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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 2’s claims 11–12, drawn to a method of controlling the aerosol generating device of claim 1, in the reply filed on 09/29/2025 (“Remarks”) is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 1’s “the processor is further configured to check an output value in response to a pulse signal having a certain frequency and set an operating frequency based on the checked output value” is a special technical feature. Remarks at 5–8. This is not found persuasive for the reasons in the following paragraphs.
At issue is whether US 20160338407’s (“Kerdemelidis”) [0111] discloses the above technical feature. Applicant argues that Kerdemelidis fails to discloses the processor limitation above because:
[Kerdemelidis’ [0111]], at best, discloses (1) performing a frequency sweep and monitoring the change in impedance, (2) if no peak is found in impedance, continuing to drive the transducer, and (3) if a peak is found in impedance, limiting or shutting down the drive signal and informing the user that the reservoir is empty and requires refilling. Kerdemelidis is silent about checking an output value in response to a pulse signal having a certain frequency and setting an operating frequency based on the checked output value, as recited in claim 1.
Consequently, Kerdemelidis fails to disclose, teach or suggest "the processor is further configured to check an output value in response to a pulse signal having a certain frequency and set an operating frequency based on the checked output value," as recited in independent claim 1. (Emphasis added). Therefore, the special technical feature of the present application makes a contribution over Kerdemelidis.
Remarks at 8. (emphasis in original) (annotation added) Respectfully, this is not persuasive. Claim 1’s recitation of a “processor is further configured to check an output value in response to a pulse signal having a certain frequency” does not a) define an output of any component, b) require an actual pulse signal, c) require a signal from a particular source, and d) not define a particular frequency. Instead, the recitation of “processor is further configured to check an output value” captures any processor configured to receive an input, which is capable of being a pulse signal having a certain frequency, i.e., an electrical input.
Kerdemelidis’ [0111] discloses not only processor configured to receive an electrical input, but also that the electrical input is the result of pulse signals being sent to a vibrator. Kerdemelidis’ discloses that the atomizer/vibrator “may vibrate at a frequency of between 1 and 500 KHz, preferably at approximately 128KHz, with an overall duty cycle of the power driver being between 0.1% and 100% in order to control the quantity of the atomized aerosol particles generated.” (underline added) A person of ordinary skill in the art understands Kerdemelidis’ duty cycle is a fraction/percentage during one period in which a signal or system is active, which results in pulse(s) being applied through the circuitry. For example, with a duty cycle of 100% over and assumed period of one second, current flows to the vibrator its greatest extent, i.e., the power is being applied to the vibrator continuously for one second. At duty cycle of 50%, the vibrator is atomizing at a comparatively lesser extent because current flows to the vibrator for half the time period. This understanding is consistent with Applicant’s Specification. See id. at [0195] (explaining that pulse width modulation (PWM) control signals “may be a pulse signal having a constant duty ratio or frequency”), see also id. at [0240] (describing using a lesser duty cycle). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art understands that Kerdemelidis’ discloses:
1) a processor configured to control power supplied to the vibrator ([0111] discloses sending duty cycle pulse(s) to the ultrasonic mesh to vibrate at a frequency of between 1 and 500 KHz and control the quantity of the atomized aerosol particles generated. This results in the pulse signals being transformed from energy in a wire to mechanical vibrations);
2) wherein the processor is further configured to check an output value in response to a pulse signal having a certain frequency ([0111] discloses measuring/monitoring the frequency of the vibrating transducer with a current sensor, which is a direct measurement of the energy flowing through the circuitry, or by monitoring the voltage across the transducer, perhaps resulting in the mechanical vibrations being transformed into electrical signals. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that resulting current measured or voltage monitored will vary depending on the duty cycle sent to vibrating transducer); and
3) a processor configured to . . . set an operating frequency based on the checked output value ([0111] discloses that, in response to receiving the measured current or monitored voltage, the “CPU can correspondingly limit or shut down the drive signal to that particular ultrasonic mesh preventing damage to the transducer.” This arrives at the broadest reasonable interpretation of a processor configured to not only set an operating frequency, but goes further by implementing the set frequency.)
Additionally, US 20210178090 (“LAHOUD”), as applied in the anticipation rejection of claim 1 below, evidences that the shared technical feature is not a special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The foreign references identified in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on 11/28/2022, 01/02/2024, and 04/30/2024 were searched for corresponding US Patents, Publications, or other English equivalents. Please see below:
EP 3370551 = US 20170119059; and
WO 2021129987 = US 20230015769.
Both US 20170119059 and US 20230015769 are being cited in the attached PTO-892 because they are not already of record.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
That is, no limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. Independent claim 1 is drawn to an aerosol generating device. Thus, claim 1 and its dependents pass Step 1 because they are drawn to an article of manufacture or a machine, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility Life Sciences & Data Processing Examples (“October 2019 Update”), a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. Please see discussion below:
Claim 1’s “wherein the processor is further configured to check an output value in response to a pulse signal having a certain frequency and set an operating frequency based on the checked output value.”
The above limitation falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
The claimed checking a value and setting frequency are similar to other mental processes identified as abstract ideas, e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)
The above limitation is recited at such a high level of generality that it is capable of being performed in the human mind. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) (explaining "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” was found to be a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind because the data analysis steps were recited at a high level of generality.)
This conclusion is evidenced by at least the following portions of Applicant’s Published Specification in US 20240245112 (“Specification”):
[0084] (describing the claimed processor generically);
[0188–193] (describing the mental process of comparing the actual frequency resulting from errors in manufacturing and the setting frequency of the aerosol generating device);
[0193] (explaining “the frequency of the power supplied to the vibrator P may be actually measured and compared.”);
[0198] (explaining “processor 550 may estimate the frequency of the vibrator P by referring to a current value table according to the frequency of the vibrator P.”).
The above limitation also falls into the “mathematical relationships,” “mathematical formulas or equations,” or “mathematical calculation” group of abstract ideas discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A–C).
This conclusion is evidenced by at least the following portions of Applicant’s Specification:
[0205] (explaining “the correlation between an output value and the frequency or operating frequency of the vibrator corresponding thereto may be previously measured experimentally, empirically, or mathematically and may be stored in a memory of the aerosol generating device. The correlation between the output value and the frequency or operating frequency of the vibrator may be stored in the memory in the form of a table, an equation, a matching table or the like.”); and
Figs. 7–8 (expressing mathematical concepts or mental processes with words). (Please note: a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula." MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)
Although the above limitation falls under several exceptions there are no bright lines between the types of exceptions. MPEP § 2106.04(I).
Claim 3’s “so as to set the operating frequency and set the operating frequency depending on whether each output value is within a threshold range.”
While the above is an intended use, this limitation also falls into the “mathematical concept” and “mental process” groups of abstract ideas for the same reasons as set out for claim 1 above.
Claim 4’s “processor is further configured to . . . check an output value of power supplied to the vibrator, and compare a target output value corresponding to the previously-stored operating frequency with the checked output value and set the operating frequency according to a comparison result.”
This limitation also falls into the “mathematical concept” and “mental process” groups of abstract ideas for the same reasons as set out for claim 1 above.
Claim 5’s “wherein the processor is further configured to output a pulse signal corresponding to the set operating frequency.”
This “corresponding” limitation seems related to the above “mathematical concept” and “mental process” groups of abstract ideas and, therefore, is included here for the same reasons as set out for claim 1 above.
Claim 8’s “the processor is further configured to convert the sensed current value or voltage value into a digital value . . .”
Is a mathematical relationship similar to “a conversion between binary coded decimal and pure binary.” See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(ii).
Claim 8’s “the processor is further configured to . . . compare the converted digital value with a digital value for each previously-stored frequency to set the operating frequency.
This comparing limitation seems related to the above “mathematical concept” and “mental process” groups of abstract ideas and, therefore, is included here for the same reasons as set out for claim 1 above.
In situations like this where multiple judicial exceptions are recited, Examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. See MPEP §§ 2106.04 and 2106.05(II). Thus, for purposes of further discussion, the above limitations will be treated as a single abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether claim(s) as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract idea identified above, claim 1 also recites:
“a storage unit in which an aerosol generating material is stored; a liquid delivery element configured to absorb the aerosol generating material stored in the storage unit; an atomizer comprising a vibrator configured to generate ultrasonic vibration and atomize the aerosol generating material absorbed by the liquid delivery element with an aerosol”;
These generically link the abstract idea to the field of endeavor of aerosol generating devices that utilize an ultrasonic vibrator to atomize a liquid. See MPEP § 2106 (explaining “[a]n abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment”). The courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis. MPEP § 2106.05(I).
“a processor configured to control power supplied to the vibrator;”
The processor is recited generically (no structural details are recited other than that it is a “processor”) and represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a general-purpose processor/circuitry. Applicant’s Specification also describes the processor very generically. See id. at [0084] (explaining the processor may be “an array of a plurality of logic gates or can be implemented as a combination of a general-purpose microprocessor and a memory in which a program executable in the microprocessor is stored, the program configured to cause the microprocessor to perform the functions of the processor 550”). Accordingly, the above limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
“wherein the processor is further configured to check an output value in response to a pulse signal having a certain frequency;”
Again, this limitation’s “configured to check an output value” captures abstract idea(s) for the reasons stated above. To the extent that any additional non-abstract limitations are required, e.g., requiring the processor capable of being capable of receiving a signal, the additional requirements are insignificant pre-solution activity necessary to perform the perform the mathematical concept” and/or the “mental process.” See MPEP § 2106.05(g) (explaining mere data gathering is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity).
“wherein the processor is further configured to . . . set an operating frequency based on the checked output value”
Again, this limitation’s “configured to . . . set an operating frequency based on the checked output value” captures abstract idea(s) for the reasons stated above. To the extent that any additional non-abstract limitations are required, e.g., if Applicant were to amend to actually require the set operating frequency to be implemented by the vaporizer, the additional requirements amount insignificant post-solution activity of merely applying the abstract idea(s). See generally MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, claim 1 fails to recite any additional features which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite any additional features which integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Please see discussion below:
Claim 2’s recitation “wherein the operating frequency is a frequency of the pulse signal for preheating the vibrator” does not narrow the operating frequency to any particular range and amounts to insignificant post-solution activity of merely applying the abstract idea(s).
Claim 3’s recitation of “processor is further configured to output pulse signals having a plurality of frequencies for a test” is insignificant pre-solution activity related to the data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g);
Claim 4’s recitation of “the processor is further configured to output a pulse signal having a frequency of a certain size” is insignificant pre-solution activity related to the data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g);
Claim 5’s recitation of “the processor is further configured to output a pulse signal corresponding to the set operating frequency” amounts to insignificant post-solution activity of merely applying the abstract idea(s).
Claim 6’s recitation of “further comprising a sensing circuit configured to sense an output value of an input side of the vibrator” represents mere data gathering that is necessary to obtain the pre-solution activity related to the judicial exception.
This feature is similar to Example 45’s Claim 3 in Appendix 1 to the October 2019 Update which evaluates a similar—less broadly claimed—sensor and concludes it “represents mere data gathering (obtaining and measuring the temperature values) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the temperature values are used in limitation (b)’s mental calculation of the extent of curing completion).”
This feature is recited at a high level of generality and does not amount to a “particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using raw data” like that in Thales v. Visionix. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 7’s recitation “wherein the output value is a current value or a voltage value sensed at the input side of the vibrator” attempts to further define features surrounding the data gathering step, but does so in functional limitations which do not meaningfully limit claim 1.
Claim 9’s recitation of “wherein the operating frequency is a value within a range of 2.7 MHz to 3.2 MHz” further defines the range of the operating frequency, but does not integrate the abstract idea in to the claim. That is, after setting the operating frequency to the claimed ranged, the processor does not implement the operating frequency in the aerosol generating device. Even if, the claims were amended to actually require the set operating frequency to be implemented by the vaporizer, the additional requirements amount insignificant post-solution activity of merely applying the abstract idea(s). See generally MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 10’s recitation of “wherein a vibration frequency of the vibrator is a value within a range of 2.6 MHz to 3.1 MHz” amounts to an intended use limitation limiting the scope of claim 1’s vibrator being capable of vibrating at 2.6 MHz to 3.1 MHz.
Therefore, Step 2A, Prong Two is satisfied because the claims fail to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Analysis under Step 2B may be found in the following section.
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim(s) as a whole
amount(s) to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP § 2106.05.
While similar to Step 2A Prong Two, Step 2B goes further by taking into account whether or not
the extra-solution activity is well-known. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The following Table provides
evidence demonstrating that the features recited in addition to the abstract idea(s) were well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field aerosol generating devices:
Features recited in addition to the abstract idea(s)
Conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two
Evidence that the additional features were well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field aerosol generating devices
Claim 1’s “a storage unit in which an aerosol generating material is stored”
Generically links the abstract idea to the field of endeavor of aerosol generating devices that utilize an ultrasonic vibrator to atomize a liquid.
US 20160338407 as applied rejection below;
US 20210178090 as applied rejection below; and
US 20210020823 [0126]’s general teaching.
Claim 1’s “a liquid delivery element configured to absorb the aerosol generating material stored in the storage unit”
Generically links the abstract idea to the field of endeavor of aerosol generating devices that utilize an ultrasonic vibrator to atomize a liquid.
US 20160338407 as applied rejection below; and
US 20210178090 as applied rejection below.
Claim 1’s “an atomizer comprising a vibrator configured to generate ultrasonic vibration and atomize the aerosol generating material absorbed by the liquid delivery element with an aerosol”
Generically links the abstract idea to the field of endeavor of aerosol generating devices that utilize an ultrasonic vibrator to atomize a liquid.
US 20160338407 as applied rejection below;
US 20210178090 as applied rejection below; and
US 20210020823 [0125].
Claim 1’s “a processor configured to control power supplied to the vibrator”
The processor is recited so generically (no structural details are recited other than that it is a “processor”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a general-purpose processor/circuitry.
US 20160338407 as applied rejection below;
US 20210178090 as applied rejection below; and
US 20210020823 [0163].
Claim 2’s recitation “wherein the operating frequency is a frequency of the pulse signal for preheating the vibrator”
This does not narrow the operating frequency to any particular range and amounts to insignificant post-solution activity of merely applying the abstract idea(s).
US 20160338407 as applied rejection below;
US 20210178090 as applied rejection below; and
US 20210020823 [0163].
Claim 3’s recitation of “processor is further configured to output pulse signals having a plurality of frequencies for a test”
This is insignificant pre-solution activity related to the data gathering.
US 20160338407 as applied rejection below;
US 20210178090 as applied rejection below; and
US 20210020823 [0163].
Claim 4’s recitation of “the processor is further configured to output a pulse signal having a frequency of a certain size”
This is insignificant pre-solution activity related to the data gathering.
US 20160338407 as applied rejection below;
US 20210178090 as applied rejection below; and
US 20210020823 [0163].
Claim 5’s recitation of “the processor is further configured to output a pulse signal corresponding to the set operating frequency”
This amounts to insignificant post-solution activity of merely applying the abstract idea(s).
US 20160338407 as applied rejection below;
US 20210178090 as applied rejection below; and
US 20210020823 [0163].
Claim 6’s recitation of “further comprising a sensing circuit configured to sense an output value of an input side of the vibrator”
This represents mere data gathering that is necessary to obtain the pre-solution activity related to the judicial exception.
US 20160338407 as applied rejection below;
US 20210178090 as applied rejection below;
US 20210020823 [0163] and Figs. 4B–5.
Claim 7’s recitation “wherein the output value is a current value or a voltage value sensed at the input side of the vibrator”
This is attempts to further define features surrounding the data gathering step, but does so in functional limitations which do not meaningfully limit claim 1.
US 20160338407 as applied rejection below; and
US 20210178090 as applied rejection below; and
US 20210020823 [0163].
Claim 9’s recitation of “wherein the operating frequency is a value within a range of 2.7 MHz to 3.2 MHz”
This further defines the range of the operating frequency, but does not integrate the abstract idea in to the claim. Additionally, the limitation amounts insignificant post-solution activity of merely applying the abstract idea(s).
US 20210178090 as applied rejection below; and
US 20210219606 [0204].
Claim 10’s recitation of “wherein a vibration frequency of the vibrator is a value within a range of 2.6 MHz to 3.1 MHz”
This amounts to an intended use limitation limiting the scope of claim 1’s vibrator being capable of vibrating at 2.6 MHz to 3.1 MHz. Accordingly, this limitation does not impart a meaningful limit on the claimed judicial exception.
US 20210178090 as applied rejection below; and
US 20210219606 [0204].
As demonstrated above, those features recited in addition to the abstract idea remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration because the features were well-known, routine, and conventional at the time of filing.
Accordingly, claims 1–10 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited exceptions identified above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 3, the recitation of “each output value” lacks antecedent basis.
As to claim 4, the recitation of “the previously-stored operating frequency” lacks antecedent basis.
As to claim 4, the recitation of “the checked output value” is indefinite because its unclear whether Applicant intends to reference the “checked output value” introduced in claim 1’s lines 8–9 or the “checked output value” introduced in claim 4’s line 2.
As to claim 5, recites “the processor is further configured to output a pulse signal corresponding to the set operating frequency.” The term “corresponding” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “corresponding” is not defined by the claim, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art, when searching through processors “further configured to output a pulse signal,” is unable to ascertain when pulse signals correspond to a “set operating frequency” or not.
As to claim 6, this claim recites “further comprising a sensing circuit configured to sense an output value of an input side of the vibrator.” One of ordinary skill in the art is unable to ascertain when sensing circuit is “configured to sense an output value of an input side of the vibrator.” The only support for an “input side” is in [0014–0015], which generally repeat the language of claim 6. Possible support exits in Fig. 5, which illustrates a sensor (514) connected to either side of vaporizer (P). Specification at [0203–205]. But the structure illustrated in Fig. 5 does not have “an input side” (singular). Instead, current flows into both sides of the vibrator P. See also Specification at [0192]–[0201]. Additionally, the claimed “output value” is confusing because Applicant’s Specification uses this language to describe the output from the sensor that is checked by the processor—not the current measured on either side of the vibrator. Id. at 205.
For the purposes of searching and throughout the remainder of this action, Examiner will assume a sensor which connects to at least one side of a vibrator will arrive at the limitation of claim 6 because this is generally consistent with Applicant’s Specification.
Claims 7–8 are rejected for the same reasons via their dependency on claim 1.
As to claim 7, the recitation of “the output value” is ambiguous because one of ordinary skill in the art is unable to ascertain whether Applicant intends to reference the “output value” introduced in claim 1’s lines 8 or the “output value” introduced in claim 6’s line 2.
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons via its dependency on claim 7.
As to claim 8, the recitation of “each previously-stored frequency” lack antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1–7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20160338407’s (“KERDEMELIDIS”).
As to claim 1, KERDEMELIDIS discloses an aerosol generating device comprising (Fig. 22):
PNG
media_image1.png
302
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
323
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a storage unit (Figs. 21–22) in which an aerosol generating material is stored (1516; [0108–109]);
a liquid delivery element (Fig. 24, 2410, 2412) configured to absorb the aerosol generating material stored in the storage unit ([0110–111] the liquid is absorbed between the voids within the mesh);
PNG
media_image3.png
277
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
350
188
media_image4.png
Greyscale
an atomizer (Figs. 23–24, 2306) comprising a vibrator configured to generate ultrasonic vibration and atomize the aerosol generating material absorbed by the liquid delivery element with an aerosol ([0110–111]); and
a processor (518) configured to control power supplied to the vibrator ([0109]; [0111] discloses sending duty cycle pulse(s) to the ultrasonic mesh to vibrate at a frequency of between 1 and 500 KHz and control the quantity of the atomized aerosol particles generated. This results in the pulse signals being transformed from energy in a wire to mechanical vibrations),
wherein the processor is further configured to check an output value ([0111] discloses measuring/monitoring the frequency of the vibrating transducer with a current sensor, which is a direct measurement of the energy flowing through the circuitry, or by monitoring the voltage across the transducer, perhaps resulting in the mechanical vibrations being transformed into electrical signals. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that the resulting current measured or voltage monitored will vary depending on the duty cycle sent to vibrating transducer) in response to a pulse signal having a certain frequency (the recitation of “in response to a pulse signal having a certain frequency” is understood to be functional limitation of the output value and not a condition precedent for the processor to check. That is, the output value is the result of a signal pulsing at certain frequency. This is consistent with [0193] of the Specification) and
the processor is further configured to . . . set an operating frequency based on the checked output value ([0111] discloses that, in response to receiving the measured current or monitored voltage, the “CPU can correspondingly limit or shut down the drive signal to that particular ultrasonic mesh preventing damage to the transducer.” This arrives at the broadest reasonable interpretation of a processor configured to not only set an operating frequency, but goes further by implementing the set frequency.)
As to claim 2, KERDEMELIDIS discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the operating frequency is a frequency of the pulse signal for preheating the vibrator ([0111] evidences that the processor is capable of setting an operating frequency which is capable of preheating the vibrator in a manner consistent with Applicant’s [0189]).
As to claim 3, KERDEMELIDIS discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to output pulse signals having a plurality of frequencies for a test so as to set the operating frequency ([0111]’s frequency sweep) and set the operating frequency depending on whether each output value is within a threshold range ([0111] if a peak is detected the CPU can limit the drive signal).
As to claim 4, KERDEMELIDIS discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to output a pulse signal having a frequency of a certain size ([0111]) and check an output value of power supplied to the vibrator ([0111]’s “impedance will peak sharply and this can be detected by a current sensor (not shown) or by monitoring the voltage across the transducer 2306, or by the phase relationship between voltage drive and current into the transducer 2306”), and compare a target output value corresponding to the previously-stored operating frequency with the checked output value ([0111] compare and determine if the frequency is peaking) and set the operating frequency according to a comparison result ([0111] if a peak is detected the CPU can limit the drive signal).
As to claim 5, KERDEMELIDIS discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to output a pulse signal corresponding to the set operating frequency ([0111] evidences that the processor configuration is results an output of a pulse signal corresponding to the set operating frequency).
As to claim 6, KERDEMELIDIS discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1, further comprising a sensing circuit configured to sense an output value of an input side of the vibrator ([0111]’s “impedance will peak sharply and this can be detected by a current sensor (not shown) or by monitoring the voltage across the transducer 2306, or by the phase relationship between voltage drive and current into the transducer 2306.” This is consistent with Applicant’s Fig. 5).
As to claim 7, KERDEMELIDIS discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 6, wherein the output value is a current value or a voltage value sensed at the input side of the vibrator ([0111]).
Claim(s) 1–10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20210178090 (“LAHOUD”).
As to claim 1, LAHOUD discloses an aerosol generating device (Fig. 2) comprising:
PNG
media_image5.png
714
459
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a storage unit (21) in which an aerosol generating material is stored ([0217]);
a liquid delivery element (5) configured to absorb the aerosol generating material stored in the storage unit ([0230] and [0251]);
an atomizer (5) comprising a vibrator configured to generate ultrasonic vibration and atomize the aerosol generating material absorbed by the liquid delivery element with an aerosol ([0250] and [0260])); and
a processor (4) configured to control power supplied to the vibrator ([0261]), wherein the processor is further configured to check an output value in response to a pulse signal having a certain frequency and set an operating frequency based on the checked output value ([0279]).
As to claim 2, LAHOUD discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the operating frequency is a frequency of the pulse signal for preheating the vibrator ([0261] evidences that the processor is capable of setting an operating frequency which is capable of preheating the vibrator in a manner consistent with Applicant’s [0189]).
As to claim 3, LAHOUD discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to output pulse signals having a plurality of frequencies for a test so as to set the operating frequency ([0280]) and set the operating frequency depending on whether each output value is within a threshold range ([0282]).
As to claim 4, LAHOUD discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to output a pulse signal having a frequency of a certain size ([0280] and [0373]) and check an output value of power supplied to the vibrator ([0280] “controller monitors an Analog-to-Digital Conversion (ADC) value of an Analog-to-Digital converter which is coupled to the transducer” or [0281]’s “the frequency controller of some examples determines the active power being used by the ultrasonic transducer by monitoring the current flowing through the transducer” and [0375]), and compare a target output value corresponding to the previously-stored operating frequency with the checked output value [0379]) and set the operating frequency according to a comparison result ([0380]).
As to claim 5, LAHOUD discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to output a pulse signal corresponding to the set operating frequency [0372–80]).
As to claim 6, LAHOUD discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1, further comprising a sensing circuit configured to sense an output value of an input side of the vibrator ([0072] and [0381–82]).
As to claim 7, LAHOUD discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 6, wherein the output value is a current value or a voltage value sensed at the input side of the vibrator ([0072] and [0381–82]).
As to claim 8, LAHOUD discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured to convert the sensed current value or voltage value into a digital value ([0382]) and compare the converted digital value with a digital value for each previously-stored frequency to set the operating frequency ([0379–82]).
As to claim 9, LAHOUD discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the operating frequency is a value within a range of 2.7 MHz to 3.2 MHz ([0262]).
As to claim 10, LAHOUD discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 9, wherein a vibration frequency of the vibrator is a value within a range of 2.6 MHz to 3.1 MHz. ([0262]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANLEY L CUMMINS IV whose telephone number is (571)272-1060. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. (CST).
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.
/MANLEY L CUMMINS IV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747