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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. Claims 7-9 are withdrawn. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 07/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korus (US 20210204612 A1, as cited in IDS dated 12/07/2023), and further in view of Liu (US 20200060337 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
579
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 1, Korus, directed to an apparatus for an aerosol generating device, teaches (i) an LC resonant circuit comprising a first node A connected to an inductive element (Fig. 2: #158). A second node B is connected to a second side of the inductive element (Fig. 2: #158, [0069]). The inductive element (Fig. 2: #158) is configured to transfer energy to the susceptor arrangement (Fig. 2: #110, [0054]), such that the susceptor arrangement (Fig. 2: #110) is driven through the electrical path between the nodes A and B. (ii) A capacitor (Fig. 2: #156) is connected in a parallel with the inductive element (Fig. 2: #18) between the nodes first node A and second node B of the LC resonant circuit. The capacitor includes opposite terminal connected to the respective nodes [0069]. (iii) A first choke inductor (Fig. 2: #161) is connected to the first node A.
(iv) The device further comprises a switching arrangement with a first transistor (Fig. 2: M1, [0062]). A drain terminal (Fig. 2: M1-D) of the first transistor is connected to node A [0070]. A source terminal (Fig. 2: M1-S) of the first transistor is connected to earth (Fig. 2: #151). (v) A voltage source (Fig. 2: V2) supplies voltage to the gate terminal (Fig. 2: G) of the first transistor [0071]. (vi) Another voltage source (Fig. 2: V1) is configured to provide a voltage to the inductor (Fig. 2: #161) through the first point (Fig. 2: #159, [0087]). (vii) A resistor (Fig. 2: #163) is connected between the gate (Fig. 2: M1-G) of the first transistor and the gate drove node supplied by V2. Korus teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however Korus is silent to:
A drive circuit comprising: a first electrical contact point that is connectable to a first end of a vibrator and a second electrical contact point that is connectable to a second end of the vibrator
A resistor connected between the gate terminal of the switch and the ground
PNG
media_image2.png
359
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Liu, directed to an oscillation control circuit, teaches (i) an ultrasonic atomization sheet (Fig. 3: J) connected to a first contact (Fig. 3: “A”) and second contact (Fig. 3: “B”). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the susceptor arrangement of Korus for the ultrasonic atomization sheet of Liu as an alternative to achieve a high operating efficiency and low circuit power losses [0005]. (vi) A resistor (Fig. 3: R) is connected between the gate terminal of the transistor (Fig. 3: Q5) and ground. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the arrangement of Korus with a resistor to prevent the device from being damaged by limiting current flow [0015 & 0042].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the drive circuit of modified Korus to comprise a first electrical contact point that is connectable to a first end of a vibrator and a second electrical contact point that is connectable to a second end of the vibrator and a resistor connected between the gate terminal of the switch and the ground because both Korus and Liu are directed to aerosol generating devices using resonant electrical circuits. Liu teaches an ultrasonic atomization sheet connected between first and second contacts and resistor to prevent the device from being damaged by limiting current flow [0015 & 0042] and this merely involves applying a known configuration to a known drive circuit ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
PNG
media_image1.png
579
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 5, Korus teaches a second voltage source (Fig. 2: V2) configured to supply a voltage to the gate terminal of the first transistor (Fig. 2: M1-G, [0071]). The circuit continuously alternates between a first and second state, turning the transistor on and off, based on the voltage supplied by the second voltage source (Fig. 2: V2, [0089]).
With regard to Claim 6, Korus teaches (i) a DC first voltage source (Fig. 2: V1, [0067]), wherein the DC first voltage source (Fig. 2: V1) is configured to direct DC voltage to the inductive element (Fig. 2: #158) through the choke inductor (Fig. 2: #161, [0069]). Modified Korus teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Korus is silent to:
Wherein the second power source is configured to provide a directed current to the first end of the vibrator
PNG
media_image2.png
359
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Liu teaches an ultrasonic vibrator (Fig. 2: J) electrically connected to the power module through a DC boost module (Fig. 2: #4) [0037]. Liu further teaches that the DC boost moule boosts the operate voltage required by the ultrasonic atomization sheet (Fig. 2: J) and outputs the boosted voltage to an excitation module, which drive the ultrasonic atomization sheet (Fig .2: J) to resonate [0038]. It would have been obvious to modify Korus’ substituted ultrasonic vibrator arrangement with the connections of Liu to provide high operating efficiency and lower power loss in the device [0005].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the second power source of modified Korus to be configured to provide a directed current to the first end of the vibrator because both Korus and Liu are directed to aerosol generating devices using resonant electrical circuits for aerosol generation. Liu teaches an ultrasonic vibrator receiving DC voltage to provide a higher operating efficiency and lower power loss in the device [0005] and this merely involves simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korus (US 20210204612 A1, as cited in IDS dated 12/07/2023) and Liu (US 20200060337 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Biedelman (US 20220183390 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
579
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to Claim 2, Korus teaches (i) a first point (Fig. 2: #159) electrically connected through a first choke inductor (Fig. 2: #161) to the first node A, wherein the first node A is connected to a first end of the inductive element (Fig. 2: #158, [0066-0071]). (ii) A second end of the choke inductor (Fig. 2: #161) is connected to the first node A, and first node A is electrically connected to the drain terminal of the first transistor (Fig. 2: M1-D, [0067-0071]). Modified Korus teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Korus is silent to:
One or more matching inductors connected in parallel between the first electrical point and the first end of the inductor
Beidelman, directed to an aerosol provision device, teaches implementing resonant inducing heating circuits using a parallel resonant circuit to act as a current multiplier to improve induction heating efficiency [0077]. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the configuration of the matching inductor of modified Korus to be in a parallel arrangement relative to its connection to improve heating induction efficiency [0077] while preserving Korus’ resonant circuitry [0077].
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the inductors of modified Korus to wherein one or more inductors are connected in parallel between the first electrical point and the first end of the inductor because both Korus and Beidelman are directed to LC resonant circuits. Korus teaches a parallel configuration of a resonant circuit to improve induction heating efficiency [0077] and this merely involves applying a known configuration to a known circuit ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korus (US 20210204612 A1, as cited in IDS dated 12/07/2023) and Liu (US 20200060337 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qiao (US 7920833 B2).
With regard to Claim 3, modified Korus teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Korus is silent to:
A switch connected between the first end of the one or more capacitors and the first electrical contact point, or between the second end of one or more capacitors and the second electrical contact point
PNG
media_image3.png
450
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Qiao, directed to a radio with a resonant transmit/receive switch teaches an LC resonant circuit comprising a switching device (Fig. 1: #112) connected between a left circuit node and a first end of a capacitor (Fig. 1: #110, Col. 2: Lines 59-62). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the circuit of Korus by positioning a switch connected between an end of the capacitor and electrical contact point to reduce voltage imposed on the switch (Col. 1, Lines 31-36).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the circuit of modified Korus to wherein a switch is connected between the first end of the one or more capacitors and the first electrical contact point, or between the second end of one or more capacitors and the second electrical contact point because both Korus and Qiao are directed to drive circuits using switches to control resonant operation. Qiao teaches a switch connected between a node and first capacitor to control resonance enablement or disablement, thus reducing voltage stress imposed on the switch (Col. 1, Lines 31-36) and this merely involves applying a known switch placement technique to a known circuit ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korus (US 20210204612 A1, as cited in IDS dated 12/07/2023), Liu (US 20200060337 A1), and Biedelman (US 20220183390 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Morsy (US 20030105399 A1).
With regard to Claim 4, modified Korus teaches all the limitations of the claims as set forth above, however modified Korus is silent to:
A switch connected in parallel with the one or more matching inductors
PNG
media_image4.png
192
325
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Morsy, directed to an apparatus for optimizing piezoelectric elements, teaches a switch (Fig. 6: #44) connected in parallel with an inductor (Fig. 6: #42), such that the switch selectively bypasses the inductor to alter the impedance of the circuit [0020]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the inductor (Fig. 6: #42) to function as a matching inductor because it provides different impedance values to optimize the device [0020], serving the same function as a matching inductor.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the switch of modified Korus to wherein a switch is connected in parallel with the one or more matching inductors because both Korus and Morsy are directed to drive circuits that use inductive components to transfer electrical energy. Morsy teaches a switch in parallel with an inductor to provide different impedance values to optimize the device [0020] and this merely involves applying a known circuit configuration technique to a known drive circuit ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWATOSIN O DIYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 am - 6 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.
/O.O.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights