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
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 09/03/2026.
Claims 1-10 are pending and are subject to this Office Action.
Claims 1-3, 4, 7 and 9-10 are amended.
Claims 11-14 are newly added.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner withdraws the 112 rejections of claims 3-4, 9 and 10 for being indefinite due to amendments to the claims filed 09/03/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 09/03/2026, with respect to the 102 rejection(s) of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 1 has been amended to require that among the first mode to the third mode, the target temperature for the first heater is greatest in the first mode, wherein among the first mode to the third mode, the target temperature for the second heater is greatest in the third mode. Silvestrini teaches that the first heater target temperature is greatest in the first mode but does not explicitly teach that the second heater target temperature is greatest in the third mode. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new obviousness grounds of rejection is made in view of Silvestrini.
On pages 6-7 the Applicant argues that Silvestrini does not appropriately teach the claimed invention. Specifically, the Applicant argues that the compartments of Silvestrini are made for the same material, whereas the claimed invention is intended to have a compartment for a liquid and a compartment for a solid. The Applicant further argues that Silvestrini does not teach does not disclose a profile of the second heater, rather a profile of the second compartment associated with heating from the first compartment and that Silvestrini thus does not appropriately teach determining a target temperature in each control mode or setting different target temperatures for each heater for each control mode.
The Examiner disagrees.
Regarding the difference in materials between the disclosed invention and that of Silvestrini, the Examiner notes that the claims require that the second heater be configured to heat a stick but does not explicitly require the stick or limit the configuration of the stick. Thus, the claimed invention must only meet the functional limitation of being configured for use with any stick located in the insertion space. The Examiner maintains that the device of Silvestrini would be capable of use with a stick, such as with the stick-shaped second compartment 120, and would therefore meet all required limitations.
Regarding the operation of the second heater, Silvestrini teaches that the second heater 136 is controlled by the controller to heat the second compartment with less power than applied to the first heater 106 ([0127]). It would thus be expected that the temperature profiles depicted in Fig. 3 would reflect this power control of the second heater.
The following is a modified rejection based on Applicant’s amendments.
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- 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvestrini et al. (US 20160309784 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Silvestrini teaches an aerosol-generating device (aerosol generating device 102; Fig. 1; [0118]) comprising:
a cartridge (first compartment 118; [0120]) comprising a chamber configured to store liquid;
a first heater (heater 106; [0118]) configured to heat the liquid;
a housing (housing 104; [0118]) shaped to define an insertion space;
a second heater (second heater 136; [0126]) configured to heat a stick (second compartment 120; [0120]) located in the insertion space;
a memory configured to store a plurality of liquid temperature profiles for the first heater and a plurality of stick temperature profiles for the second heater ([0014], [0057], [0127] teach that the control circuitry provides profiles based on a user input. This indicates an inherent memory/storage of the device that stores these profiles); and
a controller (control circuitry 134; [0127]) configured to:
set an operation mode of the aerosol-generating device, wherein the set operation mode is one of a plurality of modes ([0057]; [0127]);
determine a target temperature for the first heater based on a liquid temperature profile corresponding to the set operation mode, wherein the liquid temperature profile is among the plurality of liquid temperature profiles ([0127]);
determine a target temperature for the second heater based on a stick temperature profile corresponding to the set operation mode, wherein the stick temperature profile is among the plurality of stick temperature profiles ([0127]), and
wherein the plurality of modes comprises two or more of a first mode corresponding to the liquid, a second mode corresponding to both the stick and the liquid, or a third mode corresponding to the stick ([0127-0129]),
wherein among the first mode (A; Fig. 3; [0128]) to the third mode (C; Fig. 3; [0128]), the target temperature for the first heater 106 is greatest in the first mode (Fig. 3).
Silvestrini does not explicitly teach that wherein among the first mode to the third mode, the target temperature for the second heater 136 is greatest in the third mode.
However, while Silvestrini provides heating profiles in Fig. 3, Silvestrini teaches that these are merely examples and does not teach that these examples are limiting ([0113]). Silvestrini teaches that the controller provides a controlled power profile different from that of the first heater to the second heater ([0127]). One having ordinary skill in the art would thus recognize that this second heater power profile may vary depending on the type of article inserted and user desired vapor composition.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Silvestrini by adjusting the power of the second heater such that among the first mode to the third mode the target temperature for the second heater is greatest in the third mode as one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would account for different sticks and different desired user settings, and this involves applying a known teaching to a known device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Silvestrini teaches that a first target temperature determined during a heating period based on a first liquid temperature profile corresponding to the first mode (A; Fig. 3; [0128]) is higher than a second target temperature determined during the heating period based on a second liquid temperature profile corresponding to the second mode (B; Fig. 3; [0128]), and wherein the second target temperature is higher than a third target temperature, wherein the third target temperature is based on a third liquid temperature profile corresponding to the third mode (C; Fig. 3; [0128]).
Regarding claim 3, Silvestrini teaches that each of the third target temperature and a fourth target temperature determined in a preheating period prior to the heating period based on the third liquid temperature profile, is maintained constant at a defined temperature ([0128]; it would be expected that a fourth temperature, such as a target temperature of a fourth mode, is maintained at a constant value).
Silvestrini does not explicitly teach a fourth target temperature determined in a preheating period prior to the heating period based on the third liquid temperature profile that is maintained constant at a defined temperature.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Silvestrini would have a fourth temperature, such as a target temperature of a fourth mode, that is maintained at a constant value, as it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill that more device modes may be created to adapt to different aerosol generating components.
Regarding claim 4, Silvestrini teaches that the defined temperature corresponds to a lowest required temperature of the first heater for generation of an aerosol using the liquid (minimum operating temperature; [0128]).
Regarding claim 5, Silvestrini teaches that in the heating period, the controller is configured to: supply first power to the first heater based on the first target temperature ([0128]); and supply second power to the first heater based on the second target temperature ([0128]), the second power being less than the first power (see Fig. 2, A-B).
Regarding claim 6, Silvestrini teaches that in the heating period, the controller is configured to: supply power to the first heater for a first time period based on the first target temperature; and supply power to the first heater for a second time period based on the second target temperature, the second time period being shorter than the first time period ([0128]; see Fig. 2, A-B).
Regarding claim 7, Silvestrini teaches that a first target temperature determined during a heating period based on a first stick temperature profile corresponding to the first mode (D; Fig. 3; [0129]) is higher than a second target temperature determined during the heating period based on a second stick temperature profile corresponding to the second mode (E; Fig. 3; [0129]), and wherein the second target temperature is higher than a third target temperature, wherein the third target temperature is based on a third stick temperature profile corresponding to the third mode (F; Fig. 3; [0129]).
Regarding claim 8, Silvestrini teaches that the first target temperature is maintained constant at a lowest required temperature set for the second heater during the heating period ([0129]).
Regarding claim 9, Silvestrini does not explicitly teach a fourth target temperature determined in a preheating period prior to a heating period based on a first stick temperature profile corresponding to the first mode is higher than a target temperature determined in the preheating period based on any one of a second stick temperature profile or a third stick temperature profile.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Silvestrini would have a fourth temperature, such as a target temperature of a fourth mode that is higher than the target temperature of the second or third stick temperature profiles, as it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill that more modes/heating profiles may be created to adapt to different aerosol generating components.
Claims 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvestrini et al. (US 20160309784 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aoun et al. (US 20220117307 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Silvestrini teaches an interface configured to receive user input (input 107; [0118]); and a memory configured to store data relating to the operation mode ([0127] teaches that control circuitry provides profiles. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this indicates a memory/storage of the device corresponding to data relating to the operation mode), wherein the controller is configured to: update data relating to the operation mode based on change in the operation mode in response to the user input ([0125], [0127]).
Silvestrini does not explicitly teach that the controller is configured to set the operation mode based on the data relating to the operation mode in response to powering on the aerosol-generating device.
Aoun, directed to an aerosol generating device (induction heating assembly 100; [0483]) comprising a cartridge (material 302a; [0539]), a first heater (heating unit 120; [0485]), a housing defining an insertion space, a second heater (heating unit 110; [0485]) to heat a stick (material 302b; [0539]), a memory ([0509]), and a controller ([0509]), teaches that the aerosol generating device may be powered on by a push button and set the operation based on a default mode ([0431]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Silvestrini by adding the powering on functionality and corresponding default mode as taught by Aoun because both Silvestrini and Aoun are directed to aerosol generating devices, Aoun teaches that it is known in the art to provide a default operation mode when powering on, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Silvestrini teaches that the stick 103 may protrude from the insertion space ([0118]). Silvestrini does not teach that the insertion spaced is sized so that a portion of the stick extends from an outer edge of the housing.
Aoun, directed to an aerosol generating device (induction heating assembly 100; [0483]) comprising a cartridge (material 302a; [0539]), a first heater (heating unit 120; [0485]), a housing defining an insertion space, a second heater (heating unit 110; [0485]) to heat a stick (material 302b; [0539]), a memory ([0509]), and a controller ([0509]), teaches that the insertion space may alternatively be sized so that a portion of the stick extends from an outer edge of the housing (Figs. 1-6; [0500], [0577]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Silvestrini by sizing the insertion space such that the article pro a portion of the stick extends from an outer edge of the housing as taught by Aoun because both Silvestrini and Aoun are directed to aerosol generating devices comprising insertion spaces for sticks, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a stick that extends from the body would be easier for a user to remove, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
This modified invention would similarly meet the limitations of claim 13 such that the insertion spaced is sized so that only a partial portion of the stick can be received within the insertion space.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvestrini et al. (US 20160309784 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spencer (US 20190045837 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Silvestrini does not teach that the chamber is positioned between the first heater and the second heater.
Spencer, directed to an aerosol generating device (e-cigarette 10; [0039]) comprising a cartridge (cartridge 30; [0039]) comprising a chamber (reservoir 38; Fig. 1; [0040]) configured to store liquid, a first heater (heater 40; [0040]), a housing (side walls 32; Fig. 2; [0046]) shaped to define an insertion space (access slot or hatch; [0045]), a second heater (heating element 64 of device 25; [0049]) configured to heat a stick (flavorant provider 66 of device 25; [0050]) located in the insertion space, a memory and a controller (circuit board 28 comprises memory 79 and microprocessor 78; [0074]) configured to operate the heating elements, teaches that the chamber may alternatively be positioned between the first heater 40 and the second heater 64 ([0045-0047]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Silvestrini by positioning the chamber between the first heater and the second chamber as taught by Spencer because both Silvestrini and Spencer are directed to aerosol generating devices comprising a chamber, a first heater, and a second heater, Spencer teaches that the chamber may be placed between the first heater and the second heater, and this involves substituting one alternative chamber configuration for another to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, Silvestrini does not teach that the housing is further structured to include the first heater and the cartridge at a location that is separate from the insertion space.
Spencer, directed to an aerosol generating device (e-cigarette 10; [0039]) comprising a cartridge (cartridge 30; [0039]) comprising a chamber (reservoir 38; Fig. 1; [0040]) configured to store liquid, a first heater (heater 40; [0040]), a housing (side walls 32; Fig. 2; [0046]) shaped to define an insertion space (access slot or hatch; [0045]), a second heater (heating element 64 of device 25; [0049]) configured to heat a stick (flavorant provider 66 of device 25; [0050]) located in the insertion space, a memory and a controller (circuit board 28 comprises memory 79 and microprocessor 78; [0074]) configured to operate the heating elements, teaches that the housing 32 is further structured to include the first heater and the cartridge at a location that is separate from the insertion space for easier access and replacement ([0045], [0048]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Silvestrini by structuring the housing to include the first heater and the cartridge at a location that is separate from the insertion space as taught by Spencer because both Silvestrini and Spencer are directed to aerosol generating devices comprising a chamber, a first heater, and a second heater, Spencer teaches that positioning the insertion space separately may make replacement of an inserted article easier, and this involves applying a known teaching to a similar device to yield predictable results.
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 Charlotte Davison whose telephone number is (703)756-5484. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-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, 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.
/C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights