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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Species 1 in the reply filed on 4/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all of the new amendments overcome the prior art supplied, such that the special technical feature is not suggested by the prior art. This is not found persuasive because the shared technical features between independent claims are still obvious even after these claim amendments. See the rejections below for details as to the combination of references which suggest these features (where the shared technical features between claim 1 and 9 would be the aerosol generating device as claimed in claim 1).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9, 12-13, 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/27/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 12/8/23 and 3/16/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Pg. 5 line 20 read “…receipt of the authentical signal”. This should read “receipt of the authentication signal” to be consistent with how the authentication signal is used in the rest of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 13 should read “…upon receipt of the authentication signal”, because an authentication signal was already introduced.
Claim 7 line 3 should read “…for heating the aerosol generating substrate”, because this was previously introduced in claim 1.
Claim 7 line 5 should read “…receipt of the authentication signal”, because this was previously introduced in claim 1.
Claim 16 2nd page line 1 should read “upon receipt of the authentication signal”, because this was already introduced.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a biasing element or an opening mechanism causes the closure to move automatically to the open position” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification details that the biasing element may be a spring or other resilient element [pg. 15 of instant specification]. The specification details that the opening mechanism may be an actuator such as a linear actuator (solenoid) [pg. 16 of instant specification].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR20190049389A) in view of Plattner (WO2020001913A, citing to English Equivalent US2021/0315256A1), in view of Smayda (US2018/0295890A1), and optionally in view of Wu (WO2020201531A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lim teaches an aerosol generating device (aerosol generating apparatus “5” [0020]), comprising:
a body having an aperture through which an aerosol generating substrate is receivable into the aerosol generating device (the body is considered the structure of the device “5” as in Fig. 7. The aperture is the cigarette insertion hole “18”, of which the cigarette “7” is inserted into through the upper surface of the lid [0068-0071, Fig. 7]),
a closure movable relative to the aperture between a closed position in which the closure at least partially covers the aperture and an open position in which the aperture is substantially unobstructed by the closure (the cover “30” is considered the closure, wherein this is movable along the rail “16” to move from an open position to a closed position [0068-0071, Figs. 7-8]. As in Fig. 7, the open position would have the aperture completely unobstructed, and when the cover has the hole “18” closed [0070], it would clearly at least partially cover the aperture);
a controller (controller “70” [0077]),
an actuator movable between a locked state and an unlocked state (the cover “30” may be coupled to the lid in a variety of ways, such as in Figs. 4-8 which show the movement of the cover in a straight line through what may be considered a linear actuator, or through being hingedly coupled wherein the cover opens or closes the hole “18” [0070]),
wherein the controller is configured to cause the actuator to move from the locked state to the unlocked state to permit movement of the closure from the closed position towards the open signal (the controller may determine “whether to open or close the cigarette insertion hole based on the signal sensed by the first sensor and setting the operation mode of the aerosol generation apparatus to one of ON mode and OFF mode based on the determination” [0007, Claim 1]).
Lim does not explicitly state that the movement of the closure is an automatic movement from the closed position to the open position without user intervention. However, it is known in the art to have the opening doors automatically open. Plattner teaches an electronic smoking device [title]. The device includes an access port configured to receive tobacco formulation into the device [0012, Fig. 1+]. The access port 11 may comprise “an electrically actuatable fastener that is controllable by the controller 14 to fasten or release the cover member of the access port 11, in particular based on the received external activation signal 71. Optionally, the access port 11 may additionally comprise an electrically actuatable opener that is controllable by the controller 14 to open or close the cover member of the access port 11, in particular based on the received external activation signal 71” [0094]. And further, the controller 14 may be configured to open the access port 11, or to allow access to the access port 11, only when an external activation signal 71 of a specific type is received, e.g. an external activation signal 71 comprising an authentication code segment [0096].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Lim so as to have the opening hole electrically connected and movable so as to only allow access when a certain signal is received, as suggested by Plattner. One would have been motivated so as to restrict and to allow access based upon this signal to authenticate access to prevent unwanted use [Plattner, 0096, 0032]. And further, it is noted that the automation of a manual activity (that of opening/closing the lid) is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 III., wherein the court held that “broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art”.
Lim does not specifically provide a biometric authenticator for verifying the identity of the user and using this signal to unlock the device. However, biometric authenticators are well known within the art as means for restricting access to the device. Smayda teaches a vaporizer [abstract], which includes a panel “4” and panel locks “10” to prevent the unauthorized use of the device [0045-0047]. The device includes a biometric sensor “400”, wherein the user scans their finger, and if the device recognizes the fingerprint (such that they are an authorized user), a signal is sent to the locks so as to unlock the device such that the device may be used [0045-0047]. The biometric sensor may also be connected to the heater, such that the heater is unable to be utilized unless the biometric sensor is appropriately activated [0048].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Lim so as to have the biometric authenticator to verify the identity of the user and so as to unlock the device for use, as suggested by Smayda. One would have been motivated so as to prevent unauthorized use of the device [Smayda, 0003, 0043, 0046]. And when Lim is modified by Smayda and Plattner, the device would have an automatically moving lid which may move in response to an external signal to enable access (as suggested by Plattner), and the device would have a biometric authenticator which enables the locking/unlocking of the device (as suggested by Smayda), such that the combination of references reasonably suggests the device wherein the biometric authenticator signal unlocks the device and results in the closure moving from the unlocked to the locked position to allow for utilization of the device via insertion of the aerosol generating substrate. And the opening mechanism which causes the closure to move may be considered to be as in Figs. 4-8 of Lim or the hinged connection also suggested by Lim, such that it is further reasonably suggested an opening mechanism which causes the closure to move to the open position.
Optionally applied, regarding the actuator/movement mechanism for moving between a closed and open position, Lim states that the manner in which the cover 30 is coupled to the lid 10 is not limited and that other embodiments may be utilized [0070]. It is well-known in the art to utilize a biasing element such as a spring in the cover/lid of the aerosol generating device so as to keep the closure in the desired position. Wu teaches an aerosol generating apparatus, wherein there is an opening 20 which is opened and closed by the door 4 wherein the consumable article 21 is inserted into the opening [pg. 10]. Fig. 9 shows further structure of the door, wherein there is included a spring plunger 45 for a mechanical latching arrangement, wherein a linear cam element for interfacing with the spring plunger in a linear arrangement to latch, retain or hold the door in the open position when in the open position, and to latch, retain or hold the door in the closed position when in the closed position [Figs. 9-12]. A depressible member 48 in 45 defines the linear cam arrangement. And further, 48 is biased towards 42. The spring plunger may comprise a biasing element such as a spring, or other flexible/sprung materials to bias the depressible material 48 towards the element 42 [pgs. 22-24].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the closure of Lim to have a spring/biasing element as suggested by Wu. One would have been motivated so as to ensure that the door stays open when open and stays closed while closed to only have the opening open when desired [pgs. 22-24], and as this is a similar structure for opening/closing the aperture of an aerosol generating device, this would be no more than a simple substitution of one known element for that of another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2141. Such structure, in modified Lim, would be considered to be the biasing element which would cause the movement of the closure.
Regarding claim 2, modified Lim makes obvious the actuator comprising a locking element operable to prevent movement of the closure from the closed position to the open position and permit movement from the closed to open position in the unlocked state (Smayda suggests that locks “10” are incorporated such to prevent unauthorized use of the device, such that the locks prevent access to the device when in a locked state and allow access to the device when in an unlocked state [0043-0048, 0061]. As such, a “locking element” is reasonably suggested by the combination of the prior art, as structure would be employed to ensure that movement only occurs when it is desired. And further, the “electrically actuatable fastener” of Plattner may be considered to be a locking element, and when in view of Wu, the linear cam element which interfaces with the spring plunger 45 which retains/latches the door in the open or closed position may similarly be considered the locking element [pgs. 22-23]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lim makes obvious the biometric authenticator comprises a fingerprint reader (the biometric sensor may be a fingerprint scanner [Smayda 0047]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lim makes obvious an electrically-operated heater for heating the aerosol generating substance (the device includes a heater “13000” which heats the inserted substrate “20000” [Figs. 1-2], wherein the heater may be electrically resistive [0037]),
the controller is configured to permit activation of the electrically-operated heater following receipt of the authentication signal (The biometric sensor may also be connected to the heater, such that the heater is unable to be utilized unless the biometric sensor is appropriately activated [Smayda, 0048]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lim makes obvious the closure comprises a sliding cover (as in Lim Fig. 7, the cover 30 is slidable along the rails 16).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lim makes obvious the closure being retained by the body in the open and closed positions (the closure remains a part of the body in both the open and closed positions and is not removed, such that it is considered to be “retained”).
Claim 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR20190049389A) in view of Plattner (WO2020001913A, citing to English Equivalent US2021/0315256A1), in view of Smayda (US2018/0295890A1), and in view of Wu (WO2020201531A1).
Regarding claim 16, Lim teaches an aerosol generating device (aerosol generating apparatus “5” [0020]), comprising:
a body having an aperture through which an aerosol generating substrate is receivable into the aerosol generating device (the body is considered the structure of the device “5” as in Fig. 7. The aperture is the cigarette insertion hole “18”, of which the cigarette “7” is inserted into through the upper surface of the lid [0068-0071, Fig. 7]),
a closure movable relative to the aperture between a closed position in which the closure at least partially covers the aperture and an open position in which the aperture is substantially unobstructed by the closure (the cover “30” is considered the closure, wherein this is movable along the rail “16” to move from an open position to a closed position [0068-0071, Figs. 7-8]. As in Fig. 7, the open position would have the aperture completely unobstructed, and when the cover has the hole “18” closed [0070], it would clearly at least partially cover the aperture);
a controller (controller “70” [0077]),
an actuator movable between a locked state and an unlocked state (the cover “30” may be coupled to the lid in a variety of ways, such as in Figs. 4-8 which show the movement of the cover in a straight line through what may be considered a linear actuator, or through being hingedly coupled wherein the cover opens or closes the hole “18” [0070]),
wherein the controller is configured to cause the actuator to move from the locked state to the unlocked state to permit movement of the closure from the closed position towards the open signal (the controller may determine “whether to open or close the cigarette insertion hole based on the signal sensed by the first sensor and setting the operation mode of the aerosol generation apparatus to one of ON mode and OFF mode based on the determination” [0007, Claim 1]).
Lim does not explicitly state that the movement of the closure is an automatic movement from the closed position to the open position without user intervention. However, it is known in the art to have the opening doors automatically open. Plattner teaches an electronic smoking device [title]. The device includes an access port configured to receive tobacco formulation into the device [0012, Fig. 1+]. The access port 11 may comprise “an electrically actuatable fastener that is controllable by the controller 14 to fasten or release the cover member of the access port 11, in particular based on the received external activation signal 71. Optionally, the access port 11 may additionally comprise an electrically actuatable opener that is controllable by the controller 14 to open or close the cover member of the access port 11, in particular based on the received external activation signal 71” [0094]. And further, the controller 14 may be configured to open the access port 11, or to allow access to the access port 11, only when an external activation signal 71 of a specific type is received, e.g. an external activation signal 71 comprising an authentication code segment [0096].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Lim so as to have the opening hole electrically connected and movable so as to only allow access when a certain signal is received, as suggested by Plattner. One would have been motivated so as to restrict and to allow access based upon this signal to authenticate access to prevent unwanted use [Plattner, 0096, 0032]. And further, it is noted that the automation of a manual activity (that of opening/closing the lid) is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 III., wherein the court held that “broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art”.
Lim does not specifically provide a biometric authenticator for verifying the identity of the user and using this signal to unlock the device. However, biometric authenticators are well known within the art as means for restricting access to the device. Smayda teaches a vaporizer [abstract], which includes a panel “4” and panel locks “10” to prevent the unauthorized use of the device [0045-0047]. The device includes a biometric sensor “400”, wherein the user scans their finger, and if the device recognizes the fingerprint (such that they are an authorized user), a signal is sent to the locks so as to unlock the device such that the device may be used [0045-0047]. The biometric sensor may also be connected to the heater, such that the heater is unable to be utilized unless the biometric sensor is appropriately activated [0048].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Lim so as to have the biometric authenticator to verify the identity of the user and so as to unlock the device for use, as suggested by Smayda. One would have been motivated so as to prevent unauthorized use of the device [Smayda, 0003, 0043, 0046]. And when Lim is modified by Smayda and Plattner, the device would have an automatically moving lid which may move in response to an external signal to enable access (as suggested by Plattner), and the device would have a biometric authenticator which enables the locking/unlocking of the device (as suggested by Smayda), such that the combination of references reasonably suggests the device wherein the biometric authenticator signal unlocks the device and results in the closure moving from the unlocked to the locked position to allow for utilization of the device via insertion of the aerosol generating substrate.
Regarding the spring for moving between a closed and open position, Lim states that the manner in which the cover 30 is coupled to the lid 10 is not limited and that other embodiments may be utilized [0070], and Lim does not explicitly state that a spring is used in its design. It is well-known in the art to utilize a biasing element such as a spring in the cover/lid of the aerosol generating device so as to keep the closure in the desired position. Wu teaches an aerosol generating apparatus, wherein there is an opening 20 which is opened and closed by the door 4 wherein the consumable article 21 is inserted into the opening [pg. 10]. Fig. 9 shows further structure of the door, wherein there is included a spring plunger 45 for a mechanical latching arrangement, wherein a linear cam element for interfacing with the spring plunger in a linear arrangement to latch, retain or hold the door in the open position when in the open position, and to latch, retain or hold the door in the closed position when in the closed position [Figs. 9-12]. A depressible member 48 in 45 defines the linear cam arrangement. And further, 48 is biased towards 42. The spring plunger may comprise a biasing element such as a spring, or other flexible/sprung materials to bias the depressible material 48 towards the element 42 [pgs. 22-24].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the closure of Lim to have a spring/biasing element as suggested by Wu. One would have been motivated so as to ensure that the door stays open when open and stays closed while closed to only have the opening open when desired [pgs. 22-24], and as this is a similar structure for opening/closing the aperture of an aerosol generating device, this would be no more than a simple substitution of one known element for that of another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2141. Such structure, in modified Lim, would be considered to be the biasing element which would cause the movement of the closure.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (WO2019080745A1), in view of Smayda (US2018/0295890A1), and optionally in view of Wu (WO2020201531A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches an aerosol generating device (electronic smoking device [Figs. 1-2]) comprising:
a body having an aperture through which an aerosol generating substrate is receivable into the aerosol generating device (the body is considered the casing “1” [0038]. The cover hole “110” is considered the aperture, which receives the cigarette “3” [0038, Figs. 1-2]),
a closure movable relative to the aperture between a closed position in which the closure at least partially covers the aperture and an open position in which the aperture is substantially unobstructed by the closure (the cover hole is provided with an automatic slide mechanism “6”, such that the mechanism automatically opens to insert the cigarette into the heating tube “2”, and it may automatically close to block the cover hole “110” [0038]. “6” would clearly have the aperture substantially unobstructed such that the cigarette may be inserted when in the open position),
a controller (there is provided a control circuit board with microcontrollers [0009+]),
an actuator movable between a locked state and an unlocked state (the automatic slide mechanism “6” includes a smoke hole cover “61”, screw “62”, stepping motor “63”, and nut “64” which work together such that the stepping motor 63 operates to rotate the screw 62 in a linear motion such that the smoke hole cover 61 moves linearly so that the 110 can be opened or closed [0039], such that when it is closed it is locked such that the device does not operate [0044]),
wherein the controller is configured to cause the actuator to move from the locked state to the unlocked state to permit movement of the closure from the closed position towards the open signal (the controller causes the movement of the automatic cover to move to the open/closed position [0009]),
wherein the biasing element or opening mechanism causes the closure to move automatically to the open position (the opening mechanism may be considered to be the screw “62”, stepping motor “63”, and nut “64”, which work together to cause the linear motion such that the smoke hole cover 61 moves linearly to be opened or closed [0039], such that this is a linear actuator that reads upon the claimed opening mechanism).
Lin is concerned with child lock features to prevent the device from being inadvertently used [0044], but Lin does not explicitly disclose a biometric authenticator. However, biometric authenticators are well known within the art as means for restricting access to the device. Smayda teaches a vaporizer [abstract], which includes a panel “4” and panel locks “10” to prevent the unauthorized use of the device [0045-0047]. The device includes a biometric sensor “400”, wherein the user scans their finger, and if the device recognizes the fingerprint (such that they are an authorized user), a signal is sent to the locks so as to unlock the device such that the device may be used and that the article may be inserted [0045-0047]. The biometric sensor may also be connected to the heater, such that the heater is unable to be utilized unless the biometric sensor is appropriately activated [0048].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Lin so as to have the biometric authenticator to verify the identity of the user and so as to unlock the device for use and allow insertion of articles, as suggested by Smayda. One would have been motivated so as to prevent unauthorized use of the device [Smayda, 0003, 0043, 0046]. And when Lim is modified by Smayda, the device would have an automatically moving lid which may move to open/close the device, and the device would have a biometric authenticator which enables the locking/unlocking of the device (as suggested by Smayda), such that the combination of references reasonably suggests the device wherein the biometric authenticator signal unlocks the device and results in the closure moving from the unlocked to the locked position to allow for utilization of the device via insertion of the aerosol generating substrate.
Optionally applied, regarding the actuator/movement mechanism for moving between a closed and open position, Lin does not explicitly limit the manner of which the cover slides between the open/closed positions. It is well-known in the art to utilize a biasing element such as a spring in the cover/lid of the aerosol generating device so as to keep the closure in the desired position. Wu teaches an aerosol generating apparatus, wherein there is an opening 20 which is opened and closed by the door 4 wherein the consumable article 21 is inserted into the opening [pg. 10]. Fig. 9 shows further structure of the door, wherein there is included a spring plunger 45 for a mechanical latching arrangement, wherein a linear cam element for interfacing with the spring plunger in a linear arrangement to latch, retain or hold the door in the open position when in the open position, and to latch, retain or hold the door in the closed position when in the closed position [Figs. 9-12]. A depressible member 48 in 45 defines the linear cam arrangement. And further, 48 is biased towards 42. The spring plunger may comprise a biasing element such as a spring, or other flexible/sprung materials to bias the depressible material 48 towards the element 42 [pgs. 22-24].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the closure of Lin to have a spring/biasing element as suggested by Wu. One would have been motivated so as to ensure that the door stays open when open and stays closed while closed to only have the opening open when desired [pgs. 22-24], and as this is a similar structure for opening/closing the aperture of an aerosol generating device, this would be no more than a simple substitution of one known element for that of another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2141. Such structure, in modified Lin, would be considered to be the biasing element which would cause the movement of the closure.
Regarding claim 2, modified Lin makes obvious the actuator comprising a locking element operable to prevent movement of the closure from the closed position to the open position and permit movement from the closed to open position in the unlocked state (Smayda suggests that locks “10” are incorporated such to prevent unauthorized use of the device, such that the locks prevent access to the device when in a locked state and allow access to the device when in an unlocked state [0043-0048, 0061]. As such, a “locking element” is reasonably suggested by the combination of the prior art, as structure would be employed to ensure that movement only occurs when it is desired. And further, the motor/screw arrangement may be considered a “locking element” under the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof as the cover would not be able to move without additional input, and when in view of Wu the linear cam element which interfaces with the spring plunger 45 which retains/latches the door in the open or closed position may similarly be considered the locking element [pgs. 22-23]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lin makes obvious the biometric authenticator comprises a fingerprint reader (the biometric sensor may be a fingerprint scanner [Smayda 0047]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lin makes obvious an electrically-operated heater for heating the aerosol generating substance (the device includes a heater “13000” which heats the inserted substrate “20000” [Figs. 1-2], wherein the heater may be electrically resistive [0037]),
the controller is configured to permit activation of the electrically-operated heater following receipt of the authentication signal (The biometric sensor may also be connected to the heater, such that the heater is unable to be utilized unless the biometric sensor is appropriately activated [Smayda, 0048]. And Lin further supports this that the power supply is not provided when in a locked state [0044]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lin makes obvious the closure comprises a sliding cover (as in Lin Fig. 7, the cover is clearly sliding [0037-0038]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lin makes obvious the closure being retained by the body in the open and closed positions (the closure remains a part of the body in both the open and closed positions and is not removed, such that it is considered to be “retained”).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (WO2019080745A1), in view of Smayda (US2018/0295890A1), and in view of Wu (WO2020201531A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches an aerosol generating device (electronic smoking device [Figs. 1-2]) comprising:
a body having an aperture through which an aerosol generating substrate is receivable into the aerosol generating device (the body is considered the casing “1” [0038]. The cover hole “110” is considered the aperture, which receives the cigarette “3” [0038, Figs. 1-2]),
a closure movable relative to the aperture between a closed position in which the closure at least partially covers the aperture and an open position in which the aperture is substantially unobstructed by the closure (the cover hole is provided with an automatic slide mechanism “6”, such that the mechanism automatically opens to insert the cigarette into the heating tube “2”, and it may automatically close to block the cover hole “110” [0038]. “6” would clearly have the aperture substantially unobstructed such that the cigarette may be inserted when in the open position),
a controller (there is provided a control circuit board with microcontrollers [0009+]),
an actuator movable between a locked state and an unlocked state (the automatic slide mechanism “6” includes a smoke hole cover “61”, screw “62”, stepping motor “63”, and nut “64” which work together such that the stepping motor 63 operates to rotate the screw 62 in a linear motion such that the smoke hole cover 61 moves linearly so that the 110 can be opened or closed [0039], such that when it is closed it is locked such that the device does not operate [0044]),
wherein the controller is configured to cause the actuator to move from the locked state to the unlocked state to permit movement of the closure from the closed position towards the open signal (the controller causes the movement of the automatic cover to move to the open/closed position [0009]).
Lin is concerned with child lock features to prevent the device from being inadvertently used [0044], but Lin does not explicitly disclose a biometric authenticator. However, biometric authenticators are well known within the art as means for restricting access to the device. Smayda teaches a vaporizer [abstract], which includes a panel “4” and panel locks “10” to prevent the unauthorized use of the device [0045-0047]. The device includes a biometric sensor “400”, wherein the user scans their finger, and if the device recognizes the fingerprint (such that they are an authorized user), a signal is sent to the locks so as to unlock the device such that the device may be used and that the article may be inserted [0045-0047]. The biometric sensor may also be connected to the heater, such that the heater is unable to be utilized unless the biometric sensor is appropriately activated [0048].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the device of Lin so as to have the biometric authenticator to verify the identity of the user and so as to unlock the device for use and allow insertion of articles, as suggested by Smayda. One would have been motivated so as to prevent unauthorized use of the device [Smayda, 0003, 0043, 0046]. And when Lim is modified by Smayda, the device would have an automatically moving lid which may move to open/close the device, and the device would have a biometric authenticator which enables the locking/unlocking of the device (as suggested by Smayda), such that the combination of references reasonably suggests the device wherein the biometric authenticator signal unlocks the device and results in the closure moving from the unlocked to the locked position to allow for utilization of the device via insertion of the aerosol generating substrate.
Regarding the spring, Lin does not explicitly include a spring configured to move the closure between the closed and open position. Lin does not limit the manner of which the cover slides between the open/closed positions. It is well-known in the art to utilize a biasing element such as a spring in the cover/lid of the aerosol generating device so as to keep the closure in the desired position. Wu teaches an aerosol generating apparatus, wherein there is an opening 20 which is opened and closed by the door 4 wherein the consumable article 21 is inserted into the opening [pg. 10]. Fig. 9 shows further structure of the door, wherein there is included a spring plunger 45 for a mechanical latching arrangement, wherein a linear cam element for interfacing with the spring plunger in a linear arrangement to latch, retain or hold the door in the open position when in the open position, and to latch, retain or hold the door in the closed position when in the closed position [Figs. 9-12]. A depressible member 48 in 45 defines the linear cam arrangement. And further, 48 is biased towards 42. The spring plunger may comprise a biasing element such as a spring, or other flexible/sprung materials to bias the depressible material 48 towards the element 42 [pgs. 22-24].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the closure of Lin to have a spring/biasing element as suggested by Wu. One would have been motivated so as to ensure that the door stays open when open and stays closed while closed to only have the opening open when desired [pgs. 22-24], and as this is a similar structure for opening/closing the aperture of an aerosol generating device, this would be no more than a simple substitution of one known element for that of another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2141. Such structure, in modified Lin, would be considered to be the biasing element which would cause the movement of the closure, and that this would move automatically to the open position as this is a part of the automatic sliding cover mechanism [0038], and would move in response to the biometric authentications of Smadya.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS F SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-4857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/T.F.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights