Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 7-8, 10, and 12 is 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 7 recites the limitation “the number of vias" at line 6 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore, the limitation "the number of vias" at line 7 in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear and indefinite to the relationship between this “the number of vias” and “the number of vias” at line 6 and to whether they are the same or different. Further clarification is required to either further differentiate (the number of vias) and/or provide proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8 is also rejected because it depends on a rejected claim 7.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the number of capacitors" at line 2 in the claim when looking at ‘the first capacitor’ and ‘the second capacitor’ from claim 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 12, it is noted that using of phrase such as “a substantially rectangular shape” in the claim renders the claim indefinite because the term "substantially" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how much would be considered substantially corresponding.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akao et al. (US 20200212517) in view of Akao (US 20200235599) and Kuroda (US 20060111065).
Regarding claim 1, Akao et al. discloses a power supply unit 10 (fig. 3) of an aerosol generating device (1), comprising:
a power supply (12);
a connector (41, i.e. called a discharging terminal) to which a load (21) configured to generate aerosol from an aerosol source (22) by consuming electric power supplied from the power supply (12), or a coil configured to transmit electric power to the load by electromagnetic induction is connected (¶ 0040);
a voltage converter (¶ 0034, “charger 13 includes a converter”) that has an input terminal (43, i.e. also called the charging terminal at the bottom of figure 3) connected to the power supply (12) and an output terminal (41a, 41b) connected to the connector (41, i.e. called a discharging terminal).
Akao et al. discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for a first capacitor and a second capacitor connected between the output terminal of the voltage converter and the connector; and a circuit substrate on which the voltage converter, the first capacitor, and the second capacitor are mounted, wherein the first capacitor and the second capacitor are not arranged in a line in a length direction or a width direction of the circuit substrate.
However, Akao ‘599 teaches a first capacitor (74) and a second capacitor (75) connected between the output terminal (41a, 41b) of the voltage converter and the connector (41); and a circuit substrate (76, 77), i.e. circuit boards) on which the voltage converter (¶ 0036, 0061-0062, 0129).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of the power supply unit for an aerosol inhaler. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Akao et al. ‘517 and Akao ‘599 before him or her, to include such capacitors arrangement of Akao ‘599 because it reduces the areas on a circuit board which capacitors occupy while appropriately protecting a plurality of control devices. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it provides sufficient capacity required for the power supply unit for the aerosol inhaler (¶ 0092).
Furthermore, Kuroda teaches the first capacitor (20), and the second capacitor (30) are mounted 1 (fig. 8), wherein the first capacitor and the second capacitor are not arranged in a line in a length direction (see figure 10) or a width direction of the circuit substrate (50) (¶ 0024, 0063, 0069, 0073-0074).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of an electronic circuit. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Akao’s 517 in view of Akao’s 599 and Kuroda before him or her, to include such circuit components arrangement of Kuroda because it provides an electronic circuit that can eliminate a direct current component while suppressing deterioration of frequency characteristics in a wide frequency band. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the size of the electronic circuit can be reduced (¶ 0013).
Furthermore, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/dimension of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Akao’s 517 in view of Akao’s 599 and Kuroda discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Akao’s 599 does not disclose wherein the first capacitor (74) is arranged in a line with the voltage converter in the length direction of the circuit substrate (76, 77), and the second capacitor (75( is arranged in a line with the voltage converter in the width direction of the circuit substrate (76, 77) (¶ 0036).
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make such arrangements, for the purpose of reducing the dimension of the circuit board, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 3, Akao’s 517 in view of Akao’s 599 and Kuroda discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Kuroda discloses wherein the first capacitor (20) has a capacitance larger than that of the second capacitor (30) (¶ 0010).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Akao’s 517 in view of Akao’s 599 and Kuroda before him or her, to include such different capacitors sizes of Kuroda because it provides an electronic circuit that can eliminate a direct current component while suppressing deterioration of frequency characteristics in a wide frequency band. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the size of the electronic circuit can be reduced (¶ 0013).
Regarding claim 4, Akao’s 517 in view of Akao’s 599 and Kuroda discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Kuroda discloses a third capacitor (60) mounted on the circuit substrate (50), wherein the third capacitor (60) is arranged in a line with the voltage converter and the second capacitor (30) in the width direction of the circuit substrate (50), and the third capacitor (60) has a capacitance larger than that of the second capacitor (¶ 0025, 0049-0050) .
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Akao’s 517 in view of Akao’s 599 and Kuroda before him or her, to include such capacitors arrangement of Kuroda because it provides an electronic circuit that can eliminate a direct current component while suppressing deterioration of frequency characteristics in a wide frequency band. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the size of the electronic circuit can be reduced (¶ 0013).
Regarding claim 5, Akao’s 517 in view of Akao’s 599 and Kuroda discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Kuroda does not disclose wherein the voltage converter, the second capacitor (30), and the third capacitor (60) are arranged in a line in order of the voltage converter, the second capacitor (30), and the third capacitor (60) in the width direction of the circuit substrate (50).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make such capacitors arrangements, for the purpose of reducing the dimension of the circuit board, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 6, Akao’s 517 in view of Akao’s 599 and Kuroda discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Kuroda does not disclose wherein the third capacitor (60) has a rectangular shape with long sides and short sides, and the long sides of the third capacitor are parallel to the length direction of the circuit substrate (50).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to include such a shape, for the purpose of reducing the dimension of the circuit board, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 7, Akao’s 517 in view of Akao’s 599 and Kuroda discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Kuroda disclose wherein one end of the first capacitor (20) and one end of the third capacitor (60) are connected to the output terminal of the voltage converter, the other end of the first capacitor (20) and the other end of the third capacitor (60) are connected to a ground of the circuit substrate (50), and the number of vias (53) connecting the other end of the first capacitor (20) to the ground is smaller than the number of vias (50) connecting the other end of the third capacitor (60)to the ground (¶ 0087-0088).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Akao’s 517 in view of Akao’s 599 and Kuroda before him or her, to include such circuit elements connections of Kuroda because it provides an electronic circuit that can eliminate a direct current component while suppressing deterioration of frequency characteristics in a wide frequency band. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the size of the electronic circuit can be reduced (¶ 0013).
Regarding claim 8, Akao’s 517 in view of Akao’s 599 and Kuroda discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Akao’s 599 disclose a switch (19) mounted on the circuit substrate (76, 77) and connected between the output terminal (41a, 41b) of the voltage converter and the connector, wherein the first capacitor (74) is mounted on the circuit substrate (76, 77) so as to be closer to the switch (19) than the third capacitor (¶ 0052, 0061).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Akao’s 517 in view of Akao’s 599 and Kuroda before him or her, to include such circuit elements arrangement of Kuroda because it provides an electronic circuit that can eliminate a direct current component while suppressing deterioration of frequency characteristics in a wide frequency band. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the size of the electronic circuit can be reduced (¶ 0013).
Regarding claim 9, Akao’s 517 in view of Akao’s 599 and Kuroda discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Akao’s 599 does not disclose wherein the first capacitor (74) has a rectangular shape with long sides and short sides, and the short sides of the first capacitor (74) are parallel to the length direction of the circuit substrate (76, 77).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to include such a shape, for the purpose of reducing the dimension of the circuit board, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 10, Akao’s 517 in view of Akao’s 599 and Kuroda discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Akao’s 599 does not disclose wherein the number of capacitors (74, 75) mounted on the circuit substrate (76, 77) so as to be arranged in a line with the voltage converter in the length direction of the circuit substrate (76, 77) and connected to the output terminal (41a, 41b) of the voltage converter is smaller than the number of capacitors (74, 75) mounted on the circuit substrate (76, 77) so as to be arranged in a line with the voltage converter in the width direction of the circuit substrate (76, 77) and connected to the output terminal (41a, 41b) of the voltage converter (abstract; ¶ 0036, 0061, 0098.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make such capacitors arrangements, for the purpose of reducing the dimension of the circuit board, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 11, Akao’s 517 in view of Akao’s 599 and Kuroda discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Kuroda disclose wherein the circuit substrate (50) includes a conductive pattern (51, 52) to which the voltage converter, the first capacitor (20), and the second capacitor (30) are connected, the conductive pattern includes a trapezoidal portion having a trapezoidal shape, the trapezoidal portion has an upper base, a lower base having a length larger than that of the upper base, a first leg, and a second leg having an angle with the lower base smaller than that of the first leg with the lower base, the voltage converter and the second capacitor (30) are connected to a lower base side, and the first capacitor (20) is connected to the first leg (0012-0017,0063-0066, 0073).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Akao’s 517 in view of Akao’s 599 and Kuroda before him or her, to include such capacitors connection arrangement and shape of Kuroda because it provides an electronic circuit that can eliminate a direct current component while suppressing deterioration of frequency characteristics in a wide frequency band. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the size of the electronic circuit can be reduced (¶ 0013).
Regarding claim 12, Akao’s 517 in view of Akao’s 599 and Kuroda discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Kuroda disclose wherein the conductive pattern (51, 52) has a substantially rectangular shape and further includes a rectangular portion connected to a connection point between the lower base and the second leg and the lower base, and the voltage converter and the second capacitor (30) are connected to the rectangular portion (¶ 0073).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Akao’s 517 in view of Akao’s 599 and Kuroda before him or her, to include such conductive patterns arrangement and shape of Kuroda because it provides an electronic circuit that can eliminate a direct current component while suppressing deterioration of frequency characteristics in a wide frequency band. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the size of the electronic circuit can be reduced (¶ 0013).
Regarding claim 13, Akao’s 517 in view of Akao’s 599 and Kuroda discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Kuroda disclose wherein the first capacitor (20) does not overlap the second leg in a plan view of the circuit substrate (50).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Akao’s 517 in view of Akao’s 599 and Kuroda before him or her, to include such a capacitor arrangement of Kuroda because it provides an electronic circuit that can eliminate a direct current component while suppressing deterioration of frequency characteristics in a wide frequency band. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because the size of the electronic circuit can be reduced (¶ 0013).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mironov et al. (US 20230111200). Ono et al. (US 20220007718). And Inoue et al. (US 20100053927).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights