, as applied in the previous rejection of claim 6, an obviousness rejection is made in further view of Lee et al. (US 20120045871 A1).
On pages 6-7 the Applicant argues that the sensor to detect "negative environmental conditions" taught by Cameron at [0075] and [0080] does not read on the sensor to detect "impurities on the molding" as claimed, as they do not indicate an abnormality of an internal component.
The Examiner disagrees.
Cameron teaches that sensors on an aerosol generating apparatus may be used to detect impurities ([0075]). Cameron further teaches that, in one aspect, the sensor may be used to detect impurities external to the device itself ([0080]). However, the disclosure of one aspect of the device and its sensors does not limit the configuration to that singular aspect. Thus, Cameron does not limit the use of these sensors to sense external conditions. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a sensor to detect impurities may be used to detect impurities in any setting, whether internal or external to the device.
The Examiner further argues that Cameron is not used to teach the positioning of a sensor, but merely to teach art-recognized types of impurity sensors. Thus, the modification merely involves applying a known type of impurity sensor to the existing sensor within the device of Wang. It would be expected that these impurity sensors would still function to detect impurities, whether positioned internally or externally.
On page 7 the Applicant argues that the combination of Lee and Cameron does not appropriately teach the claim, as modifying Cameron with Lee merely results in Cameron "having the 'molding member 160' on top of the internal components and a sensor to detect the 'negative environmental conditions' rather than the conditions of the 'molding member'."
The Examiner disagrees.
Firstly, The Examiner notes that Lee is not used to modify Cameron, but to modify Wang.
Wang teaches a molding (battery casing 401; [0048]) and at least one sensor (resistance detection circuitry 407; [0046]) configured to detect presence or absence of an impurity ([0019]) on the molding ([0048]).
Lee teaches a molding (molding member 160 with thermally conductive plug 200; [0040]) covering at least a part of the exterior of the SIP to dissipate internal heat ([0066-0068]) of the SIP.
The rejection states that it would be obvious to modify Wang by using the heat dissipation molding as taught by Lee as the molding because both Wang and Lee are directed to SIPs, Lee teaches a molding to dissipate heat from a SIP, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would improve the SIP, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
This modification would merely involve applying a different molding type/material rather than modifying the configuration of elements on the molding. Thus, modifying the molding 401 of Wang would still result in the sensor 407 being located within the molding. It would therefore be expected that the sensor 407 would appropriately detect conditions of the molding member.
The following is a modified rejection based on Applicant’s amendments to the 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 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 1, 7 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20170079323 A1) in view of Craven et al. (A Technique for Detecting Moisture Absorption in Printed Circuit Boards), Cameron (US 20160331036 A1) and Lee et al. (US 20120045871 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a system-in-package (SIP) for an aerosol generating apparatus (electronic cigarette 10; [0043]), comprising:
a heating integrated circuit (IC) (printed circuit board 3; Fig. 10; [0046]) configured to control a heating operation of a heater assembly (heating element 5; [0048]) included in the aerosol generating apparatus;
a molding (battery casing 401; [0048]);
at least one sensor (resistance detection circuitry 407; [0046]) configured to detect presence or absence of an impurity ([0019]);
and a microcontroller unit (MCU) (main control unit (MCU) 405; [0046]) configured to:
detect presence or absence of the impurity using the at least one sensor ([0019]);
control the heating IC to stop the heating operation based on detecting the presence of the impurity ([0019]);
and control the heating IC to resume the heating operation of the heater assembly based on detecting the absence of the impurity ([0048] teaches that the heating operation will be stopped when sensed resistance is above a certain upper threshold, and will be resumed when the resistance reaches a lower threshold).
Wang further teaches that the MCU configuration is implemented to protect the aerosol generating device and its components from thermal damage ([0005]).
Wang does not explicitly teach (I) that the molding covers at least a part of an exterior of the SIP to dissipate internal heat of the SIP, (II) that the MCU is configured to control the heating IC based on a sensor detecting impurities on the molding or (III) that the sensor comprises a sensor configured to detect presence or absence of an impurity on the molding by detecting a magnetic field or a color.
Regarding (I), Lee, directed to a SIP (Fig. 5B; [0061]), teaches a molding (molding member 160 with thermally conductive plug 200; [0040]) covering at least a part of the exterior of the SIP to dissipate internal heat ([0066-0068]) of the SIP.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang by using the heat dissipation molding as taught by Lee as the housing because both Wang and Lee are directed to SIPs, Lee teaches a molding to dissipate heat from a SIP, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would improve the SIP, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Regarding (II), Craven, directed to a technique for detecting impurities (moisture) in printed circuit boards, teaches a sensor to detect impurities (moisture) before the impurities accumulate and cause failure of the circuit board (Abstract).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang by adding the impurity sensor as taught by Craven to the SIP (and therefore also the molding 401) and to configure the MCU to control the heating IC to stop the heating operation based on impurities detected by the impurity sensor in order to prevent damage to the circuit because Wang is directed to a SIP comprising circuitry and Craven teaches a sensor to protect circuitry from environmental damage, and this involves applying a known technique to a similar circuit to yield predictable results.
Regarding (III), Cameron, directed to an aerosol-generating apparatus comprising a heating integrated circuit configured to control a heating operation of a heater assembly (vaporizing component) included in the aerosol generating apparatus ([0129], [0158]), at least one sensor (sensor 136; [0075]) and a microcontroller (processor 102; [0048]), teaches that magnetic or optical sensors may be used to sense impurities ([0075]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang by adding sensors such as a magnetic sensor to the at least one sensor of Cameron/Craven because Wang is directed to a SIP for an aerosol generating apparatus and Cameron is directed to an aerosol generating apparatus, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the addition of art-recognized impurity sensors would improve the detection capabilities of the device, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
The Examiner notes that, as the claim is directed to a SIP, the limitation directed to a heater assembly, which is not part of the SIP, is merely intended use.
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches that the SIP is stacked on at least part of a battery or arranged alongside the battery ([0048]).
The Examiner notes that, as the claim is directed to a SIP, the limitation directed to a battery, which is not part of the SIP, is merely intended use.
Regarding claim 16, Wang and Craven teach that the at least one sensor further comprises a sensor configured to detect the presence or absence of the impurity by detecting liquid on at least a portion of the molding (Wang [0048] teaches detection above a certain upper threshold and below a lower threshold, which may indicate the presence or absence of impurities. Craven teaches that the sensor detects a liquid on at least a portion of the molding (Abstract). The Examiner notes that, as the SIP is located on the molding, the sensor is considered to be detecting impurities that are on the molding).
Regarding claim 17, Craven teaches that the sensor configured to detect liquid is configured to detect liquid on at least a portion of the molding (Wang [0048] teaches detection above a certain upper threshold and below a lower threshold, which may indicate the presence or absence of impurities. Craven teaches that the sensor detects a liquid on at least a portion of the molding (Abstract). The Examiner notes that, as the SIP is located on the molding, the sensor is considered to be detecting impurities that are on the molding). As the sensor is configured to detect liquid, it will inherently detect water.
Regarding claim 18, Wang does not explicitly teach that the molding is comprised of an epoxy molding compound (EMC) that dissipates heat and is waterproof.
Lee, directed to a SIP (Fig. 5B; [0061]), teaches a molding (molding member 160 with thermally conductive plug 200; [0040]) covering at least a part of the exterior of the SIP to dissipate internal heat ([0066-0068]) of the SIP. Lee teaches that the molding may be comprised of an epoxy molding compound (EMC) ([0081]) that dissipates heat ([0066-0068]) and is waterproof (EMC would inherently have these properties).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang by using the heat dissipation EMC molding as taught by Lee as the housing because both Wang and Lee are directed to SIPs, Lee teaches a molding to dissipate heat from a SIP, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would improve the SIP, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Craven and Cameron as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keskin et al. (US 20180073933 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches that the MCU is configured to control the heating IC to stop the heating operation based on a temperature detected by the sensor being greater than a preset threshold value ([0048], [0059]). Wang further teaches that that a temperature increase may damage other components of the electronic cigarette ([0005]).
Wang does not teach that the MCU is configured to control the heating IC to stop the heating operation based on a temperature of at least one component of the SIP detected by the at least one sensor being greater than a preset threshold value.
Keskin, directed to an SIP (chip 200; [0037]) comprising an MCU (temperature manager 230), a sensor (temperature sensors 211-214), and integrated circuits (region 210 that may comprise a CPU or blocks of circuitry), teaches a method for temperature monitoring of a chip, wherein the MCU is configured to block an IC based a temperature of at least one components of the SIP being greater than a threshold value to prevent overheating (Background, [0064]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang by adding at least one temperature sensor to the SIP to monitor the temperature to help prevent overheating and to configure the MCU to control the heating IC to stop the heating operation based on the detected temperature being greater than a preset threshold value as taught by Keskin because both Wang and Keskin are directed to SIPs, Keskin teaches a method to monitor temperature and prevent damage to the SIP, and this involves using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
Regarding claim 5, Wang does not teach that the MCU is configured to control the heating IC to stop the heating operation based on a sum of temperatures of respective components of the SIP being greater than a preset threshold value.
Keskin, directed to an SIP (chip 200; [0037]) comprising an MCU (temperature manager 230), a sensor (temperature sensors 211-214), and integrated circuits (region 210 that may comprise a CPU or blocks of circuitry), teaches a method for temperature monitoring of a chip, wherein the MCU is configured to block an IC based on a sum of temperatures of respective components of the SIP being greater than a threshold value to prevent overheating (Background, [0064]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang by adding multiple sensors to monitor the temperature of the SIP to help prevernt overheating and to configure the MCU to control the heating IC to stop the heating operation based on a sum of temperatures of respective components of the SIP being greater than a preset threshold value as taught by Keskin because both Wang and Keskin are directed to SIPs, Keskin teaches a method to monitor temperature and prevent damage to the SIP, and this involves using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Craven and Cameron as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hower et al. (US 20110009773 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Wang does not teach that the MCU, the heating IC, and the at least one sensor are packaged by wafer-level packaging (WLP).
Hower, directed to a SIP (module 10 or 30; [0028]; [0050]) comprising a controller unit (controller 14), a sensor (sensing elements 13 or 33), and integrated circuits ([0050]), teaches that the SIP may be packaged by wafer-level packaging (WLP) to reduce costs and protect the SIP from external damage ([0050]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang by packaging the SIP, including the MCU, the heating IC, and the at least one sensor, by wafer-level packaging as taught by Hower because both Wang and Hower are directed to SIPs, Hower teaches wafer-level packaging to reduce costs and protect the SIP, and this involves and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar product to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Charlotte Davison whose telephone number is (703)756-5484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-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, 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.
/C.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1755
/PHILIP Y LOUIE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights