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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the electrodes" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination “the electrodes” are being interpreted as “the smoking device further comprises electrodes, wherein the electrodes are configured to drive a current through the metallic foil.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the vaporization temperature" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination “the vaporization temperature” is being interpreted as a vaporization temperature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Raichman (US-20200187563-A1, as cited in the IDS dated 05/09/2023).
In regards to claim 1, Raichman directed to a smoking device, discloses an apparatus for use with a capsule comprising a smoking material containing at least one active ingredient (i.e., active agent) ([0020] and [0039]), the apparatus comprising:
A vaporizer (i.e., smoking device) configured to vaporize the active agents from within the smoking material by heating the capsule ([0055]-[0056]), the smoking device comprising:
control circuitry (i.e., control component) configured to:
measure the electrical power or an amount of energy required (i.e., detect an amount of current) needed to maintain the capsule at a given temperature ([0175]-[0176]);
account for the amount of active agent that has already been vaporized ([0183]); and
in response to determining that a given amount of the active agent has already been released from the plant material, the control component may be configured to reduce the temperature to a sub-vaporization temperature (i.e., terminate) ([0183]).
In regards to claim 5, Raichman discloses the control circuitry (i.e., control component) calculates the airflow rate (i.e., parameter of a puff) through the capsule by measuring the electrical power (i.e., current) needed to maintain the capsule at a desired temperature ([0176]).
In regards to claim 7, Raichman discloses the control component calculates the airflow rate (i.e., depth of a puff) through the capsule by measuring the electrical power (i.e., current) needed to maintain the capsule at a desired temperature ([0176]).
In regards to claim 8, Raichman discloses the control component determines the amount of active ingredient that has been vaporized based on the airflow rate of the capsule (i.e., monitoring a number of puffs and parameters of the puff that have been taken) ([0017]).
In regards to claim 15, Raichman discloses the smoking device comprises two or more electrodes that heat the smoking material by generating resistive heating within the capsule and by driving a current into a portion of the capsule ([0007] and [0139]-[0140]).
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 2, 6, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raichman (US-20200187563-A1, as cited in the IDS dated 05/09/2023) as applied to claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 2, Raichman discloses the vaporizing unit has a diameter from 5 to 35 mm (Figure 3 and [0110]). Since the capsule is inserted into the side of the vaporizing unit, in the diameter direction, it would be obvious that the length of the capsule would also be between 5 and 35 mm. The range disclosed by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of the capsule having a length of between 15 and 150 mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 6, Raichman discloses the control component is configured to determine puff duration and can provide higher efficiency for users that prefer taking relatively short puffs (claim 6 and [0180]).
While Raichman does not explicitly disclose the control component determines a length of the puff of the capsule by the user based on the amount of current that is required to maintain the smoking material at a given temperature, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that since Raichman discloses the parameter of the puff is determined by measuring the current ([0176] and the control component can determine a puff duration, the puff length could also be determined based on the amount of current that is required to maintain the smoking material at a given temperature and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 9, Raichman discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control component is configured to dynamically adjust the target temperature to heat the smoking material based on the consumption rate and airflow profiled of the user, so that users taking relatively short puffs (i.e., second mode) will not suffer from loss of plant material between the short puffs ([0180]).
Raichman further discloses the device receives an indication from the user by detecting the amount of airflow through the vaporizer and the control component calculating the dosage of active substance that has been provided to the user ([0184]). The first mode is a faster airflow profile and the second mode is being interpreted as a slower airflow profile.
Raichman discloses in response to indication of the first mode, an increase in airflow rate, the temperature of the capsule is decreased to keep a constant active ingredient vaporization rate ([0184]).
Raichman further discloses the control circuitry combines the aforementioned temperature control functionality with setting a time limit (i.e., predetermined period of time) for the heating that is applied in response to each puff of the vaporizer ([0184]).
Raichman further discloses in response to an indication of the second mode, a lower inhalation profile, the temperature of the capsule is reduced to below vaporization temperature to prevent wastage of the plant ingredient ([0185]).
Raichman does not explicitly disclose during the second mode the smoking material is only heated to the vaporization temperature while receiving an active input from the user that they wish for the smoking material to be heated, but Raichman does disclose a dynamic control component that is supposed to adjust the heating temperature in response to the user input ([0011]), and therefore it would be obvious that Raichman’s device would teach the vaporization temperature is initiated again in response to an indication from a user that the user wishes to continue smoking.
In regards to claim 10, Raichman discloses the vaporizer initiates a pre-heating step (temperature below the vaporization temperature of the one or more active agents), in response to receiving a first input ([0174]), but prior to receiving a second user input that notified the device whether the user wishes to smoke the active agents ([0199]).
Raichman further discloses the device detects if the user is in a first or second mode ([0174]).
In regards to claim 12, Raichman discloses in response to receiving a first input at the vaporizing unit, the input being received from a user, and the heating process is initiated and the plant material is heated above ambient temperature, a temperature below the vaporization temperature ([0009] and [0174]).
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuisz et al. (US-20220218023-A1, as cited in the IDS dated 05/09/2023) and further in view of Raichman (US-20200187563-A1, as cited in the IDS dated 05/09/2023).
In regards to claim 1, Fuisz directed to a vaporizer for smoking cigarettes, discloses the vaporizer (i.e., apparatus) for use with a tobacco stick, the tobacco stick comprising smoking material such as reconstituted tobacco leaf (i.e., capsule with one or more active agents) ([0060] and [0146]), the apparatus comprising:
A smoking device for generating an aerosol by heating the active agents within the smoking material, ([0047]-[0049] and [0069]) the smoking device comprising:
An electronic control and power unit (i.e., control component) electrically connected to a control button and configured to ([0098]):
Pre-heat the device with a warm-up mode ([0098]) and measure the rise in temperature associated with each puff ([0261]).
Fuisz further discloses the pressure drop is measured and compared to improve the consistency of the aerosol output ([0069]), but does not explicitly disclose a control component configured to detect an amount of current that is required to maintain the smoking material at a given temperature; thereby derive an indication of an amount of the one or more active agents that has been vaporized; and terminate heating of the smoking material in response to detecting an indication that more than a given amount of the one or more of the active agents has been vaporized.
Raichman directed to a smoking device, discloses an apparatus for use with a capsule comprising a smoking material containing at least one active ingredient ([0020] and [0039]), the apparatus comprising:
A vaporizer (i.e., smoking device) configured to vaporize the active agents from within the smoking material by heating the capsule ([0055]-[0056]), the smoking device comprising:
control circuitry (i.e., control component) configured to:
measure the electrical power or an amount of energy required (i.e., detect an amount of current) needed to maintain the capsule at a given temperature ([0175]-[0176]);
account for the amount of active agent that has already been vaporized from ([0183]); and
in response to determining that a given amount of the active agent has already been released from the plant material, the control component may be configured to reduce the temperature to a sub-vaporization temperature (i.e., terminate) to withhold additional vaporization of the active ingredients ([0183]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fuisz by modifying the control component to detect an amount of current that is required to maintain the smoking material at a given temperature; thereby derive an indication of an amount of the one or more active agents that has been vaporized; and terminate heating of the smoking material in response to detecting an indication that more than a given amount of the one or more of the active agents has been vaporized, as taught by Raichman because both are directed to vaporizers for use with capsules, Raichman teaches the additional features of the control component allow the device to be controlled to stop heating the smoking material when the active ingredient is no longer desired ([0183]), and this merely involves applying additional features of a known control component of a similar device to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 2, Fuisz discloses the capsule has a length of 45.2 mm ([0086]).
In regards to claim 3, Fuisz discloses the capsule is provided with an individual foil metal heater 10 having two contact rings 17 and active contact semi-rings 14 (i.e., electrodes) ([0186] and [0199]), wherein the heater is a resistive heater and the electrodes heat the metal foil (i.e., drive a current through the metallic foil) ([0187]).
In regards to claim 5, Modified Fuisz discloses the control circuitry (i.e., control component) calculates the airflow rate (i.e., parameter of a puff) through the capsule by measuring the electrical power (i.e., current) needed to maintain the capsule at a desired temperature (Raichman [0176]).
In regards to claim 6, Modified Fuisz discloses the control component is configured to determine puff duration and can provide higher efficiency for users that prefer taking relatively short puffs (Raichman claim 6 and [0180]).
While Modified Fuisz does not explicitly disclose the control component determines a length of the puff of the capsule by the user based on the amount of current that is required to maintain the smoking material at a given temperature, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that since Raichman discloses the parameter of the puff is determined by measuring the current ([0176] and the control component can determine a puff duration, the puff length could also be determined based on the amount of current that is required to maintain the smoking material at a given temperature and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 7, Modified Fuisz discloses the control component calculates the airflow rate (i.e., depth of a puff) through the capsule by measuring the electrical power (i.e., current) needed to maintain the capsule at a desired temperature (Raichman [0176]).
In regards to claim 8, Modified Fuisz discloses the control component determines the amount of active ingredient that has been vaporized based on the airflow rate of the capsule (i.e., monitoring a number of puffs and parameters of the puff that have been taken) (Raichman [0017]).
In regards to claim 9, Modified Fuisz discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control component is configured to dynamically adjust the target temperature to heat the smoking material based on the consumption rate and airflow profiled of the user, so that users taking relatively short puffs (i.e., second mode) will not suffer from loss of plant material between the short puffs (Raichman [0180]).
Raichman further discloses the device receives an indication from the user by detecting the amount of airflow through the vaporizer and the control component calculating the dosage of active substance that has been provided to the user ([0184]). The first mode is a faster airflow profile and the second mode is being interpreted as a slower airflow profile.
Raichman discloses in response to indication of the first mode, an increase in airflow rate, the temperature of the capsule is decreased to keep a constant active ingredient vaporization rate ([0184]).
Raichman further discloses the control circuitry combines the aforementioned temperature control functionality with setting a time limit (i.e., predetermined period of time) for the heating that is applied in response to each puff of the vaporizer ([0184]).
Raichman further discloses in response to an indication of the second mode, a lower inhalation profile, the temperature of the capsule is reduced to below vaporization temperature to prevent wastage of the plant ingredient ([0185]).
Raichman does not explicitly disclose during the second mode the smoking material is only heated to the vaporization temperature while receiving an active input from the user that they wish for the smoking material to be heated, but Raichman does disclose a dynamic control component that is supposed to adjust the heating temperature in response to the user input ([]), and therefore it would be obvious that Raichman’s device would teach the vaporization temperature is initiated again in response to an indication from a user that the user wishes to continue smoking.
In regards to claim 10, Modified Fuisz discloses the vaporizer initiates a pre-heating step (temperature below the vaporization temperature of the one or more active agents), in response to receiving a first input (Raichman [0174]), but prior to receiving a second user input that notified the device whether the user wishes to smoke the active agents (Raichman [0199]).
Raichman further discloses the device detects if the user is in a first or second mode (0174[]).
In regards to claim 12, Modified Fuisz discloses in response to receiving a first input at the vaporizing unit, the input being received from a user, and the heating process is initiated and the plant material is heated above ambient temperature, a temperature below the vaporization temperature (Raichman [0009] and [0174]).
In regards to claim 15, Modified Fuisz discloses the smoking device comprises two or more electrodes that heat the smoking material by generating resistive heating within the capsule and by driving a current into a portion of the capsule (Raichman [0007] and [0139]-[0140]).
In regards to claim 16, Fuisz discloses the electrodes surround the capsule and are spaced by a distance, but does not explicitly disclose the distance between the electrodes being more than 5 mm in an axial direction.
However Fuisz discloses the length of the capsule is from 45.2 mm to 83 mm and a chamber length from 27.5 mm to 77.5 mm ([0086]-[0087]). Figure 10 discloses the electrodes 14 within the chamber and occupying a distance about half of the chamber, therefore it would be obvious that the first electrode drives a current toward a second electrode along a length of more than 5 mm in an axial direction along a length of the capsule.
In addition, claim 16 is directed an apparatus for use with a capsule and is limited to the apparatus such that the spacing of the electrodes does not impart patentability to the claim. Configured use must impart structure and result in a structural different between the claimed invention and the prior art to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior art. Since the structure of Fuisz is capable of performing the intended use of the spacing between the electrodes, then Fuisz is considered to meet the requirements of the claim.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuisz et al. (US-20220218023-A1, as cited in the IDS dated 05/09/2023) in view of Raichman (US-20200187563-A1, as cited in the IDS dated 05/09/2023), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Batista et al. (US-20200236998-A1).
In regards to claim 4, Modified Fuisz discloses the capsule 29 in a flatted configuration (Figure 4A and 5) and the device vaporizes one or more of the active agents from within the smoking material by material (Raichman [0006]), but does not explicitly disclose the device configured to flatten at least a portion of the capsule that contains the smoking material and vaporizing the smoking material while at least a portion of the capsule is in a flattened configuration.
Batista directed to an aerosol generating device with an induction heater, discloses the aerosol generating device comprising an aerosol-forming substrate/consumable (i.e., capsule) and an induction heater ([0008]).
Batista further discloses an elliptical cross-section of the heating element may be utilized to flatten the aerosol-forming substrate during insertion of the consumable (i.e., flatten at least part of the capsule that contains the smoking material) ([0023]).
Batista further discloses during flattening, the smoking material is heated and the tobacco material is vaporized (Figures 6-7 and [0049]).
Batista further discloses flattening of the capsule optimizes the heating ([0023]) and facilitates insertion of the consumable into the heating element ([0043]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Fuisz by modifying the device to include flattening means, as taught by Batista, because all are directed to aerosol generating devices with control components, Batista teaches the flattened configuration optimizes heating of the capsule ([0023]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of using a flattening mechanism of a similar device to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 17, Modified Fuisz discloses ring-like resistive heaters ([0025]) and more than one heating element including heating elements within the capsule (Raichman [0139]), but does not explicitly disclose the smoking device comprises a coil that is configured to heat the smoking material by generating a magnetic field such as to heat the capsule via magnetic induction.
Batista directed to an aerosol generating device with an induction heater, discloses the aerosol generating device comprising an aerosol-forming substrate/consumable (i.e., capsule) and an induction heater ([0008]).
Batista further discloses the heating element may be an induction coil which generates a magnetic field that penetrates the heating element to heat the capsule (i.e., heats by magnetic induction) ([0009]).
Batista further discloses different configurations of the coils allows for control of the generation of magnetic fields and thereby controls the heating of the heating element ([0021]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Fuisz by modifying the heater to further include an inductive heating coil as taught by Batista, because all are directed to aerosol generating devices with control components, Batista teaches the coil allows for control of the heating element ([0021]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of using a heating coil of a similar device to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 18, Modified Fuisz discloses an elliptical cross-section of the heating element may be utilized to flatten the aerosol-forming substrate during insertion of the consumable (i.e., flatten at least part of the capsule that contains the smoking material) (Batista [0023]).
In regards to claim 19, Modified Fuisz discloses an elliptical cross-section of the heating element may be utilized to flatten the aerosol-forming substrate during insertion of the consumable (i.e., flatten at least part of the capsule that contains the smoking material) (Batista [0023]) and teaches the coil is shaped to define a non-circular cross-sectional shape even before part of the capsule that contains the smoking material is introduced to within the coil (Figure 7).
Batista further discloses the housing for inserting the capsule, before the capsule is inserted into the coil is sloped downwards and would at least partially flatten the capsule prior to insertion of the capsule within the coil (Figure 6c and 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
278
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
283
641
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, it would be a mere change in shape of the chamber cavity to begin to flatten the capsule 42 before it reaches the heating element 48 since Batista already teaches the chamber starts to flatten the capsule prior to insertion into the coil (Figure 6c and Figure 7). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) and (In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuisz et al. (US-20220218023-A1, as cited in the IDS dated 05/09/2023) in view of Raichman (US-20200187563-A1, as cited in the IDS dated 05/09/2023), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lim (US-20200221782-A1).
In regards to claim 11, Modified Fuisz discloses in response to receiving a first input at the vaporizing unit, the heating process is initiated and the plant material is heated above ambient temperature (Raichman [0009]).
Modified Fuisz does not explicitly disclose the preheating process is automatic in response to the capsule being inserted into the smoking device.
Lim, directed to an aerosol generating device and method for controlling same, discloses the aerosol generating device includes: a case into which a cigarette (i.e., capsule) is inserted; a cap coupled to a top portion of the case to be detachable from the case; a cover configured to perform sliding movement along a top surface of the cap so as to open or close a cigarette insertion hole; a first sensor configured to sense whether the cigarette insertion hole is open or closed; and a controller configured to determine whether the cigarette insertion hole is open or closed based on a signal sensed by the first sensor and set an operational mode of the aerosol generating device as an ON mode or an OFF mode based on a result of the determining ([0006]).
Lim further discloses the operational mode is set to ON when it is determined that the cigarette insertion hole 18 is open, the controller 70 may perform the preliminary heating (i.e., preheating) operation of the heater 52 without waiting for a user's input via the activated button 28 or a signal sensed by the activated second sensor 62 (i.e., preheats the device in response to the capsule being detected) ([0107]).
Lim further discloses that the automatic operation of the heater minimizes the stand-by time for using the device ([0107]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Modified Fuisz by making the device preheat the capsule when inserted into the device, as taught by Lim, because all are directed to aerosol-generating devices with capsules electronic cigarettes, Lim teaches the automation of the heater upon insertion minimizes the stand-by time for using the device ([0107]), and this merely involves applying a known automated operation of a heater of a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuisz et al. (US-20220218023-A1, as cited in the IDS dated 05/09/2023) in view of Raichman (US-20200187563-A1, as cited in the IDS dated 05/09/2023), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bouchuiguir et al. (US-20220354183-A1).
In regards to claim 13, Modified Fuisz discloses the user can push the button a first and a second time, and that each button push is a different setting for the heater (Raichman [0199]), but does not explicitly disclose the user pressing a button for a duration less than a threshold duration is interpreted by the control component that the user wishes to smoke the active agents in the first mode and the user pressing the button for a duration that is more than the threshold duration, is interpreted by the control component that the user wishes to smoke the active agents in the second mode.
Bouchuiguir, directed to a heating method and heating status indicator for an aerosol generating device, discloses the device comprising control circuitry configured to operate the heater and the indicator ([0020]).
Bouchuiguir further discloses the device comprises a user input operable to instruct the control component to select the first rule or the second rule ([0020]), wherein the first rule comprises operating the heater at a use temperature for a predetermined time period to ensure it is ready for use ([0016]) and the second rule which operates the heater and maintains the heating chamber at the use temperature and allowing the user to choose whether to heat the device right away or to wait ([0020]).
Bouchuiguir further discloses the user instructs the control component to select the first rule (i.e., first mode) or the second rule (i.e., second mode) by holding a button for a first duration or holding a button for the second duration, wherein the durations are different from one another ([0021]).
Bouchuiguir further discloses the button duration for the first mode is a shorter duration (i.e., less than a threshold) and the second mode is a longer duration (i.e., more than the threshold duration) ([0095]).
Bouchuiguir further discloses the button duration allows the user to select a heat-up mode based on conditions of the external environment ([0021]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify Fuisz by making the buttons comprise a button duration to switch between the first and second modes, as taught by Bouchuiguir, because all are directed to aerosol generating devices with control components, Bouchuiguir teaches the button duration gives the user control ([0021]), and this merely involves applying a known technique of using a button duration to select modes of a heater of a similar device to yield predictable results.
In regards to claim 14, Modified Fuisz discloses the mode selected is dependent on the duration of the button pressed (Bouchuiguir [0095]).
Bouchuiguir further discloses the rules stored in the memory may define various different control processes of the heater and indicator and that these may be selected be user selections ([0096]).
While Bouchuiguir does not explicitly teach the user can switch from a second more to the first mode by pressing the button for less than the threshold duration, Bouchuiguir does teach the mode is dependent on the button duration and that the user can switch the mode depending on what environment they are in ([0094]-[0096]), therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the user could switch from the second mode back to the first mode by pressing the button for less than the threshold duration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jang et al. (US-20220110368-A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADELEINE PAULINA DELACRUZ whose telephone number is (703)756-4544. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/MADELEINE P DELACRUZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755