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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 18-20 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that, in Gimkiewicz, the LED (42) provides light so that the image detector (44) can obtain a more homogeneous image, and thus the purpose and function of the light source are different from those of the light source of claim 1, and in Gimkiewicz, since the light emitted from the LED (42) is reflected from the surface of the aerosol-generating substrate (12), it is completely different from claim 1 in which the light emitted from the light source (153) is provided to the first chamber (C1) of the cartridge (200) so that the first chamber (C1) is illuminated by the light. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument that the arrangement and function of the light source are different from those of the light source (153) of claim 1, and thus, the amended feature is not taught by the lighting configuration disclosed in Gimkiewicz.
The Applicant is arguing limitations which are not claimed, specifically the only limitations in claim 1 directed to the light source are “at least one light source mounted on the PCB and configured to provide light to the first chamber and “a first sensor mounted on the PCB at a region of the PCB different than the at least one light source”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gimkiewicz (US 20190261682).
Regarding claim 1, Gimkiewicz teaches an aerosol-generating device (100, Fig. 1) comprising: a body (10); a cartridge (12) coupled to the body and comprises a first chamber configured to store a liquid ([0042]); and a printed circuit board assembly (40) disposed at the body and positioned adjacent to the cartridge (Figs 4a and 4b), wherein the PCB assembly (Fig. 5b) comprises: a PCB (48); at least one light source, specifically an LED (42), mounted on the PCB (48) and configured to provide light to the cartridge (12) (Fig. 5b) which contains the first chamber; and a first sensor (44) mounted on the PCB at a region of the PCB different than the at least one light source (Fig. 5b).
Regarding claim 2, Gimkiewicz teaches that the body (10) comprises: a lower body (24); and an upper body (22) disposed above the lower body, wherein the upper body (22) comprises an elongated column configured to face a side wall of the cartridge (Fig. 2), and wherein the PCB assembly (40) is disposed at the column (22, Fig. 4a).
Regarding claim 3, Gimkiewicz teaches further comprising a window (“aperture”, [0057]) covering the PCB assembly (48) and configured to allow light to pass therethrough ([0057]).
Regarding claim 5, Gimkiewicz teaches that the cartridge (12) comprises a first chamber configured to store the liquid ([0042]-[0043]) and an insertion space formed separately from the first chamber (space around the cartridge), and wherein the window (“aperture”) has a concave shape corresponding to a convex outer side of the cartridge adjacent to the insertion space (Fig. 4a).
Regarding claim 6, Gimkiewicz teaches the window (“aperture”) comprises at least one recess configured to accommodate the at least one light source, LED (42) (Fig. 4a, [0057]).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Gimkiewicz teaches further comprising a window (49) covering the PCB assembly (48, Fig. 5b) and configured to allow light to pass therethrough ([0059]), wherein the column (22) comprises a flange protruding inward to form an edge (“aperture,” Fig. 4a) and configured to allow a surface of the window to be attached thereto, via the PCB assembly (40, Fig. 4a).
Regarding claim 9, Gimkiewicz teaches that the PCB assembly(40) is elongated along a lengthwise direction of the column (22) (Figs. 3 and 4a).
Regarding claim 10, Gimkiewicz teaches that the PCB assembly comprises one end exposed downwards from the upper body (22) to electrically connect the PCB assembly (40) to a device provided at the lower body via connector (50) ([0057]).
Regarding claim 11, Gimkiewicz teaches that the cartridge (12) comprises a first chamber configured to store the liquid ([0042]) and an insertion space, or aperture, formed separately from the first chamber ([0057]), wherein the first sensor faces the cartridge at a position corresponding to the insertion space, or aperture ([0057]) (Fig. 4a), and wherein the at least one light source includes a plurality of light sources, LEDs (42) respectively disposed on opposite sides of the first sensor (44) (Fig. 5b).
Regarding claim 12, Gimkiewicz teaches a plate (47) attached to the PCB assembly (40) to cover a region of the PCB (48) while leaving the at least one light source exposed (Fig. 5b and [0059]).
Regarding claim 13, Gimkiewicz teaches that the first sensor (44) is configured to sense a change in electromagnetic characteristics caused by a neighboring object ([0063]-[0064]), and wherein the plate (47) is configured to allow electromagnetic waves, specifically light, to pass therethrough, via microlenses (45) ([0059]).
Regarding claim 14, Gimkiewicz teaches that the body (10) comprises: a lower body (24); and an upper body (22) disposed above the lower body (Fig. 2) and configured to allow the cartridge (12) to be coupled thereto (Fig. 2 and [0053]), wherein the upper body (22) comprises a mount (20) configured to receive a lower portion of the cartridge (Fig. 2 and [0053]).
Regarding claim 16, Gimkiewicz teaches that the upper body (22) comprises a column extending upwards adjacent to the mount (extension of upper body, 22, in the shape of a column, Fig. 2) and configured to face a side wall of the cartridge (Fig. 4a), and wherein the PCB assembly (40) is disposed at the column (Fig. 4a and [0056]).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gimkiewicz.
Regarding claim 4, Gimkiewicz does not expressly teach that the window (49) is configured to contact the side wall of the cartridge (12). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the outside edge of the window modified to contact the side wall of the cartridge (12) so that light from the LED (42) is directed only towards the first sensor (44, image detector) motivated by the desire to optimize the sensing system.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gimkiewicz as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Schennum (US 20170013875).
Regarding claim 8, Gimkiewicz teaches that the PCB (40) is attached to the window (Fig. 4a) but does not expressly teach that the PCB comprises a plurality of through-holes formed therein, and the window comprises a plurality of penetrating protrusions configured to be inserted into the through-holes.
Schennum teaches a recharging pack for an e-cigarette (abstract). Schennum teaches PCB’s that are attached to tubes by pegs that extend outwards from the walls of tube through corresponding holes in the PCB, thereby retaining the PCB in the appropriate position relative to the tubes ([0030]). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have attached the PCB of Gimkiewicz to the window of Gimkiewicz by placing pegs on the window and making through-holes on the PCB, as suggested by Schennum, since this would retain the PCB in the appropriate position relative to the window with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results (Schennum, [0030]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Gimkiewicz as applied to claim 14, above, and further in view of Wang (US 20200297033).
Regarding claim 15, modified Gimkiewicz does not expressly teach that the cartridge is configured to be detachably coupled to the mount in a snap-fit manner.
Wang teaches an atomization generating device that includes a main body and a cartridge (abstract). Wang teaches a snap-fitting opening provided at a side wall of the exterior housing of the cartridge and a protrusion provided at the bottom base of the cartridge. The open hole at the side wall of the exterior housing of the cartridge may be configured as the snap-fitting opening and the protrusion may be disposed at the bottom base of the cartridge at a location corresponding to the snap-fitting opening. The protrusion may be configured to couple or engage with the snap-fitting opening to securely mount the bottom base of the cartridge to the exterior housing of the cartridge through the snap-fitting manner ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the cartridge of modified Gimkiewicz be detachably coupled to the mount in a snap-fit manner, as suggested by Wang, because it allows for securely mounting the cartridge to the mount (Wang, [0020]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gimkiewicz as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Cao (US 20200060345).
Regarding claim 17, Gimkiewicz teaches that the cartridge comprises a cartridge inlet (15), but does not expressly teach that the device further comprises a second sensor disposed at the lower body and adjacent to the cartridge inlet.
Cao teaches a switch control circuit for an electronic cigarette (abstract). Cao teaches a second sensor configured to sense flow of air to improve user experience ([0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a second sensor to sense flow of air, as suggested by Cao, in Gimkiewicz because it improves user experience (Cao, [0033]).
Modified Gimkiewicz does not expressly teach that the second sensor is accommodated when the upper body is coupled to the lower body, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have allowed the second sensor to be accommodated when the device is in use, and when the device of modified Gimkiewicz is in use, the upper body is coupled to the lower body.
Modified Gimkiewicz also does not expressly teach that the second sensor is disposed at the lower body and adjacent to the cartridge inlet adjacent to the mount. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the second sensor at the lower body and adjacent to the cartridge inlet adjacent to the mount motivated by the desire to enable the second sensor to sense flow of air to improve user experience (Cao, [0033]).
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Gimkiewicz as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Lim (WO2021071203A1).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, modified Gimkiewicz does not expressly teach that the first sensor is configured to sense characteristics of the liquid stored in the cartridge, or that the first sensor is one of a capacitance sensor or a magnetic proximity sensor.
Lim teaches an aerosol generating device comprising a main body (20), a cartridge (40) that comprises a chamber to store a liquid (‘liquid storage’) and a sensor (13000). Lim teaches that the sensor is a capacitance sensor for measuring the remaining amount of liquid composition contained in the cartridge ([49]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a capacitance sensor in modified Gimkiewicz, as taught by Lim, because it allows the controller to keep track of the remaining amount of liquid in the cartridge and then inform the user of the remaining amount of liquid composition (Lim, [3]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Gimkiewicz as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Mazur (US20180168229A1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Gimkiewicz does not expressly teach that the first sensor is configured to sense characteristics of the liquid stored in the cartridge, specifically information about a type of the liquid stored in the cartridge.
Mazur teaches aerosol-generating systems ([0003]) which include a sensor, wherein the sensor may indicate a type of fluid based on the electrical property of the fluid ([0112]-[0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a sensor that may indicate a type of fluid in modified Gimkiewicz, as suggested by Mazur, because it would allow the controller to deactivate the vaporizer if the fluid sensor determines that a wrong fluid is in the cartridge (Mazur, [0018]).
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 YANA B KRINKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
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, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. 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.
YANA B. KRINKER
Examiner
Art Unit 1755
/YANA B KRINKER/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights