DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
This is the first office action in response to Claims filed on 09/24/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 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), 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):
(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) 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: “protection element” in Claim 11.
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 corresponding structure is a fuse or equivalently overcurrent and/or overvoltage protection (see [0192, 196]).
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 Objections
Claims 16, 17, and 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 16: “the electrical component” should be –an electrical component --;
Regarding Claim 17: “the second supply path” should be –a second supply path --;
Regarding Claim 20: “an an output terminal” should be –an output terminal --;
Appropriate correction required and claims are interpreted as indicated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9-11, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 2022/0338544) in view of Verleur (US 2015/0305409)
Regarding Claim 1: Chan discloses an apparatus for an aerosol generating device (10; Fig. 1), the apparatus comprising: a power supply (24; Fig. 2); a first connector (see annotated figure ‘544) to which the power supply is connected; a second connector (connector to the heater necessarily present) to which a heater (20; Fig. 1) configured to heat an aerosol source ([0098]) by consuming a power supplied from the power supply is connected ([0098]); a controller circuitry (30; Fig. 2) configured to control a supply of a power from the power supply to the heater ([0101]); a first circuit board (34 or 28; Fig. 1); a second circuit board (28 or 34; Fig. 1) which is separated from the first circuit board, the first connector is mounted on the first circuit board (see annotated figure ‘544)
Chan is silent regarding a step-up IC configured to step up a voltage supplied from the power supply and output the stepped-up voltage to the heater, wherein the step-up IC is mounted on the first circuit board.
However, Verleur teaches an apparatus for an aerosol generating device (Fig. 23) having a step-up IC (604; Fig. 23) configured to step up a voltage supplied from the power supply ([0073]) and output the stepped-up voltage to a heater (214; [0052], Claim 1 wherein voltage is send to the cartomizer and thus the heater), wherein the step-up IC are mounted on a circuit board (claim 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chan, to have a step-up IC configured to step up a voltage supplied from the power supply and output the stepped-up voltage to the heater, wherein the step-up IC is mounted on the first circuit board, as taught by Verleur. Such a modification would enable to provide variable voltage, as recognized by Verleur (see Claim 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
706
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3: Chan in view of Verleur teaches all the limitation of Claim 1, as stated above, and Chan further discloses the first circuit board includes a first surface (see annotated figure ‘544) and a second surface (see annotated figure ‘544) opposing the first surface.
Chan in view of Verleur is silent regarding the step-up IC is mounted on the first surface of the first circuit board, and the first connector is mounted on the second surface of the first circuit board.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the location of the step-up IC and the first connector to have the step-up IC is mounted on the first surface of the first circuit board, and the first connector is mounted on the second surface of the first circuit board, since it has been held that mere relocation of an element would not have modified the operation of the device. (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
(In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding Claim 5: Chan in view of Verleur teaches all the limitation of Claim 1, as stated above, and Chan further discloses wherein the second heater connector is is mounted on the first circuit board (see rejection of claim 1 wherein the first circuit board can be interpreted as 34 or 28; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 7: Chan in view of Verleur teaches all the limitation of Claim 1, as stated above, and Chan further discloses the circuitry is mounted on the second circuit board (30 is on 28; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9: Chan in view of Verleur teaches all the limitation of Claim 1, as stated above, and Chan further discloses a receptacle (38; Fig. 2) electrically connectable to an external power supply ([0104]), a first supply path mounted on the first circuit board and configured to supply, to the second circuit board, power supplied from the receptacle (path passing through the receptacle to an element of the second circuit board) and Verleur further teaches an overvoltage protection IC ([0057]) provided in the first supply path.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention further modify Chan, to have an overvoltage protection IC ([0057]) provided in the first supply path, as taught by Verleur. Such a modification would enable to control and protect the battery, as recognized by Verleur (see [0057]).
Regarding Claim 10: Chan in view of Verleur teaches all the limitation of Claim 1, as stated above, and Chan further discloses a receptacle (38; Fig. 2) electrically connectable to an external power supply ([0104]), wherein the receptacle is mounted on the first circuit board (34; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 11: Chan in view of Verleur teaches all the limitation of Claim 1, as stated above, and Verleur further teaches a charging IC (606; Fig. 23) configured to control charging of the power supply using power supplied from the receptacle ([0073]); and a protection element ([0057]) configured to protect the charging IC from the power supplied from the receptacle ([0057]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention further modify Chan, to have a charging IC configured to control charging of the power supply using power supplied from the receptacle; and a protection element configured to protect the charging IC from the power supplied from the receptacle, as taught by Verleur. Such a modification would enable to control and protect the battery, as recognized by Verleur (see [0057]).
Chan modified by Verleur as established above, is silent regarding the protection element mounted on the first circuit board.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the location of the protection element to have the protection element mounted on the first circuit board, since it has been held that mere relocation of an element would not have modified the operation of the device. (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
(In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding Claim 14: Chan in view of Verleur teaches all the limitation of Claim 1, as stated above, and further wherein the first connector and the step-up IC are not mounted on the second circuit board (see Rejection of Claim 1 wherein the first connector and the step-up IC are mounted on the first board).
Regarding Claim 16: Chan in view of Verleur teaches all the limitation of Claim 11, as stated above, and Chan further discloses a second supply path (any path leading to component) configured to supply, to an electronic component (any electrical component of the apparatus), the power supplied from the receptacle.
Regarding Claim 18: Chan in view of Verleur teaches all the limitation of Claim 1, as stated above, and Verleur further teaches a charging IC (606; Fig. 23) configured to control charging of the power supply using power supplied from the receptacle (a charging controller controls the charging by the receptacle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chan, to have a charging IC configured to control charging of the power supply using power supplied from the receptacle, as taught by Verleur. Such a modification would enable to control the charge.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 2022/0338544) in view of Nielsen (US 2009/0283103).
Regarding Claim 19: Chan discloses an apparatus for an aerosol generating device (10; Fig. 1), the apparatus comprising: a power supply (24; Fig. 2); a first connector (connection necessarily present) connected to a heater (20; Fig. 1) configured to consume power supplied from the power supply to heat an aerosol source ([0098]); circuitry (30; Fig. 2) configured to control a supply of power from the power source to the heater ([0101]); a first circuit board (34 or 28; Fig. 1) including a first surface (see annotated figure ‘544) and a second surface (see annotated figure ‘544) opposing the first surface; a second circuit board (34 or 28; Fig. 1) including a third surface (see annotated figure ‘544) facing the first surface and a fourth surface (see annotated figure ‘544) opposing the third surface.
Chan is silent regarding memory configured to store input information mounted on the first surface or the third surface.
However, Nielsen teaches an apparatus for an aerosol generating device (see title) having memory configured to store input information mounted on a surface of a circuit board ([0040], 228; Fig. 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chan, to have memory configured to store input information mounted on the first surface or the third surface, as taught by Nielson. Such a modification would enable to provide monitoring of consumption, as recognized by Nielson (see [0040]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 2022/0338544) in view of Courbat (US 2020/0275707).
Regarding Claim 20: Chan discloses an apparatus for an aerosol generating device (10; Fig. 1), the apparatus comprising: a power supply (24; Fig. 2); a first connector (connection necessarily present) connected to a heater (20; Fig. 1) configured to consume power supplied from the power supply to heat an aerosol source ([0098]); circuitry (30; Fig. 2) configured to control a supply of power from the power source to the heater ([0101]); a first circuit board (34 or 28; Fig. 1) including a first surface (see annotated figure ‘544) and a second surface (see annotated figure ‘544) opposing the first surface; a second circuit board (34 or 28; Fig. 1) including a third surface (see annotated figure ‘544) facing the first surface and a fourth surface (see annotated figure ‘544) opposing the third surface.
Chan is silent regarding an operational amplifier mounted on the first surface or the third surface and including an output terminal connected to the circuitry.
However, Courbat teaches an apparatus for an aerosol generating device (1; Fig. 1) having an operational amplifier (10; Fig.3) mounted on a surface (surface 100; Fig. 3) of a circuit board (100; Fig. 3) and including an output terminal (terminal after 102; Fig. 3) connected to a control circuitry (circuitry after 10; Fig. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chan, to have an operational amplifier mounted on the first surface or the third surface and including an output terminal connected to the circuitry, as taught by Courbat. Such a modification would enable to provide operation, e.g. comparator, as recognized by Courbat (see [0077]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 2022/0338544) in view of Verleur (US 2015/0305409) and further in view of Nielsen (US 2009/0283103).
Regarding Claim 8: Chan in view Verleur teaches all the limitation of Claim 1, as stated above, but is silent regarding memory configured to store input information, wherein the memory circuit is mounted on the second circuit board.
However, Nielsen teaches an apparatus for an aerosol generating device (see title) having memory configured to store input information mounted on a surface of a circuit board ([0040], 228; Fig. 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chan, to have regarding memory configured to store input information, wherein the memory circuit is mounted on the second circuit board, as taught by Nielson. Such a modification would enable to provide monitoring of consumption, as recognized by Nielson (see [0040]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan (US 2022/0338544) in view of Verleur (US 2015/0305409) and further in view of Xiang (US 2017/0127726).
Regarding Claim 17: Chan in view of Verleur teaches all the limitations of Claim 11, and Chan further discloses a second supply path and mounted on the second circuit board (any path from the 24 on the first board), but is silent regarding a switch of the supply path.
However, Xiang teaches an apparatus for an aerosol generating device (see title) having a switch (“switch” Claim 8) of a supply path (“power circuit”, Claim 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chan, to have a switch of the supply path, as taught by Xian. Such a modification would enable to provide switch off the system.
Allowable subject matter
Regarding Claims 2, 4, 6, 12, 13, and 15: Claims 2, 4, 6, 12, 13, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the above mentioned objection (if present) and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art fails to teach, in combination with the other limitations of dependent 2, 4, 6, 12 and 13, “ a reactor connected to the step-up TC, wherein the first circuit board includes a first surface and a second surface opposing of the first surface, the step-up IC is mounted on the first surface of the first circuit board, and the reactor is mounted on the second surface of the first circuit board” (for Claim 2), “ a reactor connected to the step-up IC, wherein the reactor is mounted on the second surface of the first circuit board” (for Claim 4), “a reactor connected to the step-up IC, wherein the first circuit board includes a first surface and a second surface opposing of the first surface, and the reactor and the second heater connector are mounted on the second surface of the first circuit board” (for Claim 6), “an electronic component configured to operate using the power supplied from the receptacle without passing through the charging IC; a second supply path configured to supply, to the electronic component, the power supplied from the receptacle; and a switch provided in the second supply path, wherein the electronic component is not mounted on the first circuit board, and the switch is mounted on the second circuit board” (for Claim 12), and “a ground; and a built-in switch built in the circuitry, wherein one end of the electronic component is connected to the second supply path, and the other end of the electronic component is connected to the ground via the built-in switch” (for Claim 13); “”(for Claim 15)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see notice of references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-18:30.
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 Crabb can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights