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 1-16 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claims 12-16 are withdrawn. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Cheng does not function the same way as the instant application and not disclose the shared technical feature of Groups I-III.
This is not found persuasive because independent Claim 12 broadly recites the functional relationship between the controller and damping of the vibrable element without limiting the mechanism used to determine damping. Cheng teaches that when liquid is present, damping increases and the resonant frequency decreases and when liquid is absent, damping decreases and the resonant frequency increases, and the controller adjusts operation accordingly [0055-0058]. Thus, Cheng teaches controlling operation according to damping by the vibrable element, regardless of the specific technique used to determine the damping condition. Further, independent Claim 12 does not require a peak voltage detection module, as recited in Claim 1. Thus, the peak voltage detection module is not a shared technical feature among Groups I-III.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract exceeds 150 words in length.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0011]: "changes simple harmonically" should read "changes harmonically"
[0011, 0015, 0017, 0018, 0028, 0045, 0086, 0091, 0092, 0095, 0096, 0102, 0105, 0107]: "at the both terminals" should read "at both terminals"
[0017]: "at the both terminals" should read "at both terminals"
[0018]: "voltage that are" should read "voltage that is"
[0077]: "between the cell 10" should read "between the cell 21"
[0108]: "is completed atomized" should read "is completely atomized"
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3: “at the both terminals” should read “at both terminals”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3: “at the both terminals” should read “at both terminals”
Line 5: “at the both terminals” should read “at both terminals”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 4: “at the both terminals” should read “at both terminals”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 10 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.
The phrase “substantially close” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “substantially close” 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. For purposes of examining, the claim will be read as “adjusting the vibration frequency of the vibrable element, to keep the vibration frequency the same as a preset frequency”.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 20180065160 A1, as cited in IDS dated 11/20/2023), and further in view of Huo (CN 107257123 A, as cited in IDS dated 11/20/2023 and hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation).
With regard to Claim 1, Cheng, directed to an atomization device and cleaning method, teaches (i) an atomization device comprising a container portion containing liquid [0035]. (ii) The device comprises a frequency driven atomizer including a piezoelectric plate [0020] configured to generate a vibrating frequency to generate atomized particles [0020]. (iii) Cheng further teaches sensing a voltage waveform including a peak to peak voltage that is used to control operation [0029-0030]. (iv) The device further comprises a control unit to control sonic oscillation of the atomization device [0030]. Cheng teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however Cheng is silent to:
A peak voltage detection module, configured to detect a peak voltage at both terminals of the vibrable element
PNG
media_image1.png
323
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Huo, directed to a dry-fire protecting circuit, teaches wherein a signal processing module that detects a peak voltage across the atomizing plate and control operation based on that value [0027 –0032]. Figure 2 illustrates wherein the atomizing plate is connected between two nodes and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the voltage of a two terminal piezoelectric element is the potential difference between its two electrodes. One would be motivated to modify Cheng to include a peak detection module to help reduce the risk of damage to the atomizing plate [0005].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of modified Cheng to comprise a peak voltage detection module, configured to detect a peak voltage at both terminals of the vibrable element because both Cheng and Huo are directed to processing voltage signals generated by vibrating components. Huo teaches a signal processing module that detects a peak voltage across an atomizing plate to reduce the risk of damage to the atomizing plate [0005] and this merely involves applying a known detection component to a known aerosol generating device, ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 2, Cheng teaches wherein damping applied to the piezoelectric atomizer changes depending on whether liquid is present [0055-0056]. Cheng further teaches that a sensor unit senses a lower resonant frequency when damping is higher and a higher resonant frequency when damping is lower [0056], wherein the resonant frequency is generated from a voltage waveform [0053-0054]. Modified Cheng teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Cheng is silent to:
Determining the damping based on the peak voltage
Huo teaches detecting the peak voltage across the atomizing plate and controlling operation according to the detected peak voltage [0027-0032]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the peak voltage detection technique of Huo and the damping of Cheng to improve monitoring of electrical characteristics of the piezoelectric atomizer to determine its overall condition and improve reliability of the device [0035].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller of modified Cheng to determine damping based on the peak voltage because both Cheng and Huo are directed to processing voltage signals generated by vibrating components. Huo teaches using a peak voltage to control operation of a device to improve monitoring and improve reliability of the device [0035] and this merely involves combining prior art elements according to known monitoring methods to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 3, Cheng teaches wherein when liquid exists in the atomizer, damping is higher and when the atomizer does not contain any liquid, the damping of the atomizer is lower [0056], wherein damping corresponds to the resonant frequency sensed by the sensor unit [0055-0056]. When it is determined that the atomizer does not contain liquid, the sensor unit transmits a signal indicating that the device is to be turned off [0026]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that because Cheng changes between multiple operating conditions based on damping values, the control unit must compare the detected damping against one or more predetermined threshold to classify the operating state.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 20180065160 A1, as cited in IDS dated 11/20/2023) and Huo (CN 107257123 A, as cited in IDS dated 11/20/2023), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holzer (US 5614851 A).
With regard to Claim 4, modified Cheng teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Cheng is silent to:
Wherein the peak voltage detection module comprises, a holding capacitor, configured to hold the peak voltage at both terminals of the vibrable element
Holzer, directed to a peak-to-peak voltage detector, teaches a peak detection circuit comprises a hold capacitor, wherein a transistor charges the hold capacitor as the input voltage rises, and after the input reaches its peak the hold capacitor holds the peak voltage value reached (Col. 6, Lines 19-28). It would have been obvious to modify the peak voltage detection module of modified Cheng by incorporating Holzer's hold capacitor at both terminals of Cheng's modified piezoelectric element because using the hold capacitor provides high accuracy, detection while remaining suitable for lower powered circuit applications (Col. 4, Lines 16-19).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the peak detection module of modified Cheng to comprise a holding capacitor, configured to hold the peak voltage at both terminals of the vibrable element because both Cheng and Holzer are directed to processing of voltage signals to control operations. Holzer teaches a hold capacitor to provide high accuracy, detection while remaining suitable for lower powered circuit applications (Col. 4, Lines 16-19) and this merely involves the use of a known component to improve a similar voltage detection device in the same way.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 20180065160 A1, as cited in IDS dated 11/20/2023), Huo (CN 107257123 A, as cited in IDS dated 11/20/2023), and Holzer (US 5614851 A), as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Gutnikov (RU 2700327 C1, hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation).
With regard to Claim 5, modified Cheng teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Cheng is silent to:
An operational amplifier, configured to output a voltage at both terminals of the vibrable element to the holding capacitor
A voltage follower, configured to output the peak voltage that are at both terminals of the vibrable element and that are held by the holding capacitor
Gutnikov, directed to peak detector, teaches (i) a differential amplifier implements as an operational amplifier [0027] that receives an oscillatory input signal from a signal source and outputs the amplified signal to peak detection circuitry, including a first capacitor [0032, 0029-0031]. (ii) Gutnikov further teaches that a voltage follower, connected to the output of the operational amplifier, outputs a peak voltage held on a first capacitor [0039]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine Gutnikov’s operational amplifier and voltage follower with the atomizer and hold capacitor of modified Cheng to improve response speed of the detector [0044].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the peak voltage detection module of modified Cheng to comprise an operational amplifier, configured to output a voltage at both terminals of the vibrable element to the holding capacitor and a voltage follower, configured to output the peak voltage that are at both terminals of the vibrable element and that are held by the holding capacitor because both Cheng and Gutnikov are directed to detecting voltage related signals for processing. Gutnikov teaches an operational amplifier and voltage follower in connection with a first capacitor to improve response speed of the detector [0044] and this merely involves combining prior art elements according to known detection methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 20180065160 A1, as cited in IDS dated 11/20/2023), Huo (CN 107257123 A, as cited in IDS dated 11/20/2023 and hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation), Holzer (US 5614851 A), and Gutnikov (RU 2700327 C1), as applied to claims 1, 4, and 5 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 101615432 A, as cited in IDS dated 11/20/2023 and hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation).
With regard to Claim 6, modified Cheng teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Cheng is silent to:
Wherein the peak detection module further comprises: a discharge switch, configured to discharge the holding capacitor in an on state
Wang, directed to a peak value sampling holding circuit, teaches a peak holding module including a hold capacitor configured to store a detected peak voltage [0083]. Wang further teaches a clearing module including a NMOS transistor configured selectively discharge previously stored peak voltage information so that peak sampling may be accurately performed during the next sampling cycle [0033]. Although Wang expresses the NMOS transistor discharging the capacitor, Wang teaches the concept of an actively controlled discharge switch used to reset stored peak information between sampling cycles. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to apply the same known discharge technique to the modified Cheng since both are store peak-voltage elements within voltage peak circuit to improve operation [0021] and circuit readiness in the subsequent reading cycle [0034].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the peak detection module of modified Cheng to further comprise a discharge switch, configured to discharge the holding capacitor in an on state because both Cheng and Wang are directed to voltage detection circuits that store information for later processing. Wang teaches an a NMOS transistor configured selectively discharge previously stored peak voltage information to improve operation [0021] and circuit readiness in the subsequent reading cycle [0034] and this merely involves the use of a known discharging technique to improve voltage detection circuits in the same way.
With regard to Claim 7, modified Cheng teaches wherein the peak detection module includes the discharge switch. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the holding capacitor to the discharge switch as its function is specifically provided to selectively discharge the holding capacitor to perform its intended function. Modified Cheng teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Cheng is silent to:
Wherein a sampling terminal of the operational amplifier is connected to the vibrable element
The holding capacitor comprises three channels, wherein a first channel is connected to an output terminal of the operational amplifier
A third channel is connected to a sampling terminal of the voltage follower
In regards to i., Huo teaches wherein (i) the inverting input terminal of the first operational amplifier is connected to the atomizing plate [0024]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the non-inverting input terminal constitutes the claimed sampling terminal because it receives the signal from the atomizing plate for processing by the operational amplifier. One would be motivated to apply this connection to the operational amplifier of modified Cheng to determine its operating condition and control operation of the atomizer [0008].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the operational amplifier of modified Cheng to wherein a sampling terminal of the operational amplifier is connected to the vibrable element because both Cheng and Huo are directed to processing voltage signals generated by vibrating components. Huo teaches an input terminal of an amplifier connected to the atomizing plate to determine an atomizer's operating condition and control operation [0008] and this merely involves applying a known connection technique to a known operational amplifier ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
PNG
media_image2.png
172
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to ii. and iii., Wang illustrates (ii) wherein the holding capacitor (Fig. 4: 66) is electrically connected to the output terminal (Fig. 6: #47) of the operational amplifier (Fig. 4: #61) through the hold switch (Fig. 4: #82, [0083-0087]). (iii) Wang further teaches that the output node (Fig. 4: #48) of a peak hold module, wherein the hold capacitor (Fig. 4: #66) stores held voltage, is connected to the positive input of a third operational amplifier (Fig. 4: #67), wherein the third operational amplifier relates to the voltage follower of the claimed invention [0087]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that when an operational amplifier has 100% negative feedback from its output to it inverting input and the signal is applied to the non-inverting input, it is configured as a voltage follower, as shown in Figure 4.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the holding capacitor of modified Cheng comprise three channels, wherein a first channel is connected to an output terminal of the operational amplifier and a third channel is connected to a sampling terminal of the voltage follower because both Cheng and Wang are directed to voltage detection circuits that store information for later processing. Wang teaches a holding capacitor connected to an operational amplifier and another operational amplifier functioning as a voltage follower to improve the accuracy of produced signals [0011] and this merely involves the use of a known connection technique to improve voltage detection circuits in the same way.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 20180065160 A1, as cited in IDS dated 11/20/2023) and Huo (CN 107257123 A, as cited in IDS dated 11/20/2023 and hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (CN 108940704 A, as cited in IDS dated 11/20/2023 and hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation).
With regard to Claim 8, Cheng teaches wherein sonic oscillation uses an atomizer in the form of a piezoelectric plate [0020]. Modified Cheng teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Cheng is silent to:
Wherein the vibrable element comprises at least piezoelectric ceramics
Yang, directed to an ultrasonic atomizer atomization circuit, teaches the use of a piezoelectric ceramic to quickly and accurately determine liquid states of the atomizer, thereby solving the problems of high cost and complex structures in such devices [0042].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the piezoelectric element of Cheng to made of ceramic material to quickly and accurately determine liquid states of the atomizer, thereby solving the problems of high cost and complex structures in such devices [0042] and this merely involves applying a known material to a known piezoelectric element ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 9, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US 20180065160 A1, as cited in IDS dated 11/20/2023) and Huo (CN 107257123 A, as cited in IDS dated 11/20/2023 and hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (CN 108720081 A, as cited in IDS dated 11/20/2023 and hereinafter citations referring to English Machine Translation).
With regard to Claim 9, modified Cheng teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Cheng is silent to:
Wherein the controller is configured to determine a vibration frequency of the vibrable element based on the peak voltage
Liu, directed to an ultrasonic electronic cigarette, teaches wherein a microcontroller analyzes peak to peak voltage and current of an ultrasonic atomizing plate to determine optimal operating conditions, wherein when the peak to peak voltage and current reach their maximum, the corresponding driving frequency is the resonant frequency of the ultrasonic atomizing plate [0039]. One would be motivated to modify the controller of modified Cheng to determine a vibration frequency improve atomization efficiency [0039].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller of modified Cheng to wherein the controller is configured to determine a vibration frequency of the vibrable element based on the peak voltage because both Cheng and Liu are directed to devices using vibration for aerosol generation. Liu teaches a microcontroller that analyzes peak to peak voltage corresponding to resonant frequency of the ultrasonic atomizing plate to improve atomization efficiency [0039] and this merely involves applying a known detection technique to a known controller ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 10, modified Cheng teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Cheng is silent to:
Wherein the controller is further configured to: adjust the vibration frequency of the vibrable element, to keep the vibration frequency the same as or substantially close to a preset frequency
Liu teaches wherein the microcontroller receives voltage and current information to control an oscillation frequency and determine a resonant frequency [0038]. Liu further teaches that the determined resonant frequency is stored by the microcontroller and is used to continuously control the driving frequency of the ultrasonic atomizing plate [0039]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that since the microcontroller continuously adjusts the driving frequency according to the resonant frequency, Liu teaches maintaining the operating frequency at the store resonant frequency. One would be motivated to incorporate Liu’s resonance control into Cheng to improve atomization efficiency while accommodating changes in operating conditions [0011-0012].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller of modified Cheng to adjust the vibration frequency of the vibrable element, to keep the vibration frequency the same as or substantially close to a preset frequency because both Cheng and Liu are directed to devices using vibration for aerosol generation. Liu teaches wherein a resonant frequency is stored by a microcontroller used to continuously control the driving frequency of the ultrasonic atomizing plate to improve atomization efficiency while accommodating changes in operating conditions [0011-0012] and this merely involves applying a known controlling technique to a known aerosol generating device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With regard to Claim 11, modified Cheng teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Cheng is silent to:
Wherein the controller is configured to: use a changing frequency to drive the vibrable element to vibrate, and detect the peak voltage at both terminals of the vibrable element
Determining an optimal resonant frequency of the vibrable element according to a maximum of the peak voltage
Liu teaches (i) wherein the microcontroller analyzes peak to peak voltage and current information of an ultrasonic atomizing plate to control an oscillation frequency of the ultrasonic atomizing plate [0039]. Liu further teaches first and second detection circuits electrically connected to opposite ends of the ultrasonic atomizing plate [0021]. (ii) The microcontroller analyzes detected peak to peak voltage to control an oscillation frequency, wherein the oscillation frequency is adjusted until the resonant frequency of the ultrasonic atomizing plate is determined to maximize atomization effect [0039].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller of modified Cheng to use a changing frequency to drive the vibrable element to vibrate, and detect the peak voltage at both terminals of the vibrable element and determine an optimal resonant frequency of the vibrable element according to a maximum of the peak voltage because both Cheng and Liu are directed to devices using vibration for aerosol generation. Liu teaches a microcontroller that analyzes peak to peak voltage corresponding to an oscillation frequency that determines a resonant frequency of the ultrasonic atomizing plate to improve atomization efficiency [0039] and this merely involves applying a known detection technique to a known controller ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWATOSIN O DIYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 am - 6 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.
/O.O.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights