DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Bowen or Butin does not disclose or suggest does not disclose or suggest (1) in response to determining that the orientation of the aerosol generating device is the predetermined direction, controlling the light source to radiate light; and (2) in response to determining that the orientation of the aerosol generating device is different from the predetermined direction, performing an operation unrelated to the light source. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Bowen teaches in response to determining that the orientation of the aerosol generating device is upright, controlling the light source to radiate light [0115]. Butin teaches in response to determining that the orientation of the aerosol generating device is horizontal, switching the heating arrangement into pause mode [0015-0016]. In other words, the combination does disclose (1) in response to determining that the orientation of the aerosol generating device is the predetermined direction, controlling the light source to radiate light; and (2) in response to determining that the orientation of the aerosol generating device is different from the predetermined direction, performing an operation unrelated to the light source
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verleur (US 2015/0128976) in view of Bowen (US 2017/0259170) and Butin (US 2023/0354917).
Regarding claim 1, Verleur [Fig. 1] teaches a vaporizer (aerosol-generating device) comprising: a cartomizer 200 (cartridge) having a chamber 300 formed therein configured to store a liquid [0042]; a battery portion 102/104 (body) coupled to the cartridge [0034]; at least one accelerometer (sensor) configured to output a signal corresponding to motion of the aerosol-generating device [0035]; a light source disposed in the body and configured to radiate light toward the cartridge [0036]. Verleur teaches the sensor accelerometer may be operable to detect tilting or changes in orientation, and a PCB may be accordingly operable to react to a shift in orientation detected by the accelerometer, for instance, shaking or inverting [0035]. Verleur further teaches the PCB controls operation of the light source [0036]. In other words, Verleur teaches a controller configured to: based on a predetermined input being received through the at least one sensor, control the light source to radiate light. Although Verleur does mention orientation, Verleur does not teach the controller is configured to determine an orientation direction of the aerosol-generating device based on a signal received from the at least one sensor, and based on the determined orientation direction being a predetermined direction control the light source to radiate light. Bowen teaches a vaporization device wherein a light source is controlled to radiate light in response a determined orientation direction of the device being a predetermined direction [0115]. Bowen suggests that outputting different light patterns based on different orientations provides an enhanced user experience allowing for increased pleasure, including when the device is in an upright orientation [0110, 0115]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller of Verleur to determine that a predetermined input is received from the sensor and determine based on a signal received from the sensor whether an orientation is upright (“a predetermined direction”), and in response control the light source to radiate light for the benefit of an enhanced user experience allowing for increased pleasure as suggested by Bowen.
Modified Verleur does not teach the controller is further configured to perform an operation unrelated to the light source in response to the predetermined input based on the determined orientation direction being different from the predetermined direction. Butin teaches an aerosol generating device wherein the heating arrangement may be switched into pause mode when the device is lying idle on a table based on a horizontal orientation [0015-0016]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this configuration to the controller of modified Verleur to avoid overheating when the device is not in use as suggested by Butin. Thus, in modified Butin, as a horizontal orientation is different from the above vertical orientation or predetermined direction, the controller is configured to perform an operation unrelated to the light source in response to the predetermined input based on the determined orientation direction being different from the predetermined direction.
Regarding claim 3, modified Verleur teaches the predetermined direction corresponds to an upright position [Bowen 0115], i.e. the orientation in which an upper end of the aerosol-generating device is oriented in an upward direction and a lower end of the aerosol-generating device is oriented in a downward direction.
Regarding claim 4, Verleur teaches the at least one sensor comprises an accelerometer (acceleration sensor) [0035].
Regarding claim 5, Verleur does not teach the predetermined input is a tap input performed by tapping the aerosol-generating device. Bowen teaches the accelerometer may be configured to detect tapping [0008, 0130]. As this is a conventional type of input known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a tap input for the predetermined input of Verleur to achieve the same, predictable result of performing an operation in response to a user input.
Regarding claim 6, Verleur [Fig. 1] teaches the body 102 comprises: a battery housing segment 102 (lower body) configured to support a lower portion of the cartridge 200; and a cartomizer receiving segment 104 (upper body) disposed on the lower body to be adjacent to a side portion of the cartridge 200 [0034], and wherein the light source is disposed in the upper body 104 [0036], i.e. adjacent to a side surface 106 of the upper body 104 in contact with a side portion of the cartridge 200.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verleur and Bowen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rado (US 2019/0373954).
Modified Verleur does not teach the claimed configuration. Rado teaches a vaporizer wherein the cartridge [Fig. 3-5] comprises: a tank module 60 (first container) comprising the chamber 140 [0057]; an atomizer module 70 (second container) coupled to the first container 60 [0051]; a wick 170/102 mounted in the second container disposed to be in communication with the chamber [0053, 0060]; and a heater 100 configured to heat the wick [0074], wherein the first container 60 comprises an inner wall 150 defining an elongated insertion space 180 and an outer wall 136 , and wherein the chamber 140 is formed between the inner wall and the outer wall [0057]. Rado teaches that this configuration provides for a vaporizer that can be filled more easily [0006] and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this configuration to the device of modified for Verleur for this reason. Verleur teaches at least a portion of the outer wall of the first container is formed of a material allowing light to pass therethrough [0041]. Thus, in modified Verleur, the light source is disposed to face the first container such that light is radiated from the light source toward the chamber along an outer periphery of the insertion space.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verleur and Bowen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weiss (US 2013/0228190).
Modified Verleur does not teach a cap configured to cover at least a portion of the body and the cartridge, wherein a portion of the cap covering the first container has at least a portion formed of a material allowing light to pass therethrough. Weiss teaches an electronic cigarette including a cap configured to cover the electronic cigarette, wherein a portion of the cap covering the first container has at least a portion formed of a material allowing light to pass therethrough [0042]. Weiss teaches providing structure on the cap, perhaps tubes, that can transmit the light along the cap [0042], i.e. a diffusion structure disposed along a circumference of the cap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include this cap with the device of modified Verleur for protection purposes as suggested by Weiss [0027], as well for predictable aesthetic results associated with the light diffusion. One of ordinary skill in the would appreciate that the diffusion structure may be in any shape for light diffusion, such as a sheet.
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 ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights