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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 12/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/17/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/19/2026 have been fully considered.
Response to arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the indefiniteness rejection because the specification discloses sufficient algorithms and structures for the recited functional “units.” Applicant specifically identifies alleged structures such as comparator circuits for the switching signal output unit, AD conversion circuits and communication interfaces for the digital signal output unit, MOSFETs for the output switch unit, programmable timer/counters for the variable frequency cycle detection unit, storage memories for the first and second storage units, and an interrupt controller for the wake-up unit.
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive in part.
The rejection is withdrawn with respect to the output switch unit, because the term “switch” conveys sufficient structure in the context of the claim for selectively controlling the power output unit to provide or not provide output voltage.
The rejection is also withdrawn with respect to claims 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8, to the extent those claims were previously rejected based on the “output adjustment unit,” “first storage unit,” “second storage unit,” and “wake-up unit.” Claim 3 has been amended to recite a processor executing a proportional control algorithm, and the specification describes proportional adjustment of output power based on the magnitude of the air pressure difference. Claims 5 and 6 have been amended to recite storage memories, which convey sufficient structure for the ordinary storage functions recited. Claims 7 and 8 have been amended to recite an interrupt controller, which conveys sufficient structure for receiving a switch signal and waking or controlling the microcontroller.
However, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive with respect to the switching signal output unit, the digital signal output unit, and the variable frequency cycle detection unit.
Claim 1 recites a switching signal output unit configured to compare an arithmetically processed air pressure difference value with a set activation threshold and, when the activation threshold is reached, output a switch signal to the microcontroller to activate the sleeping microcontroller. The term “unit” is a generic placeholder, and “switching signal output” merely describes the signal/result produced by the unidentified unit. The claim does not recite a comparator, threshold-detection circuit, interrupt generation circuit, processor executing an algorithm, or other sufficiently definite structure for performing the entire claimed function.
Applicant asserts that the specification discloses sufficient structure, “e.g., comparator circuits,” for the switching signal output unit. This argument is not persuasive because the originally filed specification merely identifies a functional block labeled “switching signal output unit 53” and states that it outputs a switch signal when the activation threshold is reached. The specification does not disclose a comparator circuit or other specific circuitry and clearly link such structure to the entire claimed function. The relevant inquiry is not whether one of ordinary skill in the art could devise a comparator or circuit to perform the function, but whether the specification itself discloses corresponding structure for performing the claimed function.
Claim 1 also recites a digital signal output unit configured to output the arithmetically processed air pressure difference value to the microcontroller. The term “unit” is again used as a generic placeholder, and “digital signal output” describes the result of outputting a digital signal rather than identifying a definite structure. Applicant asserts that the specification discloses sufficient structure such as AD conversion circuits and communication interfaces. This argument is not persuasive because the specification merely identifies “digital signal output unit 54” and states that it outputs the processed pressure-difference value to the microcontroller. The specification does not disclose and clearly link an AD conversion circuit, communication interface, output register, bus interface, output driver, transmitter circuit, or other corresponding structure to the claimed function.
Claim 4 recites a variable frequency cycle detection unit configured to operate at a set sleep frequency when the microcontroller is in the sleep state and at a set normal frequency when the microcontroller is in the standby or working state. Applicant argues that the specification discloses sufficient structure such as a programmable timer/counter. This argument is not persuasive. The specification identifies a functional block labeled “variable frequency cycle detection unit 511” and discloses the sleep and normal frequency ranges, but it does not disclose a timer, counter, oscillator, clock divider, sampling clock, frequency-selection circuit, processor executing a frequency-selection algorithm, or other corresponding structure for generating or selecting the different operating frequencies. Merely stating that the unit operates at different frequencies based on microcontroller state describes the intended function, not the structure for performing that function.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is maintained with respect to claim 1 because the switching signal output unit and digital signal output unit are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and the specification fails to disclose corresponding structure clearly linked to the entire claimed functions. Claims 2–8 remain rejected because they depend from claim 1. Claim 4 is additionally rejected because the variable frequency cycle detection unit is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and the specification fails to disclose corresponding structure clearly linked to the claimed variable-frequency operation.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Switching signal output unit, and a digital signal output unit in claim 1;
Variable frequency cycle detection unit in claim 4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims have been amended to recite an “interrupt controller.” The originally filed specification discloses only a “wake-up unit 43” configured to receive a switch signal and wake the microcontroller, and further configured to cause the microcontroller to enter a sleep state after a standby-time threshold. The specification does not identify the wake-up unit as an interrupt controller or otherwise disclose an interrupt controller performing the recited functions. Because the disclosed wake-up and sleep-control functions may be performed by structures other than an interrupt controller, the disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the specifically claimed interrupt controller at the time of filing.
Claims 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites a “switching signal output unit” and a “digital signal output unit.” Each limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
The limitations satisfy the three-prong analysis of MPEP § 2181 because: (1) each limitation uses the generic placeholder “unit” as a substitute for “means”; (2) each generic placeholder is modified by functional language; and (3) the limitations are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the respective claimed functions.
The switching signal output unit is functionally recited as comparing an arithmetically processed air-pressure-difference value with a set activation threshold and, when the activation threshold is reached, outputting a switch signal to activate a sleeping microcontroller. However, the term “switching signal output unit” does not identify a comparator, threshold-detection circuit, interrupt-generation circuit, processor executing a disclosed algorithm, or other sufficiently definite structure for performing the entire recited function.
The digital signal output unit is functionally recited as outputting the arithmetically processed air-pressure-difference value to the microcontroller. However, the term “digital signal output unit” does not identify a digital communication interface, output register, bus interface, output driver, transmitter circuit, or other sufficiently definite structure for performing the recited function.
The specification identifies switching signal output unit 53 and digital signal output unit 54, but merely states that these units perform the claimed functions. See paragraphs [0033]–[0035]. The specification does not disclose and clearly link or associate corresponding circuitry, a processor programmed with an adequately disclosed algorithm, or other identifiable structure with the entire claimed functions. Merely restating the function associated with a limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is insufficient to provide corresponding structure.
Claims 2–8 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and therefore include the indefinite switching signal output unit and digital signal output unit limitations discussed above. Claims 2–8 are indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim 4 additionally recites a “variable frequency cycle detection unit” configured to operate at a set sleep frequency when the microcontroller is in a sleep state and at a set normal frequency when the microcontroller is in a standby state or working state. This limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because: (1) “unit” is a generic placeholder; (2) the placeholder is modified by functional language requiring operation at different detection frequencies based on the state of the microcontroller; and (3) “variable frequency cycle detection” does not identify sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
The specification identifies variable frequency cycle detection unit 511 and provides examples and ranges of the sleep and normal frequencies. See paragraphs [0042]–[0043]. However, the specification merely describes the intended operation of the unit and does not disclose and clearly associate a timer, counter, oscillator, sampling clock, clock divider, frequency-selection circuit, processor executing an adequately disclosed frequency-selection algorithm, or other corresponding structure with the entire claimed function.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant amended independent claim 1 to more particularly recite the operating relationship between the digital air pressure sensor chip and the microcontroller. Specifically, amended claim 1 now requires, among other things, that the digital air pressure sensor chip detects an air pressure difference between the air inlet channel and the external environment and, while the electronic vaporizing device is in a sleep state, processes the air pressure difference, compares the processed air pressure difference value with a set activation threshold, and outputs a switch signal to activate the sleeping microcontroller such that the electronic vaporizing device enters a standby state. Amended claim 1 further requires that, in the standby and working states, the microcontroller compares the processed air pressure difference value with a set working threshold to control whether output voltage is provided to the vaporizing unit, wherein the activation threshold is greater than the working threshold.
Jordan disclose an electronic vaping device including MEMS pressure sensor 525 and microprocessor 502. However, Jordan et al. do not disclose the claimed digital air pressure sensor chip configured to detect an air pressure difference between the air inlet channel and the external environment and to perform the claimed sleep-state processing and activation-threshold comparison for waking the microcontroller. Rather, Jordan et al. disclose that microprocessor 502 receives pressure information from MEMS pressure sensor 525 and performs the threshold-based determination for initiating or terminating vaporization.
Jordan also do not disclose the claimed staged operating sequence in which the digital air pressure sensor chip first wakes the sleeping microcontroller into a standby state based on an activation threshold, and the microcontroller thereafter separately controls transition between the standby state and working state based on a lower working threshold.
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 JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights