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. DETAILED ACTION 2. This action is responsive to the Application filed on 1 1 / 29 /2023 . A filing date 1 1 / 29 /2023 is acknowledged. A National Stage entry of PCT/ KR2023/000943 and International Filing Date 1/19/2023 is acknowledged. The sought benefit of KR application 10-2022-0007977 (which was filed on 1/19/2022 ) is acknowledged. Claims 1 - 15 are pending in this application. Claim s 1 , 9 are independent claim s . 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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. 3. Claims 1 -15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kentaro Yamada et al (US Publication 20240008554 A1, hereinafter Yamada) , and in view of M arie Farine (US Publication 20200367569 A1, hereinafter Farine ). As for independent claim 1, Yamada discloses: An aerosol-generating device (Yamada: Abstract, An aerosol generating device includes a power supply that supplies electric power to a heating unit, and a control unit that controls the supply of electric power in accordance with a control sequence consisting of sections including a first section and a second section ) comprising: a heater configured to heat at least a portion of an aerosol-generating article (Yamada: [0059], The heating unit 130 is formed by the cylindrical member 130a and the film heater 130b described above, and a Joule heat generated by an electric current flowing through the film heater 130b heats the tobacco stick 15 inserted into the insertion hole 107 via the cylindrical member 130a ) ; and a processor configured to (Yamada: [0041], The control unit 120 can be a processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) or a microcontroller ) control supply of power to the heater according to a [ preheating profile ] comprising a first section and a second section (Yamada: Abstract, An aerosol generating device includes a power supply that supplies electric power to a heating unit, and a control unit that controls the supply of electric power in accordance with a control sequence consisting of sections including a first section and a second section ) , wherein the processor is further configured to: when a time taken for the heater to reach a target temperature in the first section (Yamada: [0053], Letting R.sub.TGT [Ω] be the target value (the resistance value corresponding to the target temperature) of PID control ) is less than or greater than a preset range (Yamada: [0083], the control unit 120 can regard that the temperature index has arrived at the target value in a case in which the temperature index becomes larger than a control threshold R.sub.TGT ′ (=β. Math.R.sub.TGT ) equal to the product of the target value R.sub.TGT and a coefficient β (β is a positive number slightly smaller than 1. For example, β=0.9975) representing an allowable deviation ) , obtain a changed [ preheating profile ] in which a time corresponding to the second section is changed (Yamada: Fig. 9 and [0099], an example of temporal change with the heating profile) ; and supply power to the heater according to the changed [ preheating profile ] (Yamada: [0061], The control unit 120 executes temperature control of the heating unit 130 in accordance with the heating profile as a control sequence defining temporal changes in control conditions for implementing a desired temperature profile ) . Yamada discloses an aerosol generating device including a heating profile including preheating period but does not clearly disclose a preheating profile . I n an analogous art of controlling an aerosol-generating device, Farine clearly disclose: preheating profile ( Farine : [0153], When the device is activated, a preheat profile is applied to heat the heating element to bring the cartridge up to the operating temperature as quickly as possible ); Yamada and Farine are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, controlling an aerosol-generating device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Yamada using the teachings of Farine to include using a preheat profile to heat the heating element. It would provide Yamada’s device with enhanced capabilities of accurately and efficiently control preheating temperature. As for claim 2, Yamada- Farine discloses: when the time taken for the heater to reach the target temperature is less than the preset range, obtain a first changed preheating profile in which a first compensation time is added to a time preset for the second section; and when the time taken for the heater to reach the target temperature is greater than the preset range, obtain a second changed preheating profile in which a second compensation time is added to the time preset for the second section, the second compensation time being longer than the first compensation time (Yamada: [0096], In the temperature profile 40a, the temperature of the heating unit 130 reaches the second temperature H2 at T3a before T4. As a consequence, the residual time (T4-T3a) is added to the time length of the section S4 ) . As for claim 3, Yamada- Farine discloses: wherein a preheating termination temperature according to the first changed preheating profile is equal to a preheating termination temperature according to the second changed preheating profile (Yamada: Abstract, The control unit terminates the first section when the temperature of the heating unit has reached a predetermined temperature and, in a case of terminating the first section earlier than a first time point, continues the second section over a total time of a residual time until the first time point and the second time length ; [0090], The control unit 120 sets the timer at the start of the section S1, and notifies the user of the end of the preheating period if the control unit 120 determines that the time indicated by “Time length” has elapsed ) . As for claim 4, Yamada- Farine discloses: wherein a preheating termination temperature according to the first changed preheating profile is different from a preheating termination temperature according to the second changed preheating profile (Yamada: Abstract, The control unit terminates the first section when the temperature of the heating unit has reached a predetermined temperature and, in a case of terminating the first section earlier than a first time point, continues the second section over a total time of a residual time until the first time point and the second time length ) . As for claim 5, Yamada- Farine discloses: further comprising a memory configured to store compensation time data corresponding to the time taken for the heater to reach the target temperature, wherein the processor is further configured to set the first compensation time or the second compensation time based on the compensation time data obtained from the memory (Yamada: [0041], The storage unit 121 stores one or more computer programs, and various data (for example, profile data 51 describing a heating profile 50) to be used for heating control ) . As for claim 6, Yamada- Farine discloses: wherein the first section comprises a temperature increase section in which a temperature of the heater increases to the target temperature, and a temperature maintaining section in which the temperature of the heater is maintained at the target temperature, and the second section comprises a temperature decrease section in which the temperature of the heater decreases to a preheating termination temperature, and wherein the processor is further configured to: supply power to the heater according to the temperature increase section and the temperature maintaining section during the first section; and supply power to the heater according to the temperature decrease section during the changed second section (Yamada: [0121], the stability of the temperature of the heating unit 130 in the section S4 can be increased by switching the control parameter set to the second control parameter set after the temperature of the heating unit 130 is recovered within a short time ) . As for claim 7, Yamada- Farine discloses: when the time taken for the heater to reach the target temperature is less than the preset range and a first threshold value, or when the time taken for the heater to reach the target temperature is greater than the preset range and a second threshold value, stop supplying power to the heater (Yamada: [0095], the control unit 120 stops causing electric power to be supplied from the battery 140 to the heating unit 130 so that the temperature of the heating unit 130 falls to the second temperature H2 lower than the first temperature H1 ; [0148], if the amount of change in the first temperature index becomes smaller than a threshold value, the control unit 120 determines that a trouble may have occurred in the measurement circuit 150, and stops power supply from the battery 140 to the heating unit 130 ) . As for claim 8, Yamada- Farine discloses: wherein the first threshold value and the second threshold value each indicate the time taken for the heater to reach the target temperature when the heater operates abnormally (Yamada: [0146], The control unit 120 monitors whether there is an abnormality in the operation of the aerosol generating device 10 while performing temperature control in accordance with the heating profile 50 described in the profile data 51. When an abnormality is detected, the control unit 120 stops the supply of electric power from the battery 140 to the heating unit 130 ; [0148], if the amount of change in the first temperature index becomes smaller than a threshold value, the control unit 120 determines that a trouble may have occurred in the measurement circuit 150, and stops power supply from the battery 140 to the heating unit 130 ) . As for claim 9 , it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein. As for claim 10 , it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 2, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 2 are incorporated herein. As for claim 1 1 , it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 3, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 3 are incorporated herein. As for claim 1 2 , it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 4 , thus the rationales for rejecting claim 4 are incorporated herein. As for claim 13, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 5 , thus the rationales for rejecting claim 5 are incorporated herein. As for claim 14, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 6 , thus the rationales for rejecting claim 6 are incorporated herein. As for claim 15, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 7 , thus the rationales for rejecting claim 7 are incorporated herein. Examiner’s Note Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Applicants are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action. Nakaae (US Publication 2024 0108823 ) INHALATION DEVICE, BASE MATERIAL, AND CONTROL METHOD Thorsen (US Publication 20 190166918 ) APPARATUS FOR HEATING SMOKABLE MATERIAL Yu (US Publication 20210298364) ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE CONTROL METHOD, ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE DEVICE, AND COMPUTER STORAGE MEDIUM Robert (US Publication 20200046033) A SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR TEMPERATURE CONTROL IN AN ELECTRICALLY HEATED AEROSOL-GENERATING DEVICE It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck , 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson , 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Lu whose telephone number is 571-270-1410 and fax number is 571-270-2410. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9 : 0 0 am to 6 :00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached on 571-27 2 - 3644 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-273-8300. 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. /H ua L u / Primary Examiner, Art Unit 21 18