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 Amendment
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 7/1/2026. Claims 1-12 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 2021/0112880 A1) in view of Jung (EP 3785554 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson teaches an aerosol-generating device (Fig. 1B) comprising a housing (Fig. 2A, Ref. Num. 102). The housing comprises an insertion space (Fig. 2A, Opening on top) in communication with an exterior of the housing, an elongated probe (Fig. 2A, Ref. Num. 62) coupled to the housing and comprising a first end (End of Probe before foldback, end that sticks out most) where the elongated probe is movable from the insertion space to an interior of the housing (Fig. 2B, Ref. Num. 132). Anderson also teaches a pressure sensor (Fig. 2B, Ref. Num. 129) coupled to the housing and located adjacent to the first end of the elongated probe. However, Anderson does not teach that the pressure sensor is in direct contact with the first end of the elongated probe.
In an analogous art, Jung teaches a pressure sensor where an end of an elongated probe (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 40r) is in direct contact with the pressure sensor (Fig. 2, Ref. Num. 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Anderson with Jung to have the first end of the elongated probe in direct contact with the pressure sensor. This modification will allow the sensor to be triggered when a cartridge is inserted (Anderson; Para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 2, Anderson teaches that the aerosol-generating device comprises a support (Fig.2B, Ref. Num. 101) protruding toward the elongated probe, wherein the support is located adjacent to a side surface of the elongated probe.
Regarding claim 3, Anderson teaches that the elongated probe comprises a rib (Fig. 2B, Bent back part at end of probe) protruding from the side surface of the elongated probe where the support and the rib are aligned in a longitudinal direction with respect to the elongated probe.
Regarding claim 4, Anderson teaches that the rib Fig. 2B, Bent back part at end of probe) is located between the support (Fig.2B, Ref. Num. 101) and the pressure sensor (Fig. 2B, Ref. Num. 129), and when the elongated probe moves to the insertion space, the rib is caught by the support.
Regarding claim 5, Anderson teaches that when the elongated probe (Fig. 2A, Ref. Num. 62) moves from the insertion space to the interior of the housing (Fig. 2B, Ref. Num. 132), the pressure sensor (Fig. 2B, Ref. Num. 129) is in contact with the first end of the elongated probe.
Regarding claim 6, Anderson teaches that the pressure sensor is in the shape of a circle (Fig. 2C, Ref. Num. 129), so the side surface facing the elongated probe is convex towards the probe.
Regarding claim 7, Anderson teaches that the aerosol-generating comprises a container located in the housing (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 55; Para. [0197]), wherein the container is configured to store a liquid (Para. [0197]), a wick disposed at the insertion space (Para. [0197]), wherein the wick comprises a portion connected to the container (Para. [0187]), and a heater disposed near the wick (Fig. 1, Ref. Num. 26), wherein the heater is configured to apply heat to the wick (Para. [0187]).
Regarding claim 8, Anderson teaches that the housing further comprises a holder with a hole to receive the elongated probe (Fig. 2B, Ref. Num. 132).
Regarding claim 9, Anderson teaches that the wick (Fig. 1, inside the atomizer) is spaced apart from the hole in a radial direction of the hole (Fig. 1, underneath the receptacle contacts).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson teaches that the hole has a shape corresponding to a cross-section of the elongated probe (Fig. 2C, Ref. Num. 132).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson teaches that the insertion space (Fig. 2B, Ref. Num. 132) is elongated in a longitudinal direction of the elongated probe (Fig. 2A, Ref. Num. 62), and that the elongated probe comprises a second end (Fi g. 2A, end after the foldback portion) located opposite to the first end of the elongated probe and located at a center of a cross-section of the insertion space.
Regarding claim 12, Anderson teaches that the elongated probe comprises a first part (See Recreated Fig. 2B Below) elongated from the first end of the elongated probe, where the first part is movable through the hole, a second part (See Recreated Fig. 2B Below) elongated from the second end of the elongated probe, where the second part is movable in a longitudinal direction of the insertion space, and a third part (See Recreated Fig. 2B Below) connecting the first part and the second part and intersecting a longitudinal direction of the first part or the second part.
PNG
media_image1.png
219
368
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that if the pressure sensor made physical contact with the receptacle contact the sensor would unable to accurately measure the pressure changes in the air path. The probes (Fig. 2B, Ref. Num. 62) would not completely block the airpath and there would be room for the air path to flow between the probes to the cartridge through the sensor to measure the change in air pressure while gaining the added benefits of the more direct sensor control.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J WEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-2664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/N.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights