DETAILED ACTION
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)(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 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Batista (US 2023/0225414).
Regarding claim 1, Batista [Fig, 1-2] teaches aerosol generating device 12 configured to operate with a consumable article 14 defining an external surface [Fig. 1-2]; the aerosol generating device comprising: a housing 16; a cavity formed in the housing and configured to receive at least a part of the consumable article [0085]; a heater 32/34 arranged at least partially in the housing and configured to heat at least a part of the consumable article [0090-0091]; and an LED 40 configured to be at one operational state during a vaping session and to emit light in the operational state, the LED being arranged on the housing 16 so that the light emitted by the LED is directed inwards through translucent retaining element 38 when the LED is at said operational state [0016, 0094-0098]. Thus, in use, given the location of the light at the open end of the cavity, the light is reflected from the external surface of the consumable article 14 to be visible by a user.
Regarding claims 2-3, Batista teaches the housing defines an insertion opening usable to insert at least a part of the consumable article 14 in the cavity, the LED 40 being arranged adjacent to the insertion opening and the LED 40 extends at least partially around the insertion opening [0018, 0028, 0094; Fig. 2].
Regarding claim 5, as seen from Fig. 2 of Batista, as the LED 40 is arranged in a recess within the housing 16 [0094], the LED 40 is arranged to be invisible from an exterior of the housing.
Regarding claims 6-8, the consumable article is not a positively recited limitation. Thus, the limitations of claims 6-8, dependent on the configuration of the article with which the device is intended to be used, do not further limit the structure of the device itself to distinguish from the device of Batista. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2020/0359693).
Batista does not teach a sliding cover. Lee teaches an aerosol generating apparatus comprising a sliding cover 30 arranged on the housing 10 and slidable between a closed position in which the insertion opening 18 is closed and an open position in which the insertion opening is able to receive the consumable article 7 [0073-0075; Fig. 4A-4B]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include this sliding cover with the device of Batista to achieve the predictable result of reducing exposure of the cavity when the device is not in use by covering the opening.
Claims 9-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heidl (US 2019/0289915).
Regarding claims 9-10, Batista teaches a controller configured to control operation of the heater during a vaping session [0034]. Batista does not teach a heating profile chosen in a group of heating profiles comprising at least two different heating profiles or the controller is a controller configured to control the operational state of the LED depending on the heating profile used by the controller during said vaping session, said operational state being chosen in a group of operational states comprising at least two different operational states. Heidl teaches a vaporizer comprising a controller configured to control: operation of the heater during a vaping session according to a heating profile chosen in a group of heating profiles comprising at least two different heating profiles [0045-0047, 0055] and the operational state of the LED depending on the heating profile used by the controller during said vaping session, said operational state being chosen in a group of operational states comprising at least two different operational states, wherein said group of heating profiles comprises a default heating profile and at least one user provided (customized) heating profile [0058, 0068, 0098]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this configuration to the controller of Batista for the benefit of allowing the user to select between different modes of operation and further for an indication to be provided to the user of the selected profile.
Regarding claims 11 and 16, Heidl teaches the at least one customized heating profile is uploaded by a user to the controller using a wireless data connection [0042, 0058]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this configuration to the device of Batista to allow the user to create a customized heating profile remotely.
Regarding claim 12, Heidl teaches a heating profile provides a means for controlling the temperature and therefore controlling the release of the different components at each temperature within the heating profile [0045]. Thus, in Batista in view of Heidl as applied to claim 10 above, it is interpreted that the at least one customized heating profile is chosen depending on a nature of components (a substrate) contained in the consumable article.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batista and Heidl as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Murison (US 20160366946).
Regarding claims 13-14, modified Batista teaches said group of operational states comprises: an emitting state with a first light emitting characteristic [Batista 0036; Heidl 0058, 0068, 0098]. The controller is configured to cause the emitting state with a light emitting characteristic of the LED when any heating profile is used, thus the emitting state with the first light emitting characteristic of the LED when said at least one customized heating profile is used. Batista does not teach a no light emitting state. Murison teaches an electronic vaporizer system wherein an LED is turned off in discrete mode [0049, 0265], i.e. a no light emitting state. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to include a no light emitting state as one of the operational states of Batista to allow a user to use the device discretely as suggested by Murison.
Regarding claim 15, modified Batista teaches one or more vaporizing profiles [Heidl 0054], thus suggesting at least two different customized heating profiles. The LED indicates the selected profile [0058, 0068, 0098]. In other words, the group of operational states comprises an emitting state with a second light emitting characteristic, and the controller is configured to cause the emitting state with the first light emitting characteristic or the emitting state with the second light emitting characteristic depending on the customized heating profile used during the vaping session.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/ERIC YAARY/ Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights