DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Submission
Applicant’s submission filed on 2026 June 10 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are pending. Claims 2, 4, 7, and 10-11 remain withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 8-9 are presently examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: in lines 9-13 under the subheadings “compare the resistance change…” and “control the core…”, the limitation “each of the plurality of preset threshold ranges corresponds to different… heating power” should be “each of the plurality of preset threshold ranges corresponds to each of a plurality of… heating powers”, or equivalent, to make clear that the heating powers are plural.
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, 3, 6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1: in lines 9-13 under the subheadings “compare the resistance change…” and “control the core…”, the term “optimal” is relative and 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. “Optimal” is omitted from further examination.
Claims 3, 6, and 8-9 are rejected by dependence on claim 1.
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, 3, 6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bilat (US 20180303161 A1).
Claim 1: Bilat teaches an electronic vaporization device (fig. 7 and [162], #100), comprising:
a vaporizer (113 and 119) configured to vaporize a liquid substrate (115) to generate an aerosol, and a power supply mechanism (107 and 109) configured to supply power to the vaporizer (113 and 119), wherein the vaporizer (113 and 119) comprises a heating element (119) configured to heat and vaporize the liquid substrate (115), and the power supply mechanism (107 and 109) comprises:
a core (107), configured to supply power to the heating element (119);
and a controller (109), configured to:
identify (fig. 9 and [178], Step #320: if a rate of change of resistance is within an acceptable range, then the device matches the heater and moves towards Step #340; if a rate of change of resistance is outside of the acceptable range, then the device does not match the heater and moves towards Step #330) the vaporizer based on electric power (power is supplied) provided by the core to the heating element and a resistance change (rate of change of resistance) generated by the heating element;
compare the resistance change ([178], rate of change of resistance) with a plurality of preset threshold ranges (below the acceptable range, within the acceptable range, and above the acceptable range), wherein each of the plurality of preset threshold ranges corresponds to each of a plurality of heating powers (when a rate of change of resistance is below or above the acceptable range, then a heating power is not supplied; when a rate of change of resistance is within the acceptable range, then a heating power is supplied);
and control the core to output corresponding heating power to the heating element based on a comparison result ([178], when a rate of change of resistance is below or above the acceptable range, then a heating power is not supplied; when a rate of change of resistance is within the acceptable range, then a heating power is supplied).
Claim 3: Bilat teaches the electronic vaporization device according to claim 1, wherein the resistance change ([178], rate of change of resistance) comprises a resistance change rate of the heating element.
Claim 6: Bilat teaches the electronic vaporization device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: compare a resistance change rate (fig. 9 and [178], rate of change of resistance) of the heating element with a threshold range (acceptable range), and prevent the core from supplying power (Step #330: power is not supplied) to the heating element when the resistance change rate (rate of change of resistance) is greater than a maximum value of the threshold range (outside of the acceptable range) or less than a minimum value of the threshold range (outside of the acceptable range).
Claim 8: Bilat teaches the electronic vaporization device according to claim 1, wherein the core (fig. 7 and [162], #107) is configured to provide predetermined electric power [62] to the heating element (119).
Claim 9: Bilat teaches the electronic vaporization device according to claim 8, wherein the core (fig. 7 and [162], #107) is configured to supply power to the heating element (119) in a manner of constant power output [89].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 2026 June 10 have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (p. 6) that Bilat does not teach comparing a resistance change against a plurality of preset threshold ranges. However, Bilat does teach comparing a resistance change against a plurality of preset threshold ranges ([178], below an acceptable range, within the acceptable range, and above an acceptable range). In the absence of limitations defining that the ranges are all closed-ended, if such limitations have written support, or defining how the ranges correspond to the heating powers, Bilat’s facts read on amended claim 1.
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 Tobey C. Le whose telephone number is (703)756-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30-18:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael H. Wilson can be reached at 571-270-3882. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TOBEY C LE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights