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
Claims 1-12 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claims 11-12 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-8 are amended.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response filed on 3/30/2026 containing
amendments and remarks to the claims.
Request for Interview
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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. The Examiner can also be reached by telephone at (703)756-1212.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed 3/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 3/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 3-4 and 6-8 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the rejection. The rejection of claims 3-4 and 6-8 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 3/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 5 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 5 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-12, filed 3/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant has amended claim 1 with the limitation to control, based on the operating frequency, the vibrator to operate at a vibrations frequency of the vibrator which is different from the operating frequency, whereas previously this was not required. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of previously applied art and newly found art.
The following is a modified rejection based on amendments made 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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAHOUD (US2021/0178090) in view of MAEDA (US2019/0209790).
Regarding claim 1, LAHOUD discloses an aerosol generating device (Fig. 2) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
714
459
media_image1.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 (a sweep operation in which the frequency controller drives the transducer at frequencies which track progressively across a predetermined sweep frequency range, [0280]) and set an operating frequency based on the checked output value (locks the drive frequency of the transducer at a frequency within the inductive region, [0282]).
LAHOUD does not appear to explicitly disclose to control, based on the operating frequency, the vibrator to operate at a vibration frequency of the vibrator which is different from the operating frequency.
MAEDA, directed to an ultrasonic vibrator driving apparatus and mesh nebulizer, teaches:
an atomizer (mesh nebulizer 1) comprising a vibrator (horn vibrator 40) configured to generate ultrasonic vibration ([0042]) and a controller (61, [0050]).
when the frequency of the drive voltage is slightly lower (e.g., about 0.2 kHz) than the resonance frequency of the ultrasonic vibrator, the ultrasonic vibrator vibrates efficiently ([0112]). Thus the vibrator operates at a vibration frequency of the vibrator which is different from the operating frequency.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller of LAHOUD to have the frequency of the drive voltage be slightly lower than the resonance frequency of the ultrasonic vibrator as taught by MAEDA, because both LAHOUD and MAEDA are directed to atomizers comprising a vibrator, MAEDA teaches this allows the ultrasonic vibrator to vibrate efficiently, and this merely involves incorporating a known way to operate an ultrasonic vibrator to a similar atomizer to yield predictable results.
For the frequency of the drive voltage to be slightly slower than the resonance frequency of the vibrator, the controller would either have to control the vibration frequency of the vibrator based on the operating frequency, or control the operating frequency based on the frequency of the vibrator. Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to try to control the vibration frequency of the vibrator based on the operating frequency as this merely involves choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success.
Regarding 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]).
Regarding claim 3, LAHOUD discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to output a plurality of pulse signals having a plurality of frequencies for a test so as to set the operating frequency (sweep operation driving the transducer at frequencies, [0280]);
check a plurality of output values in response to the plurality of pulse signals having the plurality of frequencies (monitors the ADC value, [0280]),
wherein the operating frequency is set depending on whether each output value of the plurality of output values is within a threshold range (the frequency controller records the ADC value and locks the drive frequency of the transducer at a frequency within the inductive region, [0282]).
Regarding claim 4, LAHOUD discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to output the pulse signal having the certain frequency ([0280] and [0373]) and check the 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 a previously-stored operating frequency with the checked output value [0379]) and set the operating frequency according to a comparison result ([0380]).
Regarding 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]).
Regarding claim 6, LAHOUD discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 1, further comprising a sensing circuit connected to a side of the vibrator (fig. 2) and configured to sense the output value from the side of the vibrator ([0072] and [0381–82]).
Regarding 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 side of the vibrator ([0072] and [0381–82]).
Regarding claim 8, LAHOUD discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 7, further comprising: a memory storing a plurality of previously-stored frequencies (records stored in memory, [0373-79]), 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 of the plurality of previously-stored frequencies to set the operating frequency ([0379–82]).
Regarding 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 (As modified LAHOUD has the vibration frequency set 0.2 kHz above the operating frequency as taught by MAEDA, and LAHOUD discloses the operating frequency between 2.8 MHZ to 3.2 MHz, [0262])
Regarding claim 10, modified LAHOUD discloses the aerosol generating device of claim 9, wherein the vibration frequency of the vibrator is a value within a range of 2.6 MHz to 3.1 MHz ([0262]).
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 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
Prosecution Insights