DETAILED ACTION 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. 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 ). 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 [004 2 ] ; 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 , f or 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 [0110, 0115]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller of Verleur 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 for the benefit of an enhanced user experience allowing for increased pleasure as suggested by Bowen. 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 . Claim 2 is 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 Butin (US 2023/0354917). 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], i.e. 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 . 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. Claim s 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] ; a n 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. Claim s 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 provid ing 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3273 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Philip Louie can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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