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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/13/2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 16 and 27 and accompanying remarks filed 10/13/2025 (“Amendment”) are entered. The objection to claim 27 and the claim rejections under 35 USC 102-103 are withdrawn. However, new claim rejections under 35 USC 103 are set forth below in light of the amendment to claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103 (Amendment p. 7-8) 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.
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.
Claims 16-18, 20-21, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (KR 10-2019-0130914 A, previously cited) in view of Chong (US 2019/0200677 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kwon is directed to a fine particle generator (“aerosol-generating device”) (Title):
The fine particle generating device 1 has an elongate body (“housing”) as shown in Figs. 1 and 3, reproduced below;
The device 1 has a cartridge 13 (“heating chamber”) at a proximal end with an opening 12 for receiving an electronic cigarette 11 (“aerosol-generating article”), and a heater 14 is located within the open space of the cartridge 13 ([0005], Fig. 1);
A user inhales vapor through a filter portion of the cigarette 11 (which reads on “wherein during consumption the proximal end of the aerosol-generating device points towards a consumer”) ([0005], Fig. 1);
The device includes display means 20 (“visual feedback means”) for indicating a battery charge level to the user ([0023] and Figs. 2-5). As shown in Fig. 3, the display means 20 is located on the end of the device 1 which receives the cigarette 11, and the display means 20 is ring shaped and surrounds the device 1 and cigarette 11 (which reads on “wherein the proximal end of the aerosol-generating device comprises a visual feedback means, and wherein the visual feedback means surrounds the aerosol generating article, when received in the aerosol-generating device” and “wherein the visual feedback means is ring shaped”) [0027];
Kwon fails to disclose the display means 20 being “provided at a proximal end face of the proximal end of the aerosol-generating device” as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
379
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
433
296
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chong is directed to a heat-not-burn device (Title). The device 100 includes a user interface 230, which is placed at a top 222 of a case 202 so that a user may easily check the status of the device 100 prior to use or even while inhaling ([0075], Figs. 1, 9B). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Chong’s user interface 230 performs a similar function as Kwon’s display means 20, and thus it would be advantageous to similarly place Kwon’s display means 20 on the top face of Kwon’s device (for instance, around the outer edge of the top face) so that a user may easily see it prior to or during use.
PNG
media_image3.png
874
680
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
370
552
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kwon by locating the display means 20 on the top face of Kwon’s device as taught by Chong, because both Kwon and Chong are directed to vaporization devices, Chong teaches that this advantageously allows the user to easily see the display prior to or during inhalation, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claims 17-18, Kwon’s display means 20 uses LEDs (per claim 17) to display different colors (per claim 18) [0023].
Regarding claim 20, the display means 20 may include a plurality of LEDs 21-24 ([0029] and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 21, Kwon discloses a battery 40 and a control device 30 which operates the display means 20 ([0023] and Fig. 2, showing a block diagram wherein display means 20, control device 30, and battery 40 are connected).
Regarding claim 27, Kwon discloses the fine particle generating device 1 and the electronic cigarette 11 as set forth above [0005].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (KR 10-2019-0130914 A) in view of Chong (US 2019/0200677 A1) as applied to claim 17, further in view of Spencer (US 2020/0383380 A1, previously cited).
Kwon discloses the display means 20 with LEDs as set forth above. However, Kwon fails to disclose “a multi-pixel display device” as claimed.
Spencer is directed to an electronic vapor provision device with two or more user controls (Abstract). The device includes a display 61, which may be a screen with a full color pixel display [0073]. Such a display 61 can advantageously display numerical values (which provides a user with more complex information compared to Kwon’s LEDs which merely display colors) and may provide touch screen user controls [0073].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kwon by incorporating a full color pixel display into the display means 20 as taught by Spencer (either by adding the full color pixel display with the LEDs of display means 20, or by substituting the LEDs), because both Kwon and Spencer are directed to electronic vaporization devices with user displays, Spencer teaches that a full color pixel display can advantageously display numerical values and provide touch controls, and this combination involves either a use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way or a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 22, 24, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (KR 10-2019-0130914 A) in view of Chong (US 2019/0200677 A1) as applied to claims 21 and 27, further in view of Sears (US 2015/0216233 A1, previously cited) and Ouyang (CA 3020139 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claims 22 and 24, Kwon discloses the display means 20 and control device 30, as set forth above in the discussion of claim 21. Kwon discloses an RFID reader for determining information about the inserted cigarette 11 [0024]. However, Kwon fails to disclose “wherein the proximal end of the aerosol-generating device comprises a proximity sensor configured to detect proximity to a mouth of the consumer, the proximity sensor being in electrical connection with the control unit of the aerosol-generating device” as in claim 22 and “wherein the control unit is configured to control the visual feedback means based on signals received from the proximity sensor” as in claim 24.
Sears is directed to an aerosol delivery device with an illuminated outer surface (Title). The illumination source advantageously provides distinguishing visual characteristics to the device in a variety of manners and with varying intensity [0004-5, 0087]. The intensity of the illumination source can be adjusted based on a user input such as a button, capacitive sensor, switch, or other user input mechanism on the aerosol delivery device [0087, 0089]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Sears’ adjustable illumination intensity could similarly be applied to Kwon’s display means 20.
Ouyang is directed to an electronic cigarette unlocking system with a mobile terminal (Abstract). The mobile terminal includes a display and a sensor, which may be a proximity sensor which turns off the display and/or backlight when the user holds and covers the display [0076-77], which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as an advantageous means of saving power. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Ouyang’s proximity sensor can be used as Sears’ user input mechanism to predictably provide a device which adjusts illumination based on proximity detection.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kwon by incorporating Sears’ user input mechanism into Kwon’s device 1 and connecting it to the control device 30 to adjust the intensity of the display means 20, because both Kwon and Sears are directed to devices with illuminated displays, Sears teaches providing distinguishing visual characteristics (e.g., varying light intensity), and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It would further be obvious to select Ouyang’s proximity sensor as Sears’ user input mechanism and configure Kwon’s control device 30 to turn off the display means 20 when the user holds and covers it as taught by Ouyang, because Kwon, Sears, and Ouyang are directed to electronic cigarette devices with displays, turning off the display means 20 when covered advantageously saves power, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Kwon discloses the display means 20, control device 30, RFID reader, and the system according to claim 27 as set forth above. Kwon fails to disclose “wherein the proximal end of the aerosol-generating device comprises a proximity sensor configured to detect proximity to a mouth of the consumer, the proximity sensor being in electrical connection with the control unit of the aerosol-generating device, and wherein the control unit of the aerosol-generating device controls the visual feedback means in dependence on the signal received from the proximity sensor” as in claim 28 and “wherein the control unit of the aerosol-generating device reduces the light intensity of the visual feedback means when the proximity sensor detects proximity to a mouth of the consumer” as in claim 29.
Sears discloses the illumination source and user input mechanism for adjusting light intensity, as set forth immediately above in the discussion of claims 22 and 24.
Ouyang discloses the proximity sensor for turning off the display when the user covers it, as set forth immediately above in the discussion of claims 22 and 24.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kwon by incorporating Sears’ user input mechanism and Ouyang’s proximity sensor into Kwon’s device 1, in the same manner and for the same reasons as set forth above in the discussion of claims 22 and 24. Specifically, it would be obvious to select Ouyang’s proximity sensor as the user input mechanism and configure the control device 30 to turn off the display means 20 when the user holds and covers it (which reads on “wherein the proximal end of the aerosol-generating device comprises a proximity sensor configured to detect proximity to a mouth of the consumer, the proximity sensor being in electrical connection with the control unit of the aerosol-generating device, and wherein the control unit of the aerosol-generating device controls the visual feedback means in dependence on the signal received from the proximity sensor” as in claim 28 and “wherein the control unit of the aerosol-generating device reduces the light intensity of the visual feedback means when the proximity sensor detects proximity to a mouth of the consumer” as in claim 29).
Regarding claim 30, modified Kwon discloses the display means 20, control device 30, RFID reader, and Ouyang’s proximity sensor, as set forth above. Modified Kwon fails to disclose “wherein the aerosol-generating device comprises a light sensor, the light sensor being in electrical connection with the control unit of the aerosol-generating device, and wherein the control unit of the aerosol-generating device adjusts the light intensity of the visual feedback means based on signals received from the light sensor.”
Sears discloses the illumination source as set forth above, which advantageously provides distinguishing visual characteristics and varies illumination intensity [0004-5, 0087]. The illumination source can be adjusted based on parameters such as power level, temperature, ambient light level, and more [0087]. In one configuration, the device includes a light sensor coupled to a controller, which adjusts light intensity based on ambient lighting detected by the sensor [0087-88].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kwon by incorporating the light sensor into Kwon’s device 1 and connecting it to the control device 30 to adjust intensity based on ambient lighting, because both Kwon and Sears are directed to devices with illuminated displays, Sears teaches providing distinguishing visual characteristics (e.g., varying light intensity), and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (KR 10-2019-0130914 A) in view of Chong (US 2019/0200677 A1) as applied to claim 21, in view of Sears (US 2015/0216233 A1).
Kwon discloses the display means 20, control device 30, and RFID reader as set forth above. Kwon fails to disclose “a light sensor, the light sensor being in electrical connection with the control unit of the aerosol-generating device” as in claim 23 and “wherein the control unit is configured to control the visual feedback means based on signals received from the light sensor” as in claim 25.
Sears is directed to an aerosol delivery device with an illuminated outer surface (Title), as set forth above in the discussions of claims 22, 24, and 28-30. The illumination source advantageously provides distinguishing visual characteristics to the device in a variety of manners and with varying intensity [0004-5, 0087]. The illumination source can be adjusted based on parameters such as power level, temperature, ambient light level, and more [0087]. In one configuration, the device includes a light sensor coupled to a controller, which adjusts light intensity based on ambient lighting detected by the sensor [0087-88].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kwon by incorporating the light sensor into Kwon’s device 1 and connecting it to the control device 30, because both Kwon and Sears are directed to devices with illuminated displays, Sears teaches providing distinguishing visual characteristics with varying light intensity, and this would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (KR 10-2019-0130914 A) as applied to claim 21, in view of Lee (KR 10-2019-0053498 A, previously cited).
Kwon discloses the display means 20 and control device 30, as set forth above. Kwon fails to disclose “wherein the housing has a detachable top cover comprising electrical connection means facilitating an electrical connection between the visual feedback means and the control unit of the aerosol-generating device, upon connection of the detachable top cover to the housing of the aerosol-generating device” as claimed.
Lee is directed to a heating type inhaler with a module structure [0001]. The inhaler has a cover 15 at one end which is detachable from the case 14 and may include a display screen 16 electrically connected to a control means 121 [0024]. The modular structure of the inhaler (i.e., the detachability of the cover 15) improves the convenience of separating and re-combining the device [0006].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kwon by incorporating the cover 15 at one end of the device 1 (specifically, Kwon’s display means 20 would be on the cover 15 in place of display screen 16, Kwon’s opening 12 would pass through the cover 15 to allow insertion of the cigarette 11, and the cover 15 would electrically connect Kwon’s display means 20 and control device 30 similar to the display screen 16 and control means 121), because both Kwon and Lee are directed to inhalation devices with heaters, Lee teaches that the cover 15 improves the convenience of separating and re-combining the device, and this modification involves the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I); see also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schennum (US 2017/0013876 A1) discloses a re-charging pack for an e-cigarette (Title) with an annular light element 133, which may be transparent or include LEDs, surrounding an opening 132 which receives the e-cigarette ([0022, 0072-73], Figs. 2 and 5). This is considered particularly relevant to claims 16-17.
Reevell (JP 2020-505073 A, provided in IDS dated 03/26/2024, US 2019/0387799 A1 cited herein as English equivalent) discloses an aerosol-generating device with receiving chambers for receiving substrate containing rods (Title, Abstract). The device includes an indicator 100 which is a colored ring around the opening of a receiving chamber 10, in order to indicate to a user where to place a substrate containing rod ([0076], Fig. 7). This is considered particularly relevant to claim 16.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL PATRICK MULLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 ET.
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 on (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 PATRICK MULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747