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 .
Priority
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5–9, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (WO 2021/246646 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches an aerosol generating device (externally heated aerosol generating device 10) comprising:
a heater assembly (heater 130) configured to perform induction heating of a cigarette (cigarette 200) accommodated in the aerosol generating device by using a susceptor (susceptor included in cigarette 200) (¶ [59]);
a cigarette detector (first inductance channels 910 and 930 and second inductance channel 920) comprising a plurality of inductance detection channels (inductance channels 910, 920, and 930) comprising a plurality of cigarette detection channels (first inductance channels 910 and 930) configured to detect insertion of the cigarette and an error detection channel (second inductance channel 920) configured to detect an external approach of a magnetic body to the aerosol generating device (¶ [152]);
a controller (controller 110) configured to determine whether the cigarette is inserted into the aerosol generating device or the magnetic body has externally approached the aerosol generating device, based on a degree of an inductance change detected by the cigarette detection channels relative to an inductance change detected by the error detection channel (controller 110 determining whether to start power supply to heater 130 based on the first-channel change relative to the second-channel change to distinguish cigarette insertion from external magnetic-substance approach) (¶ [137]).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of inductance detection channels (first inductance channels 910 and 930 and second inductance channel 920) are arranged in a row outside the susceptor (heater 130/susceptor region) along a length direction of the susceptor (¶ [149]; Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 5, wherein the error detection channel (second inductance channel 920) is arranged between the cigarette detection channels (first inductance channels 910 and 930) and is shorter than a length of the susceptor (heater 130/susceptor region) (¶ [131]; Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 6, wherein the error detection channel (second inductance channel 920) is blocked from detecting an inductance change inside the susceptor (heater 130/cigarette insertion space 160) by shielding of the susceptor (¶ [132]), and detects an inductance change caused by the external approach of the magnetic body (external magnetic substance detected by second inductance channel 920 from outside the device) (¶ [154]).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 5, wherein the cigarette detection channels (first inductance channels 910 and 930) extend further than the susceptor (heater 130/susceptor region) in the length direction (Fig. 11), and when the cigarette (cigarette 200) is inserted, each of the cigarette detection channels detects an inductance change caused by an electromagnetic inductor included in the inserted cigarette (metal foil of cigarette 200 affecting magnetic flux/current frequency) (¶ [149]).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the controller (controller 110) is further configured to control the heater assembly (heater 130) to start induction heating of the cigarette (cigarette 200) when it is determined that the cigarette is inserted into the aerosol generating device, and prevent the induction heating from starting when it is determined that the magnetic body (external magnetic substance) has externally approached the aerosol generating device (¶ [137]).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches a control method of an aerosol generating device (method performed by externally heated aerosol generating device 10), the method comprising:
detecting an inductance change, by a cigarette detector (first direction inductance channels 910 and 930 and second direction inductance channel 920) comprising a plurality of inductance detection channels (inductance channels 910, 920, and 930) comprising a plurality of cigarette detection channels (first direction inductance channels 910 and 930) configured to detect insertion of a cigarette (cigarette 200) and an error detection channel (second direction inductance channel 920) configured to detect an external approach of a magnetic body (external magnetic substance) to an aerosol generating device (¶ [166]);
determining whether the cigarette is inserted into the aerosol generating device or the magnetic body has externally approached the aerosol generating device (controller 110 determining whether cigarette 200 is inserted or an external magnetic substance has approached based on first-direction and second-direction channel changes), based on a degree of an inductance change detected by the cigarette detection channels relative to an inductance change detected by the error detection channel (¶ [168]).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising controlling the heater assembly (heater 130) to start induction heating of the cigarette (cigarette 200) when it is determined that the cigarette is inserted into the aerosol generating device, wherein the induction heating is not started when it is determined that the magnetic body (external magnetic substance) has externally approached the aerosol generating device (¶ [168]).
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.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2021/246646 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 1, wherein the controller (controller 110) determines whether the cigarette is inserted or the magnetic body has externally approached based on an inductance change detected by each of the cigarette detection channels (changes detected by first inductance channels 910 and 930) and the inductance change detected by the error detection channel (change detected by second inductance channel 920) (¶ [137]).
Kim does not expressly teach that the controller performs the determining based on a degree of difference between an inductance change detected by each of the cigarette detection channels and the inductance change detected by the error detection channel (degree of difference between each first inductance channel 910/930 and second inductance channel 920).
However, Kim teaches using first inductance channels (first inductance channels 910 and 930) and a second inductance channel (second inductance channel 920) to distinguish insertion of the cigarette from approach of an external magnetic substance, because Kim teaches starting power supply to heater 130 when the first-channel change exceeds a first reference value and the second-channel change is less than a second reference value, and maintaining a state in which power is not supplied to heater 130 when an external magnetic substance causes changes in both the first and second inductance channels (¶ [137]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Kim’s controller 110 to compare the inductance change detected by each first inductance channel 910/930 with the inductance change detected by second inductance channel 920, because such comparison is a predictable implementation of Kim’s disclosed relative channel determination for distinguishing cigarette insertion from external magnetic-substance approach.
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the determining (controller 110 determining whether to start power supply to heater 130) is performed based on an inductance change detected by each of the cigarette detection channels (changes detected by first direction inductance channels 910 and 930) and the inductance change detected by the error detection channel (change detected by second direction inductance channel 920) (¶ [168]).
Kim does not expressly teach that the determining is performed based on a difference between an inductance change detected by each of the cigarette detection channels and the inductance change detected by the error detection channel (difference between each first direction inductance channel 910/930 and second direction inductance channel 920).
However, Kim teaches using first direction inductance channels (first direction inductance channels 910 and 930) and a second direction inductance channel (second direction inductance channel 920) to determine whether the cigarette is inserted or an external magnetic substance has approached, because Kim teaches starting power supply to heater 130 when the amount of change detected through the second direction inductance channel is less than a second reference value, and not starting power supply to heater 130 when the amount of change detected through the second direction inductance channel is greater than or equal to the second reference value (¶ [168]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform Kim’s determining step by comparing the inductance change detected by each first direction inductance channel 910/930 with the inductance change detected by second direction inductance channel 920, because using a difference between the channel changes is a predictable comparison of the same measured values to implement Kim’s disclosed determination.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2021/246646 A1) in view of Hansen et al. (US 2018/0348393 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 2, wherein the plurality of cigarette detection channels include a first cigarette detection channel and a second cigarette detection channel (first inductance channels 910 and 930) (¶ [152]).
Kim teaches the controller (controller 110) is configured to perform the determining using an inductance change detected by the first cigarette detection channel (change detected by first inductance channel 910), an inductance change detected by the second cigarette detection channel (change detected by first inductance channel 930), and an inductance change detected by the error detection channel (change detected by second inductance channel 920) (¶ [137]).
Kim does not expressly teach comparing a sum of a first difference and a second difference with a predetermined threshold value (combined-difference threshold comparison).
Hansen is reasonably pertinent to applicant’s stated problem of preventing malfunction caused by wrongly recognizing an external object as a cigarette because Hansen addresses determining whether a magnetic object is nearby using plural magnetic sensors while accounting for background magnetic-field changes. Hansen teaches that a threshold may be set large enough to ignore changes caused by background magnetic-field variation, but small enough that changes caused by movement of a magnetic object are larger than the threshold (¶ [0067]).
Hansen teaches combining differences from plural magnetic sensors (combined differences from DNV sensors 510) and determining that a magnetic object is present (magnetic object 525 is present) when the combined differences (combined sensor differences) are greater than a threshold amount (threshold amount) (¶ [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s controller 110 to compare a sum of the first and second channel differences with a predetermined threshold value, as taught by Hansen, because Kim already uses plural inductance channels 910, 920, and 930 to distinguish cigarette insertion from an external magnetic substance, and Hansen teaches a known combined-difference thresholding technique for determining magnetic-object presence using plural magnetic sensor outputs. The modification would have predictably used Kim’s existing channel-response data to improve discrimination between true cigarette insertion and external magnetic-body effects.
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the aerosol generating device of claim 3, wherein the controller (controller 110) is further configured to determine that the cigarette is inserted into the aerosol generating device (cigarette 200 inserted into cigarette insertion space 160) when the detected channel responses indicate cigarette insertion, and determine that the magnetic body has externally approached the aerosol generating device (external magnetic substance adjacent to aerosol generating device 10) when the detected channel responses indicate external magnetic-substance approach (¶ [137]).
Kim does not expressly teach performing the determination based on whether the sum of the first difference and the second difference (combined first-channel/error-channel and second-channel/error-channel differences) is equal to or greater than, or less than, the predetermined threshold value (threshold amount).
Hansen is reasonably pertinent to applicant’s stated problem of preventing malfunction caused by wrongly recognizing an external object as a cigarette because Hansen addresses determining whether a magnetic object is nearby using plural magnetic sensors while accounting for background magnetic-field changes. Hansen teaches that a threshold may be set large enough to ignore changes caused by background magnetic-field variation, but small enough that changes caused by movement of a magnetic object are larger than the threshold (¶ [0067]).
Hansen teaches determining whether a magnetic object is present (magnetic object 525 is present) based on whether combined differences from plural magnetic sensors (combined differences from DNV sensors 510) are greater than a threshold amount (threshold amount) (¶ [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s controller 110 to use Hansen’s combined-difference threshold comparison to determine whether cigarette 200 is inserted or an external magnetic substance has approached, because Kim already makes the same insertion/external-magnetic-substance determination from plural inductance-channel responses, and Hansen teaches a known threshold-based combined-difference technique for determining magnetic-object presence using plural magnetic sensor outputs. The modification would have been the application of a known multi-sensor magnetic detection technique to Kim’s known multi-channel inductance detector to obtain predictable threshold-based discrimination.
Claims 10–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2021/246646 A1) in view of Courbat et al. (US 2021/0378311 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches an aerosol generating device (externally heated aerosol generating device 10) comprising:
a heater assembly (heater 130) configured to heat a cigarette (cigarette 200) accommodated in the aerosol generating device (¶ [128]);
a cigarette detector (first inductance channels 910 and 930 and second inductance channel 920) comprising a plurality of inductance detection channels (inductance channels 910, 920, and 930) comprising a plurality of cigarette detection channels (first inductance channels 910 and 930) configured to detect insertion of the cigarette and an error detection channel (second inductance channel 920) configured to detect an external approach of a magnetic body to the aerosol generating device (¶ [152]);
a controller (controller 110) configured to determine whether the cigarette is inserted into the aerosol generating device or the magnetic body has externally approached the aerosol generating device, based on a degree of an inductance change detected by the cigarette detection channels relative to an inductance change detected by the error detection channel (controller 110 using first inductance channels 910/930 and second inductance channel 920 to distinguish cigarette insertion from external magnetic-substance approach) (¶ [137]).
Kim does not expressly teach a shielding material arranged outside the heater assembly and configured to block a variable magnetic field (separate shielding material outside heater 130).
Courbat is in the same field of endeavor because Courbat teaches an aerosol-generating device for inductive heating of an aerosol-forming substrate. Courbat teaches a shielding material arranged outside the heater assembly and configured to block a variable magnetic field (flux concentrator 33 surrounding induction coil 31 and providing a magnetic shielding effect by distorting the alternating magnetic field toward cavity 20) (¶ [0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim’s induction-heating aerosol generating device to include Courbat’s flux concentrator/shielding material outside the heater assembly, because Kim already uses inductance channels to distinguish cigarette insertion from an external magnetic body, and Courbat teaches using a flux concentrator in an inductive aerosol-generating device to shield/direct the alternating magnetic field and reduce undesired magnetic-field effects.
Regarding claim 11, Kim and Courbat teach the aerosol generating device of claim 10 as set forth above. Kim teaches the controller (controller 110) determines whether the cigarette is inserted or the magnetic body has externally approached based on an inductance change detected by each of the cigarette detection channels (changes detected by first inductance channels 910 and 930) and the inductance change detected by the error detection channel (change detected by second inductance channel 920) (¶ [137]).
Kim does not expressly teach that the controller performs the determining based on a degree of difference between an inductance change detected by each of the cigarette detection channels and the inductance change detected by the error detection channel (degree of difference between each first inductance channel 910/930 and second inductance channel 920).
However, Kim teaches using first inductance channels (first inductance channels 910 and 930) and a second inductance channel (second inductance channel 920) to distinguish insertion of the cigarette from approach of an external magnetic substance, because Kim teaches starting power supply to heater 130 when the first-channel change exceeds a first reference value and the second-channel change is less than a second reference value, and maintaining a state in which power is not supplied to heater 130 when an external magnetic substance causes changes in both the first and second inductance channels (¶ [137]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Kim’s controller 110, in the device as modified by Courbat, to compare the inductance change detected by each first inductance channel 910/930 with the inductance change detected by second inductance channel 920, because such comparison is a predictable implementation of Kim’s disclosed relative channel determination for distinguishing cigarette insertion from external magnetic-substance approach.
Regarding claim 12, Kim and Courbat teach the aerosol generating device of claim 10 as set forth above. Kim teaches the plurality of inductance detection channels are arranged in a row along a length direction of the aerosol generating device (first inductance channel 910, second inductance channel 920, and first inductance channel 930 arranged along cigarette insertion space 160) (¶ [152]).
Kim teaches the shielding material is arranged inside the error detection channel (shielding region provided by heater 130 positioned inside second inductance channel 920) because Kim teaches second inductance channel 920 is shielded by heater 130 so that, even when a magnetic substance is inserted into cigarette insertion space 160, the frequency/current through second inductance channel 920 does not change (¶ [132]).
Kim teaches each of the cigarette detection channels are arranged to extend further than the shielding material in the length direction to detect an inductance change caused by an electromagnetic inductor included in the cigarette (first inductance channels 910 and 930 extending beyond the shielded/heater region and detecting metal foil of cigarette 200 affecting magnetic flux/current frequency) (¶ [149]; Fig. 11).
Kim does not expressly teach the shielding structure of claim 12 as a separate shielding material (separate shielding material).
Courbat teaches a separate shielding material (flux concentrator 33) configured to provide magnetic shielding in an inductive aerosol-generating device (¶ [0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Courbat’s flux concentrator/shielding material in Kim’s shielded error-channel arrangement so that the shielding material is positioned in the shielding region inside Kim’s second inductance channel 920, because Kim already teaches shielding the error channel from cigarette-insertion effects, and Courbat teaches a known shielding material for controlling the magnetic field in an inductive aerosol-generating device.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1–15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,495,833 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims recite an aerosol-generating device using first and second inductance channels to distinguish cigarette insertion from external magnetic-substance approach and to control heater operation accordingly.
Claim 1 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from patented claims 1 and 2. Patented claim 1 recites an aerosol generating device including a heater configured to generate an aerosol by heating a cigarette, a cigarette insertion space, a first inductance channel in which a frequency of current is changeable by an object inserted into the cigarette insertion space, a second inductance channel in which a frequency of current is changeable when an external magnetic substance approaches the aerosol generating device, and a controller using information received from the first and second inductance channels. Patented claim 2 further recites that the first inductance channel includes two or more inductors. The first inductance channel having two or more inductors renders obvious the claimed plurality of cigarette detection channels, and the second inductance channel renders obvious the claimed error detection channel configured to detect external approach of a magnetic body.
Claim 2 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from patented claim 1. Patented claim 1 recites controller operation based on an amount of change in the frequency of current flowing through the first inductance channel and an amount of change in the frequency of current flowing through the second inductance channel. Determining based on a degree of difference between cigarette-detection-channel changes and the error-detection-channel change is an obvious variation of the patented controller logic using the respective first-channel and second-channel frequency-change information.
Claim 3 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from patented claims 1 and 2. Patented claim 2 recites two or more inductors in the first inductance channel, and patented claim 1 recites a second inductance channel changed when an external magnetic substance approaches the aerosol generating device. The two or more inductors in the first inductance channel render obvious first and second cigarette detection channels, and using the second inductance channel as the error channel renders obvious comparing the respective first-channel and second-channel changes relative to the second/error channel to determine cigarette insertion versus external magnetic-substance approach.
Claim 4 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from patented claim 1. Patented claim 1 recites starting heater power when the first-channel change exceeds a first reference value and the second-channel change is less than a second reference value, and preventing heater power when the second-channel change is equal to or exceeds the second reference value. The claimed determination based on whether the sum of first and second differences is above or below a predetermined threshold is an obvious variation of the patented threshold-based controller logic for distinguishing cigarette insertion from external magnetic-substance approach.
Claim 5 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from patented claims 7 and 8. Patented claim 7 recites that the cigarette insertion space is recessed in a cylindrical shape and that the first inductance channel and the second inductance channel are arranged in shapes surrounding an outer circumferential surface of the cigarette insertion space. Patented claim 8 further recites that the heater is a susceptor. Arranging the inductance detection channels outside the susceptor along the length direction of the susceptor is an obvious variation of arranging the first and second inductance channels around the cigarette insertion space and relative to the susceptor heater.
Claim 6 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from patented claim 4. Patented claim 4 recites that the inductors of the first inductance channel are spaced apart from each other on the basis of the second inductance channel. This renders obvious arranging the second/error inductance channel between the first-channel cigarette-detection inductors. The relative channel arrangement further renders obvious the error detection channel being shorter than the susceptor.
Claim 7 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from patented claims 1, 11, and 18. Patented claim 11 recites a second inductance channel shielded by the heater so that the frequency of current flowing through the second inductance channel is not changed by an object inserted into the cigarette insertion space. Patented claim 18 further recites that the heater is a susceptor. Patented claim 1 recites that the second inductance channel is changed when an external magnetic substance approaches the aerosol generating device. These claims render obvious an error detection channel blocked from detecting an inside-susceptor inductance change by shielding of the susceptor, while detecting an inductance change caused by external approach of the magnetic body.
Claim 8 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from patented claims 1, 2, and 8. Patented claim 1 recites a first inductance channel in which the frequency of current is changeable by an object inserted into the cigarette insertion space. Patented claim 2 recites that the first inductance channel includes two or more inductors. Patented claim 8 recites that the heater is a susceptor. Arranging the cigarette detection channels to extend farther than the susceptor in the length direction so as to detect an inductance change caused by an object/electromagnetic inductor included in the inserted cigarette is an obvious variation of the patented first-channel inductor arrangement.
Claim 9 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from patented claim 1. Patented claim 1 recites controlling power supply to the heater to be started when the first-channel frequency-change amount exceeds a first reference value and the second-channel frequency-change amount is less than a second reference value, and controlling the power supply to the heater not to be started when the second-channel frequency-change amount is equal to or exceeds the second reference value.
Claim 10 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from patented claims 11, 12, and 18. Patented claim 11 recites an aerosol generating device including a heater, a cigarette insertion space, a first inductance channel changed by an object inserted into the cigarette insertion space, a second inductance channel shielded by the heater so that the frequency of current flowing through the second inductance channel is not changed by the inserted object, and a controller using information from the first and second inductance channels. Patented claim 12 recites that the first inductance channel includes two or more inductors. Patented claim 18 recites that the heater is a susceptor. The patented first inductance channel having two or more inductors renders obvious the claimed plurality of cigarette detection channels, and the patented second shielded inductance channel renders obvious the claimed error detection channel and shielding arrangement for blocking a variable magnetic field.
Claim 11 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from patented claim 11. Patented claim 11 recites controller operation using information received from the first inductance channel and the second inductance channel. Determining based on a degree of difference between the cigarette detection channel change and the error detection channel change is an obvious variation of using first-channel and second-channel information to control heater operation.
Claim 12 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from patented claims 11, 17, and 18. Patented claim 17 recites that the cigarette insertion space is recessed in a cylindrical shape and that the first and second inductance channels are arranged in shapes surrounding an outer circumferential surface of the cigarette insertion space. Patented claim 11 recites the second inductance channel shielded by the heater so that it is not changed by the inserted object, and patented claim 18 recites that the heater is a susceptor. These claims render obvious arranging the inductance detection channels along the device length, arranging the shielding/susceptor relative to the second/error detection channel, and arranging the first/cigarette detection channels to detect an inductance change caused by an inserted cigarette.
Claim 13 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from patented claim 1. Claim 13 recites method steps corresponding to the controller operations of patented claim 1 for using first and second inductance-channel information to distinguish cigarette insertion from external magnetic-substance approach.
Claim 14 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from patented claim 1. Patented claim 1 recites using first-channel and second-channel frequency-change information to determine whether heater power is started or prevented. Determining based on a difference between the cigarette detection channel change and the error detection channel change is an obvious variation of the patented controller operation.
Claim 15 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from patented claim 1. Patented claim 1 recites starting heater power when cigarette insertion is detected and preventing heater power when external magnetic-substance approach is detected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jung is pertinent because it is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application and addresses the same general problem of preventing false cigarette/article detection in an aerosol-generating device. Jung teaches an aerosol-generating device including a heater, an inductance sensor, and a controller for determining whether an aerosol-generating article is inserted based on inductance sensing. Jung (WO2021157841) also recognizes that a conventional cigarette detection method based only on inductance may falsely determine that a cigarette is inserted when an external ferromagnetic material is near the aerosol-generating device (¶ [3]). Jung further teaches using a plurality of inductance sensors 122 spaced apart in the insertion direction (¶¶ [88]–[89]) and determining insertion based on a difference value between respective inductance values measured by the plurality of inductance sensors (¶ [92]).
Melcher (US 2011/0295505 A1) is pertinent because it teaches interference-compensated contactless sensing, including inductive sensor systems, using multiple measuring channels and differential processing to suppress far-field interference. Melcher teaches first and second measuring channels (¶ [0014]), a main subtractor outputting a difference between the measuring-channel signals (¶ [0015]), and sensor elements/measurement channels exposed to far-field interference substantially to the same extent so that interference signals are eliminated by differential processing (¶ [0018]). Melcher is relevant to the instant application’s concern with external magnetic/electromagnetic interference affecting inductance-based detection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER KESSIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at (571) 270-3882. 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.
/JENNIFER A KESSIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights