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 .
Response to Submission
Applicant’s submission filed on 2025 October 14 has been entered. Claims 1-24 are pending.
A new NON-FINAL ground of rejection is made over Han (CN 112075663 A with reference made to machine translation).
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 4-5, 8, 16-17, and 20 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.
Claims 4 and 16: the claim is directed to a product but recites a method of using the product, rather than a capability of the product. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). The limitation “wherein the cover is secured at the second position by the second attractive magnetic force applied by the first magnet” is interpreted as “wherein the second attractive magnetic force applied by the first magnet is configured to secure the cover at the second position” to make the claim examinable.
Claims 5 and 17: the claim is directed to a product but recites a method of using the product, rather than a capability of the product. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). The limitation “wherein the repulsive magnetic force applied by the magnetic-force-generating unit overcomes the second attractive magnetic force of the first magnet” is interpreted as “wherein the repulsive magnetic force applied by the magnetic-force-generating unit is configured to overcome the second attractive magnetic force of the first magnet” to make the claim examinable.
Claims 8 and 20: the claim is directed to a product but recites a method of using the product, rather than a capability of the product. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). The limitation “wherein the cover is secured at the second position by the third attractive magnetic force applied by the second magnet” is interpreted as “wherein the third attractive magnetic force applied by the second magnet is configured to secure the cover at the second position by the third attractive magnetic force applied by the second magnet” to make the claim examinable.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han (CN 112075663 A with reference made to machine translation).
Claim 1: Han teaches an aerosol-generating device (fig. 1 and [23]) comprising:
a housing (5) having therein an elongated insertion space (space inside 5 is capable of receiving inserted material through 6, 7, and 8);
a cap (fig. 2-3 and [26-28], #9) configured to cover at least a portion of the housing (5) at which the insertion space is formed, the cap (9) comprising an opening (leftmost opening of 9) corresponding to the insertion space (space inside 9 is capable of receiving inserted material);
a cover (20) coupled to the cap (9) and movable to open or close the insertion space (moving 20 opens or closes the space inside 5 at each instance of 9);
a spring (18) having a first side (rightmost side of 18) supported by the cap (9) and a second side (leftmost side of 18) supported by the cover (20) and configured to apply an elastic force to the cover ([28], #18 can push #20 leftward);
and a magnetic-force-generating unit (14) mounted to the cap (9) and operable to apply an attractive magnetic force to the cover ([27], #14 can attract #20 rightward).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (CN 112075663 A with reference made to machine translation) as applied to claim 1 in view of “Solenoid” (hereinafter Georgia State).
Claims 23-24: Han teaches the aerosol-generating device according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic-force-generating unit (fig. 2-3 and [27-28], #14) is an electromagnet.
Han does not explicitly teach a solenoid wound along the electromagnet, wherein the solenoid and the electromagnet extend along a direction parallel to a movement direction of the cover.
Georgia State teaches a solenoid (p. 1, solenoid) wound along an electromagnet (iron core), wherein the solenoid and the electromagnet extend along a direction (horizontal direction) parallel to a generated magnetic field (arrows move through the solenoid’s center from right to left), such that the electromagnet can generate a strong, nearly uniform magnetic field (p. 1).
Han’s electromagnet generates a magnetic field along a horizontal direction (Han fig. 2-3, #14 attracts #20 along a horizontal direction), so incorporating Georgia State’s electromagnet into Han would suggest making the electromagnet extend along the same horizontal direction of movement to generate the same direction of magnetic field.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use, as Han’s generic electromagnet, Georgia State’s specific solenoid wound along an electromagnet, wherein the solenoid and the electromagnet extend along a direction parallel to a movement direction of the cover, because doing so is exemplified as generating a strong, nearly uniform magnetic field.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Claims 2 and 14: each claim requires that the magnetic-force-generating unit apply a repulsive magnetic force to the cover which, by properties of magnetism, requires that the cover comprise an (electro)magnet polarized in an opposite direction to the magnetic field generated by the magnetic-force-generating unit. Furthermore, magnets only attract and repulse between two points in space, so a modification to arrive at such repulsive force hinges on the primary reference that opens and closes linearly rather than rotatably.
Han (CN 112075663 A with reference made to machine translation) teaches moving a cover (Han fig. 2-3 and [27-28], #20) leftward by a spring (18) untensing and rightward by an electromagnet (14) and a magnet (19) attracting. However, rearranging the magnetic mechanism and the spring mechanism would leave no place to put the spring, and the resulting cover would not be movable rightward. Furthermore, adding a second electromagnet to Han or making Han’s electromagnet reversible would obviate the spring that claim 1 requires, so modifying Han’s leftward moving mechanism to be electromagnetic repulsion would not arrive at the claim.
Borkovee (US 20180160735 A1) teaches moving a cover (fig. 1-2 and [35], #40 and #50) towards each other by springs (80) untensing and away from each other by an electromagnet (70) and a magnet (72) repulsing. However, such a configuration opens a liquid channel (35) within a device, not an insertion space, so modifying Borkovee to arrive at claim 1’s insertion space would require changing Borkovee’s principle of operating the springs, electromagnet, and magnet.
In totality, claims 2 and 14 require (A) a magnetic-force-generating unit configured to apply repulsive force on (B) a cover movable to open or close an insertion space, and no art of record in the smoking field teaches a magnetic-force-generating unit repulsing a cover, nor a teaching, suggestion, or motivation and expectation to succeed in modifying a magnetic-force-generating unit that acts on a cover to repulse said cover.
Claims 3-13 and 15-22 are allowed by dependence on claims 2 and 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 2025 October 14 have been carefully considered. Upon further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection is made for claim 1 over Han.
Applicant’s arguments against Borges and Fukazawa (p. 8-10) are mooted by the new ground of rejection which does not rely on Borges or Fukazawa.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tobey C. Le whose telephone number is (703)756-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30-18:30 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 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.
/TOBEY C LE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights