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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim (WO 2020/101213, English language equivalent US 11,889,862 relied upon) in view of Murison (US 12,295,411).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an aerosol generating apparatus having a main body (figure 6, reference numeral 40), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a body, that is detachably connected to a cartridge (column 9, lines 30-37, figure 6, reference numeral 50), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a cartridge. The cartridge contains a liquid material in a chamber (column 10, lines 32-45, figure 6, reference numeral 51). The main body includes a controller (column 9, lines 55-62). The cartridge contains a wick that receives liquid material (figure 6, reference numeral 54) and is surrounded by a heater that heats the liquid material in the wick (figure 6, reference numeral 53). Kim does not explicitly disclose an ambient temperature sensor that is then used to determine heater parameters.
Murison teaches an electronic cigarette vaporizer (column 1, lines 48-59) that has an ambient temperature sensor (column 52, lines 19-20) that indicates when the ambient temperature is very cold so that power to the heater is increased (column 51, lines 34-36) as a form of control input (column 51, lines 31-33). Murison additionally teaches that this process allows for the heating element to operate at its optimal temperature (column 51, lines 38-41).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Kim with the ambient temperature sensor and control method of Murison. One would have been motivated to do so since Murison teaches controlling an electronic cigarette vaporizer to operate at an optimal heater temperature even when the ambient temperature is very cold.
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses that the main body has a cover coupled to it (figure 6, reference numeral 70), which is considered to define an outer wall of the cartridge that defines a first container within it, that contains a separately coupled elongate cigarette support portion (column 11, lines 26-36, figure 6, reference numeral 41), which is considered to define an inner wall. The cartridge is detachably mounted on the main body and is located within the cover but outside the cigarette support portion (column 9, lines 38-49, figure 6, reference numeral 50), and is therefore considered to meet the claim limitation of a second container. The wick is contained within the cartridge (column 10, lines 32-45, figure 6).
Regarding claim 3, Murison teaches that the optimal temperature is obtained from known data in the cartridge (column 18, lines 27-54) that is stored in a memory (column 18, lines 16-26).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim additionally discloses that the main body has a cover coupled to it (figure 6, reference numeral 70), which is itself considered to meet the claim limitation of an upper body. The main body of Kim is considered to meet the claim limitation of a lower body. Modified Kim does not explicitly teach the ambient temperature sensor disposed in the lower body.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the ambient temperature sensor in the main body of modified Kim. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim (WO 2020/101213, English language equivalent US 11,889,862 relied upon) in view of Murison (US 12,295,411) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Eaton (US 6,351,692).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Kim does not explicitly teach not supplying power to the heater when data is missing.
Eaton teaches a controller having a memory (abstract) that prevents improper operation of a device if data is missing from the memory upon powerup by preventing the device from starting (column 9, lines 49-67, column 10, lines 1-4).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of modified Kim with the process of Eaton. One would have been motivated to do so since Eaton teaches a method that prevents device operation that may be improper because data is missing.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim (WO 2020/101213, English language equivalent US 11,889,862 relied upon) in view of Murison (US 12,295,411) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Eaton (US 6,351,692) and Ferrie (US 12,501,942).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Kim does not explicitly teach (a) not supplying power to the heater when data is missing and (b) outputting an error message to a user.
Regarding (a), Eaton teaches a controller having a memory (abstract) that prevents improper operation of a device if data is missing from the memory upon powerup by preventing the device from starting (column 9, lines 49-67, column 10, lines 1-4).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of modified Kim with the process of Eaton. One would have been motivated to do so since Eaton teaches a method that prevents device operation that may be improper because data is missing.
Regarding (b), Ferrie teaches a smoking system (abstract) having an output device that generates an alert for a user when an error event occurs (column 276, lines 31-39). Ferrie additionally teaches that this detecting allows appropriate corrective action to be taken (column 129, lines 7-17).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of modified Kim with the output device of Ferrie. One would have been motivated to do so since Ferrie teaches an output device that allows a user to take corrective action.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim (WO 2020/101213, English language equivalent US 11,889,862 relied upon) in view of Murison (US 12,295,411) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Maharajh (US 7,167,776).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim additionally discloses that the heater is heated to a desired preset temperature (column 5, lines 54-62). Modified Kim does not explicitly teach (a) a shunt resistor and (b) the shunt resistor located in the main body.
Regarding (a), Maharajh teaches a programmable vapor generator (abstract) that is heated based on a measured resistance, corresponding to a target temperature, of a heating element that is measured using a shunt resistor connected in series with the heater so that the heater can be heated to a desired temperature (column 10, lines 28-48).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of modified Kim with the shunt resistor of Maharajh. One would have been motivated to do so since Kim discloses heating the heater to a preset temperature and Maharajh teaches a sensor that enables a heater to be heated to a desired temperature.
Regarding (b), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the shunt resistor within the main body of modified Kim. Rearrangement of parts where both arrangements are known equivalents is a design choice that gives predicable results. See MPEP § 2144.04 VI C.
Regarding claim 8, Maharajh teaches that the resistance is measured until the resistance reaches a desired resistance (column 6, lines 22-43), indicating that heating of the wick would be ongoing during that process in the combination of modified Kim.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kim (WO 2020/101213, English language equivalent US 11,889,862 relied upon) in view of Murison (US 12,295,411) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Peleg (US 9,814,262).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Kim additionally discloses that the main body has a protruding cartridge mounting portion that has an electricity connection terminal to supply power to the liquid heater (column 10, lines 32-45, figure 6, reference numeral 49), and Murison additionally teaches that the ambient temperature is measured when a triggering event occurs such as withdrawing the personal vaporizer from a holder or exposing it to cold air (column 18, lines 55-67, column 19, lines 1-2). Modified Kim does not explicitly disclose measuring the ambient temperature when the cartridge and main body are connected together.
Peleg teaches an electronic cigarette having control functionality (abstract) in which the ambient temperature is used as a part of a coil calibration process at the time when the cartomizer is connected to the battery (column 13, lines 11-32). Peleg additionally teaches that calibrating the coil allows the heater temperature to be determined from a coil resistance (column 11, lines 1-15).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the ambient temperature measurement of modified Kim when the cartridge is attached to the main body. One would have been motivated to do so since Peleg teaches that measuring ambient temperature when the cartomizer is connected to the battery allows coil calibrations such that the heater temperature can be determined from a coil resistance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Atkins (US 10,912,333) teaches a method of operating a vaporization device in which the device is controlled by changing the resistance of the heating element (abstract). The target temperature is based on the resistance of the heater at an ambient temperature (column 2, lines 3-11). However, Atkins does not teach or suggest storing multiple resistance values associated with multiple ambient temperatures in memory.
James (US 12,011,037) teaches an electronic cigarette having a cartridge (abstract) in which the resistance of the heating element is measured at an ambient temperature during manufacturing. The stored resistance of the heating element is adjusted based on a difference between the measured ambient temperature and a reference temperature (column 19, lines 5-28). However, James does not teach or suggest storing a plurality of resistance and ambient temperature associations in memory.
Murison (US 12,295,411) teaches an electronic cigarette vaporizer (column 1, lines 48-59) that has an ambient temperature sensor (column 52, lines 19-20) that indicates when the ambient temperature is very cold so that power to the heater is increased (column 51, lines 34-36) as a form of control input (column 51, lines 31-33). Murison additionally teaches that this process allows for the heating element to operate at its optimal temperature (column 51, lines 38-41). However, Murison does not teach or suggest storing resistance values associated with different ambient temperatures in memory.
The prior art does not teach or suggest an aerosol generating device comprising an ambient temperature sensor, a heater, and a controller that determines a temperature of the heater using a temperature calculation equation based on a sensed ambient temperature, and adjusts an amount of power supplied to the heater based on the determined temperature of the heater, wherein the controller is configured to obtain one or more parameters for the temperature calculation equation based on reference data stored in memory corresponding to the sensed ambient temperature, the temperature calculation equation considers a temperature coefficient of resistance of the heater, wherein reference data stored in memory comprises a plurality of resistance values corresponding to respective ambient temperatures, and wherein the one or more parameters comprises a resistance value corresponding to the sensed ambient temperature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 pm.
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.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755