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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-16 are presently examined.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 5/12/2026 is overcome.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 5/12/2026 are overcome.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under nonstatutory double patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 5/12/2026 are overcome.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “a first sensor set in a chosen area for detecting a user’s hand holding said button in said chosen area,” which is considered to be a statement regarding the intended use of the claimed portable device. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required a sensor that could detect being held by a user’s hand.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitation “said first sensor is arranged for detecting said user’s hand when the user’s hand is exerting at least a predefined force in said chosen area during at least one predefined duration,” which is considered to be a statement regarding the intended use of the claimed first sensor. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required a sensor that could have the claimed force exerted on it.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation “configured to receive a consumable comprising at least an aerosol forming substrate,” which is considered to be a limitation regarding the claimed casing. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required a casing the could receive a consumable comprising an aerosol forming substrate.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “for protecting said second sensor,” which is considered to be a limitation regarding the intended use of the claimed hole. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required a hole that could protect the second sensor.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the limitation “a first sensor set in a chosen area for detecting a user’s hand holding said button in said chosen area,” which is considered to be a statement regarding the intended use of the claimed portable device. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required a sensor that could detect being held by a user’s hand.
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, 8 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lin (WO 2019/137560, English language equivalent US 11,439,188 relied upon, hereafter referred to as Lin ‘560) in view of Zhou (US 9,775,381).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Lin ‘560 discloses a heat not burn electronic cigarette device having a housing (figure 1, reference numeral 1), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a body, comprising a housing lid (figure 1, reference numeral 11), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a casing, that has a cigarette insertion port (figure 1, reference numeral 111), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an opening, having an associated cigarette insertion port lid (figure 1, reference numeral 52) that is moved to open or close the cigarette insertion port by a drive motor (figure 1, reference numeral 51) that forms an automatic lid opening and/or closing mechanism (column 5, lines 50-67, column 6, lines 1-10, figure 1, reference numeral 5). The automatic lid mechanism is controlled by a main control chip (column 3, lines 12-18) and receives instructions from the pressing of a button (column 9, lines 25-38). It is evident that the button could be pressed by a user’s finger. Lin ‘560 does not explicitly disclose replacing the button with a capacitive sensor.
Zhou teaches an electronic cigarette (abstract) that has a capacitive sensor that acquires touch information when a point on the device is touched in a defined touch area, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a chosen area, by a finger to trigger the electronic cigarette to work (column 3, lines 60-67, column 4, lines 1-9). The finger is considered to also be a hand since fingers are part of hands. Zhou additionally teaches that capacitive technology is more convenient (column 1, lines 19-28) and prevents accidental activation of the device by being touched by other objects (column 1, lines 10-18).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the button of Lin ‘560 for the capacitive sensor of Zhou. One would have been motivated to do so since Zhou teaches that capacitive sensors are more convenient and prevent accidental activation if the device is touched by other objects.
Regarding claim 8, it is evident that the cigarette accommodation port and heating tube of Lin ‘560 (column 5, lines 50-67, column 6, lines 1-11, figure 1, reference numeral 3) could accommodate the claimed aerosol generating article since it is open and can accommodate a cigarette (column 6, lines 29-48). A heat generating conductor is arranged in the heating tube (column 5, lines 50-67, column 6, lines 1-11, figure 1, reference numeral 30), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an aerosol generation unit. The heat generating conductor generates heat when energized with electricity (column 7, lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 10, Lin ‘560 discloses that the electronic cigarette device has a cigarette detecting mechanism that comprises a detector (column 5, lines 50-67, column 6, lines 1-11, figure 1, reference numeral 63), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second sensor. A detecting signal is provided when the cigarette is received (column 8, lines 10-15), and the heating control module is only activated when the cigarette is received (column 8, lines 24-27).
Regarding claim 11, Lin ‘560 discloses that the detector is a photodetector (column 7, lines 44-46), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a photoresistor.
Regarding claim 12, Lin ‘560 discloses that the detector is arranged on the opposite side of a transmissive window from the cigarette, and that the transmissive window forms a recess (column 6, lines 49-67, figure 4, reference numeral 617), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a hole. It is evident that the hole could be used for protection since it would stop at least some foreign matter from reaching the transmissive window.
Regarding claim 13, Lin ‘560 discloses that the detector detects the absence of the cigarette (column 8, lines 33-37) and stops operation of the heating tube if the cigarette is absent (column 8, lines 42-45).
Regarding claim 14, it is evident that a consumable having the claimed composition could be inserted into the device since the cigarette insertion hole is open.
Regarding claim 15, the electronic cigarette device of Lin is considered to be an electronic cigarette.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lin (WO 2019/137560, English language equivalent US 11,439,188 relied upon, hereafter referred to as Lin ‘560) and Zhou (US 9,775,381) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jacobs (US 5,467,266) and Lin (CN 101782826, machine translation relied upon, hereafter referred to as Lin ‘826).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, modified Lin ‘560 teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Lin additionally discloses that the device is activated by pressing the button once (column 3, lines 4-5), which results in opening of the lid (column 3, lines 6-12), and the single touch of Zhou is considered to meet the claim limitation of a predefined number of times that is one. Modified Lin ‘560 does not explicitly teach (a) a duration that the finger is held near the sensor to activate it and (b) a force required to activate the sensor.
Regarding (a), Jacobs teaches a device that is controlled by a button that is depressed from between 600 milliseconds and 1,600 milliseconds to activate device operations (column 22, lines 1-6).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the sensor of modified Lin ‘560 with the duration of Jacobs. One would have been motivated to do so since Jacobs teaches a suitable length of time for a user to maintain their hand in a position to signal to a device to activate.
Regarding (b), Lin ‘826 teaches a capacitive touchpad having improved detection accuracy [0006] that detects a typical pressing force from a human finger of 3-5 Newtons [0029].
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 sensor of modified Lin ‘560 with the pressing force of Lin ‘826. One would have been motivated to do so since Lin ‘826 teaches a suitable force for a human finger to apply to a capacitive sensor.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lin (WO 2019/137560, English language equivalent US 11,439,188 relied upon, hereafter referred to as Lin ‘560) in view of Zhou (US 9,775,381) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin (CN 101782826, machine translation relied upon, hereafter referred to as Lin ‘826) and Vaganov (US 7,554,167).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lin ‘560 teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lin ‘560 does not explicitly teach the (a) a force required to activate the sensor and (b) the sensor located between an external face and a plastic cover.
Regarding (a), Lin ‘826 teaches a capacitive touchpad having improved detection accuracy [0006] that detects a typical pressing force from a human finger of 3-5 Newtons [0029].
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 sensor of modified Lin ‘560 with the pressing force of Lin ‘826. One would have been motivated to do so since Lin ‘826 teaches a suitable force for a human finger to apply to a capacitive sensor.
Regarding (b), Vaganov teaches a device for input finger control of electronic device functions (abstract) having a hard layer of plastic where an external force is applied (figure 17, reference numeral 172), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a plastic cover, so that stress is transferred to a sensor die (figure 17, reference numeral 100), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first sensor, and are mounted on a substrate (column 12, lines 50-67, figure 17, reference numeral 106), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an external face. Vaganov additionally teaches that this button is low profile (column 12, lines 50-67).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sensor of modified Lin ‘560 for the input finger control device of Vaganov. One would have been motivated to do so since Vaganov teaches a finger input device using a low profile button.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lin (WO 2019/137560, English language equivalent US 11,439,188 relied upon) in view of Zhou (US 9,775,381) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu (US 2023/0157362) and Bulkley (US 7,739) and Liu (US 7,988,454).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lin ‘560 teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lin ‘560 does not explicitly teach (a) using an electromagnet to open and close the cover, (b) the electromagnet being in the form of coil, and (c) a first magnet in the lid.
Regarding (a), Lu teaches a smoking set having a cavity and a cover that is driven to open and close the cavity by a driving apparatus (abstract). The driving apparatus in the form of an electromagnet that drives the cover to open [0136] and close the cavity [0142].
It would therefore have been obvious to substitute the drive motor of modified Lin ‘560 for the electromagnet of Lu. One would have been motivated to do so since Lin ‘560 discloses and Lu teaches mechanisms that both open lids on electronic smoking devices. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP § 2143, B.
Regarding (b), Bulkley teaches an electromagnetic annunciator (title) having an electromagnet in the form of a coil that creates a magnetic field when a current is passed through it (page 1, right column, first paragraph).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the electromagnet of modified Lin ‘560 in the form of a coil. One would have been motivated to do so since Bulkley teaches a suitable shape for an electromagnetic coil that generates a magnetic field when electricity is applied to it.
Regarding (c), Liu teaches a portable electronic device (abstract) having a base with a protrusion plate attached to it (figure 3, reference numeral 216) with a third permanent magnet (figure 3, reference numeral 218) and an electromagnet on it (column 2, lines 4-18, figure 3, reference numeral 219). A movable plate made of a magnetic material is positioned above the protrusion plate (column 2, lines 24-33, figure 3, reference numeral 23), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a first magnet. The movable plate is attracted to the third permanent magnet in an initial state (column 2, lines 34-43) and then is slid away when the electromagnet is turned on (column 2, liens 49-67, column 3, lines 1-2). The movable plate slides back when the electromagnet is turned off (column 3, lines 3-24). Liu additionally teaches that this structure prevents physical components from becoming worn out or allowing unintentional movement (column 1, lines 15-20).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the lid of modified Lin ‘560 from the magnetic material of Liu, and to provide the third permanent magnet and electromagnet of Liu in the housing lid of modified Lin ‘560. One would have been motivated to do so since Liu teaches a magnetic structure that prevents physical components from becoming worn out or allowing unintentional movement.
Regarding claim 7, the third permanent magnet of modified Lin ‘560 is considered to meet the claim limitation of a second magnet.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lin (WO 2019/137560, English language equivalent US 11,439,188 relied upon, hereafter referred to as Lin ‘560) and Zhou (US 9,775,381) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Dittmann (US 12,616,242).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lin ‘560 all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lin ‘560 additionally teaches that heat generating conductor, button, and automatic lid opening/closing module are electrically connected (column 6, lines 12-28) and that the device is a battery (column 5, lines 50-67, column 6, lines 1-11, figure 1, reference numeral 8). Modified Lin ‘560 does not explicitly teach all these components being powered by a rechargeable battery.
Dittmann teaches an aerosol generating device (abstract) having a rechargeable lithium ion battery power supply that supplies power to various components of the device (column 15, lines 43-47) so that sufficient power can be provided for continuous aerosol generation (column 11, lines 57-67, column 12, lines 1-10).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the battery of Dittmann as the battery of modified Lin ‘560. One would have been motivated to do so since Dittmann teaches a battery that supplies power to an aerosol generating device for continuous aerosol generation.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lin (WO 2019/137560, English language equivalent US 11,439,188 relied upon) and Zhou (US 9,775,381) and Lu (US 2023/0157362) and Buckley (US 7,739).
Regarding claim 16, Lin ‘560 discloses a heat not burn electronic cigarette device having a housing (figure 1, reference numeral 1), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a body, comprising a housing lid (figure 1, reference numeral 11), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a casing, that has a cigarette insertion port (figure 1, reference numeral 111), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of an opening, having an associated cigarette insertion port lid (figure 1, reference numeral 52) that is moved to open or close the cigarette insertion port by a drive motor (figure 1, reference numeral 51) that forms an automatic lid opening and/or closing mechanism (column 5, lines 50-67, column 6, lines 1-10, figure 1, reference numeral 5). The automatic lid mechanism is controlled by a main control chip (column 3, lines 12-18) and receives instructions from the pressing of a button (column 9, lines 25-38). It is evident that the button could be pressed by a user’s finger. Lin ‘560 does not explicitly disclose (a) replacing the button with a capacitive sensor, (b) using an electromagnet to open and close the cover and (c) the electromagnet being in the form of coil.
Zhou teaches an electronic cigarette (abstract) that has a capacitive sensor that acquires touch information when a point on the device is touched in a defined touch area, which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a chosen area, by a finger to trigger the electronic cigarette to work (column 3, lines 60-67, column 4, lines 1-9). The finger is considered to also be a hand since fingers are part of hands. Zhou additionally teaches that capacitive technology is more convenient (column 1, lines 19-28) and prevents accidental activation of the device by being touched by other objects (column 1, lines 10-18).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the button of Lin ‘560 for the capacitive sensor of Zhou. One would have been motivated to do so since Zhou teaches that capacitive sensors are more convenient and prevent accidental activation if the device is touched by other objects.
Regarding (b), Lu teaches a smoking set having a cavity and a cover that is driven to open and close the cavity by a driving apparatus (abstract). The driving apparatus in the form of an electromagnet that drives the cover to open [0136] and close the cavity [0142].
It would therefore have been obvious to substitute the drive motor of Lin for the electromagnet of Lu. One would have been motivated to do so since Lin ‘560 discloses and Lu teaches mechanisms that both open lids on electronic smoking devices. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP § 2143, B.
Regarding (c), Buckley teaches an electromagnetic annunciator (title) having an electromagnet in the form of a coil that creates a magnetic field when a current is passed through it (page 1, right column, first paragraph).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the electromagnet of modified Lin ‘560 in the form of a coil. One would have been motivated to do so since Buckley teaches a suitable shape for an electromagnetic coil that generates a magnetic field when electricity is applied to it.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are entered as set forth above.
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
Prosecution Insights