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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's preliminary amendment filed on 6/7/2023 has been entered.
Claims 1-6 and 9-10 are as previously presented.
Claims 7-8 have been amended.
Claims 11-17 have been added.
Claims 1-17 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 9 being independent.
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 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.
The following claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claim 2:
“unit” in “an active differential unit, configured to detect the change rate of the oscillation voltage of the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator, and output a high-level signal when the change rate of the oscillation voltage is greater than a preset threshold” is being interpreted as an active differential module (see claim 3 interpretation below) and a comparator, and equivalents thereof [i.e., conventional electrical components arranged to detect a voltage (e.g., a conventional voltage divider arrangement; p. 11) and output a logic signal (i.e., the conventional practice of generating a signal as an index of a relevant parameter (i.e., corresponding to the voltage, e.g., a value thereof, a frequency/rate of change thereof) to be received by a controller, e.g., without causing damage to the controller), e.g., diodes, resistors, capacitors, voltage regulators, operational amplifiers, comparators, etc., selected and arranged according to the requirements of the given application; pp. 2-3; see fig. 3, showing active differential unit 25 comprising D1, Z, C3, C4, R4, R5, R6, U1, U2]
Claim 3:
“module” in “wherein the active differential unit comprises: an active differential module and a comparator, wherein the active differential module is configured to detect the change rate of the oscillation voltage of the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator” is being interpreted as capacitors, resistors, operational amplifiers, and equivalents thereof [i.e., conventional electrical components, selected and arranged according to the requirements of the given application; p. 2; fig. 3].
Claim 9:
“detecting” in “detecting a change rate of an oscillation voltage of the series LCC oscillator or the series LC oscillator” is being interpreted as capacitors, resistors, operational amplifiers, and equivalents thereof [i.e., conventional electrical components, selected and arranged according to the requirements of the given application; p. 2; fig. 3]
“generating” in “generating a high-level signal when the change rate of the oscillation voltage is greater than a preset value” is being interpreted as a comparator, and equivalents thereof [comparator U2; p. 12; fig. 3]
“determining” in “determining an oscillation frequency of the series LCC oscillator or the series LC oscillator according to an interval of the high-level signal” is being interpreted as a controller, and equivalents thereof [i.e., the conventional practice of calculating an index of a process according to measurements of the process using a controller, e.g., calculating frequency from measured voltages; p. 2; fig. 2]
Claim 10:
“adjusting” in “adjusting the oscillation frequency of the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator, to cause the oscillation frequency of the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator to be equal to or basically close to a preset frequency” is being interpreted as a controller, and equivalents thereof [i.e., the conventional practice of adjusting the frequency of the voltage supplied to the oscillator so as to change an output of the oscillator, e.g., wherein a controller adjusts the activation of transistor switches supplying the alternating current to the oscillator; pp. 6-10]
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(b)
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.
Claims 5-6, 12-13, 16-17 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 5:
the limitation “the ground” in line 10 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. In view of the common practice of establishing a ground in circuits, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “…and a second end of the fourth resistor is connected to ”
Claims 8, 10, and 14-17:
the term “or basically close to” in “to cause the oscillation frequency of the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator to be equal to or basically close to a preset frequency” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In view of the common practice of operational tolerances (e.g., supply voltages need not be exactly a particular voltage, and may deviate from the suggested supply voltage value by an acceptable amount, e.g., plus/minus some value), the claims will be interpreted as striking “or basically close to”
Claims 6, 12-13, 16-17 are rejected due to dependence on a rejected claim.
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 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18255107 (submitted 10/10/2025) in view of Abi Aoun (US 20200037402 A1). While the instant claims describe determining an oscillation frequency according to a change rate of an oscillation voltage, and copending claim 1 describes detecting a peak voltage of the oscillator, Abi Aoun teaches that these are known methods with regards to controlling an aerosol generation device.
Claims 2-8 and 10-17 are also provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18255107 (submitted 10/10/2025) in view of Abi Aoun (US 20200037402 A1), Beidelman (US 20220183390 A1) and Liu (US 20200146353 A1), respectively. In this case, Abi Aoun, Beidelman, and Liu teach the conventional structures described in dependent claims 2-8 and 10-17.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abi Aoun (US 20200037402 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Abi Aoun teaches:
An aerosol generation device [para. 0002; fig. 1], configured to heat an aerosol generation product to generate aerosols for inhalation [para. 0003], and comprising:
a susceptor, configured to be penetrated by a variable magnetic field to generate heat, to heat the aerosol generation product [para. 0024];
a series LC oscillator or a series LCC oscillator comprising an inductance coil [a conventional oscillator comprising an inductor 108 in series with capacitor 106; fig. 2a], configured to guide a variable alternating current to flow through the inductance coil to drive the inductance coil to generate the variable magnetic field [para. 0062]; and
a circuit, configured to determine an oscillation frequency of the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator according to a change rate of an oscillation voltage of the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator [conventional electrical components selected and arranged so as to determine a frequency of the oscillator according to voltages measured across the inductor and according to a supplied frequency/voltage, wherein a PHOSITA would recognize that frequency/voltage/current are all inter-related parameters that can be described in relation to one another according to the resistance/impedance of the given circuit and according to a given supply having its own frequency/voltage/current (e.g., Ohm’s Law); [paras. 0013-20: “The apparatus may be arranged to measure an electrical property of the RLC circuit as a function of the drive frequency; and determine the resonant frequency of the RLC circuit based on the measurement. The apparatus may be arranged to determine the first frequency based on the measured electrical property of the RLC circuit as a function of the drive frequency at which the RLC circuit is driven. The electrical property may be a voltage measured across an inductor of the RLC circuit, the inductor being for energy transfer to the susceptor… The apparatus may be arranged to determine a characteristic indicative of a bandwidth of a peak of a response of the RLC circuit, the peak corresponding to the resonant frequency; and determine the first frequency based on the determined characteristic.”; para. 0073].
In this case, since the resonant frequency/inductance of a coil may change [para. 0066], using the measured voltage response of the coil to determine the resonant frequency [i.e., a frequency at which the current through the coil would be at maximum, thus maximizing heat generation; para. 0045] allows for a more robust system.
Regarding claim 2, Abi Aoun teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 1.
Abi Aoun also teaches:
wherein the circuit comprises:
an active differential unit [passive differential circuit 120c; fig. 2c], configured to detect the change rate of the oscillation voltage of the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator, and output a high-level signal when the change rate of the oscillation voltage is greater than a preset threshold [i.e., the known practice of using conventional electrical circuit components arranged to detect a voltage, and output a corresponding index of the process (i.e., signal, e.g., a signal corresponding to a voltage across the inductor) to a controller 114; para. 0073]; and
a controller, configured to determine the oscillation frequency of the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator according to an interval of the high-level signal [i.e., the controller capable of comparing a measured value to a predetermined value as a function of a given supplied drive frequency; para. 0073].
Regarding claim 8, Abi Aoun teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 2.
Abi Aoun also teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to adjust the oscillation frequency of the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator, to cause the oscillation frequency of the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator to be equal to or basically close to a preset frequency [abstract: “The apparatus may be arranged to control a drive frequency of the RLC resonance circuit to be at the determined first frequency in order to heat the susceptor.”].
Regarding claim 9,
Abi Aoun teaches:
An aerosol generation device control method [paras. 0002, 31; fig. 1], the aerosol generation device comprising:
a susceptor, configured to be penetrated by a variable magnetic field to generate heat [para. 0024], to heat an aerosol generation product [para. 0003]; and
a series LC oscillator or a series LCC oscillator comprising an inductance coil [a conventional oscillator comprising an inductor 108 in series with capacitor 106; fig. 2a], configured to guide a variable alternating current to flow through the inductance coil to drive the inductance coil to generate the variable magnetic field [para. 0062];
and the method comprising:
detecting a change rate of an oscillation voltage of the series LCC oscillator or the series LC oscillator;
generating a high-level signal when the change rate of the oscillation voltage is greater than a preset value; and
determining an oscillation frequency of the series LCC oscillator or the series LC oscillator according to an interval of the high-level signal.
[conventional electrical components selected and arranged so as to determine a frequency of the oscillator according to voltages measured across the inductor and according to a supplied frequency/voltage, wherein a PHOSITA would recognize that frequency/voltage/current are all inter-related parameters that can be described in relation to one another according to the resistance/impedance of the given circuit and according to a given supply having its own frequency/voltage/current (e.g., Ohm’s Law); [paras. 0013-20: “The apparatus may be arranged to measure an electrical property of the RLC circuit as a function of the drive frequency; and determine the resonant frequency of the RLC circuit based on the measurement. The apparatus may be arranged to determine the first frequency based on the measured electrical property of the RLC circuit as a function of the drive frequency at which the RLC circuit is driven. The electrical property may be a voltage measured across an inductor of the RLC circuit, the inductor being for energy transfer to the susceptor… The apparatus may be arranged to determine a characteristic indicative of a bandwidth of a peak of a response of the RLC circuit, the peak corresponding to the resonant frequency; and determine the first frequency based on the determined characteristic.”; para. 0073].
In this case, since the resonant frequency/inductance of a coil may change [para. 0066], using the measured voltage response of the coil to determine the resonant frequency [i.e., a frequency at which the current through the coil would be at maximum, thus maximizing heat generation; para. 0045] allows for a more robust system.
Regarding claim 10, Abi Aoun teaches the aerosol generation device control method according to claim 9.
Abi Aoun also teaches:
further comprising:
adjusting the oscillation frequency of the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator, to cause the oscillation frequency of the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator to be equal to or basically close to a preset frequency [abstract: “The apparatus may be arranged to control a drive frequency of the RLC resonance circuit to be at the determined first frequency in order to heat the susceptor.”].
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.
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.
Claims 3-5, 7, 11-12, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abi Aoun (US 20200037402 A1) in view of Beidelman (US 20220183390 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Abi Aoun teaches the aerosol generation device according to claim 2.
Abi Aoun also teaches:
wherein the active differential unit comprises:
an active differential module [i.e., the known practice of using conventional electrical circuit components arranged to detect a voltage; para. 0073]; and
the controller when the change rate of the oscillation voltage is greater than the preset threshold [i.e., the known practice of using conventional electrical circuit components arranged to output a corresponding index of the process (i.e., signal, e.g., a signal corresponding to a voltage across the inductor) to a controller 114 via passive differential circuit 120c; para. 0073].
However, although Abi Aoun discloses that the controller may be a conventional electrical component [i.e., a processor; para. 0097], it may be argued that Abi Aoun does not explicitly disclose a comparator- specifically:
a comparator configured to perform comparison operation on the change rate of the oscillation voltage and the preset threshold, and output the high-level signal to the controller when the change rate of the oscillation voltage is greater than the preset threshold
Beidelman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a comparator as an equivalent electrical component [para. 0095].
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select and arrange a comparator as an electrical component in the active differential unit of Abi according to the requirements of the given application, such that a comparator is configured to perform the comparison operation, and signal output to the controller, e.g., according to the inherent features of the corresponding parameter measured, i.e., voltage, frequency of voltage, etc.
Regarding claim 4, Abi Aoun in view of Beidelman discloses the aerosol generation device according to claim 3.
Abi Aoun as modified by Beidelman also discloses:
wherein the active differential module comprises:
a first capacitor, a first resistor, a second capacitor, a second resistor, and an operational amplifier, wherein
a first end of the first capacitor is connected to the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator, and a second end of the first capacitor is connected to a first end of the first resistor;
a first input end of the operational amplifier is connected to a second end of the first resistor, and an output end of the operational amplifier is connected to the comparator;
a first end of the second capacitor is connected to the second end of the first resistor, and a second end of the second capacitor is connected to the output end of the operational amplifier; and
a first end of the second resistor is connected to the second end of the first resistor, and a second end of the second resistor is connected to the output end of the operational amplifier.
In this case, since Beidelman also teaches capacitors, resistors, and operational amplifiers as equivalent electrical components usable in detecting process [e.g., current, voltage; paras. 0142, 175, 177; figs. 12, 13], similar to the inclusion of the comparator, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select and arrange a first capacitor, a first resistor, a second capacitor, a second resistor, and an operational amplifier as electrical components in the active differential unit of Abi according to the requirements of the given application, such that “a first end of the first capacitor is connected to the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator, and a second end of the first capacitor is connected to a first end of the first resistor; a first input end of the operational amplifier is connected to a second end of the first resistor, and an output end of the operational amplifier is connected to the comparator; a first end of the second capacitor is connected to the second end of the first resistor, and a second end of the second capacitor is connected to the output end of the operational amplifier; and a first end of the second resistor is connected to the second end of the first resistor, and a second end of the second resistor is connected to the output end of the operational amplifier”, e.g., according to the inherent features of the corresponding parameter measured, i.e., voltage, frequency of voltage, current limitations, etc.
Regarding claim 5, Abi Aoun in view of Beidelman discloses the aerosol generation device according to claim 3.
Abi Aoun as modified by Beidelman discloses:
wherein the active differential unit further comprises:
an access module, comprising a first diode, a third resistor, and a fourth resistor, wherein
a first end of the first diode is connected to the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator, and a second end of the first diode is connected to a first end of the third resistor and is configured to only allow a current to flow from the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator to the third resistor;
a second end of the third resistor is connected to the active differential module; and
a first end of the fourth resistor is connected to the second end of the third resistor, and a second end of the fourth resistor is connected to the ground.
In this case, since Beidelman also teaches diodes as an equivalent electrical component usable in detecting process [paras. 0145], similar to the inclusion of the comparator, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select and arrange a first diode, a third resistor, and a fourth resistor as electrical components in the active differential unit of Abi according to the requirements of the given application, such that “a first end of the first diode is connected to the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator, and a second end of the first diode is connected to a first end of the third resistor and is configured to only allow a current to flow from the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator to the third resistor; a second end of the third resistor is connected to the active differential module; and a first end of the fourth resistor is connected to the second end of the third resistor, and a second end of the fourth resistor is connected to the ground.”, e.g., according to the inherent features of the corresponding parameter measured, i.e., voltage, frequency of voltage, current limitations, etc.
Regarding claim 7, Abi Aoun in view of Beidelman discloses the aerosol generation device according to claim 3.
Abi Aoun as modified by Beidelman discloses:
wherein the preset threshold is an output value of the active differential module when the change rate of the oscillation voltage is 0.
In this case, since Abi Aoun teaches that the method of determining the frequency is not be limited [paras. 0098-0101], including maximum and minimum peaks [para. 0100], it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a particular value to compare to a measured value, according to the requirements of the given application, i.e., such that “the preset threshold is an output value of the active differential module when the change rate of the oscillation voltage is 0”, e.g., according to expected frequency response of the circuit and the way it was measured [para. 0100].
Regarding claim 11, Abi Aoun in view of Beidelman discloses the aerosol generation device according to claim 4.
Abi Aoun as modified by Beidelman discloses:
wherein the preset threshold is an output value of the active differential module when the change rate of the oscillation voltage is 0.
In this case, since Abi Aoun teaches that the method of determining the frequency is not be limited [paras. 0098-0101], including maximum and minimum peaks [para. 0100], it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a particular value to compare to a measured value, according to the requirements of the given application, i.e., such that “the preset threshold is an output value of the active differential module when the change rate of the oscillation voltage is 0”, e.g., according to expected frequency response of the circuit and the way it was measured [para. 0100].
Regarding claim 12, Abi Aoun in view of Beidelman discloses the aerosol generation device according to claim 5.
Abi Aoun as modified by Beidelman discloses:
wherein the preset threshold is an output value of the active differential module when the change rate of the oscillation voltage is 0.
In this case, since Abi Aoun teaches that the method of determining the frequency is not be limited [paras. 0098-0101], including maximum and minimum peaks [para. 0100], it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a particular value to compare to a measured value, according to the requirements of the given application, i.e., such that “the preset threshold is an output value of the active differential module when the change rate of the oscillation voltage is 0”, e.g., according to expected frequency response of the circuit and the way it was measured [para. 0100].
Regarding claim 14, Abi Aoun in view of Beidelman discloses the aerosol generation device according to claim 3.
Abi Aoun also discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to adjust the oscillation frequency of the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator, to cause the oscillation frequency of the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator to be equal to or basically close to a preset frequency [abstract: “The apparatus may be arranged to control a drive frequency of the RLC resonance circuit to be at the determined first frequency in order to heat the susceptor.”].
Regarding claim 15, Abi Aoun in view of Beidelman discloses the aerosol generation device according to claim 4.
Abi Aoun also discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to adjust the oscillation frequency of the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator, to cause the oscillation frequency of the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator to be equal to or basically close to a preset frequency [abstract: “The apparatus may be arranged to control a drive frequency of the RLC resonance circuit to be at the determined first frequency in order to heat the susceptor.”].
Regarding claim 16, Abi Aoun in view of Beidelman discloses the aerosol generation device according to claim 5.
Abi Aoun also discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to adjust the oscillation frequency of the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator, to cause the oscillation frequency of the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator to be equal to or basically close to a preset frequency [abstract: “The apparatus may be arranged to control a drive frequency of the RLC resonance circuit to be at the determined first frequency in order to heat the susceptor.”].
Claims 6, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abi Aoun (US 20200037402 A1) in view of Beidelman (US 20220183390 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Liu (US 20200146353 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Abi Aoun in view of Beidelman discloses the aerosol generation device according to claim 5.
However, although Abi Aoun discloses that the controller as a conventional electrical component, and Beidelman additionally discloses op-amps and comparators as conventional electrical components, it may be argued that Abi Aoun and Beidelman do not explicitly disclose:
wherein the access module further comprises a voltage stabilizing tube, wherein a first end of the voltage stabilizing tube is connected to the second end of the third resistor, and a second end of the voltage stabilizing tube is connected to the second end of the fourth resistor.
Liu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a voltage regulator tube (i.e., a voltage stabilizing tube) as a known electrical component usable in a detecting process [i.e., second diode D2; figs. 11, 13: para. 0076].
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select and arrange a voltage stabilizing tube as an electrical component in the active differential unit of Abi and Beidelman according to the requirements of the given application, such that “a first end of the voltage stabilizing tube is connected to the second end of the third resistor, and a second end of the voltage stabilizing tube is connected to the second end of the fourth resistor”, e.g., according to the inherent features of the corresponding parameter measured, i.e., voltage, frequency of voltage, etc., or to prevent pins of the electrical components from being burnt out due to over-high collection voltage [para. 0076].
Regarding claim 13, Abi Aoun in view of Beidelman and Liu discloses the aerosol generation device according to claim 6.
Abi Aoun as modified by Beidelman and Liu discloses:
wherein the preset threshold is an output value of the active differential module when the change rate of the oscillation voltage is 0.
In this case, since Abi Aoun teaches that the method of determining the frequency is not be limited [paras. 0098-0101], including maximum and minimum peaks [para. 0100], it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a particular value to compare to a measured value, according to the requirements of the given application, i.e., such that “the preset threshold is an output value of the active differential module when the change rate of the oscillation voltage is 0”, e.g., according to expected frequency response of the circuit and the way it was measured [para. 0100].
Regarding claim 17, Abi Aoun in view of Beidelman and Liu discloses the aerosol generation device according to claim 6.
Abi Aoun also discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to adjust the oscillation frequency of the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator, to cause the oscillation frequency of the series LC oscillator or the series LCC oscillator to be equal to or basically close to a preset frequency [abstract: “The apparatus may be arranged to control a drive frequency of the RLC resonance circuit to be at the determined first frequency in order to heat the susceptor.”].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gutierrez (US 20100181306 A1), in the same field of endeavor [i.e., a method for controlling induction heating] teaches monitoring at least one electrical parameter of a resonant circuit and the benefits of assessing the occurrence of non-zero voltage switching or non-zero current switching and adjusting the control accordingly [abstract].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm EST.
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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761