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 .
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Apr 21, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, US Patent Pub US 20200329776 A1 (hereinafter Lee) in view of Lee, WIPO Patent Num WO2020017783A1 (hereinafter Lee-783).
Claim 1
Lee teaches an aerosol-generating apparatus comprising: a heater configured to heat at least a portion of an aerosol-generating article (Lee, para 96, 98 - The aerosol generating device with a heater to heat an aerosol generating material.); a temperature sensor configured to measure a temperature of the heater (Lee, para 125 – Temperature sensor measuring a temperature of the heater.); wherein the processor is further configured to, when the temperature of the heater is higher than or equal to a reference temperature, control the supply of power to the heater according to a second preheating profile that is different from the first preheating profile. (Lee, para 135 – When the temperature is higher than the desired heating temperature, the power supplied is decreased to lower the temperature by shortening a duration of the initial phase/”second preheating profile”. This heating procedure is different from a preheating sequence)
But Lee fails to specify when the temperature of the heater is lower than a reference temperature, control supply of power to the heater according to a first preheating profile that defines a preset preheating time and a preset preheating temperature.
However Lee-783 teaches when the temperature of the heater is lower than a reference temperature, control supply of power to the heater according to a first preheating profile that defines a preset preheating time and a preset preheating temperature. (Lee-783, lines 787-795, 1038-1065 – When the temperature of the heater falls below a reference temperature, the heater is adjusted to heat to a target/”preset preheating” temperature according to a temperature profile for the heater in a short time period/”preheating time”.)
Lee and Lee-783 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to aerosol generating devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above aerosol generating device, as taught by Lee, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Lee-783.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to reduce deterioration of smoking quality by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Lee-783 (Lines 1045-1048).
This rejection also applies to claim 11.
Claim 4
The combination of Lee and Lee-783 teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Lee and Lee-783 further teaches a temporal section during which a target temperature is reached is set to be shorter in the second preheating profile than in the first preheating profile. (Lee, para 135 - To cope with the rapid change in the temperature of the heater in an initial phase of the preheating section, an amount of power supplied may be rapidly adjusted by shortening a duration of the initial phase/”second preheating profile”.)
Claim 5
The combination of Lee and Lee-783 teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Lee and Lee-783 further teaches a temporal section during which a target temperature is maintained is set to be longer in the second preheating profile than in the first preheating profile. (Lee, para 110 - the controller may change the phases in a direction of increasing the durations of the phases/”first and second preheating profiles” in various patterns based on the temperature of the heater to stabilize it in the preheating range.)
Claim 6
The combination of Lee and Lee-783 teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Lee and Lee-783 further teaches a temporal section during which the temperature of the heater decreases is set to be longer in the second preheating profile than in the first preheating profile. (Lee, para 110 - the controller may change the phases in a direction of increasing the durations of the phases/”first and second preheating profiles” in various patterns based on the temperature of the heater.)
The rejections of claims 5 and 6 also apply to claim 14.
Claim(s) 2-3, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, US Patent Pub US 20200329776 A1 (hereinafter Lee) in view of Lee, WIPO Patent Num WO2020017783A1 (hereinafter Lee-783) as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 11, 14 above, and in view of Lee, WIPO Patent Num WO2020231194A2 (hereinafter Lee194).
Claim 2
The combination of Lee and Lee-783 teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Lee and Lee-783 fails to specify when the temperature of the heater is higher than or equal to the reference temperature, determine that continued smoking is performed.
However Lee194 teaches when the temperature of the heater is higher than or equal to the reference temperature, determine that continued smoking is performed. (Lee194, lines 367-368 - The puff detection sensor may detect a user’s puff based on a temperature change.)
Lee, Lee-783, and Lee194 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to aerosol generating devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above aerosol generating device, as taught by Lee and Lee-783, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Lee194.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to maintain a preset temperature for generating an aerosol by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Lee194 (Lines 401-403).
This rejection also applies to claim 12.
Claim 3
The combination of Lee, Lee-783, and Lee194 teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Lee194 further teaches when insertion of the aerosol-generating article is detected, measure the temperature of the heater and determine whether the temperature of the heater is higher than or equal to the reference temperature. (Lee194 – Insertion of a cigarette or a cartridge/”aerosol-generating article” is detected, a heating operation is started to reach a target temperature.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above aerosol generating device, as taught by Lee, Lee-783, and Lee194, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Lee194.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to maintain a preset temperature for generating an aerosol by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Lee194 (Lines 401-403).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, US Patent Pub US 20200329776 A1 (hereinafter Lee) in view of Lee, WIPO Patent Num WO2020017783A1 (hereinafter Lee-783) as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 11, 14 above, and in view of Han et al, US Patent Pub US 20200352231 A1 (hereinafter Han).
Claim 9
The combination of Lee and Lee-783 teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Lee and Lee-783 fails to specify a display configured to display a preheating mode of the aerosol-generating apparatus, wherein the processor is further configured to control the display to display the preheating mode according to the first preheating profile or the second preheating profile.
However Han teaches a display configured to display a preheating mode of the aerosol-generating apparatus, wherein the processor is further configured to control the display to display the preheating mode according to the first preheating profile or the second preheating profile. (Han, para 202 – A display capable of outputting visual information about the preheating.)
Lee, Lee-783, and Han are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to aerosol generating devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above aerosol generating device, as taught by Lee and Lee-783, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Han.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide current status information to a user by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Han (para 202).
Claim 10
The combination of Lee, Lee-783, and Han teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Han further teaches when the preheating time according to the first preheating profile or the second preheating profile is reached, control the display to output a notification indicating that the preheating is completed. (Han, para 202 – A display capable of outputting visual information about completion of the preheating.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above aerosol generating device, as taught by Lee, Lee-783, and Han, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Han.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide current status information to a user by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Han (para 202).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 15 are 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.
Dependent claim(s) 8 is/are allowable over art based on their dependence upon claim 7.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s claim defines over the prior art of record because the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, does not teach when the temperature of the heater is higher than or equal to the reference temperature, control the supply of power to the heater according to the second preheating profile after a certain delay time has passed.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E OGG whose telephone number is (469) 295-9163. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 7:30 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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.
/DAVID EARL OGG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights