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 1-15 are pending and are subject to this office action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
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.
(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 1-3 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nicolas (US 20220167682 A1, as cited on IDS dated 05/03/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Nicolas discloses an aerosol generating device (10, Fig. 1, [0084]) comprising:
A receiving region (12, “an accommodation space”) into which an aerosol generating article (14) is inserted (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, [0084]),
A heating element (16, “heater”) for heating the aerosol generating article (14, Fig. 2, [0085]),
A position detector (22, “an insertion detection sensor”) for detecting insertion of the aerosol generating article (14) into the receiving region (12,”accommodation space”, [0087]), and;
A controller (26) configured to control a warning element (28, “output unit”) to generate a warning signal (“notification”) when the position sensor (22, “an insertion detection sensor”) detects the aerosol generating article (14) is in an improper position, such as a partial removal (“moved from the accommodation space”) of the aerosol generating article (14, Fig. 3, [0039, 0088, 0092]),
The generation of a warning signal (“notification”) may be enabled after activating the heating element (16, i.e. the warning signal is generated during a heating operation of the heater) and the heating element (16) remains enabled while the warning signal (“notification”) is generated (i.e. maintains heating operation while the notification is being provided, [0088, 0092-0093]).
Regarding claim 2, Nicolas discloses the warning element (28, “output unit”) comprises one or more of an optical element such as a blinking LED (“a display unit”), a haptic element, and acoustic signal (“sound output”, [0066, 0088]).
Regarding claim 3, Nicolas discloses an embodiment where the position detector (22, “an insertion detection sensor”) is in the form of a proximity sensor which determines the aerosol generating article (14) is in an improper position when a magnetic field generating element (38) in the aerosol generating article (14) is more than a distance threshold from the position detector (22, Fig. 4, Fig. 7, [0096, 0100]). The change in distance is considered to be a change in a sensing value and the distance threshold is considered to be a preset value.
Regarding claim 13, Nicolas discloses a method of operating an aerosol generating device (10, Fig. 1, claim 29, [0068, 0084]) comprising:
Insertion of an aerosol-generating article (14) into a receiving region (12, “an accommodation space”, [0071]),
Heating the aerosol generating article (14) with a heating element (16, “heater”) for Fig. 2, [0085]),
Detecting when the article is in an improper position, such as a partial removal (“moved from the accommodation space”) of the aerosol generating article (14) through a position detector (22, “an insertion detection sensor, claim 29, [0039, 0068-0071, 0087]),
Generate a warning signal (“notification”) through a warning element (28, “output unit”) when the aerosol generating article (14) is in an improper position (Fig. 3, claim 29, [0039, 0068-0071, 0088, 0092]), and;
The generation of a warning signal (“notification”) may be enabled after activating the heating element (16, i.e. detection of article moving is during a heating operation of the heater) and the heating element (16) remains enabled while the warning signal (“notification”) is generated (i.e. maintains heating operation while the notification is being provided, [0088, 0092-0093]).
Regarding claim 14, Nicolas discloses the warning element (28, “output unit”) comprises one or more of an optical element such as a blinking LED (“a display unit”), a haptic element, and acoustic signal (“sound output”, [0066, 0088]).
Regarding claim 15, Nicolas discloses an embodiment where the position detector (22, “an insertion detection sensor”) is in the form of a proximity sensor which determines the aerosol generating article (14) is in an improper position when a magnetic field generating element (38) in the aerosol generating article (14) is more than a distance threshold from the position detector (22, Fig. 4, Fig. 7, [0096, 0100]). The change in distance is considered to be a change in a sensing value and the distance threshold is considered to be a preset value.
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 4 and 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolas (US 20220167682 A1, as cited on IDS dated 05/03/2024) in view of Jung (WO 2021157841 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Nicolas discloses an embodiment where the position detector (22, “an insertion detection sensor”) is in the form of a proximity sensor such as a Hall effect sensor (Fig. 4, Fig. 7, [0096, 0100]).
Nicolas does not explicitly disclose the aerosol generating device comprises a memory in which the preset value is matched for each aerosol generating article.
However, Jung, directed to an aerosol generating article (100, Fig. 1, [38]), discloses:
A marker (220) having magnetic properties provided in an aerosol generating article (200), used for detecting presence and movement of the article (200, Fig. 2, [73]).
The aerosol-generating device (100) may store table information (“a lookup table) matching the type of the marker (220) and the type of the aerosol-generating article (200) in a memory so that the device can determine the type of article ([76]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Nicolas by providing a memory comprising a table matching the type of article with the type of marker as taught by Jung because both Nicolas and Jung are directed to aerosol generating articles, Jung discloses providing a memory matching the type of marker and article so the device can determine different types of articles, and this involves applying a memory to in a similar device to yield predictable results.
Different types of magnetic field generators (Nicolas: 38)/markers (Jung:220) produce varying magnitudes of magnetic field corresponding to the distance threshold (“preset value”). Therefore, the memory comprising a table matching the type of article with the type of marker is considered to be a memory comprising a table in which the preset value is matched for each article.
Regarding claim 12, the Examiner notes claim 12 is directed to an aerosol generating device and therefore the article worked upon by the device (an aerosol generating article) does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP § 2115). In this case, the aerosol generating device (10) disclosed by Nicolas is considered to be capable of being used with an aerosol generating article comprising a thermally conductive material comprising at least one of aluminum, nickel, and iron.
Alternatively, Nicolas discloses an aerosol generating device (10) comprising an aerosol generating article (14) which may comprise a magnetic field generating element (38).
Nicolas does not explicitly disclose the material used for the magnetic field generating element (38).
However, Jung, directed to an aerosol generating article (100, Fig. 1, [38]), discloses:
A marker (220) having magnetic properties provided in an aerosol generating article (200), used for detecting presence and movement of the article (200, Fig. 2, [73]).
The marker (220) is a metal material including aluminum, nickel or iron ([73]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Nicolas by forming the magnetic field generator of aluminum, Nickel, or Iron, as taught by Jung because both Nicolas and Jung are directed to aerosol generating articles, Nicolas discloses a magnetic field generator for detecting the presence of an article in a device but is silent to the materials used, Jung discloses a similar marker having magnetic properties for detecting presence of an article, and one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to similar markers for suitable materials of construction and this involves applying a known material for a magnetic marker to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolas (US 20220167682 A1, as cited on IDS dated 05/03/2024) in view of Kim (WO 2022039378 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Nicolas discloses an embodiment where the position detector (22, “an insertion detection sensor”) is in the form of a proximity sensor which determines the aerosol generating article (14) is in an improper position when a magnetic field generating element (38) in the aerosol generating article (14) is more than a distance threshold from the position detector (22, Fig. 4, Fig. 7, [0096, 0100]).
Nicolas does not explicitly disclose the insertion detection sensor is at least one of an inductive sensor, temperature sensor, or capacitance sensor.
However, Kim, directed to an aerosol generating device (10, Fig. 1, [33]), discloses:
An inductive sensor (150) for detecting the insertion of an aerosol generating article (15) into an accommodation space by detecting a change in inductance as an aerosol generating article (15) comprising a metallic material is inserted into the accommodation space (Fig. 1, [42])
Different aerosol generating articles may comprise different types and amounts of metallic material such that the inductive sensor can also determine the type of aerosol generating article ([51]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Nicolas by substituting the position detection sensor with an inductive sensor and providing a metallic detection material in the article as taught by Kim because both Nicolas and Kim are directed to aerosol generating articles, Nicolas discloses a position detector for detecting insertion of an article but is silent to using an inductive sensor, Kim teaches the inductive sensor detects insertion of the article and also determines the type of article, and this involves substituting one known article insertion sensor for another in a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolas (US 20220167682 A1, as cited on IDS dated 05/03/2024) in view of Kim (WO 2022039378 A1), as applied to claim 5 above, further in view of Mizuguchi (US 20240148076 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses an inductive sensor (150) for detecting the insertion of an aerosol generating article (15) into an accommodation space (Fig. 1, [42])
Kim does not disclose activating the inductive sensor according to a certain period.
However, Mizuguchi, directed to an aerosol generating device (100, Fig. 1, [0030-0032]) discloses:
An insertion detection sensor (current detection IC 151) for detecting insertion and removal of an aerosol generating article (108) in an accommodation space (101A, Fig. 2, Fig. 5, [0046, 0088-0089, 0092-0094]), and;
A continuous use determination process where a controller (118) activates the insertion detection sensor (151, S202), detects removal of the article by the insertion detection sensor detecting a change in inductance (S206) before a predetermined time has elapsed (Fig. 22, [0212-0219])
If the article removal is not detected after the predetermined time has elapsed, the controller (118) deactivates the insertion detection sensor (S210) and switches the device from active to sleep mode ([0219])
The controller (118) activating the sensor for a predetermined time period is considered to be switching the sensor to an activated state according to a certain period.
The process prevents the device from transitioning to sleep mode when a user to replacing the article ([0219])
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Nicolas, in view of Kim, by configuring the controller to perform a continuous use determination process comprising activating the sensor for a predetermined time period as taught by Mizuguchi because both Nicolas and Mizuguchi are directed to aerosol generating articles, Mizuguchi discloses activating the sensor for predetermined time prevents the device from prematurely going into sleep mode, and this involves configuring a controller in a known manner in a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Mizuguchi discloses the controller (118) detects removal of the article by the insertion detection sensor detecting a change in inductance (i.e. change in first inductance is a first threshold value to a second threshold value”, S206) before a predetermined time has elapsed (“according to the certain period”) when the aerosol generating article is inserted (Fig. 22, [0212-0219]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolas (US 20220167682 A1, as cited on IDS dated 05/03/2024) in view of Kim (WO 2022039378 A1) and Mizuguchi (US 20240148076 A1), as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Jung (WO 2021157841 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Mizuguchi discloses the controller (118) detects removal of the article by the insertion detection sensor detecting a change in inductance (i.e. change in first inductance is a first threshold value to a second threshold value”, S206, Fig. 22, [0212-0219]).
Mizuguchi does not explicitly disclose the inductance sensor comprises a first and second channel.
However, Jung, directed to an aerosol generating article (100, Fig. 1, [38]), discloses:
An inductance sensor (122) comprising a first inductance sensor (122-1, “a first channel”) and a second inductance sensor (122-2, “a second channel”) spaced apart from one another (Fig. 3, [92-93]).
Since the first and second inductance sensors (122-1, 122-2) are positioned at different portions of the article (200), the sensors are considered to be detecting a change in inductance caused by distinct portions of the article (200, Fig. 3).
The change in inductance value inductance (i.e. change in first inductance is a first threshold value to a second threshold value”), of the first and second inductance sensors (122-1, 122-2) is different depending on the position of a marker (220) when an aerosol generating article (200) is inserted in a heating chamber (110), which removes noise from the external environment and improves accuracy of the insertion detection (Fig. 3, [92-93]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Nicolas, in view of Kim and Mizuguchi, by proving two inductance sensors/channels as taught by Jung because both Nicolas and Jung are directed to aerosol generating articles, Jung discloses providing two inductance sensors/channels reduces and noise and improves accuracy, and this applying additional sensors in a similar device to yield predictable results.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicolas (US 20220167682 A1, as cited on IDS dated 05/03/2024) in view of Kim (WO 2022039378 A1), and Mizuguchi (US 20240148076 A1), as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Jung (WO 2021157836 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Mizuguchi discloses the controller (118) detects removal of the article by the insertion detection sensor detecting a change in inductance (i.e. change in first inductance is a first threshold value to a second threshold value”, S206, Fig. 22, [0212-0219]).
Mizuguchi does not explicitly disclose the controller is configured to determine the article has been removed when the change in inductance is greater than the second threshold and temporarily stops heating.
However, Jung, directed to an aerosol generating device (1, Fig. 1, [52]), discloses:
A substance detector (451) for detecting an aerosol generating substance inserted into a cavity (15) of an aerosol generating device (1) by detecting a change in inductance (Fig. 1, Fig. , [87, 97-98, 110])
The inductance value decreases (i.e. a change in first inductance from a first threshold value to a second threshold value) as the aerosol generating substance is removed from the cavity ([201])
The controller (410) may detect when the aerosol generating substance is removed from the cavity (S530) when the change in inductance is less than or equal to a pre-set lower-limit threshold value (“greater than a second threshold value”) and automatically stop the heater (S540) for a preset separation time (“grace time”, Fig. 5, [140-144]) and determine when the aerosol generating substance has been reinserted (S1250) and resume heating (S1260, Fig. 12, [219-222]).
The process may reduce unnecessary power consumption ([123]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Nicolas, in view of Kim and Mizuguchi, by configuring the controller to detect removal of the article, temporarily stop the heater, detect reinsertion, and resume heating, as taught by Jung because both Nicolas and Jung are directed to aerosol generating articles, Jung discloses the controller configuration reduces power consumption, and this involves configuring a controller in a known manner in a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Mizuguchi discloses the controller (118) detects removal of the article by the insertion detection sensor detecting a change in inductance (i.e. change in second inductance) before a predetermined time has elapsed (“according to the certain period, Fig. 22, [0212-0219]).
Jung discloses the controller (410) determines when the aerosol generating substance has been reinserted (S1250) when the change in inductance is equal to or greater than the upper-limit threshold value (“third threshold value or more”, Fig. 12, [219-222]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORGAN FAITH DEZENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-0155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-430pm EST.
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.
/M.F.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights