CTNF 18/015,935 CTNF 93522 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment Claim 1 is amended. Claims 2 and 11 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-10 are presently examined. Applicant’s arguments regarding the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 9/15/2025 is withdrawn. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/15/2025 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2019/088579, English language equivalent US 11,478,015 relied upon) in view of Sur (US 10,051,891) . Regarding claim 1 , Kim discloses an elongate aerosol generating device (figure 8, reference numeral 10000) that contains a battery (figure 2, reference numeral 11000) and a controller (column 4, lines 25-29, figure 2, reference numeral 12000) that is detachably coupled with a vaporizer (column 12, lines 39-48, figure 8, reference numeral 14000), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a cartridge. The vaporizer has an elongated liquid storage defined by inner walls (figure 6B, reference numeral 14100), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first container, and an accommodating chamber (column 10, lines 36-44, figure 3B, reference numeral 14230), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second container. A wick is located in the accommodating chamber (figure 6B, reference numeral 14210) and is surrounded by a liquid heated (column 9, lines 14220, figure 6B, reference numeral 14220), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a heater. The aerosol generating device has a least one sensor (column 6, lines 32-44). Annotated figure 8 below shows the locations of the upper and lower bodies: PNG media_image1.png 616 383 media_image1.png Greyscale Kim does not explicitly disclose (a) the battery being located in the lower body and (b) a capacitive sensor and a shielding member. Regarding (a), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the battery in the lower body. One would have been motivated to do so since there is no evidence that the specific location of the battery in the body is critical. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C. Regarding (b), Sur teaches an aerosol delivery device including a control body (figure 2, reference numeral 102) and a cartridge (column 6, lines 48-67, column 7, lines 1-6, figure 2, reference numeral 104). The control body has an input device in the form of a capacitive sensor that detects a user input in the form of a nearby body so that a user does not need to contact the device (column 12, lines 26-37, figure 2, reference numeral 248) to control the device (abstract), and a battery (column 7, lines 7-23). The capacitive sensor has a shield electrode that at least partially attenuates the effect of the liquid on the sensor (column 14, lines 3-19, figure 4, reference numeral 406), which is considered to be a shielding member. The cartridge is inserted into a couple of the control body (column 8, lines 28-58, figure 2, reference numeral 230), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a lower body. The remaining portion of the control body is considered to meet the claim limitation of an upper body. The upper body is beside the cartridge when assembled (figure 1). The capacitive sensor is located in the control body facing the cartridge, but not in the couple (figure 2), indicating that it is in the upper body. The shield electrode of the capacitive sensor is located below the electrodes themselves (column 14, lines 3-19, figure 4, reference numeral 406), indicating that the electrodes are positioned between the body and shielding member since one of ordinary skill would recognize that the opposite arrangement would prevent the sensor from functioning. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the sensor and shielding member of Sur in the aerosol generating device at the interface between the vaporizer and the aerosol generating device, which is in the upper body. One would have been motivated to do so since Sur teaches a sensor that detects user input without requiring the user to touch the device. Regarding claim 8 , modified Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. The cap and opening are indicated in the annotated version of figure 8 of Kim shown below: PNG media_image2.png 611 387 media_image2.png Greyscale Modified Kim does not explicitly teach the shield located at the claimed location. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to located the input device of modified Kim at the cap of the aerosol generating device of modified Kim. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C. Regarding claims 9 and 10 , modified Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Kim does not explicitly teach the sensor and shield being located at the claimed positions. However, it would have been obvious to position the sensor and shield in the claimed locations. One would have been motivated to do so since there is no evidence that the specific location is critical. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2019/088579, English language equivalent US 11,478,015 relied upon) in view of Sur (US 10,051,891) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujiyoshi (US 11,327,100) . Regarding claim 3 , modified Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Kim additionally discloses the first and second side walls, as indicated on the drawing below: PNG media_image3.png 604 397 media_image3.png Greyscale Modified Kim does not explicitly teach (a) the shielding member having a part disposed at the second side wall and (b) covering a side portion of the sensor. Regarding (a), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the sensor at second side wall. One would have been motivated to do so since there is no evidence of record that the specific location of the shield member is critical. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C. Regarding (b), Fujiyoshi teaches an electrostatic sensor having a detection electrode and a shield electrode provided on a periphery of the detection electrode (abstract). The shield electrode surrounds the detection electrode (column 4, lines 10-23, figure 7, reference numeral 120). The surrounding includes two opposite side walls that have interior parts (figure 7), which is considered to meet the claim limitations of first and second side walls and a shielding unit. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a shield electrode that surrounds the detection sensor of modified Lin. One would have been motivated to do so since Sur teaches that different arrangements of the capacitive sensor shield are possible and Fujiyoshi teaches an electrode that surrounds a sensor to shield it. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See MPEP § 2143, C. Regarding claim 4 , modified Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Kim additionally discloses the first and second side walls, as indicated on the drawing below: PNG media_image4.png 604 397 media_image4.png Greyscale Modified Kim does not explicitly teach (a) disposing the sensor at an upper wall of the upper body and (b) covering an upper portion of the sensor. Regarding (a), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to located the input device of modified Kim at the upper wall of the aerosol generating device of modified Kim. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C. Regarding (b), Fujiyoshi teaches an electrostatic sensor having a detection electrode and a shield electrode provided on a periphery of the detection electrode (abstract). The shield electrode surrounds the detection electrode (column 4, lines 10-23, figure 7, reference numeral 120). The surrounding includes an upper wall (figure 7), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second part covering an upper portion. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a shield electrode that surrounds the detection sensor of modified Kim. One would have been motivated to do so since Sur teaches that different arrangements of the capacitive sensor shield are possible and Fujiyoshi teaches an electrode that surrounds a sensor to shield it. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See MPEP § 2143, C. Regarding claim 6 , modified Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Sur additionally teaches that different arrangements of the capacitive sensor shield are possible (column 14, lines 3-19). Modified Kim does not explicitly teach the shielding electrode extending on all sides of the sensor. Fujiyoshi teaches an electrostatic sensor having a detection electrode and a shield electrode provided on a periphery of the detection electrode (abstract). The shield electrode surrounds the detection electrode (column 4, lines 10-23, figure 7, reference numeral 120). The surrounding includes two opposite side walls that have interior parts (figure 7), which is considered to meet the claim limitations of first and second side walls and a shielding unit. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a shield electrode that surrounds the sensor of modified Kim. One would have been motivated to do so since Sur teaches that different arrangements of the capacitive sensor shield are possible and Fujiyoshi teaches an electrode that surrounds a sensor to shield it. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See MPEP § 2143, C. The lower face of the shield electrode is considered to be between the upper and lower body since the input device defines the boundary between the upper and lower body. Regarding claim 7 , modified Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Kim does not explicitly teach the sensor and shield being in the claimed locations. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the sensor and shield of modified Kim in the specifically claimed locations. One would have been motivated to do so since there is no evidence that the specific locations are critical. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 11,083,224) in view of Sur (US 10,051,891) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujiyoshi (US 11,327,100) and Hawes (US 10,602,774) . Regarding claim 5 , modified Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Kim does not explicitly teach (a) a shield electrode extending around the sensor, (b) an insertion wall and (c) a sensor facing the upper part of the cartridge the shield extending to the insertion wall. Regarding (a) Fujiyoshi teaches an electrostatic sensor having a detection electrode and a shield electrode provided on a periphery of the detection electrode (abstract). The shield electrode surrounds the detection electrode (column 4, lines 10-23, figure 7, reference numeral 120). The surrounding includes two opposite side walls that have interior parts (figure 7), which is considered to meet the claim limitations of first and second side walls and a shielding unit. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a shield electrode that surrounds the sensor of modified Kim. One would have been motivated to do so since Sur teaches that different arrangements of the capacitive sensor shield are possible and Fujiyoshi teaches an electrode that surrounds a sensor to shield it. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See MPEP § 2143, C. Regarding (b), Hawes teaches an e-vapor device (abstract) having a mouthpiece structure (figure 4, reference numeral 102) that connects with a dispensing body (column 4, lines 19-37, figure 4, reference numeral 104). The mouthpiece structure houses and covers an independent cartridge that covers the cartridge so that the disposable cartridge can be replaced (column 5, lines 18-34). The cartridge is held between insertion walls as shown in annotated figure 3 below. PNG media_image5.png 205 557 media_image5.png Greyscale It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the liquid storage segment of modified Kim in the form of a replaceable cartridge held by insertion walls. One would have been motivated to do so since Kim discloses a device that has a liquid reservoir and Hawes teaches a disposable cartridge that is replaced in an e-vapor device. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See MPEP § 2143, D. Regarding (c), it would have been obvious to position the sensor and shield in the claimed locations. One would have been motivated to do so since there is no evidence that the specific location is critical. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C. Response to Arguments Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 , applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are entered as set forth above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 pm. 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. /RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/015,935 Page 2 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/015,935 Page 3 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/015,935 Page 4 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/015,935 Page 5 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/015,935 Page 6 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/015,935 Page 7 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/015,935 Page 8 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/015,935 Page 9 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/015,935 Page 10 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/015,935 Page 11 Art Unit: 1755 Application/Control Number: 18/015,935 Page 12 Art Unit: 1755
Prosecution Insights