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 .
Response to Submission
Applicant’s submission filed on 2026 September 8 has been entered. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 11-15 remain withdrawn.
Claims 1-10 are presently examined.
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.
Claim 1: the claim is directed to a device but recites a method of using the device’s display, rather than a capability of the device’s display. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). “A display on which a user interface is displayed” is interpreted as “a display configured to show a user interface” to make the claim examinable.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim (US 20200352244 A1 cited on an IDS).
Claim 1: Lim teaches an aerosol-generating device (fig. 2 and [79], the device generates aerosol) comprising:
a heater ([79], #150) configured to heat an aerosol-generating product (aerosol generating material);
a sensor ([65], #130) configured to detect a user's puff (puff);
a processor (120) electrically connected to the heater (150) and the sensor (130);
and a display ([279], touch panel) configured to show a user interface (the touch panel is a user interface), wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain first remaining puff data ([103-104], the processor can obtain an initial available puff data indicating, e.g., 6 puffs) based on pressure change data (puff data) obtained through the sensor (130);
when the first remaining puff data (initial available puff data) satisfy a preset condition (> 0 initial puffs remain) and a user input ([159], a user inputs to check remaining power, control temperature, clean the device, etc.) is received through the user interface on the display ([279], the input device can be a touch panel), obtain data regarding an inhalation pattern ([103-104], the processor can obtain puff strength and puff interval data) based on the pressure change data (puff data);
change the first remaining puff data (initial available puff data) to second remaining puff data (calculated available puff data indicating, e.g., 5 puffs) based on the data regarding the inhalation pattern (puff strength and puff interval data);
and supply power to the heater (150) based on the second remaining puff data (heating continues based on the calculated available puff data).
Claim 2: Lim teaches the aerosol-generating device of claim 1, wherein the first remaining puff data ([103-104], initial available puff data) and the second remaining puff data (calculated available puff data) comprise a number of remaining puffs.
Claim 3: Lim teaches the aerosol-generating device of claim 1, wherein the processor determines that the preset condition ([103-104], > 0 initial puffs remain) of the first remaining puff data (initial available puff data) is satisfied when a number of remaining puffs (number of initial available puffs) is a preset number of puffs (when a number of initial available puffs is a maximum capacity, e.g., 8 puffs, then the preset condition of [> 0 initial puffs remain] is satisfied).
Claim 4: Lim teaches the aerosol-generating device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: detect whether at least one of the pressure change datums ([103-104], puff strength) is greater than a preset value (puff strength > 0); and when the at least one pressure change datum (puff strength) is greater than the preset value (puff strength > 0), obtain the data regarding the inhalation pattern (puff strength and puff interval data) based on the pressure change data (puff data).
Claim 5: Lim teaches the aerosol-generating device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to obtain the data regarding the inhalation pattern ([103-104], puff strength and puff interval data) based on an accumulated value of a pressure change (the puff strength and puff interval data reflect an accumulated puff strength, i.e., pressure change; for example, if accumulated puff strength is high, then the available puff data will reflect a calculated 5 puffs rather than an initially expected 6 puffs).
Claim 6: Lim teaches the aerosol-generating device of claim 5, wherein the accumulated value of the pressure change is obtained through an arithmetic operation on effective pressure change values ([103-104], the puff strength and puff interval data reflect an accumulated puff strength, i.e., sum of pressure changes), is included in the pressure change data (puff data), and is a negative value (puffing creates a negative pressure differential across the device, so the accumulated puff strength will be negative with respect to the device).
Claim 7: Lim teaches the aerosol-generating device of claim 1, wherein the data regarding the inhalation pattern ([103-104], puff strength and puff interval data) comprises an amount of a pressure change per puff and a puff interval.
Claim 8: Lim teaches the aerosol-generating device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to, when the first remaining puff data ([103-104], initial available puff data) satisfy the preset condition (> 0 initial puffs remain), output the user interface ([279], touch panel’s user interface) through the display (touch panel).
Claim 9: Lim teaches the aerosol-generating device of claim 1, wherein the second remaining puff data ([103-104], calculated available puff data) are obtained by changing a number of additional puffs (for example, if accumulated puff strength is high, then available puff data will be a calculated 5 puffs rather than an initially expected 6 puffs) in the first remaining puff data (initial available puff data).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 20200352244 A1 cited on an IDS) in view of Soriano (US 20190364971 A1).
Claim 10: Lim teaches the aerosol-generating device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to obtain the pressure change data ([103-104], puff data) by performing signal processing ([282], the processor uses conventional electronic techniques such as signal processing) on data output from the sensor (fig. 2 and 65], #130).
Lim does not explicitly teach that the signal processing is digital signal filter processing.
Soriano teaches an aerosol-generating device (title) comprising a processor configured to perform digital signal filter processing ([108], processing through a digital filter), such that the digital filter smooths and filters fluctuations from data [108].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use, as Lim’s generic and conventional signal processing, Soriano’s specific digital signal filter processing, because doing so would smooth and filter fluctuations from Lim’s pressure data.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 2026 September 8 have been carefully considered. Upon further search and consideration necessitated by applicant’s amendments, a new ground of rejection is made for claim 1 over the same reference Lim (US 20200352244 A1).
Applicant argues (p. 10, “First”) that amended claim 1 recites “a sensor configured to detect a user’s puff” and “a user input”, so Lim’s puff cannot read on the user input. However, the new ground of rejection does not rely on a puff to teach a user input.
Applicant argues (p. 10, “Second”) that Lim teaches an LED display that is a one-way output, rather than a display configured to show a user interface. However, [Lim 279] teaches a touch panel user interface that can both display output, such that a user can interface with the touch panel, and receive input by touch.
Applicant argues (p. 11, “Third”) that Lim teaches calculating available puffs on a continuous basis, rather when a preset condition is satisfied and when a user input is received. However, Lim does teach that when a preset condition is satisfied ([Lim 103-104], > 0 initial puffs remain) and a user input is received ([Lim 159], a user inputs to check remaining power, control temperature, clean the device, etc.), a processor can obtain and change puff data ([103-104], puff data) based on data regarding an inhalation pattern (puff strength and puff interval data).
Applicant argues (p. 11, [2]) limitations which are not claimed, e.g., improving processing efficiency. However, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
If applicant intends to argue improved properties, evidence of secondary considerations has no bearing on an anticipation rejection. In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 425 (CCPA 1973). See MPEP 2131.04.
Applicant argues (p. 11, “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103”) that Soriano does not teach a user input received through a display. However, as in the above analysis, Lim teaches a user input received through a display.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tobey C. Le whose telephone number is (703)756-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:30-18:30 ET.
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.
/TOBEY C LE/Examiner, Art Unit 1747
/Michael H. Wilson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights