DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are persuasive to the extent discussed below. Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments — 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant argues that the recitation in claim 16 of “one or both of a humidity sensor and a temperature sensor arranged in the airflow path and configured to provide for an output indicative of a temperature in the airflow path” is not indefinite merely because a humidity sensor does not directly measure temperature. Applicant explains that humidity and temperature are related and that a humidity measurement may therefore provide information indicative of temperature even though it is not a direct temperature measurement.
Upon reconsideration, Applicant’s argument is persuasive. The recitation “indicative of a temperature” does not require that temperature itself be directly measured by the recited sensor. Although the claim language is broad enough to encompass an output from a humidity sensor that indirectly provides information indicative of temperature, breadth does not by itself render a claim indefinite. When considered in light of the claim language and Specification, the scope of the limitation is reasonably ascertainable. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), and the rejection of claims depending therefrom based solely on the same alleged indefiniteness, is withdrawn.
Applicant has further amended claims 30 and 31 in response to the antecedent-basis and structural ambiguities identified in the prior Office Action. In particular, claim 30 now refers to “the” humidity sensor, “the” temperature sensor, “the” controller, and “the” vaporizer, thereby clarifying that these recitations refer to the previously introduced structures. Claim 31 has likewise been amended to clarify the previously introduced heating cavity, airflow path, vaporizer, and related structures. These amendments resolve the ambiguities identified in the prior Office Action. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments — 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant argues that the combination of Seong and Qiu fails to teach or suggest each limitation of independent claim 16. In particular, Applicant argues that Seong’s temperature sensor 70 and humidity sensor 90 detect external temperature and humidity rather than temperature or humidity in the claimed airflow path; that Seong’s ultrasonic generator 80 is merely installed in liquid cartridge 30 and is not arranged in the airflow path; and that Seong merely controls ultrasonic generator 80 to reduce generation of droplets rather than to increase humidity of air in the airflow path.
These arguments are not persuasive.
The rejection does not rely upon Seong alone for the precise location of the humidity and temperature sensors. The Office Action expressly acknowledged that Seong fails to explicitly disclose the exact location of the sensors and relied upon Qiu ¶ [0074] for the teaching of arranging a humidity sensor in an airflow channel. The Office Action further expressly provided the reason for the proposed modification, namely, to incorporate Qiu’s sensor arrangement into Seong for the benefit of sending information regarding the temperature and/or humidity of the airflow channel to a controller. Thus, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the rejection identifies both the deficiency in Seong and a reason for applying Qiu’s teaching to Seong.
Applicant further argues that Qiu does not cure the deficiency because Qiu’s humidity sensor detects humidity of smoke downstream of aerosol generation, whereas the claimed airflow path extends toward the heating cavity. This argument is likewise unpersuasive. The rejection does not require bodily incorporation of Qiu’s complete airflow architecture into Seong. Rather, Qiu is relied upon for the narrower teaching that a humidity sensor may be positioned in an airflow channel and may provide sensed humidity information to a controller. The resulting device remains the modified Seong device. The fact that Qiu illustrates its sensor in a different particular location does not negate Qiu’s broader teaching regarding use of a sensor in an airflow passage.
Applicant additionally characterizes Qiu as teaching away from the claimed arrangement because Qiu detects humidity downstream of the vaporization location. This argument is not persuasive. Qiu does not criticize, discredit, or discourage positioning a humidity or temperature sensor at another location in an airflow path. Disclosure of one sensor location does not, without more, constitute a teaching away from use of the sensor at another suitable location.
Applicant further argues that Seong does not disclose the vaporizer “in communication with the airflow path” because ultrasonic generator 80 is installed in liquid cartridge 30 rather than in the airflow path. This argument reads a physical-location requirement into the claim that is not present. Claim 16 requires the vaporizer to be “in communication with” the airflow path; it does not require the vaporizer itself to be physically disposed within the airflow path. Seong expressly teaches that ultrasonic generator 80 vaporizes a liquid phase by ultrasonic waves. Thus, Seong teaches a vapor-generating structure whose generated vapor is provided as part of operation of the aerosol-generating device. Applicant has not established that the claimed phrase “in communication with the airflow path” requires physical placement of the vaporizer within the airflow passage.
Applicant also argues that Seong merely adjusts ultrasonic generator 80 to reduce generation of droplets and does not teach controlling the vaporizer to increase humidity of air in the airflow path. This argument does not address Seong’s disclosure as a whole. Seong expressly teaches an ultrasonic generator that vaporizes liquid and a controller that regulates operation of that generator in response to sensed temperature and humidity conditions. The fact that Seong additionally describes reducing generation of droplets does not negate the disclosed vaporization of liquid or the controller’s regulation of that vaporization process. Introducing vapor generated from liquid into airflow predictably increases the moisture content of that airflow. Accordingly, Applicant’s reliance on the particular statement concerning reduction of droplets does not distinguish the claimed control relationship from the modified Seong device.
Applicant further argues that the combination of Seong and Qiu would require highly specific selections and adaptations that could only have been made using Applicant’s disclosure as a roadmap. Applicant characterizes the rejection as based upon improper hindsight and alleges that no motivation exists to combine the references.
This argument is not persuasive. The proposed modification is based upon teachings in the cited references themselves. Seong already teaches sensing temperature and humidity and controlling an ultrasonic vapor-generating device based upon sensed environmental conditions. Qiu teaches locating a humidity sensor in an airflow channel and feeding sensed humidity information to a controller. Accordingly, the teachings are directed to closely related functions within aerosol-generating devices and provide a reason independent of Applicant’s disclosure for employing Qiu’s airflow-channel sensor arrangement in Seong.
Further, the Office Action expressly articulated a reason for the modification: providing information regarding the temperature and/or humidity of the airflow channel to the controller. Applicant’s assertion that the Office Action contains no motivation therefore does not accurately reflect the rejection as made.
Applicant additionally argues that the rejection fails to establish a reasonable expectation of success. This argument is not persuasive. Seong already demonstrates use of temperature and humidity information to control ultrasonic generator 80, while Qiu demonstrates use of a humidity sensor in an airflow channel to provide sensed information to a controller. Applicant has not identified any technical incompatibility between these teachings, any modification that would render Seong inoperable for its intended purpose, or any reason why positioning the sensor in the airflow path would have produced an unpredictable result. The proposed modification involves known sensing and control components performing their established functions in a closely related aerosol-generating system. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that Qiu’s known sensor arrangement could be employed in Seong for the stated purpose.
Applicant further argues that the cited references, whether considered individually or collectively, fail to teach each and every claimed element and that the Office has improperly pieced together the claim using isolated disclosures. This argument is not persuasive. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 does not require a single reference to disclose every limitation. The rejection expressly identifies which limitations are taught by Seong, identifies the limitation for which Seong is deficient, and relies upon Qiu for the corresponding airflow-channel sensor teaching. The references are therefore being considered for their respective teachings as part of the combination set forth in the rejection rather than as isolated references required individually to disclose the complete claimed invention.
Applicant’s reliance on the absence of the more specific spatial arrangements recited in allowable claims 21 and 22 also does not establish error in the rejection of claim 16. Claim 16 broadly requires the sensor to be arranged in the airflow path. Claims 21 and 22 further limit that arrangement by, respectively, requiring measurement adjacent an air inlet and requiring the vaporizer to be arranged between the sensor and the heating cavity. The prior Office Action expressly recognized that the cited art did not provide adequate teaching, suggestion, motivation, or other rationale for those narrower spatial arrangements. The allowance of those additional limitations is therefore consistent with, rather than contrary to, the rejection of the broader subject matter of claim 16.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 16-19, 24-25, and 29 over Seong in view of Qiu are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments directed to claims 20, 23, 30, 31, and 32 rely substantially upon the alleged deficiencies of Seong and Qiu discussed above. Because those alleged deficiencies are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above, the arguments likewise do not overcome the respective rejections incorporating Krietzman or Bessant or the rejection of claims 30-32 based upon Seong in view of Qiu. The respective rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are therefore maintained.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 16–19, 24–25, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20200100580 (of record) (reference being made to the attached machine translation) (“SEONG”) in view of QIU US 20180199630 (“QIU”).
As to claim 16, SEONG discloses an aerosol-generating device (100), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
914
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
630
574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a heating cavity (Page 2’s “hole 20 into which the cigarette 10 is inserted” and 40 “pipe heater”) configured to accommodate an aerosol-generating article (10 “cigarette”);
an airflow path into which ambient air is drawn and through which air flows to reach the heating cavity through the aerosol-generating device (pages 2–3);
one or both of a humidity sensor (90 “humidity sensor”) and a temperature sensor (70 “temperature sensor”)
a controller (60) configured to receive the output; and
a vaporizer (30/80) in communication with the airflow path (see annotation on page 3), wherein the controller is further configured to control operation of the vaporizer on the basis of the received output to increase a humidity of air in the airflow path (see annotation on page 3).
However, SEONG fails to explicitly disclose the exact location of the humidity sensor and temperature sensor. Accordingly, SEONG fails to anticipate one or both of a humidity sensor and a temperature sensor are arranged in the airflow path.
QIU teaches one or both of a humidity sensor and a temperature sensor are arranged in an airflow path ([0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of QIU into the generic disclosure of SEONG for the benefit of sending information about the temperature and/or the humidity of the airflow channel to a controller (as taught by QIU at [0074]).
As to claim 17, SEONG and QIU make obvious the aerosol-generating device according to claim 16.
The obvious arrangement above would arrive at SEONG’s temperature sensor (70) configured to measure a temperature of air in the airflow path (as taught by QIU at [0074]).
As to claim 18, SEONG and QIU make obvious the aerosol-generating device according to 16.
SEONG further discloses further comprising the humidity sensor (90) and the temperature sensor (70), wherein the controller (60) is further configured to control the operation of the vaporizer (30/80) on the basis of output by the humidity sensor and on the basis of output by the temperature sensor (see annotation on bottom of page 3).
As to claim 19, SEONG and QIU make obvious the aerosol-generating device according to claim 16.
The obvious arrangement above would arrive at SEONG’s the humidity sensor (90) is further configured to measure humidity of air in the airflow path (as taught by QIU at [0074]).
As to claim 24, SEONG and QIU make obvious the aerosol-generating device according to claim 16.
SEONG, as modified by the teachings of QIU above, arrives at wherein the one or both of the humidity sensor and the temperature sensor are further configured to measure one or both of humidity of the air in the airflow path and temperature of the air in the airflow path continuously during operation of the aerosol-generating device (SEONG page 3).
As to claim 25, SEONG and QIU make obvious the aerosol-generating device according to claim 16.
Modified SEONG arrives at or makes obvious wherein the vaporizer is configured as a nebulizer (see page 3’s “an ultrasonic generator 80 may be installed in the liquid cartridge 30 to vaporize a liquid phase by ultrasonic waves”) for the benefit of enabling the controller to modify the internal humidity in the airflow path (as taught by SEONG at page 3).
As to claim 29, SEONG and QIU make obvious the aerosol-generating device according to 16.
Modified SEONG arrives at wherein the vaporizer and the humidity sensor are arranged in a non-thermal aerosol-generating portion of the aerosol-generating device, wherein the aerosol-generating device further comprises a thermal aerosol-generating portion comprising a heating element, and wherein the non-thermal aerosol-generating portion is arranged upstream of the thermal aerosol-generating portion. (SEONG Figs. 1–2 and page 3; and incorporated teachings form QIU as applied in the rejection of claim 16 above).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20200100580 (of record) (reference being made to the attached machine translation) (“SEONG”) in view of QIU US 20180199630 (“QIU”), as applied in the rejection of claim 16 above, and in further view of KRIETZMAN U.S. Pub. No.: 20160235124 (“KRIETZMAN”)
As to claim 20, SEONG and QIU make obvious the aerosol-generating device according to claim 16.
SEONG and QIU fail to explicitly disclose the type of temperature sensor and therefore arrive at wherein the temperature sensor is further configured as a capacitive sensor.
KRIETZMAN teaches wherein the temperature sensor is further configured as a capacitive sensor ([0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the specific teachings of KRIETZMAN into the generic disclosure of modified SEONG for the benefit of a capacitive-type humidity and temperature module, which enables the controller to monitor the relative humidity with a single module (as taught by KRIETZMAN at [0064]).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20200100580 (of record) (reference being made to the attached machine translation) (“SEONG”) in view of QIU US 20180199630 (“QIU”), as applied in the rejection of claim 16 above, and in further view of BESSANT US 20210145068 (of record).
As to claim 23, SEONG and QIU make obvious the aerosol-generating device according to claim 16.
SEONG and QIU fail to arrive at wherein the controller comprises a lookup table, wherein the lookup table comprises one or both of air humidity data and air temperature data, and wherein the controller is further configured to control the vaporizer by comparing the output of the one or both of the humidity sensor and the temperature sensor with stored data of the lookup table.
BESSANT teaches wherein the controller comprises a lookup table, wherein the lookup table comprises one or both of air humidity data and air temperature data ([0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of BESSANT into the disclosure of modified SEONG for the benefit of enabling the controller to adapt the system according to the detected temperature/humidity in the air (as taught by BESSANT at [0053] and [0169]).
When incorporating the above, it would have been further obvious to modify the controller to control the SEONG’s vaporizer (as taught by SEONG at page 3) by comparing the output of the one or both of the humidity sensor and the temperature sensor with stored data of the lookup table (as taught by BESSANT at [0053] and [0169]).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20200100580 (of record) (reference being made to the attached machine translation) (“SEONG”) in view of QIU US 20180199630 (“QIU”).
As to claim 30, SEONG and QIU make obvious a method of moisturizing air in an aerosol-generating device, the method comprising the steps of: providing an aerosol-generating device according to claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above).
SEONG further discloses estimating, by means of one or both of a humidity sensor and a temperature sensor, humidity of air in the airflow path; and controlling, by means of a controller, a vaporizer on the basis of output of the one or both of the humidity sensor and the temperature sensor to increase the humidity of the air in the airflow path (see discussion of controller/vaporizer arrangement on page 3).
Accordingly, SEONG and QIU make obvious claim 30.
Claim(s) 31–32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20200100580 (of record) (reference being made to the attached machine translation) (“SEONG”) in view of QIU US 20180199630 (“QIU”).
As to claim 31, SEONG and QIU make obvious aerosol-generating system comprising an aerosol-generating device according to claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above).
SEONG further discloses an aerosol-forming substrate (10), wherein the aerosol-forming substrate is configured to be heated in a heating cavity of the device (40), wherein the heating cavity is arranged downstream of an airflow path (Fig. 1), and wherein a vaporizer is arranged upstream of the heating cavity (Fig. 1).
Accordingly, SEONG and QIU make obvious claim 30.
As to claim 32, SEONG and QIU make obvious the aerosol-generating system according to claim 31.
SEONG further discloses wherein the aerosol-forming substrate (10) comprises a solid aerosol-forming substrate (10 is a cigarette).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21–22 and 26–28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 21
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for indicating claim 21 allowable is that the prior art fails to provide, any teachings suggestions, motivations, or other rationales to arrive at wherein the one or both of the humidity sensor and the temperature sensor are further arranged to respectively measure one or both of humidity and temperature adjacent an air inlet of the aerosol- generating device.
SEONG and QIU make obvious the aerosol-generating device according to claim 16.
Modified SEONG arrives at wherein the one or both of the humidity sensor (90) and the temperature sensor (70) are further arranged to respectively measure one or both of humidity and temperature (see annotation on bottom of page 3).
SEONG fails to dislcose these sensors are arranged to take measurements adjacent an air inlet of the aerosol-generating device.
QIU provides motivation to take measurements downstream of the vaporizer. ([0074] “The humidity sensor detects the humidity of smoke and feeds signal back to the controller 50”). This generally teaches away from an arrangement to take measurements adjacent an air inlet of the aerosol-generating device
US 20210145068 discloses a humidity sensor 214 is adjacent an air inlet; however, this airflow path does not reach the heating cavity and is not part of the claimed airflow path. Additionally, US 20210145068 fails to disclose a vaporizer in communication with the airflow path, wherein the controller is further configured to control operation of the vaporizer on the basis of the received output to increase a humidity of air in the airflow path.
PNG
media_image3.png
508
299
media_image3.png
Greyscale
US 20210145068 fails to remedy the above deficiencies.
US 20220007735 discloses
PNG
media_image4.png
469
301
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
416
655
media_image5.png
Greyscale
one or both of a humidity sensor (60) and a temperature sensor arranged in the airflow path and configured to provide for an output indicative of a temperature in the airflow path ([0048]). However, this reference fails to provide motivation to arrive at the sensors are arranged to take measurements adjacent an air inlet of the aerosol-generating device while being part of airflow path which extends through the aerosol-generating device.
Accordingly, claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 22
The primary reason for indicating claim 22 allowable is that the prior art fails to provide, any teachings suggestions, motivations, or other rationales to arrive at the vaporizer is arranged between the one or both of the humidity sensor and the temperature sensor and the heating cavity.
SEONG and QIU make obvious the aerosol-generating device according to claim 16.
SEONG fails to dislcose wherein the vaporizer is arranged between the one or both of the humidity sensor and the temperature sensor and the heating cavity.
QIU provides motivation to take measurements downstream of the vaporizer. ([0074] “The humidity sensor detects the humidity of smoke and feeds signal back to the controller 50”) and cannot arrive at wherein the vaporizer is arranged between the one or both of the humidity sensor and the temperature sensor and the heating cavity (because it teaches placing the sensor further downstream).
Simply stated, the prior art fails to arrive at the particular arrangement claimed.
Accordingly, claim 22 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 26–27
The primary reason for indicating claim 26 allowable is that the prior art fails to provide, any teachings suggestions, motivations, or other rationales to arrive at the nebulizer comprises a vibrating micro-perforated mesh.
Simply stated, the prior art fails to arrive at this limitation.
Accordingly, claim 26 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 27 would be allowed for the same reasons via its dependency on claim 25.
Claim 28
The primary reason for indicating claim 28 allowable is that the prior art fails to provide, any teachings suggestions, motivations, or other rationales to arrive at wherein the vaporizer is configured as a non-thermal vaporizer.
SEONG’s vaporizer explicitly requires a heating coil (31) regulate the humidity within the airflow path (see page 31)—teaching away from a non-thermal vaporizer.
Accordingly, claim 28 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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