DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/28/2025, 1/23/2025, 3/27/2025, and 9/17/2025 were considered by the examiner.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the term “digital recipe” does not have a clear and standard definition in the art, nor does the pending application how a current applied to the object relates to a digital recipe. Paragraph [0049] of corresponding Pg. Pub. US 2025/0082034 teaches wherein “The digital recipe in one embodiment may include a digital taste recipe and a digital flavor recipe, the digital taste recipe may be a method of digitally implementing a predetermined taste, and the digital flavor recipe may be a method of digitally implementing a predetermined flavor.” Paragraph [0189] discusses “As described with reference to FIGS. 1 to 7D, the digital recipe may include a digital taste recipe that is information of a current applied to an object contacting an electronic device. In addition, the digital recipe may include a digital flavor recipe that is information on a method of diffusing flavor of a diffusing flavor cartridge of the electronic device.” However, the scope of the limitation “digital recipe” and what specific protection is sought by the applicant remains unclear.
Claims 2-10 stand rejected for reciting similar subject matter and/or through a dependence on rejected claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0352248 (Yamada).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada teaches a method of controlling an electronic device comprising a processor and a mouthpiece unit (a method of controlling an aerosol generation device 100A having a control circuit 106 configured as a microprocessor and a mouthpiece 122; see [0134]; see Fig. 3), the method comprising:
measuring a voltage of a terminal comprised in the mouthpiece unit; determining an object resistance value corresponding to an object based on the measured voltage (sensor 112 comprises one or more sensors 112 to acquire a value of a voltage applied to a portion of circuit 134 and determine a value related to a resistance value of a load 132; see Figs. 1-3; see [0133]); and
applying a current to the object based on the object resistance value and a predetermined digital recipe (a power supply to the load is stopped if the voltage/resistance is too high, the process proceeds to step 320 and prohibits or stops the power supply to the load unit if the temperature is too hot or the aerosol source is empty; see Fig. 3; see [0174]).
Regarding claim 2, Yamada teaches further comprising: converting the measured voltage into a digital signal, wherein the determining of the object resistance value comprises determining the object resistance value based on the digital signal (the voltage value applied to the load 132 is proportional to the resistance value and the voltage value is output as a digital value; see [0133], [0168]).
Regarding claim 3, Yamada teaches wherein the applying of the current to the object comprises: determining power capable of applying the current corresponding to the digital recipe to the object, based on the object resistance value (the known resistor has such an electric resistance value that only electric power required for heat retention of the load is supplied to the load while a current flows through the second circuit; see [0064], [0225]-[0236]).
Regarding claim 8, Yamada teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 1 (see [0199], [0310]).
Regarding claim 9, Yamada teaches an electronic device (an aerosol generation device 100A; see Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a mouthpiece unit comprising a first terminal and a second terminal and measuring a voltage of the second terminal (mouthpiece 122 comprises a load 132 and measures a voltage at terminals on each side of the load 132; see Fig. 2); and
a processor (a control circuit 106 configured as a microprocessor and a mouthpiece 122; see [0134]; see Fig. 3)configured to:
determine an object resistance value corresponding to an object based on the measured voltage, and apply a current to the object based on the object resistance value and a predetermined digital recipe (a power supply to the load is stopped if the voltage/resistance is too high, the process proceeds to step 320 and prohibits or stops the power supply to the load unit if the temperature is too hot or the aerosol source is empty; see Fig. 3; see [0174]).
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0352248 (Yamada).
Regarding claim 7, Yamada taches a first threshold and a second threshold but fails to explicitly teach further comprising: when a change in the measured voltage exceeds a second voltage threshold value, updating the object resistance value. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a desired number of thresholds, and whether to store the value of the resistance without requiring any undue experimentation or providing any new or unexpected result.
Regarding claim 10, Yamada teaches a shunt resistor connected to a first terminal of load resistor 132 (see Fig. 3) but fails to explicitly teach wherein a resistor is connected to an earthing terminal. The limitation as claimed would be an obvious matter of rearrangement of parts by moving shunt resistor 212 to the other side of the load 132 without requiring any undue experimentation or providing any new or unexpected results.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0352248 (Yamada) in view of US 2020/0384220 (Bruton).
Regarding claim 4, Yamada fails to teach wherein the applying of the current to the object further comprises: applying the power to the mouthpiece unit using a pulse width modulation (PWM) method.
Bruton teaches wherein the applying of the current to the object further comprises: applying the power to the mouthpiece unit using a pulse width modulation (PWM) method (PWM is a control technique for supplying power to heating wires; see [0088], [0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of Bruton into Yamada as PWM is a known method for supplying power to heating wires without providing any new or unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding claim 5, no prior art was identified which further comprising: determining whether the electronic device is in contact with the object based on the measured voltage, wherein the determining of the object resistance value comprises: determining the object resistance value based on the determination that the electronic device is in contact with the object, in combination with all other limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, no prior art was identified which teaches wherein the determining of the contact of the electronic device with the object comprises: when the measured voltage exceeds a first voltage threshold value, determining that the electronic device is in contact with the object, in combination with all other limitations of claims 5 and 6.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights