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 .
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: “a release control mechanism” in claim 1, “a valve member” and “a valve member control mechanism” in claim 8, “a first magnetic arrangement” and “a second magnetic arrangement” in claim 10, “a power control arrangement” in claim 16, “a temperature adjustment mechanism” in claims 17 and 18, “a heating mechanism” in claim 19, “a temperature control arrangement” in claim 22, and “a storage element” in claim 25.
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. As noticed in page 3, lines 9-10 and 21-22, the release control mechanism comprises a valve arrangement. Optionally, the valve arrangement comprises: a valve member…the valve arrangement further comprises: a valve member control mechanism. As noticed in page 4, line 1, the valve member comprises a film or membrane. As noticed in page 4, lines 5-8, 21-22 and 25-28, the valve member control mechanism comprises: a first magnetic arrangement coupled with (e.g., attached to, embedded in, etc.) the valve member; and a second magnetic arrangement operable or controlled to interact with the first magnetic arrangement to affect movement of the valve member relative to the interface. Optionally, the first magnetic arrangement comprises a magnet attached to the valve member. The magnet may be a permanent magnet. Optionally, the second magnetic arrangement comprises an electromagnet. The electromagnet may include a coil electrically connectable or couplable with a power source. The electrically connection or coupling may be a wired connection or coupling. Optionally, the coil comprises a generally flat spiral coil. Optionally, the coil is made of copper (copper wires). As noticed in page 5, lines 9-12, The power control arrangement may include CPU(s), MCU(s), GPU(s), logic circuit(s), Raspberry Pi chip(s), digital signal processor(s) (DSP), application-specific integrated circuit(s) (ASIC), field-programmable gate array(s) (FPGA), and/or any other digital or analog circuitry/circuitries. As noticed in page 5, lines 18-29 and page 6, lines 1-3, the temperature adjustment mechanism comprises a heating mechanism arranged to provide heat to the chamber. Optionally, the heating mechanism comprises one or more resistive heating elements. Optionally, the one or more resistive heating elements are arranged in the device body or in the chamber. Optionally, the one or more resistive heating elements comprises one or more electrodes. Optionally, the one or more electrodes comprise one or more serpentine electrodes, which may or may not be generally planar. Optionally, the one or more electrodes comprise one or more Au/Cr electrodes. Optionally, the one or more resistive heating elements are disposed on the first end portion of the device body. Optionally, the temperature adjustment mechanism comprises a cooling mechanism arranged to remove heat from the chamber. The cooling mechanism may include an active cooling mechanism (e.g., electronic heat removal device, coolant system, etc.). Optionally, the temperature adjustment mechanism comprises both the heating and cooling mechanisms, to provide heat to the chamber and remove heat from the chamber as needed. As noticed in page 6, lines 14-17, The temperature control arrangement may include CPU(s), MCU(s), GPU(s), logic circuit(s), Raspberry Pi chip(s), digital signal processor(s) (DSP), application-specific integrated circuit(s) (ASIC), field-programmable gate array(s) (FPGA), and/or any other digital or analog circuitry/circuitries. As noticed in page 7, line 8, the storage element comprises cotton, e.g., a layer or lump of cotton.
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 Objections
Claims 3 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, the limitation “an third portion” should read “a third portion”.
In claim 29, the limitation “wherein the electronic device is wearable electronic device” should read “wherein the electronic device is a wearable electronic device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-30 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.
In claim 1, the limitation “a smell” in line 5, is unclear if it is referring to the smell recites in line 1, or if it is a different smell.
Claims 2-30 are rejected due on their dependency from claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations of claim 26 are already present in independent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/320,495 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is anticipated by the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Co-pending Application No. 18/320,495
Instant Application No. 18/162,049
1. (Currently Amended) A wearable electronic device for providing or affecting smell, comprising: one or more odor manipulation units each respectively operable to provide or affect smell perceivable by a user of the wearable electronic device; wherein the one or more odor manipulation units comprises an odor manipulator, which further comprises:
a body defining:
a chamber for receiving one or more chemical substances, and an interface through which the one or more chemical substances can be released from the body to provide or affect smell perceivable by the user;
a release control mechanism arranged at least partly in the body and operable to control release of the one or more chemical substances from the body through the interface, wherein the release control mechanism comprises:
a heating mechanism with one or more heating elements operable to provide heat to facilitate release of the one or more chemical substances from the body through the interface, and a movement mechanism operable to move the one or more heating elements relative to a frame of the body to facilitate cooling of the heating mechanism and hence reduce or stop vaporization of the one or more chemical substances; and a control circuit arrangement operably coupled with the one or more odor manipulation units for operating the one or more odor manipulation units.
1. An electronic device for providing or affecting a smell, comprising: a device body comprising
a chamber for containing one or more chemical substances; and
an interface through which the one or more chemical substances in the chamber can be released from the device body to provide or affect a smell perceivable by a user; and a release control mechanism arranged at least partly in the device body and operable to control release of the one or more chemical substances from the device body through the interface.
29. The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is wearable electronic device configured to be worn on or by the user.
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.
Claims 1-8, 17-19, and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Edwards (US 2014/0377130).
Regarding claim 1, Edwards teaches an electronic device (Fig. 5 or Fig. 10A-11; 500 or 1000 (1000a, 1000b) comprising 100) for providing or affecting a smell (abstract; para. 0088; 0117-0118), comprising: a device body (110, 1000a, 1000b) comprising a chamber (100) for containing one or more chemical substances (104) (chamber formed within 110 or 1000; para. 0065; 0070-0071; 0073; 0088; 0118); and an interface (506, 1036, 1020, 1040) through which the one or more chemical substances in the chamber can be released from the device body to provide or affect a smell perceivable by a user (para. 0090; 100; 0118; 0121); and a release control mechanism (128, 508, 112, 1002, 1038, 1102) arranged at least partly in the device body and operable to control release of the one or more chemical substances from the device body through the interface (para. 0069; 0074-0076; 0079; 0118; 0120; 0125).
Regarding claim 2, Edwards teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the device body is flexible (para. 0020; 0055; 0122).
Regarding claim 3, Edwards teaches the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the device body comprises a flexible housing (para. 0020; 0055; 0122) that comprises: a first end portion (as shown in Fig. 5 or Fig. 10A-11), a second end portion opposite the first end portion (as shown in Fig. 5 or Fig. 10A-11), and an third portion extending between the first end portion and the second end portion to define at least part of the chamber (as shown in Fig. 5 or Fig. 10A-11; chamber formed within 110 or 1000; para. para. 0065; 0070-0071; 0073; 0088; 0118).
Regarding claim 4, Edwards teaches the electronic device of claim 3, wherein the interface is arranged in the second end portion (as shown in Fig. 5 or Fig. 10A-11).
Regarding claim 5, Edwards teaches the electronic device of claim 4, wherein the interface comprises one or more holes (506, 1036, 1020, 1040) through which the one or more chemical substances can pass (para. 0090; 100; 0118; 0121).
Regarding claim 6, Edwards teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the release control mechanism can be arranged in: a first configuration that prevents or reduces release of the one or more chemical substances from the device body through the interface (para. 0090; 0121; 0124-0125), and a second configuration that enables, facilitates, or increases release of the one or more chemical substances from the device body through the interface (para. 0090; 0121; 0124-0125).
Regarding claim 7, Edwards teaches the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the release control mechanism in the first configuration prevents fluid communication between the chamber and the interface to prevent release of the one or more chemical substances from the device body through the interface (para. 0090; 0121; 0124-0125); and wherein the release control mechanism in the second configuration enables fluid communication between the chamber and the interface to enable release of the one or more chemical substances from the device body through the interface (para. 0090; 0121; 0124-0125).
Regarding claim 8, Edwards teaches the electronic device of claim 7, wherein the release control mechanism comprises a valve arrangement that comprises: a valve member (508, 1102, 1038) movable relative to the interface between a blocking state, in which the valve member substantially blocks the interface (para. 0090; 0121; 0124-0125), and a non-blocking state, in which the valve member does not block the interface (para. 0090; 0121; 0124-0125); and a valve member control mechanism (user hand or automated control to move 508 or 1038, 128 to move 1102) operable to control movement of the valve member relative to the interface from the blocking state to the non-blocking state and/or from the non-blocking state to the blocking state (para. 0090; 0121; 0124-0125); wherein the blocking state generally corresponds to the first configuration and the non- blocking state generally corresponds to the second configuration (para. 0090; 0121; 0124-0125).
Regarding claim 17, Edwards teaches the electronic device of claim 8, wherein the release control mechanism further comprises a temperature adjustment mechanism (112) operable to adjust a temperature in the chamber to affect a rate of release of the one or more chemical substances from the device body through the interface (para. 0068-0069; 0074-0075; 0118; 0125).
Regarding claim 18, Edwards teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the release control mechanism comprises a temperature adjustment mechanism operable to adjust a temperature in the chamber to affect a rate of release of the one or more chemical substances from the device body through the interface (para. 0068-0069; 0074-0075; 0118; 0125).
Regarding claim 19, Edwards teaches the electronic device of claim 18, wherein the temperature adjustment mechanism comprises a heating mechanism (112) arranged to provide heat to the chamber (para. 0068-0069; 0074-0075; 0118; 0125).
Regarding claim 25, Edwards teaches the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising a storage element (100) disposed in the chamber for storing or holding the one or more chemical substances (104; para. 0065; 0118).
Regarding claim 26, Edwards teaches the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising the one or more chemical substances in the chamber (para. 0065; 0070-0071; 0073; 0088; 0118).
Regarding claim 27, Edwards teaches the electronic device of claim 26, wherein the one or more chemical substances can provide or generate an odor to affect the smell perceivable by the user (para. 0065; 0070-0071; 0073; 0088; 0118).
Regarding claim 28, Edwards teaches the electronic device of claim 26, wherein the one or more chemical substances can react or interact with one or more substances in an environment the electronic device is in to affect the smell perceivable by the user (interact with ambient air; para. 0090).
Regarding claim 29, Edwards teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is wearable electronic device configured to be worn on or by the user (abstract; para. 0053; 0055; 0105; 0122; wearable in a smart case, in a pocket of user clothing, inside a purse wearable by the user).
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 9-16 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards in view of Jin (US 2018/0071425).
Regarding claim 9, Edwards teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for, wherein the valve member comprises a film or membrane arranged in the device body.
Jin teaches an electronic device (300) comprising a valve member (Fig. 2A-2C) comprising a film or membrane (204) arranged in the device body (as shown in Fig. 2C).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve member of Edwards, with Jin, by providing a film or membrane arranged in the device body, to be actuated and properly allow or block fluid flow. POSITA would have known that providing a film or membrane, as the valve member, arranged in the device body would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results, such as proper fluid flow control.
Regarding claim 10, Edwards and Jin combined teach the electronic device of claim 8, wherein the valve member control mechanism comprises: a first magnetic arrangement coupled with the valve member (Jin; the flap 204 is magnetic; para. 0012; 0065); and a second magnetic arrangement (Jin; 202) operable or controlled to interact with the first magnetic arrangement to affect movement of the valve member relative to the interface (Jin; para. 0012; 0065-0068).
Regarding claim 11, Edwards and Jin combined teach the electronic device of claim 10, wherein the second magnetic arrangement is arranged or controlled to interact with the first magnetic arrangement in such a way to repeatedly move the valve member between the blocking state (Jin; closed) and the non-blocking state (Jin; open) (Jin; para. 0012; 0065-0068), for generating an air flow at or near the interface to facilitate release of the one or more chemical substances from the device body through the interface (Jin; para. 0012; 0065-0068).
Regarding claim 12, Edwards and Jin combined teach the electronic device of claim 10, wherein the first magnetic arrangement is arranged in the device body and disposed between the valve member and the second magnetic arrangement (Jin; since flap 204 is magnetic, the lower surface of 204 comprises a magnet to contact the upper surface of 202, and therefore disposed between the valve member and the magnetized ring 202; as shown in Fig. 2A-2C).
Regarding claim 13, Edwards and Jin combined teach the electronic device of claim 10, wherein the first magnetic arrangement comprises a magnet attached to the valve member (Jin; since flap 204 is magnetic, the lower surface of 204 comprises a magnet to contact the upper surface of 202, and therefore disposed between the valve member and the magnetized ring 202; as shown in Fig. 2A-2C).
Regarding claim 14, Edwards and Jin combined teach, in the embodiment shown in Fig. 2A-2C and 3A, all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth in claim 13, except for, wherein the second magnetic arrangement comprises an electromagnet arranged in the device body, and the electromagnet comprises a coil electrically connectable or couplable with a power source.
However, the embodiments of Figures 1A-1L, teach using solenoid valves (para. 0036) which inherently comprises an electromagnet, and the electromagnet inherently comprises a coil electrically connectable or couplable with a power source (that is how a solenoid valve works).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the valve arrangement of Edwards, with Jin, by using a solenoid valve instead of a magnetic check valve (with magnetized ring), for a more accurate flow control. POSITA would have known that providing a solenoid valve instead of a magnetic check valve (with magnetized ring) would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as fast response and automation integration, high reliability, and therefore, better flow control.
Regarding claim 15, Edwards and Jin combined teach the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the second magnetic arrangement further comprises the power source electrically connected or coupled with the electromagnet to provide power to operate the electromagnet (Jin; inherently present to provide power to the solenoid valve; para. 0036).
Regarding claim 16, Edwards and Jin combined teach the electronic device of claim 15, wherein the second magnetic arrangement further comprises a power control arrangement operable to control one or more properties of the power provided by the power source (Jin; inherently present to control the solenoid valve; para. 0036).
Regarding claim 30, Edwards and Jin combined teach an extended reality device comprising at least one of the electronic device of claim 1 (Jin; para. 0003; 0060; 0062; 0173).
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards in view of Eubanks (US 2022/0296761).
Regarding claim 20, Edwards teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 19, except for, wherein the heating mechanism comprises one or more resistive heating elements arranged in the chamber.
Eubanks teaches wherein the heating mechanism comprises one or more resistive heating elements (405, 905, 1005, 1055) arranged in the chamber (para. 0006; 0013; 0019; 0070-0071; 0080-0081; 0084-0085).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heating mechanism of Edward, with Eubanks, by providing one or more resistive heating elements as the heating mechanism, for high efficiency, and precise and consistent heating. POSITA would have known that providing one or more resistive heating elements as the heating mechanism would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as high efficiency, and precise and consistent heating.
Regarding claim 21, Edwards and Eubanks combined teach the electronic device of claim 20, wherein the one or more resistive heating elements comprises one or more serpentine electrodes (Eubanks; as shown in Fig. 4, 9A and 10A).
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards in view of Blackley (US 2016/0361452).
Regarding claim 22, Edwards teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 18, wherein the release control mechanism further comprises: a temperature sensor operable to sense a temperature in the chamber; and a temperature control arrangement operably connected with the temperature adjustment mechanism and the temperature sensor to control operation of the temperature adjustment mechanism based on the temperature sensed by the temperature sensor.
Blackley teaches wherein the release control mechanism further comprises: a temperature sensor operable to sense a temperature in the chamber (para. 0085; 0096; 0159); and a temperature control arrangement (102, 216; para. 0085; 0096; 0159) operably connected with the temperature adjustment mechanism and the temperature sensor to control operation of the temperature adjustment mechanism based on the temperature sensed by the temperature sensor (para. 0085; 0096; 0159).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the release control mechanism of Edwards, with Blackley, by providing a temperature sensor and a temperature control arrangement (thermistor), for a more accurate temperature control. POSITA would have known that providing a temperature sensor and a temperature control arrangement would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as high sensitivity and fast response time.
Regarding claim 23, Edwards and Blackley combined teach the electronic device of claim 22, wherein the temperature sensor comprises a thermistor arranged in the chamber (Blackley; para. 0085; 0096; 0159).
Regarding claim 24, Edwards and Blackley combined teach the electronic device of claim 22, wherein the temperature control arrangement is configured or programmed to: compare the temperature sensed by the temperature sensor with reference temperature data, and control operation of the temperature adjustment mechanism based on the comparison (Blackley; para. 0085; 0096; 0159).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 10,653,809, US 2020/0138996 and US 2021/0361813.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8am-5pm.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 06/25/2026
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights