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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they do not use the abbreviation “FIG.” as required by 37 CFR 1.84(u)(1) despite the presence of multiple views. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitation “and the antenna and the antenna cover are formed by insert molding,” which is considered to be a limitation regarding the process by which the claimed components are made. The determination of patentability is based upon the product or apparatus structure itself. Patentability does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP § 2113 I. Therefore, for the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required only the claimed components since no evidence has been made of record that formation method results in a difference in structure.
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 1-11 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what structures meet the claim limitation of “semi-exterior portion.” Does this mean a portion that is partially exposed to the outside, a portion that is located behind another component that can be removed, or a portion that is exposed in some embodiments but not in others? The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as if it required any surface.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “sensor” is used by the claim to mean “a transmitter, receiver, and output interface that pass along an electric signal that was sensed from an antenna ([100]-[104]),” while the accepted meaning is “a device that responds to a physical stimulus and transmits a resulting impulse.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required the antenna to be connected to the controller through electrical circuitry. Claims 2-11 are indefinite by dependence.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear what structure is required by the limitation “a single electrode having a height corresponding to a height of the cartridge.” Does this mean that the single electrode is at the same height as the top of the cartridge, the same height as a point along the cartridge that is a specified distance from the top of the cartridge, or some other arrangement? The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the limitation will be interpreted as if it required the antenna to have at least one electrode.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear what capacitance decrease is required by the limitation “an order of the first range,” “an order of the second range,” and “an order of the third range.” What amount of capacitance is that? Even if the amount of capacitance decreases by a known amount between each of the levels, what amounts are “on the order of” that decrease? The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as if it required the capacitance to decrease between the first and second level and between the second and third level.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear what is required by the limitations “when power is on” and “when power is off.” Does this mean that there is no power to any component of the device? If so, the capacitor could not function since the capacitor must be connected to some power source to provide a capacitance measurement. Does it require that power be provided to some parts of the device but not others? The claim is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of this Office action, the claim will be interpreted as requiring the cover position sensor to operate when power is supplied to the device.
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.
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, 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (WO 2020/149503, English language equivalent US 12,268,246 relied upon) in view of Moloney (US 11,975,138).
Regarding claim 1, Lim discloses an aerosol generating device (abstract) having an upper device portion (figure 10, reference numeral 10) and a lower device portion (column 14, lines 27-30, figure 10, reference numeral 20), which are considered together to meet the claim limitation of a main body. The upper device portion accommodates a cartomizer (column 14, lines 31-38, figure 10, reference numeral 110), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a cartridge, having electrodes that are mounted on an inner surface an accommodation space that accommodates the cartomizer (column 5, lines 32-48), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a semi-exterior portion. The upper device portion also includes an accommodation portion for a cigarette (column 14, lines 39-49, figure 10, reference numeral 12). The upper device portion has electrodes that contact an outside of the cartridge (column 5, lines 25-31, figure 10, reference numeral 120), which are considered to meet the claim limitation of a sensor. The capacitance of a pair of electrodes is measured by a sensor that applies a current to the electrodes using wires (column 6, lines 8-18, figure 7, reference numeral 130), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of a sensor. A controller receives data from the sensor and determines the remaining amount level of the aerosol generating material in the cartridge (column 12, lines 23-34, figure 8, reference numeral 150). Lim does not explicitly disclose the controller determining whether the cartridge is attached.
Moloney teaches an aerosol generating device that receives an aerosol generating article (abstract) in which a specific capacitance C2 is detected when an article is fully inserted into the device so that the device can transition to a high power state (column 6, lines 6-26).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the capacitive sensing of Lim with the article detection of Moloney to detect when the cartridge is inserted. One would have been motivated to do so since Moloney teaches detecting whether an article is inserted into an aerosol generating device so that the device can transition to a high power state.
Regarding claim 4, one of the electrodes of Lim is considered to meet the claim limitation of a single electrode.
Regarding claim 10, Lim discloses that the cartridge stores an aerosol generating material and has an atomizer that vaporizes the material (column 3, lines 37-44).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (WO 2020/149503, English language equivalent US 12,268,246 relied upon) in view of Moloney (US 11,975,138) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeong (US 11,963,552).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lim does not explicitly teach an antenna cover.
Jeong teaches a heater assembly for a smoking device (abstract) that has an electrode pattern (figure 7, reference numeral 111b) that is covered by and is in contact with a protection layer (column 4, lines 55-59, figure 7, reference numeral 111c). The contact layers protects the electrode pattern from being exposed outward (column 6, lines 8-11).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cover the electrodes of modified Lim with the protection layer of Jeong. One would have been motivated to do so since Jeong teaches a protective layer that prevents an electrode from being exposed.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (WO 2020/149503, English language equivalent US 12,268,246 relied upon) in view of Moloney (US 11,975,138) and Jeong (US 11,963,552) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kleinsteuber (US 654,646).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Jeong additionally teaches that the protective layer is made from a resin (column 6, lines 18-22). However, modified Lim does not explicitly teach the protective layer being a plastic resin.
Kleinsteuber teaches a method of manufacturing resins of a plastic material that is adapted to be molded or shaped to a desired form (page 1, lines 12-24).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the plastic resin of Kleinsteuber as the resin of modified Lim. One would have been motivated to do so since Kleinsteuber teaches a resin that can be molded or shaped to a desired shape.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (WO 2020/149503, English language equivalent US 12,268,246 relied upon) in view of Moloney (US 11,975,138) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Dahlmann (US 11,406,135).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Lim does not explicitly teach measuring the liquid level with a single electrode.
Dahlmann teaches a vaporizing device (abstract) having an electrical conductor element that is arranged outside of a liquid reservoir to form a capacitor electrode and an electrical conductor within the liquid itself so that the liquid forms a second electrode so that the fluid level can be detected (column 7, lines 27-44). A control unit receives a signal from the fluid level sensor (column 4, lines 34-67, column 5, lines 1-5), indicating that the control unit both activates and receives data from the single electrode. Dahlmann additionally teaches that this arrangement can detect multiple thresholds of liquid level in the reservoir (column 4, lines 34-67, column 5, lines 1-5).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the pairs of electrodes of modified Lim for the single electrode of Dhalmann. One would have been motivated to do so since both Lim and Dahlmann teach arrangements that measure liquid level by capacitance. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See MPEP § 2143, B.
Regarding claim 6, Dahlmann teaches that the electrical capacity of the capacitor changes based on the fluid level and corresponds to a liquid level (column 5, lines 51-67, column 6, lines 1-41), which is considered to meet the claim limitation of calculating.
Regarding claim 7, Moloney teaches an aerosol generating device that receives an aerosol generating article (abstract) in which a specific capacitance C2 is detected when an article is fully inserted into the device so that the device can transition to a high power state (column 6, lines 6-26). It is evident that the absence of the article is determined when the capacitance falls below the value C2.
Regarding claim 8, modified Lim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Lim additionally discloses three aerosol generating material remaining amount thresholds (column 7, lines 36-54). The capacitance bands between the three thresholds are considered to meet the claim limitations of first and second ranges, and the third range is defined by capacitances below the third threshold C3. Dahlmann additionally teaches that this arrangement can detect multiple thresholds of liquid level in the reservoir (column 4, lines 34-67, column 5, lines 1-5). Modified Lim does not explicitly teach a single electrode being used to measure three thresholds.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the thresholds of Lim with the single electrode of modified Lim. One would have been motivated to do since Lim discloses using three thresholds.
Regarding claim 9, Lim discloses that the capacitance decreases as the remaining amount decreases (column 7, lines 65-67, column 8, lines 1-12).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (WO 2020/149503, English language equivalent US 12,268,246 relied upon) in view of Moloney (US 11,975,138) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jovanov (US 11,622,717).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lim teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Lim additionally discloses that the device has an upper case (column 14, lines 27-30, figure 10, reference numeral 30), which is considered to meet the claim limitation cover. The upper case is coupled to the upper device portion and is evidently removable since it covers the removable cartridge (column 15, lines 12-20). Modified Lim does not explicitly teach a capacitive sensor determining the cover location.
Jovanov teaches a smart object (abstract) having a lid that is monitored by a capacitive sensor that determines whether the lid is attached to the object or not by measuring corresponding capacitance changes (column 34, lines 14-39) so that it can be determined that a user is likely to begin using the device (column 35, lines 16-22). Jovanov additionally teaches that knowledge that a user is beginning to use the device can be used to trigger activation of the device from a sleep mode in which power consumption is reduced by using a wake up signal (column 20, lines 47-67, column 21, lines 1-19).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of modified Lim with the capacitive lid detection and sleep and wake modes of Jovanov. One would have been motivated to do so since Jovanov teaches reducing power consumption until a user engages with an electronic device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL E SPARKS whose telephone number is (571)270-1426. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Philip Louie can be reached at 571-270-1241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUSSELL E SPARKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights